the gunslinger 3,366 Posted December 11, 2015 Share Posted December 11, 2015 Being an accountant I know how it works and I know how expenses work.... 1 OF game would likely mean more stewards than for a non-OF game - but over the course of 3 games I would be pretty sure that there would be more than in that single game. The expenses of 1 game would generally be expected to be less than in 3 games. Then factor in the OF teams bringing more fans and spending more money within the ground. I'm pretty sure that the OF would generate more bottom line than 3 other lost games. Either way though, you seem to be rather vague and obtuse in what you are debating here. It seems rather than debating you are simply disagreeing with me for the sake of it, with no suggestion of why. What if two were on TV. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacK1950 2,249 Posted December 11, 2015 Share Posted December 11, 2015 Tv will bring in extra money but if you look at us as we made our way back up I bet you will have no complaints from the clubs we visited and the extra revenue they made.This is just them getting to play us so what would the SPL clubs do but gain from us and the other mob. Still think should take more time to assimilate plans for following season and let Tangerines get their just desserts. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RANGERRAB 3,299 Posted December 11, 2015 Share Posted December 11, 2015 Your probably right. But the freedom from fear of relegation may see them blood a Yongster they sell for millions. It's an interesting debate. One things for sure Scottish football was stronger when it was a bigger league. Whether that was the league or the age is debatable. Fans overwhelmingly want a bigger league I believe. So maybe more go from the home side. who knows. Lots to consider. Fans do want a bigger top division. No doubt about that. It's only a question of the number of teams in it which is up for debate. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted December 11, 2015 Share Posted December 11, 2015 I'm only putting what I think is true...not disagreeing with you in any way or as you put it "for the sake of it" "Vague" "Obtuse" I believe that 1 OF match doesn't cost to the home club more than what 3 non OF games cost, you believe in something that differs, hats off to you. No need to be rattled though. Now you are simply confusing things. 1. You state above that you "don't disagree with me" yet your initial post started with "nonsense". So which is it ? Am I talking nonsense or are you agreeing with my nonsense, which makes us both seem ridiculous 2. Your 2nd statement makes absolutely no sense in terms of the debate we are having. Let me be clear on what I originally posted. a) I said that the reason teams wont agree to a 16 team league playing home and away is that they will be giving up a home game against both Rangers and Celtic. b) You countered that you believe the issue is they would be giving up 3 home games. c) I said that they could make more profit from one home OF game than they would make from 3 other home games. d) You disagreed....... and now, above, you are saying that the cost of 1 OF match is less than 3 non-OF games - which in essence, is AGREEING with what I had previously said. 3. I'm not rattled - but I WILL take exception when someone says I am talking nonsense but then offers no counter to the debate and, indeed, ultimately posts something which effectively agrees with me. I think you need to work out what point you are attempting to debate, and make a better job of doing so. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted December 11, 2015 Share Posted December 11, 2015 What if two were on TV. Are you saying 2 of the games against the OF or 2 of the other games ? I don't think that TV games have that much of an impact if OF games because both usually still fill their quota of ticket sales. If non OF games then that would bring in more revenue - but would it be more revenue than the OF games ? I'm not sure, but I would imagine it would be close and the OF games, I suspect, would still come out ahead. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted December 11, 2015 Share Posted December 11, 2015 Fans do want a bigger top division. No doubt about that. It's only a question of the number of teams in it which is up for debate. I don't think anyone would disagree with that Rab. Sadly, unlike 2012 when we constantly heard "we will listen to our fans", in 2015 when it comes to the fans wishes for a larger league they will ignore their fans wishes..... Aye, of course you will listen to your fans.... when they want to kick Rangers out of the league. But not any other time.... 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gribz 743 Posted December 11, 2015 Share Posted December 11, 2015 If this was realistic and there was any credibility to it then the plan should be to contain relegation and have 1 down from the top flight and 3 up from the Championship, with the 4th place side in tier 2 still getting a play off with the 11th placed side in top flight. Anything else is nothing short of abusing integrity and I would urge the likes of QotS and Falkirk to go to the nearest governing body. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearman 9 Posted December 12, 2015 Share Posted December 12, 2015 Now you are simply confusing things. 1. You state above that you "don't disagree with me" yet your initial post started with "nonsense". So which is it ? Am I talking nonsense or are you agreeing with my nonsense, which makes us both seem ridiculous 2. Your 2nd statement makes absolutely no sense in terms of the debate we are having. Let me be clear on what I originally posted. a) I said that the reason teams wont agree to a 16 team league playing home and away is that they will be giving up a home game against both Rangers and Celtic. b) You countered that you believe the issue is they would be giving up 3 home games. c) I said that they could make more profit from one home OF game than they would make from 3 other home games. d) You disagreed....... and now, above, you are saying that the cost of 1 OF match is less than 3 non-OF games - which in essence, is AGREEING with what I had previously said. 3. I'm not rattled - but I WILL take exception when someone says I am talking nonsense but then offers no counter to the debate and, indeed, ultimately posts something which effectively agrees with me. I think you need to work out what point you are attempting to debate, and make a better job of doing so. I actually made an arse of what I meant to say by that bit, sorry about that. What I meant to say was 3 non-old firm games would be less cost to 1 Old Firm game. Hope that clears that wee bit up? 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.