Frankie 8,186 Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 Dung is everything that is wrong with journalism in Scotland. Will never jeopardise his relationship with people in order to constructively criticise and educate supporters. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 Yep, he's also more interested in dreaming up dreadful slapstick one-liners than actually getting his facts right. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 Here's a far better article from Jack Ross's BBC blog. Reading this, Ross makes reading Chick Young's rubbish seem like listening to a slevering drunk. In Scottish football size does matter Jack Ross, 11 January 2011 Have we always been obsessed with size in Scottish football? From boys club beginnings, when you're told that if you're taller than most you are central defender; or if you are small and slight you must be a winger; to the now redundant but previously ridiculous SPL ruling that 10,000 seats were a minimum for entry to the top league. Recent headlines and discussions would suggest that the obsession is still very much alive and kicking. This time, however, given that it relates to the size of our country's top league, the fixation with the perfect size might just be of paramount importance in securing the future of our domestic game. Everyone involved in Scottish football has their own preference towards the number of clubs afforded the right to compete in the top league, and the subsequent set up of the leagues below it. As a player, I believe that the desire from those who pull on their boots and shin pads each week would be for a bigger top tier, for the simple reason of removing the familiarity produced by playing other clubs more than twice in a league season. A great number of those players who move to England to play regularly, list the lack of repetition of opponents as being one of the most enjoyable differences from the game that they have left in Scotland. While it cannot be considered an excuse for lack of entertainment in games, the regularity with which clubs currently face each other is not healthy for either the players, or the supporters who pay to watch the game. Of course, a move to such a larger competitive set-up is quickly derided by those who control the finances in our game as being economically impossible. Although I hear their concerns and bow to their superior knowledge of their clubs' fiscal predicaments, I am amazed by the almost steadfast refusal to listen to those who make the game possible: players and, of course, fans. Football supporters are the customers and would such strong customer-opinion be similarly ignored in other businesses or industries? I have listened to some experts defend this by offering the view that if you put a fan (or a player for that matter) in the boardroom, their view would be much different. It's glaringly obvious it would be because they would then cease to be a paying customer; they would no longer be simply a fan. Realistically, the transition from ordinary supporter to chairman or director is not going to happen for most, so they will remain a regular paying customer whose business is vital to the survival of the game, and consequently whose feelings must be listened to. My own career in the game has afforded me first hand experience of some of those who run football clubs and who are now charged with choosing the best way forward. While many are astute individuals capable of building hugely successful businesses, and whose conversation I have both enjoyed and learned from, there are others who are not the best individuals for our game to place its trust in. I'm quite sure that some are reading while beginning to ponder the question of whether players are blameless in the creation of the financial difficulties at clubs, and the often bemoaned lack of quality. I have no problem admitting that at times wages have been inflated and sometimes excessive, but the problem is: should a player refuse a contract on the basis that its financial structure may be harmful to the club? As much as fans love football I am not sure many would turn such a deal down. Therefore, perhaps the only way to ensure wages stay within sensible limits is to turn attention back to size again and agree a limit on salaries as a percentage of turnover. With regards entertainment, comparisons are now more readily made with other leagues as television coverage means fans can watch Barcelona before taking their seats in their own team's stadium. This has possibly made it more difficult to please fans, but admittedly some games are stale, so a shift to more clubs in the top flight would hopefully eradicate this. It seems that weekend headlines are claiming that the drive towards a top 10 is slowing. As a result let's not stop there, get rid of the Status Quo and have a listen to Al Green's Sweet Sixteen!! http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/jackross/2011/01/beattie.html 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
calscot 0 Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 Don't get the bit about the players wages. It's not players being unable to turn down wage offers, it's them holding the clubs to ransom to increase their wages, when the clubs are struggling to survive. It's all very well condoning the high wages but you have to remember that almost 100% the money originally comes from hard working fans' pockets. It's no "nicer" in any way than the bankers with their outrageous wages and bonuses or MP's voting for huge salary increases and unlimited expenses. Football players have the right to negotiate all they like for their extortionate wages but I can't see why we're supposed feel all fluffy and good about it while be outraged by others in the exact same situation. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted January 15, 2011 Author Share Posted January 15, 2011 I thought this was an astounding comment from cheaky Chick given that TV money in the SPL is a fraction of the revenue clubs generate from their fans. Even the small clubs like Chick's beloved St.Mirren generate far more money from fans than they do from the SPL's shitty broadcasting deals, while larger clubs like ourselves can pocket more from fans in 2 games than we get in a season for TV rights. Overall just in terms of gate money fans contribute 4-5 times as much to the Clubs as TV. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
54andcounting 0 Posted January 15, 2011 Share Posted January 15, 2011 Fans will vote for what is best for their team, not what's best for Scottish football. Answers will reflect which teams' supporters you ask. Cant think of any reason why what team you support defines your vote? If the majority wants a bigger league then so what? Lets have it ffs. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gribz 743 Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 As nobody wants to reduce the league to 10 teams (apart from the SPL) then 1 scenario that has been totally over looked is to keep things as it stands at the moment (12 teams) but make it 2 up (from Div 1 / SPL2) and 2 down. a) it makes the teams in Div 1 / SPL2 have more to fight for. b) it gains a extra club every season (2-6 clubs over the years) extra revenue. c) the SPL 1 will have more of a fight at the bottom rather than 1 team being stranded. Throw in a early July start and a winter break for rearranged games and it would improve what we currently have. A play off system has to come in somewhere, this could probably be between the teams in 2nd - 4th in the SPL2 to go up with the team that wins the league. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rbr 1,247 Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 Lets just face it , the whole things a mess , there is no leadership , the majority of chairman are driven by self interest , no problem with that , Sky aren't interested as they know they have us by the balls , we dont have enough strong teams to increase our top league and that is about that . 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,356 Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 Lets just face it , the whole things a mess , there is no leadership , the majority of chairman are driven by self interest , no problem with that , Sky aren't interested as they know they have us by the balls , we dont have enough strong teams to increase our top league and that is about that . Yeah, it's crap at the moment, and everyone thinks that we need change but the alternatives are even more crap. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
maineflyer 0 Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 Why should anyone think that changing the size of the leagues will constructively affect the quality of the football? All I can see it affecting is the size and allocation of income. Personally, I think this is the most pointless distraction since Big Dave sent us all out to look for moonbeams ........ utter bollocks from start to finish. Henry McLeish, SFA, SFL, SPL, SD, RST, and several other acronyms posturing over a total hoodwink .... that's what's really wrong with Scottish football, it's generally run by and for morons. 0 Quote Link to post 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.