Jump to content

A Good Time For Planning League Restructuring Again?


Recommended Posts


 

That's a fundamental misunderstanding of what marketing is.

 

More customers do not equal more money.

 

What is your customer profile, what is your cost per acquisition, where are your opportunity costs, is there a customer lifecycle, is there competition for that (what is essentially discretionary income) and a thousand other questions. Go into marketing but hey it's as simple as more customers = more money.

Millerman gets his arse handed to him once again. ????

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment

In what way?

Well you may well accuse me of being bitter and crying, but if all teams either had equal resources or were limited to spending that made each team equal then I'd agree that the team that gets the most points deserves to win title.

 

And I'm aware that this would mean teams such as Partick and Hamilton being more evenly matched with AFC, but so be it. Don't fans of those club deserve a bit of glory.

 

And i don't really care if all the European leagues operate in a specific way. Just because they do it, it doesn't make it right (or wrong I have to add).

 

But hey if no one is keen to even out the finances, then why not have a play off for the league title. Let's face it the old firm would still win more often than not, but at least some other clubs would get a chance at glory every now and then as opposed to the current grind of inevitably as the old firm gallantly crush everyone on their way to the title.

 

EDIT I would add that I'm open to many different ideas and not set on one concept, other than that the current setup is bullshit.

Link to comment

Bull shit

 

Let's get better as opposed to making others worse

Well I get what you're saying, but I can't realistically see how any team outside the old firm can compete as its all down to money.

 

Now if someone can come up with a way for Aberdeen to win the league in the current set up then I will be all for it. But it really is wishful thinking and even if there was success it would be a one off.

 

The Old Firm clubs don't have some magical formula that makes them better, they just have more money.

 

I'm not necessarily advocating taking money from them, but why is this advantage they have just accepted by everyone.

 

We wouldn't allow teams to put 12 men on the pitch, or take performance enhancing drugs or appoint their own referee (other than Rangers of course). But the unlimited spending advantage seems to be accepted as just the way it is.

 

I know you like McInnes as do I. Do you not get frustrated with everyone coming on here asking for him to be sacked for not competing with Celtic and Rangers, when whilst he undoubtedly has made mistakes the main reason he can't compete is money.

Link to comment

Any well run organisation would ask itself how do we avoid any situation that night cast doubt in the independence, integrity and professionalism of our organisation.

 

How do we ensure we are seen and not just assumed to be acting in good faith.

 

But the SFA and SPFL clearly never give it a second thought as they create all sorts dubiety in an ongoing basis.

 

"We didn't predict this" fixture lists just being the latest failure to avoid people questioning their integrity.

Link to comment

A fourteen team league which split into two groups of seven after 26 rounds of fixtures and then everyone plays the other teams in their group home and away would give each team 38 games as currently and would avoid the possibility of a fixture imbalance. Teams like the Dons would have a good chance of still being in the running at the split (or going by this season even be leading) and this might encourage greater effort. The smaller teams in the league might lose an old firm home game but are not guaranteed more than two currently and might balance this with the chance of making the top seven.

A drawback would be that post split each team would have to sit out two rounds of fixtures but given that games are often being played twice weekly they might welcome the down time.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment

A fourteen team league which split into two groups of seven after 26 rounds of fixtures and then everyone plays the other teams in their group home and away would give each team 38 games as currently and would avoid the possibility of a fixture imbalance. Teams like the Dons would have a good chance of still being in the running at the split (or going by this season even be leading) and this might encourage greater effort. The smaller teams in the league might lose an old firm home game but are not guaranteed more than two currently and might balance this with the chance of making the top seven.

A drawback would be that post split each team would have to sit out two rounds of fixtures but given that games are often being played twice weekly they might welcome the down time.

 

 

Probably the only way to keep a split and make it work is that way.

 

The rest week in particular is a great bit of that. Until final game of season obviously.

Link to comment

7 out of 10 seasons a while back rangers were hindered by this exact same thing, shoe on other foot

 

We're you questioning the integrity then or did it not fit this embarrassing agenda?

Some interesting Hun facts from you again MT, maybe it's your agenda we should be questioning?

 

You're on here day after day, never contributing but always ready to piss in someone's chips.

 

I'm not going to lower myself to another one of your tedious questionathons again so you can just bore off you dozey loser.

 

"Bye"

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment

Go on then. Ill bite. Explain to me how 7 out of ten seasons the Huns were disadvantaged?

It makes no difference to the point he responded to anyway.

 

We've seen a catalogue of odd and downright dodgy behaviour from the SFA and SPFL over the last few years and all of the serious stuff favours one club and it's cronies.

 

It's perfectly fucking clear to anyone who is paying attention that these organisations are NOT above suspicion and that's entirely of their own making.

 

It's a nonsense to pick out one stat and accuse anyone who thinks the SFA and SPFL fail to protect their own integrity has an "agenda".

Link to comment

A fourteen team league which split into two groups of seven after 26 rounds of fixtures and then everyone plays the other teams in their group home and away would give each team 38 games as currently and would avoid the possibility of a fixture imbalance. Teams like the Dons would have a good chance of still being in the running at the split (or going by this season even be leading) and this might encourage greater effort. The smaller teams in the league might lose an old firm home game but are not guaranteed more than two currently and might balance this with the chance of making the top seven.

A drawback would be that post split each team would have to sit out two rounds of fixtures but given that games are often being played twice weekly they might welcome the down time.

 

That's not bad actually.

Maybe a lot of pointless games towards the end but that happens most of the time anyway.

Link to comment

You said they're corrupt as they will end up getting an extra home game

 

I pointed out how they lost out on that very same thing 7 times in 10 seasons

 

It's very valid, unless you're that insecure about conspiracies of course

 

If the top 6 stay as they are then 4 of the 6 teams will have played 16 home and 17 away (us/Celtic/Hibs/Hearts) so technically are due 3 home games after split. Clearly can't happen so one team is going to end up playing 18 home and 20 away with all others playing 19/19 (one team in bottom six will end up playing 20/18).

 

I agree with Millertime that over the years the allocation of games has been done with a lot of logic and fairness given the shambles of a system we have. Each team is guaranteed at least 2 home games after split so that means 1 of the 4 teams will get the 18 home games (can't be Killie or sevco).

 

I could be wrong but my understanding is that the lowest ranked team has to suck it up (Hibs in this case). Having said that we had the same situation last year and Partick got the extra home game I think because it was least controversial given they could not qualify for Europe. On that basis who gets the short straw? Celtic if they have already won the league? Hearts if they can't qualify for Europe? Hibs because they are lowest ranked? Difficult to see any scenario that we end up with only 18 home games. Most likely is Hibs (and killie) go back to Ibrox for third game and Hibs get the 18/20 split.

 

Whichever way you cut it yet again shows the whole thing up to be just a shambles of a way to run a league

Link to comment

You said they're corrupt as they will end up getting an extra home game

 

I pointed out how they lost out on that very same thing 7 times in 10 seasons

 

It's very valid, unless you're that insecure about conspiracies of course

 

I didn't say that ^ though.

 

As for your example that's fine if we only look at those things in isolation but when we look at the whole picture we have a club with a whole catalogue of fortunate conincidences favouring them like the LNS case, EBTs being deemed "not a sporting advantage", Jim Farry wangling player registrations to help Rangers, DOS carefully dropped from terms of reference of investigations, Andrew Dickson working from WITHIN the committee that deals with player registration, secret 5 way agreements no one is allowed to see and on and on.

 

So to repeat my point which I think you've genuinely misunderstood - the football authorities in Scotland could really do with taking a look at how they are percieved, how all the things they have done in the last 10 years have led to a loss of credibility and start to look at how every single decision might reflect on them - that would be good planning, thats the only way they will restore the public perception of what they do.

Link to comment

Right no arguing I'm being serious

 

The 7 out if 10 times rangers lost out... what was that an example of then ?

 

Its a good example of how they lost out.

 

But it still makes the SPFL look shit, i'm sure the hun fans were raging about it.

 

And unfortnuately with all the other shit that happens them losing out in something like that hardly makes a dent in the perception.

Link to comment

So your point is just that they are shite at running the league, not that they're biased and I've just misinterpreted ?

 

Well the point you responded to initially was definietly A) shite at running the league

 

More precisely they are not just shite at running it, but shite at forseeing potential PR mishaps/fucks ups/perceptions of bias they create and so on -and actually trying to avoid them.

 

Tbh, in such a polarised footballing country as Scotland its probably a very bad idea to have a league split which can create this sort of thing at all. But having decided on that they really should spell out in no uncertain terms exactly how it will be "balanced" to avoid people questioning them.

 

See what I'm saying?

Link to comment

Ok

 

And agree essentially

 

But

 

Is the split not something they're trying to do to stand out?

No idea really. I assumed it was just about the number of games achieved for that size of league.

 

They should be looking for a way to make that split open/fair as much as possible even if it means creating some system whereby if a team is disadvantaged one season it doesn't happen the season after.

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...