Jump to content

Very Silly


BowenBoys
 Share

Recommended Posts

33 minutes ago, jags on tour said:

Aye it’s daft but we were pumped every week after the split when we finished top 6 and finished with less points than teams below us!

It's not really that daft. Over an equal fixture calendar, we were the 6th best side in the league. Over an equal fixture calendar, we were the 6th worst team in the top 6.

It's no more arbitrary than deciding how many teams get relegated from a league, or what format any play-off takes. In some respects, it's less arbitrary than play-offs because it takes into account a bigger proportion of how the teams performed in the season.

For example, it's objectively ridiculous (albeit hilarious) that we got promoted from the 3rd tier under Dick Campbell after finishing 4th by a country mile, while Morton failed. That hinged, in effect, on two games against Stranraer and Peterhead each. Meanwhile, our protection against being overtaken by bottom six teams was based on us being better than them over 33 games.

The reasons for the top 6 are transparently specific and narrow (the 4 Glasgow Derby games) but it doesn't mean it's actually a bad idea, given the lack of appetite for a 16 or 18 team league and the practical limits that domestic and European competition place on the number of games a season the Clubs involved can reasonably be expected to play.

Edited by Woodstock Jag
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, denismcquadeno.eleven said:

There are a lot of things in football which are very silly eg the SFA, (apart from its unfortunate initials!) Kingsley, FIFA decision-making and presidents, our Chair wanting to be called ‘Chairman’, playing the World Cup Finals last time in Russia and next time in Qatar, sponsors’ names on socks and shorts, the current SPFL Chief Executive, England believing it will win the World Cup every time it’s played,  etc etc. A few more is never a surprise!

Teams rewarded for failure by being able to participate in three different European tournaments in the same season - and failing in all of them.

See the East End of Glasgow club this season for verification.

What's this about Kingsley though? He's class!!

Edited by Barney Rubble
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said:

It's not really that daft. Over an equal fixture calendar, we were the 6th best side in the league. Over an equal fixture calendar, we were the 6th worst team in the top 6.

It's no more arbitrary than deciding how many teams get relegated from a league, or what format any play-off takes. In some respects, it's less arbitrary than play-offs because it takes into account a bigger proportion of how the teams performed in the season.

For example, it's objectively ridiculous (albeit hilarious) that we got promoted from the 3rd tier under Dick Campbell after finishing 4th by a country mile, while Morton failed. That hinged, in effect, on two games against Stranraer and Peterhead each. Meanwhile, our protection against being overtaken by bottom six teams was based on us being better than them over 33 games.

The reasons for the top 6 are transparently specific and narrow (the 4 Glasgow Derby games) but it doesn't mean it's actually a bad idea, given the lack of appetite for a 16 or 18 team league and the practical limits that domestic and European competition place on the number of games a season the Clubs involved can reasonably be expected to play.

If it was only about 4 Glasgow Derby games that could easily be resolved by inventing a cup just for them. However, it is other clubs like Aberdeen, Hibs,Hearts, Dundee Utd, who thought they were guaranteed 4 games a season vs them with the split, that prevent any increase in the top league.And of course the lopsided split of prize money to the Premiership 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Woodstock Jag said:

I don't think the split is silly. It's no more absurd than play-offs, which have been an integral part of football leagues for decades.

Aye, you're probably right.  The play offs in leagues where clubs already play each other four times before playing matches number five & six are about as inane as a split where some clubs don't play the same amount of home and away fixtures.  Just witnessed today a club that won only 4 more games than they lost gaining promotion. 

The premier league split was introduced for one reason and one reason only. **** all to do with spicing up our game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Woodstock Jag said:

It's not really that daft. Over an equal fixture calendar, we were the 6th best side in the league. Over an equal fixture calendar, we were the 6th worst team in the top 6.

It's no more arbitrary than deciding how many teams get relegated from a league, or what format any play-off takes. In some respects, it's less arbitrary than play-offs because it takes into account a bigger proportion of how the teams performed in the season.

For example, it's objectively ridiculous (albeit hilarious) that we got promoted from the 3rd tier under Dick Campbell after finishing 4th by a country mile, while Morton failed. That hinged, in effect, on two games against Stranraer and Peterhead each. Meanwhile, our protection against being overtaken by bottom six teams was based on us being better than them over 33 games.

The reasons for the top 6 are transparently specific and narrow (the 4 Glasgow Derby games) but it doesn't mean it's actually a bad idea, given the lack of appetite for a 16 or 18 team league and the practical limits that domestic and European competition place on the number of games a season the Clubs involved can reasonably be expected to play.

Queens Park repeated a similar trick to us  today

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Woodstock Jag said:

The reasons for the top 6 are transparently specific and narrow (the 4 Glasgow Derby games) but it doesn't mean it's actually a bad idea, given the lack of appetite for a 16 or 18 team league and the practical limits that domestic and European competition place on the number of games a season the Clubs involved can reasonably be expected to play.

Says who? The clubs (certainly not their supporters) who like to rely on income from 3-4 ugly sister visits. 

One thing that I'm sure you'll agree with about fan ownership is to give the supporters more say in something like this. I hope you're elected to TJF board, as I agree with a lot of what you say. On this issue I sincerely hope when you mention lack of appetite for larger leagues you're referring to the various club boards and not fans in general. Talk to the supporters (like I do) who regularly travel to watch their various clubs play and you'd know that the vast majority detest the current incestuous product. Even many of the sycophants who pop up in the media believe the current set up is at least wonky. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, lady-isobel-barnett said:

Says who? The clubs (certainly not their supporters) who like to rely on income from 3-4 ugly sister visits. 

It all comes down to money. If the Premiership clubs weren't willing to back league reconstruction even up to 14 in the pandemic situation they're very unlikely to embrace more radical reform to 16 or 18 team leagues, whatever you or I might think of its merits.

Remember under the SPFL's rule-book you can't increase the number of teams in the top flight without, among other things, the agreement of at least 10 of its 12 members. The Ugly Sisters have precisely zero interest in voting for that to happen, and all it takes is one other club to be happy with the status quo and it doesn't happen. The most recent TV and sponsorship deals are also premised on a 12 team league, and could be costly to renegotiate if the fundamental "product" is altered.

8 minutes ago, lady-isobel-barnett said:

One thing that I'm sure you'll agree with about fan ownership is to give the supporters more say in something like this. I hope you're elected to TJF board, as I agree with a lot of what you say. On this issue I sincerely hope when you mention lack of appetite for larger leagues you're referring to the various club boards and not fans in general. Talk to the supporters (like I do) who regularly travel to watch their various clubs play and you'd know that the vast majority detest the current incestuous product. Even many of the sycophants who pop up in the media believe the current set up is at least wonky. 

To be completely clear I personally favour a 16 team top flight and would hope that Thistle would vote for any credible plan to increase the top flight to 14, 16 or 18 teams. But 14 would probably still require some sort of split, 16 would require some sort of rethink of cup competitions to make up for the loss of 8 fixtures in the top flight season, and 18, while very workable in terms of the calendar, hasn't a cat's chance in hell of getting the larger top flight clubs on side. Any league reconstruction must be credible and realistic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd personally prefer a 16 team top league. One of the previous arguments against it was it would delete the quality.  Would taking the top 4 in the championship really dilute the top league? I don't think so. Replacing the 'lost' 4 home games could be compensated to a degree by tweaking the league cup and playing the games on Saturdays. An added bonus would be avoiding the ridiculous December schedule where teams are playing 6 or 7 games. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Woodstock Jag said:

To be completely clear I personally favour a 16 team top flight and would hope that Thistle would vote for any credible plan to increase the top flight to 14, 16 or 18 teams. But 14 would probably still require some sort of split, 16 would require some sort of rethink of cup competitions to make up for the loss of 8 fixtures in the top flight season, and 18, while very workable in terms of the calendar, hasn't a cat's chance in hell of getting the larger top flight clubs on side. Any league reconstruction must be credible and realistic.

Thanks for the clarification. I accept that a 16 club league would possibly require something like an enhancement of the League Cup, tho' hardly a major problem. 

Widening the topic (not directed at WJ), and away from the top tier, I cannot see why we need three leagues of ten. Some may think it makes for more meaningful games. On the contrary we get situations where clubs already destined for play offs play weakened sides or simply go thru the motions. You even get two teams already in the  play offs meeting each other just prior to the end of the 36 game season.   The present system negates the actual importance of why we have leagues in the first place, when 40% of the league end up in a knockout competition. But the overriding turnoff is the boredom factor. Maybe fans that can only attend the odd game may not bother that much. Perhaps even some of those that only go to games at Firhill may not be overconcerned about the repetitious nonsense we have to endure. Regardless it would surely be far more enjoyable to see Thistle play more than just a handful of clubs home and away.

It also effects cup competitions when you draw league opponents. This season we played ICT 6 times, QoS 5 times and Dunfermline 6 times and we didn't even get out our league cup section.

Edited by lady-isobel-barnett
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, lady-isobel-barnett said:

Thanks for the clarification. I accept that a 16 club league would possibly require something like an enhancement of the League Cup, tho' hardly a major problem.

And of course there is a risk you simply end up replicating in the cup the problems you had with the league (especially if two teams from the same league are in a cup group).

It's not an insurmountable obstacle, but it does diminish returns.

Quote

Widening the topic (not directed at WJ), and away from the top tier, I cannot see why we need three leagues of ten. Some may think it makes for more meaningful games. On the contrary we get situations where clubs already destined for play offs play weakened sides or simply go thru the motions. You even get two teams already in the  play offs meeting each other just prior to the end of the 36 game season.   The present system negates the actual importance of why we have leagues in the first place, when 40% of the league end up in a knockout competition. But the overriding turnoff is the boredom factor. Maybe fans that can only attend the odd game may not bother that much. Perhaps even some of those that only go to games at Firhill may not be overconcerned about the repetitious nonsense we have to endure. Regardless it would surely be far more enjoyable to see Thistle play more than just a handful of clubs home and away.

I suspect the reason is partly the psychological barrier or full-time v part-time football and partly down to money. Arbroath and Falkirk have obviously blurred the lines in each direction, but there is a general sense that the Championship is mainly for full-time teams to play each other and for League One to be the top of the part-time pyramid.

It also comes down, again, to distribution of money (which matters a lot more for full time clubs than part time ones). Teams like Thistle, Morton, Hamilton etc might be a lot more comfortable sharing revenues with (current) third tier clubs if they were also getting more of a slice of the top-tier pot. They're going to be far more reluctant if they aren't.

The revenues of Championship clubs generally depend far more than almost any others in Scottish football on (a) gate receipts and specifically (b) away gate receipts. We don't get the top flight's TV and sponsorship money (but are competing from the same pool of full time players).

Quote

It also effects cup competitions when you draw league opponents. This season we played ICT 6 times, QoS 5 times and Dunfermline 6 times and we didn't even get out our league cup section.

Unless you get down to playing in the league only twice a season, and aren't playing teams in your own league in the play-offs, league reconstruction doesn't really help with this very much. For example, even if you go down to a 16 team league, any strengthened League Cup format that adds 6-8 games to your season probably involves increased chance of playing in a group with teams in your own league and/or an increased chance of a two-leg format, both of which could lead to you playing teams in your league as often as before.

Edited by Woodstock Jag
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only way I think we're going to get any meaningful discussion on reconstruction will be when the spfl aren't dictated to by the broadcasters into delivering 4  arse cheek derbies every season and the only way I can see that happen is if they move to another league and the only place they can realistically go is England and frankly they aren't needed to sell the Premier league to broadcasters there. So I think we are stuck with th 12 team top  division although I'd be delighted to be proved wrong.

With 30 teams outwith the Premiership here would there be any support for 2 lower leagues of 16. Easy to include the champions of the Highland and Lowland leagues to make up the numbers then arrange play offs between the divisions and HL & LL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While there are certainly strong arguments for an increased size of Premiership, the politics of our Old Firm dominated football effectively prevent this easily happening. We also have the incompetent and machiavellian  SPFL board running the show. However no such politics exist to prevent reform by way of an increase, at the very least,  in the number of Championship clubs - why is it that the are twelve Premiership but only ten Championship clubs? With the arrival of nouveau riche (poorly supported) clubs like Cove, QP, and in due course Kelty (and indeed Ross County in the top league), there’s less and less space for old established well supported clubs  like Dunfermline and Falkirk in the two top tiers. Thistle and similar clubs should at least be agitating for an increase in the number of Championship sides - twelve , fourteen, or sixteen - there are various “splits” in fixtures possible as discussed often. This would be in the long term interests of both Thistle and the game in general . 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, e4b said:

While there are certainly strong arguments for an increased size of Premiership, the politics of our Old Firm dominated football effectively prevent this easily happening. We also have the incompetent and machiavellian  SPFL board running the show. However no such politics exist to prevent reform by way of an increase, at the very least,  in the number of Championship clubs - why is it that the are twelve Premiership but only ten Championship clubs? With the arrival of nouveau riche (poorly supported) clubs like Cove, QP, and in due course Kelty (and indeed Ross County in the top league), there’s less and less space for old established well supported clubs  like Dunfermline and Falkirk in the two top tiers. Thistle and similar clubs should at least be agitating for an increase in the number of Championship sides - twelve , fourteen, or sixteen - there are various “splits” in fixtures possible as discussed often. This would be in the long term interests of both Thistle and the game in general . 

Yep.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...