Overdue For An Examination

[amms 0]

I'm not sure what you are arguing here. Previous squads at least had the potential to compete in Europe. We're now worried about competing with prem teams in the domestic cups who struggle against Europe's minnows.

 

The standard in Scotland isn't high enough, it needs to be improved, that'll benefit every side. Having the potential to compete but not taking it is not a good advertisement for the status quo.

 

Not only will gates receipts probably go down but also the gates themselves. The OF hedgemony as boosted both clubs' gates to unprecedented levels for averages. Can't see that lasting with both clubs struggling to buy quality players while being outbid by League One and lower Championship sides in England. I doubt the increase in other clubs would compensate.

 

That's not true. Celtic's gates are down for a start and they'll drop further this season, i'd be surprised if our gates don't fall this season too. The competition between us and them kept interest and attendance's up, not so much the great quality players we were buying. Add that level of competition with other sides and the interest grows.

 

I can't see where this interest would come from. As said above the interest from OF fans could drop off quite a bit and not necessarily be compensated by fans of other clubs. Interest from outside is mostly in the OF and that won't last when they are seen as great teams of the past but emasculated and poor quality in the present.

 

Why would it drop, why would our squad be so inferior? It can't be as big and it will have a lower total but it can still contain star players. Interest from the outside isn't mainly in the OF, it only seems that way because of the dominance. I personally know companies who avoid football because of the OF dominance.

 

That's a pretty rose tinted viewpoint. Where is the evidence of this? I really can't see where the money is going to come from for a league about the same level as the top of the English League One. What people also forget is that so called "competitiveness" can be incredibly boring which is the way of Scottish football outside the top two. When everyone is about the same then you get no big games, no trends, just a jumble of random results. There is no drama to speak of except maybe the odd local derby.

 

Think of thermodynamics, when you lower any potential difference, you have less events and less reactions, everything gets into equilibrium and nothing of note happens anymore.

 

Competitiveness is boring? That's quite a statement. The days when winning at Aberdeen, Hibs and Hearts meant something because they were rare and difficult weren't boring, far from it. Knowing the opposition have players who could hurt you, players you secretly covet isn't boring. I'm perplexed by this argument, if matches are boring it's because of the style of play or the tactics, not because both sides are evenly matched. Have you never watched an exciting draw?

 

The money comes from the same place it always comes from, TV and advertisers. Improving the overall quality of the league will improve its attractiveness to both those groups. that's not thermodynamics, that's economics.

 

 

Perhaps instead of Ireland we should be comparing with Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Austria and Switzerland. All rich, footballing countries of a similar population size to us.

 

None of those countries is particularly comparative with Scotland in football terms. None have our history and football isn't the national game in any of them unlike here. Saying that I'd not fancy the current Scottish team to beat any of them. Comparisons are difficult, language, currency, TV audience etc all need factored in.

[simplythebest 0]

Any talk of shared gates after our treatment is a no go for me under any circumstances

[Super Cooper 0]

I am sure, yes. Compared with Smith's squads during 9 in a row and all of Advocaats.

 

I guarantee you our wage bill in 08 was much bigger than anything Smith had in the 90's. Football has moved on so much financially since then. Kyle Lafferty earned more than Paul Gascoigne at Rangers ffs. Advocaats squads at their peak i give you but what was that? Two, possibly three years of higher wages than 08. Walter Smith in his second stint was allowed to spend huge resources on his squad. It was massive and had several large fees for players too, even in our darkest hours.

[amms 0]

I guarantee you our wage bill in 08 was much bigger than anything Smith had in the 90's. Football has moved on so much financially since then. Kyle Lafferty earned more than Paul Gascoigne at Rangers ffs. Advocaats squads at their peak i give you but what was that? Two, possibly three years of higher wages than 08. Walter Smith in his second stint was allowed to spend huge resources on his squad. It was massive and had several large fees for players too, even in our darkest hours.

 

I am now literally speechless, that's staggering.

[Super Cooper 0]

I am now literally speechless, that's staggering.

 

It's absolutely disgusting mate but indicative of the world game as a whole. Josh McEachran has hardly kicked a ball for Chelsea, a nobody in the game, potential only, he takes home £40k per week. How can that lad ever be hungry to risk injury or give 100%? He is made for life before he has even made it in his profession. There was a Brazilian playing in China who was one of if not the highest paid player in the world at one point, he hasn't even earned a national cap for his country yet. Back to our own club, we were paying guys more than £10k per week to play in a part time league against part time players whos only wage is their expenses. Money has completely ruined the game these days.

[pete 2,494]

Kyle Lafferty earned more than Paul Gascoigne at Rangers ffs.[/quote

 

He may have been on higher wages but he certainly never earned it.

[Super Cooper 0]

Kyle Lafferty earned more than Paul Gascoigne at Rangers ffs.[/quote

 

He may have been on higher wages but he certainly never earned it.

 

Haha, very true Pete, very true!

[calscot 0]

The standard in Scotland isn't high enough, it needs to be improved, that'll benefit every side. Having the potential to compete but not taking it is not a good advertisement for the status quo.

 

I still don't get your point. Rangers and Celtic may not have covered themselves in that much glory in the last 25 years but they HAVE been players in the competitions and have had some reasonably successful seasons. I really can't see how that can be improved in Scottish football's current financial state by further lowering the resources of the only teams that have consistently competed. Knocking a boxer for not fulfilling his potential is no logical reason to think he will improve by tying one hand behind his back. I really don't know where you're coming from.

 

 

That's not true. Celtic's gates are down for a start and they'll drop further this season, i'd be surprised if our gates don't fall this season too.

 

Again I don't see your point. Is there not exceptional reasons for the decline? Do you really think it has to do with not sharing gate money and not to do with Rangers not being in the league? Besides, their attendances are still far higher than before the financing model was changed. I really can't see any sense in your arguments.

 

The competition between us and them kept interest and attendance's up, not so much the great quality players we were buying.

 

I agree with that but it is completely countering your own argument. I disagree that quality players was not an issue. Our attendances increased massively after Souness came and I'd say a lot of it was to do with the level of player. In fact the whole of the league was benefiting from a boom and attendances were up all over the place with famous players coming to Hearts and Aberdeen etc.

 

Add that level of competition with other sides and the interest grows.

 

Level of interest grows with quality opposition. Reducing the league to a sea of mediocrity does not attract anyone.

 

 

Why would it drop, why would our squad be so inferior? It can't be as big and it will have a lower total but it can still contain star players. Interest from the outside isn't mainly in the OF, it only seems that way because of the dominance. I personally know companies who avoid football because of the OF dominance.

 

Less money means worst players. In a closed system that would not hold but since we'd be the only one's doing this at a time when English clubs are earning vast amounts from television which filters down the leagues, we would not be able to compete for star players of note. I would guess the OF gain more than they lose with their dominance. Interest in them has declined rapidly since all Premiership clubs had more money to spend. I think you are obviously just plain wrong here.

 

Competitiveness is boring? That's quite a statement.

 

Maybe you need to think about it. One person's competitiveness is another's sea of mediocrity. You are choosing to lower the standards rather than raising them up, I can't see how it would be anything other than the latter. You are using the word "competiveness" in an unusual way which is emoting your judgement. It does not mean what you are suggesting. Trying to make everyone the same is the opposite of competitiveness. Competitiveness is more akin to capitalism, you are suggesting socialism.

 

As I said before and thought I explained it understandably enough: a sea of mediocrity is really not very interesting.

 

The days when winning at Aberdeen, Hibs and Hearts meant something because they were rare and difficult weren't boring, far from it. Knowing the opposition have players who could hurt you, players you secretly covet isn't boring. I'm perplexed by this argument, if matches are boring it's because of the style of play or the tactics, not because both sides are evenly matched. Have you never watched an exciting draw?

 

The actual football itself is not the issue (and judging by the criticism of Rangers last season, the games would probably be very boring as that would be the general standard), it's the lack of excitement for the competition. The exciting games will only be watched by those interested enough to turn up. I think you're deliberately missing my point.

 

The money comes from the same place it always comes from, TV and advertisers. Improving the overall quality of the league will improve its attractiveness to both those groups. that's not thermodynamics, that's economics.

 

Ironically your argument sounds like a thermodynamic one where no money is created or lost except the problem with it is that that only works in a closed system. We don't have a closed system and will lose money to other leagues. Something that has been happening for a while now.

 

You really haven't shown how the quality would improve, and if fact intuitively and logically, the opposite seems to be true. The likes of Laudrup and others attracted quality to our league, just as it's doing so now in England. Without any stars our league will be less attractive to everyone.

 

None of those countries is particularly comparative with Scotland in football terms. None have our history and football isn't the national game in any of them unlike here. Saying that I'd not fancy the current Scottish team to beat any of them. Comparisons are difficult, language, currency, TV audience etc all need factored in.

 

Maybe we have no peers (although I do think we can learn from some of them) the truth of the matter is that we are and will be nothing compared to the over achieving country we used to be for our size. We are suffering from a lack of population (as well as an unhealthy and monetised interest in our neighbours) due to the TV money phenomenon. Sharing our biggest income which is already dwarfed by these payments is not an obvious way of improving things.

 

Our only hope to stay in the mainstream was to merge with the English in some way and all doors to that route are now closed. We've completely missed the boat.

[amms 0]

A 'British league' seems to be as far away as ever, I can't see it happening now, as you say that's a missed boat. As such we have to look at Scotland and the system we have and that's why I believe we have to improve it.

 

I'm not sure why you don't think improving the quality of the majority of teams in a league won't improve the standard of that league. Put simply the side that wins that league will need to play consistently better than previous league winners. Competition is one of the bedrocks of sport, it's one of the natural drivers of football in particular. The greater the competition the higher the achievement of the team that comes out on top.

The reality of European football currently is that no Scottish side is going to win the Champions League, no matter how much money they have. They are simply not playing at a high enough standard week-in week-out. All we can do is strive to improve the standard of competition, and that will involve spreading the money more evenly. I think other things should be done too.

 

I don't know if you've ever read 'What Sport Tells us About Life' by former test cricketer Ed Smith? It's worth it even if you don't like cricket. He's got a chapter explaining how improved diet, coaching and tactics have reduced the gap between the 'ordinary' player/team and the exceptionally gifted player/team over the last few decades. But the important point is the gifted are still better, they still come out on top more often than not, however they have to match the commitment, stamina and tactics of the lesser opponent, what changes is the gap the gifted has to improve as well or else they'll fail. I'm not doing it justice here but it as close to empirical evidence I can give you.