Fans overwhelmingly favour bigger spl

[BrahimHemdani 1]

Interesting info their zappa. Personally (and I know we sort of touched on this before) would be to look at the populations of the various countries and see if there is any statistical significance there between the groups. I definitely think that a countries population must to some extent have a bearing on it's ability to sustain a larger number of top clubs.

 

I did the research on google and find that of the 16 team leagues all bar 3 countries [Norway, Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovinia]

have a larger pop. than Scotland [5,168,500] whilst all the countries with 10 team leagues have a lower pop. than Scotland except Switzerland.

16 team leagues

 

Russian 142,008,838

Ukrainian 45,396,470

Polish 38,625,478

Portuguese 11,317,192

Greek 11,306,813

Belgian 10,274,595

Czech 10,256,760

Hungarian 10,075,034

Swedish 9,076,744

Serbian 7,780,000

Bulgarian 7,621,337

Israeli 7,441,700

Norwegian 4,743,193

Croatian 4,490,751

Bosnian-Herzegovinian 3,964,388

 

 

10 team leagues

 

Swiss 7,301,994

Georgian 4,960,951

Irish (ROI) 4,234,925

Lithuania 3,601,138

Latvia 2,366,515

Slovenia 2,048,847

Estonian 1,415,681

Malta 397,499

Faroese (Faroe Islands) 46,011

 

So although there are exceptions this does tend to indicate some kind of correlation between pop. and size of league but I think you would also need to look at pop. density and income per head to draw safer conclusions e.g Russia has easily the highest pop. but one of the lowest densities because it is so vast; whereas Monaco has one of the lowest pop. but the HIGHEST density as it only covers 2 square km.

[Wija 0]

My personal preference is for an 18 team league.

 

I know that most of the teams below the SPL have inferior grounds, and inferior teams... but I feel more teams would benefit from the 16/18 team league. Just don't see where the SPL is coming from at all on this.

[Super_Ally 0]

Cheers Brahim. I was by no means suggesting it was the only or main factor, there are of course many others of which you have identified some. However there does appear to be a clear correlation between the two factors. I believe supporting a larger league of higher quality is definitely going to rely on the size of the life blood of the game; the fans. I dont think we can afford to over-stretch ourselves. Having said that, I definitely don't want a reduced league size.

[rbr 1,247]

If anyone seriously expects a bigger league with less games , less Tv exposure and less revenue is the way ahead , and also lower crowds , as the future then batter on , you are as well going to see Pollok or Beith as very soon that is what Scottish football will be reduced to .

[Bluedell 5,356]

[quote name=' I am not an expert at statistical methodology so I would stand to be corrected and I don't know if it would be statistically accurate to adjust the figures based on average attendances but I will find out!

 

QUOTE]

 

I have obtained the following response from Red Circle Communications who carried out the survey on behalf of Supporters Direct.

 

There are always arguments for and against weighting data based on various criteria. We took the decision not to weight the data and just present the raw numbers based on that fact that SPL supporters constituted the majority of the responses (59%) and' date=' more importantly, that there were good sized sample of both SPL and SFL fans (2,874 and 1,819 respectively). We sought to reflect the breakdowns between SPL and SFL opinion throughout the results for transparency and to enable conclusions to be drawn about SFL and SPL opinion and any differences between them (which do exist on issues like regionalisation and B teams in lower leagues).

 

 

 

There is an inherent difficulty in weighting against the total population of fans or attendance levels. The former brings difficulties of definition and the latter is unadvisable as nowhere in the survey did we ask fans exactly which team they supported or whether fans actually attended matches. Therefore weighting the data by attendance (based on attendance by division rather than team) could just as easily skew the data further rather than eliminate any existing skew.

 

 

 

In terms of representativeness and validity then I am confident that the findings accurately reflect fans opinions. The online method of data collection is regularly used to survey opinion (indeed the SPL used the exact same method in their own work) and we ran a series of checks on the data to ensure its validity. Also last year I conducted a fan survey for Raith Rovers using self completion questionnaire at a match and an online option. In the analysis there was no significant difference in findings between responses received online and those received via the self completion route.

 

 

 

In particular, I am very confident that this survey reflects fan opinion on the core questions which are being reported in the media of supporting/opposing a 10 team top league and whether fans feel consulted or not. Weighting the data in favour of SPL fans would not make a material difference on these issues as opinion on these two key measures was not impacted by the level at which their team played. Therefore any perceived over-representation of SFL fans views in the overall figure quoted becomes pretty much irrelevant. This was reinforced when analysing the additional comments where SPL fans ââ?¬â?? including many Rangers and Celtic fans - were as likely to use the additional comments section to express their opposition to a top league of 10 as supporters of SFL clubs.[/color']

 

RCC were assisted in the analysis by an academic who specialises in this field. One of the points he has made is that a football fan is a football fan no matter what club he supports ââ?¬â?? we were trying to present a collective Scottish fans view of the proposals. He rejects the assertion that SPL fans have a greater right to comment on matters concerning the SPL because their clubs are in the SPL wrong for a number of reasons

 

a. The sample including 59% of SPL club fans could be said to be representative (there are all kinds of problems with defining what a fan is, so lets not go there). If the SFL respondents are likewise representative then we might expect that the largest number of them support the teams most likely to be promoted to the SPL. So there is an interest there ââ?¬â?? for the majority there is a realistic prospect of getting to the SPL, maybe not this season but soon.

 

b. The issue of 10 team leagues is not only a matter only for the SPL ââ?¬â?? it applies just as much to the SFL ââ?¬â?? its not just that St Johnstone donââ?¬â?¢t want to play St Mirren four times, but that Annan donââ?¬â?¢t want to play East Stirling four times. I cant see any reason why the sense of boredom that has been identified from the comments left by respondents wont come from SFL just as much as SPL (just for the record, it would be possible to link specific comments to specific respondents and who they support, but it would be quite complex as well)

 

c. Reverting to my previous argument, if we consider the respondents as ââ?¬Å?fansââ?¬Â who support clubs who happen to be at particular levels at this time (e.g. 10 years ago, I would have registered as SFL, now its Junior, but thatââ?¬â?¢s football for you), then I really donââ?¬â?¢t see any argument for treating them differently.

 

I have obtained these comments to answer some of the issues raised but personally I am not qualified to comment further.

 

Thanks for the reply, BH. There are 2 other reasons I would offer as to why the survey is not representative:

 

1. It presumably only was completed by fans who are active on message-boards or else they may not have found it. This cannot be representative because

a) the fans who use messageboards are not represenative of the support in general. Look at the lack of support for Murray on all messageboards and look at the support for him at the stadium.

b) most of the guys I sit beside at Ibrox don't use messageboards or the the internet for football. Their views on a number of issues are different from many of the guys on-line.

 

2. 32% of the respondants are members of supporters trusts. Around 50% of people who attend senior games are OF supporters and I'd argue that less than 2% of them were members of supporters trusts.

 

I therefore don't see how the sample who voted can be representative of the fans who go to games.

[ascender 352]

What I don't understand is how any sort of league reconstruction is actually going to make our game more healthy in terms of the product on offer and the money being generated by and for the clubs in that league?

 

I don't know anyone who likes the end-of-season split, so getting rid of that's a given although its not going to attract any new punters.

 

Playoffs for promotion and relegation with two up and two down appear to be a good thing no matter what size of league.

 

Having more teams in the league 16-18 might mean a smaller slice of the pie, but would smaller clubs see an increase in attendance if they were playing in the top flight which might negate some of that lost revenue?

 

No matter how many teams are in the league, I don't see how playing each other 4 times minimum each season is a good thing.

 

But then one reason for teams supporting this may be purely linked to the revenue linked with playing the two Glasgow clubs more often and therefore seeing more money from gates and possible TV coverage. The real sickener of this for me is that most other clubs and their fans in the SPL spend most of the time complaining about our club and us, but they are quite happy to reap the benefits of being in the same league as us. Its the age old thing of turkeys who are never going to vote for Christmas.

 

England and Spain are in a similar situation to us where there's only 2-4 teams who will probably and realistically be capable of challenging for the title each season, but they're propped up by massive TV money. Are there other countries in Europe who have genuinely competitive leagues while not having a massive injection of tv money each year? There must be some I'm guessing.

[Zappa 0]

I did the research on google and find that of the 16 team leagues all bar 3 countries [Norway, Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovinia]

have a larger pop. than Scotland [5,168,500] whilst all the countries with 10 team leagues have a lower pop. than Scotland except Switzerland.

 

Croatia is an interesting case. The Croatian national team have had great success in qualifying for the World Cup and UEFA Euros. Smaller country with a smaller, but slightly denser population than ours with a 16 team league. Bronze medal in a World Cup and reached the quarter finals in the Euros twice. Currently ranked 10th in the FIFA World Rankings as well. Doesn't really count for anything, but it's interesting nonetheless.

Edited January 6, 2011 by Zappa
typo

[Zappa 0]

What are the main objectives on changing the current format?

 

Is it to bring more money in or improve the standard of the game?

 

Both of those are main objectives for the proposal of 2 x 10 if you're to believe the nonsense spouted by Doncaster. Another main objective is supposedly to inject more money into the second tier (SPL 2 or whatever they call it) so that the standard of the clubs and football on offer can be improved. I listened to the BBC's Scotfoot podcast from a couple of nights ago where Doncaster is on taking questions for the full 30 mins and a lot of the things he said are total nonsense, especially what he says regarding the amount of money clubs would lose from moving to bigger league of say 16. He just pulls figures out of thin air. Another thing that was evident and quite shocking IMO is that clubs outside the SPL haven't been consulted on the restructuring proposals AT ALL. You had the Dunfermline gaffer coming on the show disgusted that they hadn't been consulted, totally against the plans and asking Doncaster for a meeting to discuss it. Unbelievable.

Edited January 6, 2011 by Zappa
typo

[Zappa 0]

What I don't understand is how any sort of league reconstruction is actually going to make our game more healthy in terms of the product on offer and the money being generated by and for the clubs in that league?

 

Apparently it's a long-term aim to attract more TV revenue, but there wouldn't be an immediate growth of income from changing to the proposed 10 team premier league because the proposal is that the cash currently going to the 11th & 12th teams would be injected into the second tier of 10 clubs. The only immediate cash benefit to some clubs within the top flight would be that the current disparity in number of home games would be addressed. Last season some teams only had 18 home games while the likes of Dundee Utd had 20 home games, so the removal of the split would deal with the situation of certain clubs actually benefiting from the stupidity of the split.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

 

Thanks for the reply, BH. There are 2 other reasons I would offer as to why the survey is not representative:

 

1. It presumably only was completed by fans who are active on message-boards or else they may not have found it. This cannot be representative because

a) the fans who use messageboards are not represenative of the support in general. Look at the lack of support for Murray on all messageboards and look at the support for him at the stadium.

b) most of the guys I sit beside at Ibrox don't use messageboards or the the internet for football. Their views on a number of issues are different from many of the guys on-line.

 

2. 32% of the respondants are members of supporters trusts. Around 50% of people who attend senior games are OF supporters and I'd argue that less than 2% of them were members of supporters trusts.

 

I therefore don't see how the sample who voted can be representative of the fans who go to games.

 

1. Not necessarilly. The survey was promoted in the national media as well as online forums and club websites and respondents were asked to invite others to participate.

 

2. On the face of it a fair point. All I can add is that I am advised that the large sample size "would be regarded as robust, and with a relatively low margin of error". At least one can be fairly sure that the sample are football fans/supporters whereas if you went out into the street and asked the same question you might have greater difficulty in establishing who was a genuine fan (whatever your definition).

 

Oh and by the way, the SPL have acknowledged the survey results are valid and echoed the results of their own survey in January 2009, which not surprisingly they have never puiblished!