“Anyone read Michael Grant’s article in The Times? Only saw a pull-quote but the headline is about not everyone cheering for Celtic to European success since the financial windfall will put them too far ahead of the other clubs. It’s that old UEFA distribution thingy. Auldheid had a sensible alternative a while back.”
Thanks Danish Pastry for giving Big Pink the opportunity to nudge me (over a coffee I paid for – so how’s that for redistribution of income? 🙂 ) to blog again on the issue of redistribution of UEFA money whilst he was advocating gate sharing as an alternative.
I recall the redistribution debate being discussed on the first TSFM podcast Episode 1-01 of 9th Feb 2014 which can be found here:
https://itunes.apple.com/gb/podcast/scottish-football-monitor/id817766886?mt=2
Listening to it again (I used “View in I Tunes”) I heard many of the recent comments on the previous blog being made in that podcast at or around:
9.58: The interdependent nature of the business of football. Why it is different from normal business.
10.50: Celtic/Rangers leaving the Scottish League making it immediately more competitive.
11.30: Clubs as a community resource (like museums or libraries not run for profit, providing a community service and staying solvent).
12.48: People have to let go of the notions that they have held about the nature of football and recognise it is a totally interdependent business.
13.55: Changing the Champions League format to European and Regional Leagues and raising the standard of all, not dropping standards of one to bring about competiveness.
25.50: A rethink at the top level with NEW thinking about redistribution of income using Champions League money.
27.50: The human dilemma.
So rather than repeat what was said originally and very well developed in the comments on the Michael Grant article on the previous blog, I thought I would look at what I think is the greatest barrier to change which was the last item above – the human dilemma. *
Modern football reminds me of a description of a scene from hell where a visitor looks into one room and sees an emaciated group around a table on which is set a large pot full of stew. They cannot eat because their arms have been set straight at the elbow and elongated so that they cannot get a spoon in their mouths. It is a miserable place. Then the visitor goes upstairs and enters a similar room with occupants similarly handicapped, but where everyone is well fed and contented. “How can this be?” he asks his guide. “Well downstairs all their energies are spent in the nigh impossible task of feeding their insatiable hunger, whilst up here they simply feed each other.”
The analogy is bent a little but not broken in the sense that there are fat and emaciated folk in the football version of the lower room but it is not a healthy place as the fat can themselves become emaciated over time (see Liverpool and even Man Utd) but, generally speaking, self-interest or rather what is perceived as self-interest, holds sway.
Human nature that causes the human dilemma is well reflected in normal business where dog eats dog, then eats the food of the dog it ate if it comes out top dog. Football however cannot exist on a dog eat dog basis because it is interdependent as a business. Dog eating dog is bad for business because over a period of time even the top dog will die of starvation.
Now without abusing the dog metaphor any further and risk attracting dog’s abuse, why is it that something which should be as self-evident as looking after each other is good for business, be such a hard sell?
I said in the podcast around 12.48 that folk need to let go of the notions they have clung on to about football, but why is that so difficult?
Perhaps the resistance to that change can be found, at least in the case of Celtic, who at present are asked in the current debate to make a sacrifice for others, either in the form of gate sharing or giving up some Champion Leagues winnings (if/when they qualify) can be found in the genesis of the club and the memory of that genesis passed from generation to generation.
Everyone knows that the original purpose that Brother Walfrid had for Celtic was to feed the poor in the East End of Glasgow and many of that poor had come from Ireland to be strangers in a strange land.
As a Calton man born in the Gallowgate, as was my grandfather (my dad was found under a cabbage in Well St) I’ve never really identified much with the Irish context of Celtic’s history, although I do recognise its importance to many supporters with Irish family ties, but that dimension adds a further layer to the human dilemma.
Think of it, you form a football club to raise money to feed yourself because you live in an environment where welcome mats are in short supply. That money raised is YOUR money. Your life depends on it as does your family’s as well as your close neighbour (usually in the same close). How prepared are you to share what income you have had to raise yourself with others who you believe have been less than charitable towards you?
Add that folk memory to the human selfish trait of wanting what you spend on football spent on meeting your own desire, which is to make you happy watching an entertaining and successful team on the park and you get an idea of where the resistance to a more equitable sharing comes from and how deep it goes.
I use Celtic here because they are my club and part of my life experience and I have no idea if other clubs experience that added layer of resistance to sharing, if indeed they are in position to share. But if we are ever to be able to introduce gate sharing or what I see as the easier alternative of redistribution of UEFA geld because in not coming direct from supporters pockets it has less of the Celtic folk memory layer to overcome, then those who will be asked to make a sacrifice have to be given the confidence that the aim is not to impoverish them (and the Celtic community memory of poverty and fighting it is as strong today in the form of The Celtic Foundation, The Kano Foundation and the numerous charity events organised by supporters and prominent blogs) but to enrich their neighbours, but doing so in such a way that they enrich themselves. That is the challenge.
In the upper room in the earlier hellish description, the occupiers present the ultimate example of charity in that in feeding each other they feed themselves.
- PS the podcast covers other issues that some 18 months later might still be of interest.
Taysider,
The only thing I can really add to that is the approach of the individual clubs to the current situation.
If it is one of deference, a Cleese/Barker/Corbett esque “I Knows My Place” then straitened times will continue (although that’s not Armageddon btw, its just 3,000 die hards turning up on a Saturday as opposed to 13,000 hope filled happy faced youngsters).
But it just takes a management style throughout the game (not the Ally Macleod 78 model of course) and not personalising it club by club, to stand up and say, you know what, I blumin well can get enough, have had enough and I’m damned if I’m going to accept my ‘enough’ to filter through and things start to change once more.
Its the guys determined to say “Oi, you, you knows your place now get back in line” that need ousting.
EDIT: John Clarke Above. That’s exactly the line I’m talking about!
As upthehoops has said the pro-Rangers content of newspapers like the Times is deeply embarrassing.
I was brought up reading the Scotsman and then the Times. My purchasing of the latter has been dwindling away for both footballing and political reasons.
Yesterday was the final straw with a totally disproportionate coverage of the second tier Hibs game.
A back page photo in the main paper and a huge spread on page two of the sports supplement pretty much dwarfed other Scottish football coverage.
These two teams are in the ‘second division’ because they are not good enough to be in the Premier league.
The type of ‘journalist’ who thinks that this level of coverage is appropriate really needs to take a good look at themselves.
Scottish Football needs a MSM with both perspective and a proper focus on the overall good of the game.
Allyjambo says:
Member: (1171 comments)
August 24, 2015 at 8:36 pm
StevieBC says:
Member: (826 comments)
August 24, 2015 at 7:59 pm
And you would think that by now the SMSM would have learned to keep well away from social media.
The form of Twitter succinctly exposes the sports ‘journalists’ for their lack of knowledge, debating skills, wit…and, erm…writing ability.
And to paraphrase Mark Twain: best to let people think you a fool, than to use Twitter and remove all doubt.
_____________________________________________
Tom English was involved in a classic example of this on Saturday, where he took it upon himself to pick up Gordon Waddell’s “why is Celtic’s youth system so crap” torch, missing out the bit about it being no fair that they are buying players The Rangers want.
Clumps and Barcabhoy amongst others (maybe Auldheid) were involved in this exchange.
First of all it was pointed out to him that two of the Celtic line-up for the Utd game had come up through the youth system (O’Connell and MacGregor) with others on the bench and James Forrest an established 1st team player.
TE’s response – because his initial criticism of the youth system contained an immature swipe at Efe Ambrose – was to ask how many 1st team games O’Connell had featured in and state that he deserves more.
TE was asked which of Van Dijk or Boyata should be dropped for him and it was also pointed out Eoghan O’Connell was a player TE had seemingly never heard of 5 minutes before, but has now decided deserves more playing time!
It was then pointed out to TE that historically bigger clubs bring through less youth players than teams further down the league simply because the necessary standard has to be higher (e.g. for a young midfielder to break into the Celtic team he has to displace the Scotland captain, a Norwegian international and an Israeli international among others).
TE’s response was that Celtic have signed three players from Utd’s youth system good enough to play for them.
It was then pointed out that actually, Celtic signed 1 player who came through Utd’s youth system, 1 player they signed from Airdrie Utd and 1 Turkish player they signed from a Dutch club.
TE rounded off by saying ‘great debate about Celtic’s youth system despite some loons interjecting’
So, in summary, with the Scott Allan wound still fresh and painful, Tom English (and his peers) have been refuelled on high octane level 5 lamb supplies to take a sudden keen interest in the merits or otherwise of Celtic’s youth system to distract from the absence of ‘overinvestment’, but in the process have simply shown his ignorance of the subject matter and Scottish football in general.
I hope his knowledge of rugby is better.
I have given deep thought (by my standards!) as to whether I should contribute further to this forum, whether by commenting, or financially. But then along comes the latest Martin Williams advertorial for “The Rangers” in the Herald. Job done, money sent, and thanks to pseudo journalists like him, (and he’s not the worst, by the way- Chris Jack, anyone?) I will go to the wire with this forum.
The fact that the SMSM sports journalist cadre believe that they best secure their own future by nailing their colours to the flagpole at Ibrox is truly worrying. Pissing off half your demographic was never going to be a strategy for survival, chaps- honest. But that’s just logic- I can only guess that emotion must have got in the way of common sense or reason.
redlichtie says:
Member: (283 comments) August 25, 2015 at 1:51 pm
Hear Hear !
So Sevco have just lost their player of the year from last season to Hibs?
This begs a load of questions which won’t be asked by the wonderful SMSM.
Apparently Darren McGregor was released by “mutual consent”, due to his number of appearances triggering a new deal.
So can Sevco not afford the new improved terms?
Presumably Hibs can afford these improved terms?
Does Warburton prefer to take a chance on loan Rangers?
As per usual, plenty questions and yet more doubt whether Sevco can see out the season!
rougvielovesthejungle says:
Member: (63 comments)
August 25, 2015 at 3:45 pm
So Sevco have just lost their player of the year from last season to Hibs?
This begs a load of questions which won’t be asked by the wonderful SMSM.
Apparently Darren McGregor was released by “mutual consent”, due to his number of appearances triggering a new deal.
So can Sevco not afford the new improved terms?
Presumably Hibs can afford these improved terms?
Does Warburton prefer to take a chance on loan Rangers?
As per usual, plenty questions and yet more doubt whether Sevco can see out the season!
————
The John James chap labelling it austerity by stealth. Looks like another year of triumphantly pumping teams living within their means while they live on loans, credit and the certain knowledge that the collective media and establishment believe that they are too big to fail (again).
rougvielovesthejungle says:
Member: (63 comments)
August 25, 2015 at 3:45 pm
So Sevco have just lost their player of the year from last season to Hibs?…
================================
Yes, on the face of it, this just doesn’t make sense.
Your best player from last season is allowed to leave, presumably on a ‘free’.
He then joins your main rivals in the league.
And this happens shortly after TRFC was very publicly humiliated in its failure to poach Hibs ‘best’ player…who then promptly signs for CFC !
TRFC can’t afford to buy decent players even at a low price, so ‘decent player retention’ should be their first squad objective – you would think ?
And all of the above must be the PR equivalent of a right good humping !
For consistency: absolutely no relevant questions from the SMSM as per, :slamb: :slamb: :slamb:
[For Mods: just noticed – is the site ‘clock’ about 3 minutes fast ? ]
StevieBC says:
August 25, 2015 at 4:16 pm
So Sevco have just lost their player of the year from last season to Hibs?…
================================
Yes, on the face of it, this just doesn’t make sense.
_____________________________________
The news reports I saw on STV stated that “mutual consent” was reached after “Warburton advised McGregor was not part of his plans”.
Player of the year one season, not in the managers plans the next. Seems a bit odd. ❓
rougvielovesthejungle says:
Member: (63 comments)
August 25, 2015 at 3:45 pm
So Sevco have just lost their player of the year from last season to Hibs?
This begs a load of questions which won’t be asked by the wonderful SMSM.
Apparently Darren McGregor was released by “mutual consent”, due to his number of appearances triggering a new deal.
So can Sevco not afford the new improved terms?
Presumably Hibs can afford these improved terms?
Does Warburton prefer to take a chance on loan Rangers?
As per usual, plenty questions and yet more doubt whether Sevco can see out the season!
__________________—
And with stories such as this, as More Celtic Paranoia points out, that colossus of Scots sports journalism, Tom English, prefers to indulge in Celtic-bashing over their youth policy, a youth policy that has consistently out-performed the Ibrox clubs’ own for many years, instead of going for the jugular with this turn of events.
If there was one player at TRFC last season that one would have expected a new team to be built round, it was most likely to be Darren McGregor, the closest they had to solidity.
However good their current central defence might be, the depth of squad must have been severely depleted by this cost-saver, while Hibs’ main problem area is instantly improved. Now a smart football manager might expect his main rivals, after receiving money for a player his club had actively unsettled, much to the chagrin of those rivals, to be only too ready to offer a contract to someone well capable of filling this problem role, and plugging this gap he must surely have noticed in the two games already played between the two clubs! I’d suggest Hibs are stronger than they were before TRFC first courted Scott Allan, while TRFC have weakened their depth, at least, in one area, while signing whatever players they can get on loan deals to create the veneer of ‘big club’ signings.
That is one of the benefits for them of this compliant media – to add a shine to the veneer of progress!
I don’t know the answer to this, but I’ve read that TRFC have spent in the region of £700,000 on new players. Is this the total of fees paid, or does it include the cost of the players’ contracts. More importantly, have any fees been paid in full, or are they payable on an instalment plan similar to the ones they tried on Hibs?
Has Dave King finally run out of ‘Air Miles’ ?
I think we should be told… 🙄
Out of interest, of the TRFC team that played Hibs last weekend, how many are loan deals?
Unusually, there was a reasonably sensible discussion about this on TBD last night. Because he tried last season and wasn’t ‘hanging around to pick up a bigger wage than he’ll get elsewhere’ most wished him well. Their reasoned argument was that despite being solid and a good defender, he wasn’t a good enough footballer to be a part of Warburton’s plans (now that they’re the Barcelona of Scotland). Tbf, Warburton does say he wants them playing from the back, so this argument has some credence, but it was interesting that no one was even considering that it might be a stealth austerity measure!
It’s only on here that I’ve seen any mention of the suggestion that he is on the verge of meriting a continuation of his contract if he plays a few more games. Admittedly, I don’t read the papers or listen to sports radio, but does anyone have a link to such ‘news’?
Re another aspect of this, does anyone have a list of who in the TRFC* squad is loaned and who they own? I fear the balance may be awful in that regard. It’s funny how the TRFC* fans have adjusted to a small club mentality so easily, whereby loans from big clubs (Spurs, Arsenal) are so readily welcomed or indeed eulogised over already! I know even Celtic have taken the odd loan recently (Guidetti e.g.), but the TRFC* approach is something different again. While it’s good that some fans are (rightly) saying it’s the right thing to do (living within their means, sort of), I find it amusing that agreeing with acting like a small club still makes them think they’re now (once again!) a big club who will be at the top soon.
Tayred says:
August 25, 2015 at 5:02 pm
Think they are all fully signed up other than Oduwa who came on as a sub.
25 Foderingham
02 Tavernier
04 Kiernan
27 Wilson
05 Wallace
23 Holt (Shiels – 68′ )
16 Halliday
07 Law
19 McKay (Oduwa – 60′ )
33 Waghorn
09 Miller (Clark – 83′ )
Thanks WOTTPI. I take my ‘lot of loans’ comment back. I thought more of the first team had been taken on by way of loans recently.
Yup. Not reading too much into it. Can’t say if he played well last season but certainly got some important goals. Warburton doesn’t fancy him and he’s the chance of playing elsewhere (odd about the rivals thing right enough). Warburton feels they have cover for his position. Time will tell.
nawlite says:
August 25, 2015 at 5:09 pm
Looking at wiki they only have three players on loan
Oduwa & Ball from Spurs and Zelalem from Arsenal.
An interesting fact is that, including the three above they have a squad of 26 and no players currently out on loan to anyone else. I’d expect them get shot of Zaliukas if at possible before the end of window.
At the end of last season they had 35 players listed on Wiki.
I note that Celtic have announced that Eric Riley is stepping down as the club’s Financial Director at the end of the year and will step down as a non exec director next summer.
http://www.londonstockexchange.com/exchange/news/market-news/market-news-detail/12475427.html
If the quoted health reasons are the main factors in his resignation from Celtic, then one would expect him to also step down from his role as a board member of the SPFL in due course. That being the case, I wonder if Celtic will seek to nominate a replacement from within the club, in order to maintain their influence in Scottish football’s corridors of power, or support another club’s nominee.
I wish Eric Reilly well. He has been a key player in the continued off field success at Celtic. I wish I could be as positive about his role(s) in the management of Scottish Football as a whole, where, Mr Reilly was a key player in the events of recent years.
It is only with the clearing out of the “Old Guard”, that there can be any prospect, however remote, of any meaningful change.
Any chance Eric Reilly could do a podcast on Scottish Football governance once he has gone?
nawlite says:
Member: (171 comments)
August 25, 2015 at 7:03 pm
Could we get Alex Thomson to ask the questions?
McGregor to Hibs a wee issue on SSB (I know, I listen so you don’t have to and it’s a lovely evening here in Nordic land 🙂 )
Rumour that TRFC imagined he was going to the Super Saintees. Shock horror he ends up at Hibs. Level5? Even TRFC fans wondering why a McGregor deal wasn’t done as part of Scott Allan coup.
The thick plottens again 🙂
or…
Warbs has his own ideas. Perhaps it’s all mundane, benign and uncontroversial? I thought McGregor a little agricultural at times, but he was very well spoken on SSB and an unashamed Hibby.
scapaflow says:
Member: (1404 comments)
August 25, 2015 at 7:05 pm (Edit)
nawlite says:
Member: (171 comments)
August 25, 2015 at 7:03 pm
Could we get Alex Thomson to ask the questions?
________________________________________________________
😥
Now here was me thinking open all mics in one ear, Celtic from telly in the other.
Again double dose on tv and radio of Celtic. No open mics and to cap it all wall to wall Rangers tomorrow.
Annoying anyone?
neepheid says:
Member: (734 comments)
August 25, 2015 at 2:09 pm
I have given deep thought (by my standards!) as to whether I should contribute further to this forum…
————
I’d be interested to hear why neep.
PS Just saw your comment @ianagain. Where’s that SPFL app when you need it? Lots of interesting domestic matches tonight.
PPS If anyone’s wondering why the Swedish fans are flying what looks like a Danish flag variant (red flag with yellow cross), it’s the regional flag of ‘Skåne’ the southern Swedish region (once Danish).
Danish a rerun of a few weeks back growing a bit thin. Celtic it is then and the ‘well on (sigh) twitter
ianagainianagain says:
Member: (688 comments)
August 25, 2015 at 7:52 pm
Danish a rerun of a few weeks back growing a bit thin. Celtic it is then and the ‘well on (sigh)
———–
Sadly, twitter is the only alternative. I would have done as you — Open All Mics & Celtic on the telly.
Believe it or not I’ve spent the day in Malmö, only ticket I could have bought (at face value from the honest Swedes in the club shop) was for the standing section among the Vikings. There would have been no agro but some of these guys are seriously tall 🙂
DP
Ive made the right choice. ‘well on twitter would and is doing my head in.
Marginally worse/maddening than watching in person this season, so far anyhow.
So we now have 2 games in Scotland in extra time. Will we hear them? Do I want to?
Well that’s the champions league finished for Celtic again. Bit unlucky overall but Malmo are not a bad side so no shame in losing out to them.
The only thing that I can really have a go at is just how biased the commentator and Pundit’s were towards Celtic. Yes the ref was awful but he was crap for both sides. Grifiths should have been off for sticking his knee in the guy’s nuts but they decided he was unlucky to get booked, The knocked off goal should have stood, Bitton should have been off.
Respect to Scott Brown for his comments just now. Blames no one but the team and their performance, could easily have tried blaming the ref but refused to even mention him.
So we are waiting on Ronny to chat all the while their are 15 mins of extra time in 2 SCOTISH CUP GAMES playing out.
BBC Scottish fitba mince coverage.
ianagain says:
Member: (691 comments)
August 25, 2015 at 10:15 pm
‘..BBC Scottish fitba mince coverage.’
________
I’ve often wondered : does BBC Radio Scotland ( or BBC Scotland TV,for the matter of that) have a published policy relating to their sports coverage generally, and to football coverage in particular?
I don’t think I’ve ever seen such a thing, but then I have never really looked.
I’m inclined to agree with you that more consideration could be given to the supporters of live games that aren’t finished rather than to the full-of-cliches self-congratulatory or self-exculpatory rubbish that is what we get post-match from the managers of teams involved in CL games!
Don’t worry the league cup will get massive coverage tomorrow night by BBC radio Scotland.
I’m not sure who is playing like 😳
JC and Bill
JC
To your question I do have an answer gleaned from one of my reactions to BBc no sports Scotland re this carry on in the past. No they don’t. They react “to public demand” BTW how did Forfar Hearts end. We may be the first to publish it?
Bill
Come on. Your in Clumpany territory.
Hearts won 2-1 aet
Dundee and Partick both oot
Bill1903 for radio SFM
Bill
Thank you for you timeous report.
Bill
How good will Rangers be tomorrow? (Oh no I read a press release), forgive me.
I don’t begrudge any team who has built up a large support reaping the financial benefits of those supporters buying season tickets to watch their team. I also don’t begrudge any team who qualifies for Europe and subsequently progresses winning prize money along the way.
My two main issues and the reasons for a widening financial gulf is related to how the uefa “country ” TV money is distributed and the existence of a country coefficient.
Surely the country TV money should not only be given to the participating clubs but should be given to the national league associations to be dispersed more equitably amongst their member clubs. That approach would go some way to levelling the financial playing field and raising the overall domestic standard.
The country coefficient should be scrapped with immediate effect and only a club coefficient should be used. That would reward clubs from smaller countries who do well in Europe and ensure they are not handicapped by the country coefficient which sees clubs like West Ham being seeded when they haven’t qualified for Europe for many years previously.
ianagain says:
Member: (694 comments)
August 25, 2015 at 11:15 pm
‘.How good will Rangers be tomorrow? ..’
________
Why, man, don’t you know that “The evil that men do lives after them; the good is oft interred with their bones.”
A liquidated , commercially dead ‘Rangers’ can no longer do anything, for good or evil! 🙂
But you may be sure that the ersatz ‘Rangers’ will ‘do good’ tomorrow, by all and every account, no matter what the actual result may be!
The Big Lie has to be kept up by those who need to maintain the myth that RFC did not cease to exist: ‘Rangers’ has to defy the laws of commercial mortality, and live, though dead!
Otherwise the myth maintainers will find that their jaikets are on very shoogly nails.
So gutted. Losing to Malmo. Utter disgrace. Very unlikely to even watch future Celtic matches never mind attend. If our ‘top club’ are losing to that then it’s time to quit and play bowls. No effort until The Rangers are back in the league as I’ve always suspected. The Rangers might define Lawwell, they certainly don’t define me and never will.
I think LurkPak’s post is an indication of the damage to morale caused by the failure of Scottish teams in Europe relative to our historic (50s-70s) performance AND other countries of a similar or even smaller size.
The important point is not the annual exit from competitions by Scottish teams, it is that the decline, which has gone on for decades goes unchecked. It is not the failure of Celtic to reach the Champions League alone, but the systematic inability of all Scottish clubs to progress in European competition.
Sooner or later we have to ask ourselves seriously (by that I mean resist the temptation to blame it on the lack of a Rangers in the top league) why that is. The unfettered market in Scotland, skewed wildly by cultural considerations, is proving to be an inadequate model. What is badly needed is some insightful regulation to assist the provision of proper competition in our game.
In the last few league matches televised on BT Sport, Chris Sutton has (possibly correctly) stated on each occasion that the team playing Celtic won’t have their seasons defined by these games. Basically that they are turning up for, as he sees it – a turkey shoot. Instead of applauding that observation, is it not about time that we asked ourselves why this is acceptable?
Until then, we will continue to have the gloomy start to the season we have all once again witnessed.
Seriously?
But accepting the above, obvious typo aside, to answer your question, two things have happened. We’ve got worse as you say, for a whole heap of reasons long debated on here. Celtic as the club in the limelight this morning have to accept that they are now (in terms of footballing stature) on the platform trying to take a leak on the passing train. Bloody difficult isn’t it!
But don’t overlook that others for whatever reason have gotten better either.
And they can’t all have sugar daddys, Shirley?
A bad day at the office for Celtic and for the rest of us as the more we fail to qualify in the CL and the EL the harder it gets for us to do so. Not to mention the all important glory and pride. For the big guys it was another good day of course; the middling teams knocking lumps out of each other to get a sniff of the CL cash will be placated by sniffing the lesser, but still substantial, rewards of the EL whilst they, the big guys, shuffle their assets around and await their massive and disproportionate cash injection when the actual tournament gets underway. What to do?
It’s been mooted that we, Scotland, can’t do anything about it on our own but, whilst I agree that a pan Euro fix would be preferable, I suggest that we have to do something rather than just sook it up. Somebody has to at least attempt a fix where the general standard of a football league competition can be improved to raise the standards of all; we could take the lead or is that too scary? What about take the lead and f*** the rest of them?
The cash cow at the top of the game depends ultimately on all of the participants buying in to the model.The ambition numbing inequality in European football will not be fixed by Barcelona, MunUtd et al any more than the inequality in our local fitba will be fixed by Celtic or the next tranche of Aberdeen, Hertz etc. They’re gan to hiv to be telt.
Big Pink says:
Moderator: (371 comments)
August 26, 2015 at 8:38 am
“In the last few league matches televised on BT Sport, Chris Sutton has (possibly correctly) stated on each occasion that the team playing Celtic won’t have their seasons defined by these games. Basically that they are turning up for, as he sees it – a turkey shoot.”
———————————————————————
Another bad night for Scottish football. Commiserations to Celtic fans. Here’s to a decent Europa league draw.
Being impudent in reply to Sutton – aren’t clubs frequently accused of only raising their games when it comes to playing Celtic/Rangers 😛
But that’s not what I really wanted to comment on – I was more concerned that Sutton, ignoring the situation Scottish football has found itself in these past years suggesting that the only possible solution for Celtic is to “Spend more money”
My guess is he has been so isolated to the hyperinflated EPL, that he is absolutely clueless as to the SPFL system that Celtic have to work within. Simply spending more money is most definitely not the answer, not long term anyway. Chasing that CL dream by throwing money at it can lead to madness.
(I experienced Suttons commentary for the first time last night and I would have to say he is quite possibly the worst pundit on TV, after Chico of course)
Not quite sure about the point you are making here Smugas. Firstly there was no typo I can spot, so I don’t see what you mean there.
However on the second point, I am not comparing clubs in Scotland with those who have “sugar daddies”. I AM comparing our performance in Europe to clubs from countries where the game is not as popular or subscribed to as it is in Scotland. Money is most certainly a factor (although if you look at the relative finances of Celtic and Malmö it is clearly not always the decisive one), but our inability to compete exists at almost any level in Europe, not just amongst the big boys.
If your railway platform analogy was a Karmic one, then I take that point, although it’s not the point I was making.
Sport at any level is abut participation with some level of expectancy of (even modest) success. From my perspective that would mean that Scottish teams would be respected in international competition, and that the national side would at least punch it’s own weight. Failure to be able to achieve that does irreparable harm to the morale of everyone in the game, and my point is that this highlights the need for a complete rethink of organisational and financial models in our sport. My fear is that the power in the game is still in the hands of the beneficiaries of the top-heavy income model, and that they will see its total demise before loosening their grip on that.
There have always been takers in the game – the blazers who have their free trips and dinners and other perks. The point now is that the sport (and I use that word very carefully) cannot currently afford them.
I have to say that my own gloomy demeanour this morning has little do with Celtic’s failure to progress last night. The failures of ICT and Aberdeen had me in that mood already, but trotting out the gloom before Celtic had a go might have had people say I was jumping the gun.
There have been some improvements over the past couple of years. We have spoken here often of the farce of ‘Armageddon’, but those improvements, however welcome are not enough to prevent us becoming a football backwater. That will need enlightened and holistic approach and a denial of short term self interest.
The mantra from the top clubs, when challenged about gate-sharing, has always been that they need as much money as they can get to compete in Europe. I hope they are now asking themselves at Parkhead in Pittodrie, “How’s that working out for us?”
I think the typo claim was in relation to your claim of our historic performance in the 50-70s. Given that AFC won the ECWC (and the Supercup) and Dundee Utd came so close to claiming their own Euro prize in the 80’s .
Big Pink says:
Moderator: (372 comments)
========================
BP, have you been talking to Henry McLeish? Might it be an idea to?
The Review of Scottish Football 2010
Just as a point for discussion I had a quick look at the Scandanavian leagues over the past 10 years and counted the number of different winners.
Sweden 7
Norway 6
Denmark 6
and in each you can also add a at least one other club that were runners up. If incorrect blame wikipedia 😛
I guess compare and contrast to our situation. We have 1 (once upon a time 2) massive club that will wins every time.
Admittedly while that might provide one reason, it doesn’t provide a solution. Lord knows what can be done about it.
tayred says:
Member: (191 comments)
August 26, 2015 at 10:02 am (Edit)
I think the typo claim was in relation to your claim of our historic performance in the 50-70s. Given that AFC won the ECWC (and the Supercup) and Dundee Utd came so close to claiming their own Euro prize in the 80’s .
___________________________________________
Ah, I see. I also left out the 2000s where both Celtic and Rangers got to Euro finals Tayred. My spectrum was NOT chosen as a slight to Aberdeen or Dundee United, but to highlight a time when Scottish teams consistently performed respectably and well in Europe. Celtic, Rangers, Hibs, Hearts, Kilmarnock, Dunfermline, Dundee and Dundee United (who beat Barca in 1966), all made Scotland a well respected venue for opponents – whilst gate sharing was in operation :-).
blu,
Synchronicity 🙂
Just put out the feelers to HM yesterday.
Big Pink says:
Moderator: (373 comments)
August 26, 2015 at 10:54 am
tayred says:
Member: (191 comments)
August 26, 2015 at 10:02 am (Edit)
Ah, I see. I also left out the 2000s where both Celtic and Rangers got to Euro finals Tayred. My spectrum was chosen as a slight to Aberdeen or Dundee United, but to highlight a time when Scottish tams consistently performed respectably and well in Europe.
———————————————————————
No worries, and no slight taken even if another typo in your reply would suggest that you mean’t one (you missed out a not this time! 🙂 ).
One caveat to your perfectly correct expansion to the 2000’s with Rangers and Celtic both reaching finals is by that time I would suggest any euro success was already pretty much limited to those two clubs.
I’m sure I can rely on someone to point me in the direction of other relative successes though! The only exception I can think of was Calderwood somehow getting AFC to the Europa league stages in 2007.
Griffiths. Is he eligible for sanction from the domestic game? Or even if he was theoretically eligible does the card get him out of jail?I would be disappointed if the club did nothing about it. That was street fighting not sport.
alexander276 says:
Member: (27 comments)
August 26, 2015 at 11:32 am
_________________________________
I don’t think that the Scottish authorities have locus, but I’m not so sure about no further action if a card has been shown. That is I think a local rule, and it may be that UEFA may still have something to say?
tayredtayred says:
Member: (193 comments)
August 26, 2015 at 10:50 am
Just as a point for discussion I had a quick look at the Scandanavian leagues over the past 10 years and counted the number of different winners.
Sweden 7
Norway 6
Denmark 6
and in each you can also add a at least one other club that were runners up. If incorrect blame wikipedia ?
I guess compare and contrast to our situation. We have 1 (once upon a time 2) massive club that will wins every time.
Admittedly while that might provide one reason, it doesn’t provide a solution. Lord knows what can be done about it.
————
The distribution of money over here seems more even from the models I’ve looked at. If Malmö win the league they’ll get 17 million Swedish kroner (ca. £1.3m) in 2016, but the 16th-placed team gets 9.7 million. So the difference between top and bottom is sizable but not quite the difference I’ve seen quoted between 1st and 12th in the SPFL.
The lower budgets (compared to Celtic at least) that most of the Nordic clubs operate on means they are getting more value for money, just comparing recent European runs. I think they quoted Malmö of operating on a budget of somewhere between a quarter and a third of Celtic’s.
A quick look at their home page shows Malmö have an average attendance of 17,500. Season tickets for adults are between about £250-400.
Several Scottish clubs are potentially on a par with them.
Jim Spence had an interesting twitter chat going on earlier regarding change/alternative thinking.
tayred says:
August 26, 2015 at 10:50 am
I was also doing a wiki compare and contrast exercise and note that teams like Malmo, Maribor and Legia Warsaw all have a percentage of home grown/regional players of over 70% while Celtic has 12 Scots and 2 Irish in a squad list of 29 – 48%.
Given the topic of redistribution of wealth perhaps we should also be looking at the redistribution and development of talent. You know what I mean, the quick and clever players Collins was talking about the other week.
Not sure what the current ‘reach ‘ is but can’t help feel that for a small nation the Regional Performance schools set should be extended to take in all youth development of our top talent. Clubs could contribute with cash and facilities but as opposed to being at the mercy of whoever is training them at individual clubs, players would all be trained to the same national system, be given all the up to date assistance with issues such as diet and sports psychology. Ideally out of football training would also be given to prepare the lads for a Plan B should they fail to make the grade.
The main focus would be on inter-regional competition as opposed to club alliance.
While difficult, then like the American sports system some form of ranking and then draft system could be developed to get the lads into the senior game.
Just a thought.
With Aberdeen and Europe in recent years, it’s gone in waves. Skovdahl took over a poor side, fluked into the UEFA Cup in 2000/01 as cup losers and lost in the prelim to Bohemians. Over the next couple of seasons there was improvement in the team, they got through the prelim round of the UEFA Cup in 2002/03 then drew Hertha in the first round proper and lost narrowly, 0-1, on aggregate. (We were two mins from extra time in the second leg when Hertha scored. They were down to ten men at that point.)
Skovdahl went, the side deteriorated, and it wasn’t until •five years later• that the Calderwood team had another crack at the UEFA. There was an away goals win in the first round againt Dnipro, then a five-team group stage adventure against Panathanaikos and Atletico Madrid (both away, both lost), Lokomotiv Moscow and Copenhagen at home (draw and a famous win). The round of 32 involved Bayern Munich (3-7 loss on aggregate, so it goes). Two seasons later, the Dons were comprehensively stuffed by Sigma Olomouc in the third qualifying round of the Europa League.
Then came another five year gap until McInnes’ side got into the qualifying rounds of the Europa – where after two decent wins in Q1 (against a pub team) and Q2 (a Dutch side) Real Sociedad were different class in Q3. This year there were two even harder games against Macedonian and Croatian opposition in Q1 and Q2 but the Kazakhs in Q3 proved marginally better than the Dons (arguably a cracking 30 yard strike by a talented 22-yr-old made the difference – he’s a former Kazakh national team under-21 captain and has 16 full caps to date).
Or in summary, 16 seasons of football, six European campaigns, two utter disasters (Bohemians 2000, Sigma Olomouc 2009), two well-hey-what-can-you-do eliminations (Bayern Munich 2008, Real Sociedad 2014), two close-run things (Hertha 2002, Kairat 2015).
The reason I go into such detail is that if you map that on Celtic’s performance over six seasons, with UCL football every season, then you might expect two prelim round disasters, two cracks at the group stage and two ventures into the last 16 – or an approximate mix – dependent on the shape of the squad, the draw and all the other contingencies that come into football.
We’re still in the transfer window, it’s not even the end of August, Swedes play summer football and Celtic haven’t even met Hearts or Aberdeen yet in the league, let alone anyone good in the UCL (Stjarnan weren’t much of a test, Qarabag were better).
The grief for Celtic today is that – like Aberdeen in 2002 and 2015 – they will feel they •could• have won, but didn’t. Unlike Aberdeen however, Celtic are not only still in Europe, they almost certainly get another crack at the UCL next season, and the season after that. If we lost McInnes and a few key players, the Dons could be looking at another 3-5 year rebuilding exercise before we get a sniff of Europe again.
It’s a bit ironic that Celtic’s absence from the CL groups will mean a bonus for the English clubs who qualify.
The TV market pool money available to UK teams is dependent on the amount of money paid by the host broadcaster(s). BT is the UK’s only broadcaster for the next three seasons, with 10% of their payment allocated to Scotland.
In the absence of a Scottish representative in the group stages, that 10% will now be distributed among the English clubs who qualify.
This article explains the process in a little more detail.
http://www.financialfairplay.co.uk/latest-news/bt-champions-league-deal-makes-qualification-worth-%C2%A340m-
Danish Pastry says:
August 26, 2015 at 12:13 pm
DP, according to the papers (I know, I know) the split of SPFL prize money for 2015-16 is as follows…
Premiership: Winners £2.68m; 2nd £1.92m; 3rd £1.65m; 4th £1.45m; 5th £1.35m 6th £1.25m; 7th £1.15m; 8th £1.1m; 9th £1.05m; 10th £1m; 11th £950,000; 12th £900,000.
That is, top gets almost 3 times as much as bottom. From your figures, in Sweden the gap is only 1.75 times. Given Tayred’s report of the number of different champions in Sweden, that seems to back up the theory that a more even distribution leads to a more even level of competition, which on the face of last night’s disappointment for Scottish football leads to higher quality/success. Although it will be a hard fight to get the clubs/SFA/UEFA to change, there is so much evidence to support a change in distribution that you do wonder why it has to be such a hard fight!!
Incidentally, are the exits to Maribor last year, Malmo this year proof that karma does exist? Anyone else think that Rangers’ earlier exits to those clubs which led to liquidation were enjoyed too much?
Thanks for the clarification BP. (and thanks Tayred for the correct intervention on my behalf!)
My point really was that it was and is still not enough to say “Haud on, till we get wur own house in order,” (by virtue of some draconian power/gate/money share, enforced or otherwise) because the rest of the game isn’t standing still either (apart from the very top where the vice like grip of the uber clubs will be in place for some time I fear).
I’m glad you raised the successful euro ventures of RFC*, Celtic and to a (much 🙁 ) lesser extent Aberdeen over the last fifteen years simply because in the ensuing period, albeit having had their hands forced by an unfortunate admin error :irony: :irony: :irony: our authorities (and for that read senior clubs) have proven themselves to be one trick ponies. There is no plan B. Their solution to Plan A being broken is to, ahem, fix it!
With regards to redistribution of finances, I was at a Q&A session with new Motherwell owner Les Hutchison a couple of months back, and the topic of TV money was brought up. His idea was to turn the distribution on its head, so that the further down the league you finished the more money you got, his reasoning being that over a few seasons the gap between the richer and the poorer teams would lessen, and there would be a more level playing field. (I guess it is a bit like the NFL model of the worst teams getting first pick of the best players).
Now whether such an idea would a)ever be voted for, or b) would work as he thinks it would, its that kind of radical thinking that is required. Unfortunately our current administrators either don’t think there is a problem (that cant be solved by a certain team being in the Premiership) or are too conservative to do anything about it.
Big Pink says:
Moderator: (375 comments)
August 26, 2015 at 10:59 am
‘.Just put out the feelers to HM yesterday.’
________
There is a splendid irony in the fact that all the while Sir H McL was chairing the Review, another knight was in effect operating as a great sports cheat!
And an even more splendid irony in the fact that, in spite of the wonderfully high-falutin’ language of the Review’s preamble, the very governors of our Football were not at all inhibited in endorsing,in effect, the large scale sporting cheating of that rank,rotten, sporting cheat and the club that his cheating eventually killed.
I laugh hollowly at the idea that the Review has in any way enhanced and promoted the ethic of Sport, or helped cleanse the corruption in the soil of governance, in which the seed of the Big Lie was capable of germinating and sprouting like the foulest of weeds.
On the subject of the McLeish review.
From the moment I first heard/read of it being mooted, the only words that came to my mind were, ‘chocolate fire-guard’, ‘eye-wash’, ‘waste of time, and money, and ink…’ The list of words, all of a similar nature, was not exhaustive, but at no time did I hold any hopes of a worthwhile conclusion.
I have not noticed one change that has resulted in even the mildest improvement in our game, at least within the senior game. Has anyone else noticed any kind of meaningful improvement? Was his recommendations ever implemented? Does anyone believe that, if another such review was set up, that there would be anything from it put into action that didn’t aid the club from Govan?
Still, it was yet another nice little earner for an ex-cabinet minister!
On the lighter side. My son sent me this image from his statistics lecture at business school in Copenhagen. The lecturer apparently thought this was a belter of an illustration to show an ‘extremely bad, factually misleading/lying graphic presentation’. Oops. Another wan who’ll end up oan thon list 🙂
nawlite says:
Member: (172 comments)
August 26, 2015 at 1:21 pm
——–
Cheers nawlite. Confirms some figures I saw on the STV’s site. On the face of it, the CL opportunity should once again give Malmö a huge advantage over other clubs and put them in pole position to regain the title. But they tend to stick to modest means to achieve their goals. One of their directors was in the local press talking sbout how this would secure the club long-term. Did not sound like an immediate cash burn on imported talent was in the works. There seems to be a sensible pragmatic system in place that can weather bad times and good.
A few facts, following last night’s disaster.
First, that result last night means over £10m less overall in the Scottish game for this season. Yes, I know the bulk of it would just make Celtic even richer than the rest, but a good slice would filter down, through transfer fees, increased away support for Celtic, and of course the solidarity payments or whatever they’re called. So in simple financial terms, the game will be poorer. You can only redistribute the money you have. But however desirable, I don’t see any change to the current distribution model being voted through.
Second, we simply can’t go on like this. Well we won’t, of course, because it is clear that the 2016/7 season will see the dreams of the SMSM and the blazers at Hampden realized. Their pet club will be in the top flight, and, as they see it, the natural order will then be restored. I call that a nightmare, for many (especially in the SMSM) it is a dream come true.
Third, once TRFC are in the top flight, we can finally forget any notions of redistribution of income,since Kingco will be desperately hanging on to every penny they can get- not that Lawell’s Celtic has been any different.
Fourth, there will be no changes in the governance of our game, other than a few more “Rangers Men” glissading through the revolving door to “restore some balance” to the top table.
Fifth, expect some spectacular PR puff pieces from our esteemed SMSM over the next 12 months. They will be unable to contain their excitement at the ascent of their loved ones to their “proper place”. Lamb all round, no doubt, but unnecessary, since most of them do it for love. Anyone still reading newspapers best have a sick bag handy for each edition, because it’s going to be boak inducing stuff for the foreseeable future.
Scottish football has blown a fantastic opportunity to rebuild the game from top to bottom, root and branch over the last three years. Instead of which, the clubs and the administrators have just sat around twiddling their thumbs while waiting for the restoration of the “natural order”. The resurrectionist approach to the Ibrox implosion, adopted by both clubs and the football administration has done terminal damage to the game, I fear.
Does anyone seriously believe that things will ever be allowed to change once “Rangers” are back at the top table? There was a short opening for real, meaningful change in the game. That opening has now closed, I fear. I am not optimistic, to say the least.
Playing devils advocate neeps,
The Scottish clubs bar 1 will be marginally poorer for Celtics failure in the CL – by virtue of the solidarity payments.
There is a very strong argument that individual clubs could actually be slightly stronger since a weakened celtic (by virtue of its lower transfer budget) immediately infers a greater chance of domestic success particularly in the cups but collectively, not least in the reality that even success like ICT’s last season still doesn’t put permanent bums on seats, they will be marginally down.
I am yet to be convinced of the benefits of large travelling supports to the host club (nearby bars, yes for sure!) particularly in the ‘success’ scenario I describe above.
As for transfer budgets I don’t follow. Surely the selling clubs will therefore retain the players they would otherwise have sold – and possibly use them in the scenario I describe above? Or alternatively will sell the players for their value to other clubs outwith Scotland? Was celtic paying such a ‘rival’ premium for the other teams players?
I know what you mean, and yes you are bang on – we can only distribute the money we have. But last night makes ‘ooos of difference to most clubs and multi ‘ooos difference to celtic.
I think that’s maybe where BP was coming from with his denial comment this morning – that self interest might have to be denied (rather than voluntarily given up) if any progress to the greater good is to be made. Apologies BP if I’m reading you wrongly there.
As for the beloved club issue, that’s going to happen preferably later rather than sooner if they can find a mug/collection of mugs to finance it. As long as they don’t attempt to include me in said collection then my advice is to get over it, or alternatively push for a change when you think you have the chance. On the field their performances and results have improved. Off it, I’m yet to be convinced. To date all I’ve seen is the arguement that they have (and that’s the key) they HAVE to get the opportunity to blow precisely the opportunity that Celtic did last night and then we’ll all be fine, apparently!
Is a competitive two team SPL better for the other 40 clubs than a less competitive one team SPL. Not the way the coefficient system is set out now, no. Unless you propose an underfunded unsustainable arms race to pay for the helicopters – and look where that helped to get us?
EDIT: (sorry hit send too quick) Just to say that I realise that’s not what you’re proposing!
neepheid says:
Member: (735 comments)
August 26, 2015 at 3:19 pm
_________________________________________________________________
Disappointing for Celtic last night and I hope they have a good go at the Europa League. I don’t think the ‘game’ in Scotland is poorer though. Transfer fees? That would mean Celtic using their CL riches to buy opposition players and ultimately weakening them in the process. Increased away support? I’d argue possibly the opposite. With CL games, home and away, to consider perhaps many Celtic fans might pick and choose matches more carefully. I think attendances at Parkhead are at a near 20 year low at the moment and it’ll be informative to see what happens to them if Rangers gain promotion this year. As for the payments the other clubs could have received, well that would’ve been a nice bonus and I doubt they were budgeted for.
neepheid says:
Member: (735 comments)
August 26, 2015 at 3:19 pm
…
there will be no changes in the governance of our game, other than a few more “Rangers Men” glissading through the revolving door to “restore some balance” to the top table…
Does anyone seriously believe that things will ever be allowed to change once “Rangers” are back at the top table? There was a short opening for real, meaningful change in the game. That opening has now closed, I fear. I am not optimistic, to say the least.
===================
Well it still surprises me even now how openly sycophantic the SMSM still is wrt TRFC.
When TRFC is ‘back’ in the SPL, it will be worse x10.
And that could be a watershed for some.
Until now TRFC has been noisy, but arguably irrelevant whilst in the lower leagues.
In the top league the club, IMO, will try to establish the influence and control it enjoyed in its previous guise, and the recent past will be forever forgotten by the SMSM, SPFL and SFA.
And for some non-TRFC supporters, that might be just too much to bear…
And being pessimistic today: I fully concur that currently, nothing indicates that anything will improve in the near future wrt Scottish football governance.
Must have been typing at the same time, Smugas. Basically what you said 😀
Been observing the debate over the last few days regarding the need for change in Scottish football. It appears to me that whichever way the debate goes we always end up back at the same conclusion. We need real leadership.
I would imagine that the vast majority of posters and lurkers are aware of the lack of leadership we have had to endure over the last few years. Alright, some posters will no doubt respond stating that we have had leadership, all be it a corrupt form there to serve one particular club. We know this needs to change otherwise the game in this country has a dark future and I sense that some posters on this site see this situation in a similar light. We can discuss endlessly the various aspects of our game that need to improve; youth development; school football; professional standards; league structure; distribution of income. These are just a few aspects that come to mind and no doubt I could list more but the point is that we do not trust our governing bodies with these issues.
One poster recently suggested that we have lost the opportunity for change but I disagree. The list of misdeeds carried out over the last few years is in the public domain, even if it has somehow been “airbrushed” out of the public consciousness. Rangers, as far as I can tell from all the information disseminated by the various “internet bampots”, are heading towards another (:wink:) admin event. Something needs to happen this year for them to find themselves in the top league and by something I mean some sort of gerrymandering. We need to be prepared for this event. This will be the moment when the fans need to come together as they did in 2012. This will be the moment for real change and this site could be the catalyst for that change.
Regards
Jam X
nawlite says:
Member: (172 comments)
August 26, 2015 at 1:21 pm
“Incidentally, are the exits to Maribor last year, Malmo this year proof that karma does exist? Anyone else think that Rangers’ earlier exits to those clubs which led to liquidation were enjoyed too much?”
————————–
I may be missing your core point but will hijack this excerpt of your commentary for my own devices.
English Football for decades has apparently failed to fulfill its potential. A large population with proportional player pool has failed to make a deep impression on international competitions unlike Germany, France, Italy and Spain. So there may be something about the mentality or more precisely the psychology that prevents teams achieving their apparent potential.
Even Scotland teams of the 70’s or 80’s had quality players that if possessed by other countries might have proved more effective. Lifestyle may be a factor but I think the psychology is definitely worth having a look at.
Therefore the schadenfraude of Ranger’s Euro exits pre-administration may well have been enjoyed too much. To be fair to non-establishment team supporters, this glee might be explained as a rebound from what was viewed as a skewed agenda. This agenda skewing is interesting to me as a possible source for contributory factors.
It might be argued that a skewed agenda in the media has more downsides than upsides. Building up one particular team makes them unpopular with the wider support and also creates unrealistic expectations. If, as has been observed, the same media deflates other teams then this might have a psychological knock-on effect. Did Malmo take advantage of this in the case of Celtic to make all manner of unusual comments knowing that they would be widely echoed in the Scottish media?
Polarising the views of football supporters may have some positive outcome for business but perhaps it is ultimately deleterious for those at the coal face of the sport. If it is impossible for football supporters to unite on any topic then do the natural good wishes that might flow from an opponent being successful become swamped by partisanship that becomes ingrained and entrenched? Would a more egalitarian media provide a better psychological backdrop from which our club and national team might build future success?
Castofthousands says:
Member: (291 comments)
August 23, 2015 at 10:38 pm
—————————————-
The referenced comment entrained a wee graph with comments on how it was compiled.
I’ve made alterations to this and will now provide my own agricultural analysis of what I see.
I have adjusted the data crudely so that the period of 3 points for a win is discounted to have equivalence with the 2 points for a win era.
High values indicate a high points differential between second top and second bottom teams.
Observations:
The period following the end of gate sharing (1981) does show a higher points differential and therefore less competitive league.
In the 90’s the points differential fluctuates violently.
In the noughties a bit more stability arrives with the upward trend being re-established with a few downward blips.
Most recently the differential has fallen back.
Conclusions.
The more even distribution of income implied by gate sharing does appear to have engendered a closer competition.
The period 91-95 saw huge swings in points differentials that co-incided with Celtic going through a transitional stage.
The period of 01 to 05 seen new levels of uncompetitiveness (high points differentials). Did this perhaps coincide with a change to the 11-1 voting system?
The recent absence of Rangers from the top league, whilst giving a free run to Celtic, has enabled other teams to strengthen their competitiveness.
CoT,
I’m reminded of the Simpsons sketch where Bart and Homer (long suffering father and son to non watchers) are fitted with electronic buzzers only to be activated when the other one annoys them. They are of course designed to teach both to live together in harmony with no electronic shocks. In true cartoon fashion it advances time with the sun shifting rapidly and repeatedly across the sky accompanied by the constant shrieking of Buzz. Yow. Buzz. Yow. Buzz. Yow. Buzz. Yow Buzz…..you get the drift!
Castofthousands
Just to clarify, are you suggesting that Malmo took advantage of a structural anti-Celtic bias in the (pro-Sevco) Scottish media in order to ‘nobble’ Celtic psychologically in the run-up to the second leg?
Did the very same press just time their intervention with finesse in 2002/03 so that Celtic beat Blackburn, Celta Vigo, Stuttgart and Liverpool but – bang, press effect – nobbled the Hoops in May 2003 on behalf of Porto?
Why has this noxious press environment failed to stop Celtic winning 10 titles in the last 15 seasons?
Why was this effect mysteriously released for the Porto UCL game in Nov 2012, but kept in reserve two weeks previously when Celtic beat Barcelona at Celtic Park?
Could it even be, and sorry to opt for the obvious explanation, but Celtic weren’t much good the other night and – hey – losing just happens?