Changes to Scottish football?

Sorry, was meaning if we pieced together the TV deal hypothetical from earlier as well.

None of which will happen remotely anyway.

Sent from my M2012K11AG using Tapatalk

 

Change nothing and keep our boot on the Huns throats for eternity..

 

Some wild takes in here

We’re never going to charitably offer up some of our tv money etc to create a more competitive league. We’re a PLC.

 

It's the elephant in the room, mate. The league will never be attractive unless Aberdeen, Hearts and Hibs can build teams capable of challenging us and the Huns occasionally. It's hard to know how to bring this about, though.

I don't have a solution. In principle, I would favour allocating TV money in reverse order of league position; but I can see 3 real problems with that:

1) It would create some very perverse incentives in the last few games of the league season where some teams would actually have a financial incentive to lose.

2) Too much of the money would be wasted on tiny clubs.

I can think think of a solution to these 2 problems, namely for ourselves and the Huns to forfeit all TV money and league prize money for and these to be allocated to the other clubs based on each club's league position after removing Celtic and Rangers. I would strongly support that! Unfortunately, it would make problem 3 below even worse.

3) It would have to be forced on us as our directors wouldn't be doing their jobs if they agreed to offer revenue streams that currently accrue mainly to us (as the most successful club over the last quarter of a century) to rival clubs. But who would have the power to force it on us?

 

14 team Premiership, with a cleverer split to make it genuinely competitive, as follows:

1. Every team plays each opponent twice - generating 26 games per team.
2. The league splits into 2 leagues: a top 8 and a bottom 6.
3. The bottom 6 play each other twice, to decide relegation.
4. 13th and 14th placed teams get automatically relegated, with 12th place facing a Championship side in a playoff (as currently happens with our 11th placed side in the present set up).
5. Meanwhile, in the top 8, each team plays each opponent once, giving us 33 games by this point.
6. Then, going into the tail end of the season, the top 8 splits a second time, into 2 sets of 4.
7. The teams in the top set of 4 play each other once each, to decide the winner of the title.
8. The teams in the second set of 4 also play each other once each, to decide who gets 5th place, which - with the Scottish Cup winners usually having qualified already through the league - usually means securing the last Conference League slot.

Theoretical downside (as with any split) is that you could end up in a situation where, for instance, the team finishing 4th has fewer points than the one in 5th, but since the second split happens after 33 games, the side finishing 4th generally deserves it by then; and in any case, 5th might only have done so well because they weren’t playing us and the Huns a fourth time.

Other than that, not much more complex than what we have now, but it does 4 key things:

1. We get to have our cake and eat it regarding amount of games. Currently, because the TV companies want 4 Glasgow derbies, every side has to play 38 games, which I think in the modern game is slightly too many. Instead, this 14 team set up means every team plays 36 games instead of 38, but crucially, it retains 4 Glasgow derbies in one season. This is important, as it’s literally the only thing keeping the league viable to a wider TV market at this moment in time.
2. The bottom half is transformed by the increased threat of relegation, instantly becoming more exciting. However, with each side having double the amount of games vs the other diddy teams, they are also in a better position to avoid relegation, at least in theory. Win-win.
3. At the other end, by making the last 3 games a 3-week battle between 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th, it takes the one-sided games - e.g. 1st placed Celtic vs some side that barely made the cut (St Mirren or the like) - out of the equation, making the conclusion a bit more interesting. Could even see more title-deciders in those final 3 games, as time goes on.

 

It's * I'd say.

SFA totally incompetent, world's most heated derby umpteen times a year and the two teams involved get equivalent tv money to League One sides.

Club owners that invest to stay exactly where they are every year, no attempt to challenge or improve, content to stand still forever.

The support of every team outwith the OF stay home and walk their dog on a weekend rather than turn up to support their team.

Moving the furniture around a bit isn't going to reverse its fortunes. We need out.

 

* it. Let teams pick their strongest player then it's a fight one on one to see who gets the three points!

I hate the split and the 12 team set up, playing one team 4-6 times a year does me bonce in so I'd have a larger league and no split, I'd also move the league to summer as that's cricket season and everyone else in the country is bored as eff so could well watch... although I like the idea of the £20 a month sub for all.

 

Tav is disappointed at this comment

 

They're also promoting the woman's epl more than the Scottish men's game now and I think the new deal is around the same as the men's game in Scotland

 

I mind it being talked about, the women's game south, the other week and I'm sure it's less than we get. But by * the way they keep going on about it, the next seal the English women game gets it will be more than us.

Think ours is 5 years from this season? The English women's game deal was 3 years (if memory serves), so there is a high probability that come 3-4 seasons time, Sky are funding women's football better than the Scottish game.

Sent from my M2012K11AG using Tapatalk

 

Get stronger toilets for the huns.
Refurb the stadium so that there is a constant spray of fresh air spray over the huns.
Have an acid bath trough underneath the huns so that any Celtic supporter that wins the half time draw can have the privilege of dropping the huns into oblivion.

 

Show VAR reviews on the screen in the stadium

 

This is something I've often given a lot of thought to. The truth is, if Scottish Football is to evolve it needs some pretty radical changes implemented, and could well learn a lesson from other sports and leagues from around the world.

In fact, I have written on this subject previously on this site, and while some circumstances have changed since I wrote the below in 2018, much of it remains valid: https://www.talkceltic.net/forums/threads/16-team-spfl.149518/#post-6190029

I still believe firmly that a switch to Summer Football holds the key. And any league restructure that occurs would be simply cosmetic, unless it goes hand in hand with actual change that is a move toward raising a single competitive professional league.

Doing things the way that they have been for 150-odd years or whatever quite simply is no longer viable and changes do need to be made. 42 teams across 4 divisions also is bloated and lessens the overall quality available.

This would be a 3 pronged change that works hand in hand and could be very effective if implemented in resolving so many of the problems that the game here has struggled to find answers for. It will get quite a few people's noses out of joint at first glance and not just talking about Celtic supporters.

• Summer Football
• League Restructure
  
• Draft & Salary Cap (?)

Summer Football

This one I have long been an advocate for and really is a no brainer.

Scottish weather, especially in the winter, sucks. It's true, everyone knows it and that's all there is to it.

So why do we play at the worst times of the year, purely because that is what is in line with the majority of Europe, when it makes more sense here to adapt to conditions here.

Benefits include teams being better prepared to qualify for European competitions if it ius halfway through a season and battle hardended compared to qualifying bwdoe the league has even started. Not just talking about Celtic here, but all of Scottish Football. And this then also carries over into the competitions proper also.

Summer football makes it a more attractive proposition to draw crowds. Again, not talking about CP or Ipox, but across the board it is never fun to be sitting in freezing winds and rain. The prospect of football during the better weather months obviously then helps with this and something all clubs would benefit from.

TV. Not being in direct competition for the entire season means that there are months of football coverage and a hungry football consuming audience out there, not just in Scotland but beyond. Sky, for example, loses a lot of money over the summer with a lot of subscribers cancelling until the next season rolls around.

But with football on it gives those tv companies more to offer at a time when they otherwise would be losing out. It adds value to tv companies to their customers, and it gives the SPFL/SFA more bargaining power than what is currently the case when our league is entirely overshadowed 100% of the time. Literally anyone could negotiate a better deal than the current deals that exist, under those circumstances.

Summer Football can also be utilized in terms of tourism and other potentials for marketing opportunities, and anyone who cannot see the benefit of this at clubs or at Hampden really does not deserve to be in a job.

Also, just becaiuse playing through the summer doesnt mean can't still have a mid-season break of say 2-3 weeks.

This period can co-incide with WC/Euro group stages, so it minimizes the loss of majority of players that would be away at those, and the league could resume around the QF stage, but even in years when there is no such tourny going on can still have that mid-summer break.

Better weather also means less chances of grounds/pitches getting wrecked and tore up because of bad weather etc. Part of the reaosn why some clubs went for artificial surfaces in ther first place was that the turf ones were getting cut up terribly. So that stops a lot of that and no excuses for artifical pitches, but also it minimizes the amount of games getting postposed because of pitch damage, frozen pitches etc. Which means less backlogging.

League restructure

One single professional division. 16 teams. No relegation.

42 into 16 won't go obviously. Now, clubs can still exist at a junior/amatuer level, but at a professional level making it one single division comprising of 16 teams would focus attention and resources exclusively to this one professional division, with the remaining moving to Junior/* status.

Some of the teams would come from the existing top flight, such as Celtic, Sevco, Aberdeen, Hearts & Hibs for example, all have significant existing fanbases and catchment areas.

But what about other than that? The more 'provincial' sides?

This is going to hurt, but the answer lies within a series of mergers.

While individual clubs can still be stand alone entities at Junior level, merging to form one professional team with the increased resources and catchment areas would be enourmously beneficial.

Take Fife for instance.

Raith Rovers, Dunfermline, East Fife, Cowdenbeath and Kelty Hearts combining their resources in support of a single Fife team. Obviously, trying to convince 5 different entities to pool these resources is a whole different battle, not to mention fanbases getting behind these new enterprises, but there is models for this having beein successful and incentives could be provided for these clubs to merge voluntarily.

Examples of this working...

In both the NRL (Rugby League) and AFL (Aussie Rules) in Australia such mergers have taken place and proven successful. Naturally, there was resistence prior to them happening and some initial bitterness and pain in the short term, but it has actually ended up being far more beneficial in the long term.

Taking the Dragons (merged between St George & Illawarra) in the NRL or the Brisbane Lions (mereged between Fitzroy & Brisbane) in the AFL.

St George and Fitzroy had long, long histories going into their respective mergers, while Illawarra and Brisbane were relatively new clubs (both from the 1980s), but they both offered the potential for catchment areas for support and youth development.

Fitzroy, for its part, began in 1883 and were a founding club of the VFL. They were enormously successful early on in the 20th Century, but had won nothing for over 50 years prior to the merger. By contrast, Brisbane was traditionally a rugby league territory and it's Bears team had only been founded in the 1980's has struggled, but there is always potential there. Two sides that had struggled badly on the park prior to merging, coming together in 1996 and since then they have won 4 titles, including being the current reigning AFL Champions.

St George had been one of the most successful clubs in the 1950s-70's - including winning 11 consecutive titles during the 1950's & 60's - but they had not won a Premiership since 1979. They had admittedly gone close since, but never won. After merging with Illawarra in 1998, the merged Dragons team has made the play-offs in 8 of the next 10 seasons, before finally getting their hands on the prize in 2009.

Wests Tigers are another that also put together, this time it was 2 foundation clubs, both with lots and lots of proud history that stretched back to 1908, including the Tigers' 11 titles, but the last Premiership had come in 1969, while Wests had won 4, but the last title had been in 1952. The two merged in 1999 and just a few years later won the 2005 Premiership.

Admittedly, they have struggled more since then, but that does at least highlight again that these teams when putting their resources together can be made to be far more competitive. It should be noted that both of those clubs initially continued to run seperate teams in the NSW Cup as well as U/age competitions, but so far as a joint venture in supporting a single NRL Premiership side. In 2013, they have also combined together below that level, but still operate seperate U/age clubs.

Now, anyone who thinks that the people associated with any of these clubs, whether at an administrative or executive capacity or supporters, were all over the moon with the idea about losing what they considered to be their history, legacy and identity would be right. There was a lot of pushback and people's noses did get put out of joint. But, the evidence is clear of how this can benefit and time has also shown to heal some of that.

By making these mergers happen, you could do 2 things simeltanously; expand the top division to a 16 team league that is sustainable with more clubs that are potentially capable of being raised to compete.

Obviously, the loss of relegation is something people would also have to adjust to, and it isn't perfect. Don't want teams doing what sometimes happens in America, where some teams at the bottom actively try to lose in order to get better draft picks for the following season, but it also means that those clubs can develop a team together without the constant fear of relegation over their shoulder and can gradually get better and more competitive.

Want proof?

In the 2015 NRL season, the Penrith Panthers finished 2nd last and only avoided the wooden spoon (for finishing dead last) on the last day of the season. Since then they have gradually built upon developing a core of players to the point where they have come to dominate the entire league, including having won the last 4 consecutive titles, including this year.

It is not just in Australian sport where this is common. In America this is possible also. Take baseball (MLB).

The Texas R****** were dead last in the AL West in 2021. Between taking on a new manager with new ideas, were able to use their draft picks and recruited well. Just two years after finishing last, the won the World Series in 2023.

Obviously there is more to it than just that, especially in MLB, where there are insane amounts of money going around, but it does show how teams can be turned around.

This is possible because there is no relegation and there is also a draft system and in the NRL and AFL, a salary cap.

Possible Draft (& Salary Cap?)

The issue of U/21 Scottish players not getting enough exposure has been raised again recently, and a draft would certainly help with that by spreading the better talent pool about.

At age 19 players graduate from their various academies, and unless players have already been elevated to first team squad/made a certain number of appearances, they become eligible to the draft, with the bottom placed teams getting first pick of the emerging talent and working up from there.

This helps strengthen weaker teams with pptentially better emerging players as well as providing experience for these players and teams can be progressively built - as I highlighted about Penrith's rise in the NRL previously.

Plus, with no fear of relegation, clubs don't have to worry about that loss of finance side of things either, which was being argued as a reason why managers are fearful to use younger talents over the journeymen that are brought in purely to stave off relegation and that is all they care about.

Obviously how a draft would work would require some thought, and I have some ideas, but as I am far from a legal expert regarding this sort of thing, and how that could operate here in Scotland while clubs and competition for players' extends far beyond our borders here. However, getting some of these new talents getting to show what they can do is a great shop window if they can play and not just hope to go out on loan in lower leagues or elsewhere to try and get a game.

While there are going to be some of you that are already shouting at your screens that I'm an idiot and why would Celtic be ok with that, I did preface this by saying these ideas are not just about Celtic, but what is for the best of Scottish Football as a whole, not just for the benefit and preserving a duopoly of the Glasgow clubs.


The final thing I would also throw open for debate/food for thought, is that of a salary cap.

Each team in the NRL or AFL are allowed to use up to a set amount for across their entire first team squad. Young players coming through are not subject to this, at least not in the first few years I don't think. But still, how this works is say, every team can spend upto £5m total on player salaries.

Which means from the best player in the league to the fringe squad guys, they all have to take a slice of that same salary cap. Not all players get paid the same, obviously big stars get substantially more than others, but the club has to fit them all within the cap.

Again, can hear some of you screaming at your screens... Why would Celtic agree to that?

Here is the thing, it could be implemented alongside say a 'luxury tax' of sorts. For every amount over the universal salary cap, those clubs that choose to pay more/want more etc, can do so, but at the cost of paying the league a 'tax' of sorts, that then gets divvied up among all the remaining clubs equally. So Celtic could continue to have the best squad and pay the most etc, but it raises the bar of competition by making it more of a level playing field.

Again, how would that work here in Europe, where players and clubs can operate outwith of such coonstraints and where stupid amounts of money is given to players in some leaguies and by some teams. I wouldn't doubt that the payroll at a single club, such as Man City alone would probably be more than all 4 divisions of the entire SPFL combined So again, I don't know how legal and/or feasible this would be, but whether or not it is, it's at least deserving of being in the conversation.

 

Im not sure what would make the league better, but what would make us better would absolutely be to have B-teams playing in the second division like they do in Netherlands. Absolutely mental that there is none in Scotland. No wonder youngsters leave. The national team would get so, so much better in a decade if that happened.

Also, why the * are there winter season? That is * stupid considering the teams that a qualifying for CL/EL are unfit while most of the teams in europe are mid-season.

 

Great post matey. I pretty much agree with most of that especially the part about summer football. I don't have sky now but used to cancel during summer and yeah most people in Europe are football bored during summer so we'd have a USP lol

 

I've never really liked B teams in the league cos I felt it was hampering original teams but I do agree it would do wonders for the national team so yeah count me in! I've always thought summer football in Scotland was the way forward too

 

See, that makes my blood boil. I've watched the media (especially the BBC) actively push and push the women's game over the past decade from a sport that only a small minority were interested in to a sport that's really quite vibrant, improving in quality and becoming more popular.

All of that's obviously a really good thing; but it shows up their neglect of Scottish football for what it is? Does it not fit their political agenda to promote Scottish football in the same way? They (rightly) won't accept that only women could be interested in women's football but just accept the lack of interest in Scottish football outside of Scotland as a fact of nature.

I get that there are differences; but they've shown what can be achieved in promoting the women's game and they've not even tried with ours.

 

Excellent post, mate. I personally don't agree with the bit about mergers (I used to think that, but I've changed my mind) or the part about no relegation; but I'm 100% on board with everything else.

 

Further to the idea of going it alone with the TV deal.

Talksport this morning mentioned that the last Scotland game was streamed on YT and ViaPlay YT channels as there was no platform for it to be aired on traditional TV.

A little note, I had no idea and didn't watch it. So these number aren't gonna be near the grand total it could be.

But keep in mind plenty of people would IPTV games if they needed to.
But over 600k watched the last Scotland game.
That's a great number!
More so when you consider people like myself just didn't bother/know/was working and that there is a certain club who claim not to bother with Scotland at all. Then 600k or more is great numbers.

Back to the go alone TV deal though, 600k at £20 a month for 12 months is £144m we could rake in.
Even pretend it's half of that at 300k, that's still £72m! But I'd argue that considering many don't bother with international football and the further reach of some clubs in Scotland, that 600k is surely not a mad stretch to get to, all things considered!

£144m A YEAR!
Genuinely, could you imagine the improvements Scottish clubs could go through with that level of income to the game!

Sent from my M2012K11AG using Tapatalk

 

Remember running costs on top. Even if that comes in at £10m a year. However, you'll find 300k of those 600k.have iptv anyway, then the remainder are Scottish, so very tight haha, so your possibly down to around 100k.

Although pregame and halftime adverts etc can be sold to make more. We really could go it alone though, that I do agree.