Edstar101 Posted January 20, 2011 Report Share Posted January 20, 2011 CHICK YOUNG Said he remembered when there was 18 teams before and there were meaninless games by Christmas, Well, so do I Chick as will a lot of older posters on here and MR YOUNG i give you the biggest difference that would make 18 work-PLAY OFFS!!Not for an 18 myself but worth a shout Personally i would like 14 with top 6 bottom 8 and play offs from div one!! Chick Young is a total fudd.....how he has ever made a career out of football punditry is a mystery Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike180279 Posted January 20, 2011 Report Share Posted January 20, 2011 They dont even want to play here. They have made no secret it of it. All SPL CLubs should go on strike!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldPoster Posted January 20, 2011 Report Share Posted January 20, 2011 If The Inbread 2 left it would it really mean less money? I hear there % of the TV money goes to them anyway and the rest just split, So even if it was less money for the deal it might not have the effect that they think it would and break the league Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueheaven Posted January 20, 2011 Report Share Posted January 20, 2011 I really despair at the way this is all happening. It's making Scottish football look ridiculous. I appreciate that fans aren't privy to the financial implications of the various proposals, and I also completely understand why there's reluctance to go with a large league of 16 or 18 (personally I don't think that would work in Scotland - not as long as the OF are around), but surely this line-up of experienced businessmen can't genuinely be convinced that a 10-team league is the answer? After all, it's been tried before, and when it failed the response was to switch to a 12-team league. Now it's been decided that the 12-team league isn't working so they're going back to 10. Do none of their imaginations stretch any further than constantly switching between 10 and 12 teams every decade or so? Have they learned nothing from history? I'd like to know why the SPL is deemed to be failing in the first place when it was largely these same clubs that were responsible for setting it up. And if the aim is to be fairer to the clubs in the lower tier, why not just go the whole hog and have one unified SFL with a fair system of promotion and relegation from the very bottom up? Scottish football has been going downhill ever since the breakaway of the SPL from the SFL, yet that's the one issue that seems to be getting ignored. Whether you have 10 teams or 12 teams in the top division, it's not going to make any difference whatsoever to the quality of football - the same old problems will still be there, it'll still be the Old Firm controlling everything through their duopoly, and there'll still be dwindling crowds due to mass national exasperation and boredom with the whole stale, predictable system. And I really hope that when they're naming this rubbish new league they don't, as is feared, go with the word 'Premiership'. Even the English league stopped using that ridiculous title years ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dooj Posted January 20, 2011 Report Share Posted January 20, 2011 I really despair at the way this is all happening. It's making Scottish football look ridiculous. I appreciate that fans aren't privy to the financial implications of the various proposals, and I also completely understand why there's reluctance to go with a large league of 16 or 18 (personally I don't think that would work in Scotland - not as long as the OF are around), but surely this line-up of experienced businessmen can't genuinely be convinced that a 10-team league is the answer? After all, it's been tried before, and when it failed the response was to switch to a 12-team league. Now it's been decided that the 12-team league isn't working so they're going back to 10. Do none of their imaginations stretch any further than constantly switching between 10 and 12 teams every decade or so? Have they learned nothing from history? There are two big factors that I think are significant now but werent when the 10 team division was first around: Bosman ruling and TV coverage. Both of these have a significant effect on club's budgets and the amount of money in the game as a whole. So, while I dont know what the answer is, I am happy that from a financial point of view, there is little point in comparing the 10 team division that we used to have to what is being proposed. I think from a spectating point of view, however, it is legitimate to look back to the 10 team division with regards to the boredom of watching teams play 4 times. And I really hope that when they're naming this rubbish new league they don't, as is feared, go with the word 'Premiership'. Even the English league stopped using that ridiculous title years ago. Premiership, Championship, Sinkingship and Abandonship. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rammsteinally Posted January 22, 2011 Report Share Posted January 22, 2011 here's my bit of an idea. i would like a 14 team set up(won't happen but i'll carry on). You would still have a split but to make it meaningful i would give the cup european place to the top of the bottom. This would mean that even if you had higher points than the team above you would be getting rewarded. I have always wondered about these elaborate playoff ideas involving loads of clubs i would just make it 2nd last and 2nd whoever wins is up. Also in a minor change the title belongs to whoever finishes with the most points or if the team has a J in it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Indicator Posted January 23, 2011 Report Share Posted January 23, 2011 So much for the Chairmen who were against a 10 club league. They've all caved in to the OF once again, and of course no one has explained to the fans how this collapse was engineered. 3009 at McD yesterday, expect that to plummet when the new format gets underway. Quick question, how are they going to keep Hibs in the SPL? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Indicator Posted January 23, 2011 Report Share Posted January 23, 2011 Chick Young is a total fudd.....how he has ever made a career out of football punditry is a mystery Why, because he's an object of ridicule and somebody that you can constantly poke fun at, I imagine that's why. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edstar101 Posted January 23, 2011 Report Share Posted January 23, 2011 Why, because he's an object of ridicule and somebody that you can constantly poke fun at, I imagine that's why. I'm in the wrong business:? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ancientsaint Posted January 23, 2011 Report Share Posted January 23, 2011 Celtic fan who called Jim Traynors prog on radio last night hit it on the head........Celtic and Rangers need more money coming in from TV and full houses against each other to be able to afford to "bring -in" decent players to the Scottish game as there are NO rising stars coming through from Scottish clubs that would be able to compete in European competitions......In other words Celtic and Rangers want the lions slice of whatever cake SKY sports or another TV company fire their way. He was like many TV supporters in the sense that he could watch as many games on TV for a fraction of the price of attending a live game in person at the actual ground--He also felt safer sitting in front of his TV--was alot warmer and could change channels if the game was drab. Thats the way its going to go...a one of payment to SKY tv and you have 7 or 8 plus games a week .......Fans are already choosing not to go to grounds because of the "view of sight" "cold weather" or some other reason like cost. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Neutral Posted January 23, 2011 Report Share Posted January 23, 2011 Celtic fan who called Jim Traynors prog on radio last night hit it on the head........Celtic and Rangers need more money coming in from TV and full houses against each other to be able to afford to "bring -in" decent players to the Scottish game as there are NO rising stars coming through from Scottish clubs that would be able to compete in European competitions......In other words Celtic and Rangers want the lions slice of whatever cake SKY sports or another TV company fire their way. He was like many TV supporters in the sense that he could watch as many games on TV for a fraction of the price of attending a live game in person at the actual ground--He also felt safer sitting in front of his TV--was alot warmer and could change channels if the game was drab. Thats the way its going to go...a one of payment to SKY tv and you have 7 or 8 plus games a week .......Fans are already choosing not to go to grounds because of the "view of sight" "cold weather" or some other reason like cost. unfortunately even if there was no TV deal for scottish football it would not make a huge difference to crowds as there is so much other football available for people to watch Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slf Posted January 23, 2011 Report Share Posted January 23, 2011 unfortunately even if there was no TV deal for scottish football it would not make a huge difference to crowds as there is so much other football available for people to watch i would rather watch an english game on the tv than most scottish football matches. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Neutral Posted January 23, 2011 Report Share Posted January 23, 2011 i would rather watch an english game on the tv than most scottish football matches. i agree.. and i've watched blue square premiership matches that are more entertaining than i've seen on sky or alba ( and some of them have bigger crowds ). some people seem to think that if we give up the tv deal then crowds will flock back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueheaven Posted January 24, 2011 Report Share Posted January 24, 2011 Celtic fan who called Jim Traynors prog on radio last night hit it on the head........Celtic and Rangers need more money coming in from TV and full houses against each other to be able to afford to "bring -in" decent players to the Scottish game as there are NO rising stars coming through from Scottish clubs that would be able to compete in European competitions......In other words Celtic and Rangers want the lions slice of whatever cake SKY sports or another TV company fire their way. But why should the "needs" of the Old Firm come before the needs of all the other clubs? From reading your post (I didn't hear the show), what the caller said about the OF is no more true of them than anyone else. I could easily say Saints "need more money coming in from TV and full houses against the other teams, to be able to afford to bring in decent players as there are no rising stars coming through etc". I'd like Saints to get the lion's share of TV money so that Saints can compete in Europe. Arbroath fans probably want the same for Arbroath, etc. Why do the OF always expect to be treated as if they're a special case? And if it's true that no good young players are being produced, then that's as much the fault of the OF as everyone else (in fact arguably it's more their fault, as they're the richest teams with the best facilities and are better positioned to invest in youth than anyone else). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Indicator Posted February 13, 2011 Report Share Posted February 13, 2011 Prompted by this week end OF results and boredom probably. In the long run... if they can't do something about the total domination of the 'OF' then, the stagnation that is Scottish league football will continue ad-infinitum. The only reason IMHO that attendances haven't plummeted drastically over the years is that as each older generation tires of the relentless inevitability seeing the OF in position 1 and 2and subsequently withdraw their support from the game. They are replaced by the up and coming generation who, little do they know, are destined to travel down the same tired old bigoted road to find themselves in the same situation 30-40 years hence. But never mind as long as the OF, journo's and media pundits are happy with a new 10 team SPL which ensures things stay exactly as they are apart from maybe each provincial club can look forward to, potentially, dropping 12 points each to the sisters from the west throughout a season then fine. Stagnate on. O' if they would only go!! 'rant over' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Real Madrid Posted April 25, 2011 Report Share Posted April 25, 2011 Jim Spence has just been on Radio Scotland to say that Dundee United will vote against a top 10 so it only takes one more vote for the whole thing to be blocked. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denzil Posted April 25, 2011 Report Share Posted April 25, 2011 Jim Spence has just been on Radio Scotland to say that Dundee United will vote against a top 10 so it only takes one more vote for the whole thing to be blocked. Killie and ICT also against so it's dead in the water. All I can say to that is... GOOD! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.