Jump to content

Sign in to follow this  
SGG

Summer Football Debate

Recommended Posts


Like a lot of other people I have other things I enjoy doing in the better weather that I wouldn't want to give up. Having said that maybe a compromise would be to play in the evenings during the summer months. The other concern I have is how a heatwave (I wish) would affect the pace of games , would the games in warmer weather become slower ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Summer football yes please. Let's admit we live in northern Europe and the weather is poor. I basically don't go to watch the Saints as much as I would almost entirely because of the weather and almost never after Christmas until resuming in April. I watched my other team (FC Häcken) here in Sweden yesterday in the last game before the summer break - there's a thought - (July here can often be too hot and everyone goes on holiday in July). It was a warm summer evening, new stadium, had a cone and enjoyed the game in the sunshine. Marvellous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see Gilmour is in the papers this morning pushing for change and demanding a bigger top league with fewer fixtures. Isn't it a shame it took relegation and the loss of some voting power before he started to listen to fans opinions. Now his comments can be easily dismissed as self interest which of course it is

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see Gilmour is in the papers this morning pushing for change and demanding a bigger top league with fewer fixtures. Isn't it a shame it took relegation and the loss of some voting power before he started to listen to fans opinions. Now his comments can be easily dismissed as self interest which of course it is

After much raking amongst the shit you've FINALLY come up with a genuine and credible criticism of Gilmour.

Well done.

Now you've done the easy bit - highlight the problem.

Any no mark loser can do that.

What's your solution?

How do you increase the league and reduce the fixtures without crippling the league financially, destroying the competitiveness of the second tier and removing the drama of the playoffs?

Let's have it oh wise one. What would you personally do?

Edited by oaksoft

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After much raking amongst the shit you've FINALLY come up with a genuine and credible criticism of Gilmour.

Well done.

Now you've done the easy bit - highlight the problem.

Any no mark loser can do that.

What's your solution?

How do you increase the league and reduce the fixtures without crippling the league financially, destroying the competitiveness of the second tier and removing the drama of the playoffs?

Let's have it oh wise one. What would you personally do?

I'm surprised you need to ask. I've always been a strong advocate of a two league set up with a simple 3 up, 3 down. Given we have 42 senior league teams I guess the best would have to be a top 20 and a second tier of 22.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't read papers so I don't know the details of the size of league he is proposing but wasn't Gilmour always in favour of a bigger top league?

Yes I remember him talking about preferring 14 or 16 team leagues but he never seemed to push for it.

As I recall it was very "aye but..." and the 4 games against the OF was in the background.

Things change and if he now wants to press hard for a change then that's admirable but obviously it's reasonable to question the motives for doing so as soon as we've been relegated.

TBH it's no longer a biggy for me. I quite like the 12 team thing with the split and the playoffs. I think they've done a great job with the tools at their disposal.

If it went to 14 it would be a disaster IMO but 16 would be fine.

Dickson's idea of having 20 teams is hilariously stupid, would result in a poorer product, meaningless matches for most teams and crowds dropping through the floor. I'm tempted to send Dickson a pamphlet on why making sport exciting is the best way of getting people to watch it but I'm not convinced he can read.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm surprised you need to ask. I've always been a strong advocate of a two league set up with a simple 3 up, 3 down. Given we have 42 senior league teams I guess the best would have to be a top 20 and a second tier of 22.

Oh FFS. lol.gif

More than half the league would have absolutely nothing to play for.

How exciting.

Haud me back.

I can see Sky queuing up to sponsor this monstrosity of an idea. lol.gif

THIS is why nobody takes you seriously Dicko. You have nothing serious to contribute.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More than half the league would have absolutely nothing to play for.

Remind me how many teams are in the English premiership. I counted 20, but f**k me if that doesn't mean SKY wouldn't be interested.

This whole meaningless fixtures bullshit gets me every time. Is it meaningless for players to look to get their club up a few places to earn an extra few 100K via a league placing? Is it meaningless for those players to impress and get a better move/deal or even to band together and achieve something via league performances? If you're winning a game, then surely it's not meaningless. Also, let's just say you go on a run of playing teams in 11th, 16th, 9th, 5th, 17th, 18th, 8th and end up on a seven or nine game unbeaten run that may well bring in more fans and give the impression of development...is that meaningless too? Playing different players, in different formations, on different styles of park led by varying managers is that meaningless?

Prick!

Edited by TsuMirren

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh FFS. lol.gif

More than half the league would have absolutely nothing to play for.

How exciting.

Haud me back.

I can see Sky queuing up to sponsor this monstrosity of an idea. lol.gif

THIS is why nobody takes you seriously Dicko. You have nothing serious to contribute.

More than half the teams in the most profitable league in world football have nothing to play for going by your rationale. Just what do Sky see in that league with it's meaningless games and crowds dropping through the floor because of the meaningless games...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh FFS. lol.gif

More than half the league would have absolutely nothing to play for.

How exciting.

Haud me back.

I can see Sky queuing up to sponsor this monstrosity of an idea. lol.gif

THIS is why nobody takes you seriously Dicko. You have nothing serious to contribute.

Aye, like Sky TV have no interest in the English Premiership, English Championship, English League Division One, English League Division Two, oh and the Conference League.

You are hilariously stupid. No question about that at all. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remind me how many teams are in the English premiership. I counted 20, but f**k me if that doesn't mean SKY wouldn't be interested.

This whole meaningless fixtures bullshit gets me every time. Is it meaningless for players to look to get their club up a few places to earn an extra few 100K via a league placing? Is it meaningless for those players to impress and get a better move/deal or even to band together and achieve something via league performances? If you're winning a game, then surely it's not meaningless. Also, let's just say you go on a run of playing teams in 11th, 16th, 9th, 5th, 17th, 18th, 8th and end up on a seven or nine game unbeaten run that may well bring in more fans and give the impression of development...is that meaningless too? Playing different players, in different formations, on different styles of park led by varying managers is that meaningless?

Prick!

Not often we agree....but Oaksoft most definitely is a prick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oaksoft is correct. Top 20 doesn't work in Scotland.

There isn't really any point going over the pros and cons because the top clubs know it won't work and will never do it.

A bit like 'summer football' (mid Jan to mid Dec).

Of course it works. 38 games per season is what we have now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course it works. 38 games per season is what we have now.

I know the number of games work. What doesn't work is the standard of opposition.

Dundee Utd, as an example, aren't going to want to replace home games against the Old Firm, Aberdeen, Hearts, Dundee, etc with games against Alloa, Dumbarton, Cowdenbeath.

That would be a huge loss in revenue.

Scotland's bigger clubs will never vote for that so it will never happen.

Similarly, "summer" football in Scotland will never happen.

We can have these debates until the cows come home but but neither will ever happen.

Edited by nosferatu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know the number of games work. What doesn't work is the standard of opposition.

Dundee Utd, as an example, aren't going to want to replace home games against the Old Firm, Aberdeen, Hearts, Dundee, etc with games against Alloa, Dumbarton, Cowdenbeath.

That would be a huge loss in revenue.

Scotland's bigger clubs will never vote for that so it will never happen.

Similarly, "summer" football in Scotland will never happen.

We can have these debates until the cows come home but but neither will ever happen.

I still think it will... IF enough fans are left to stop the death of full time professional football as we know it once TV cash dries up.

I have said for a decade or more that budgets should be based on realistic guaranteed income and NOT tv cash.

Setanta was a warning... that went unheeded.

Live TV id killing the game for turnstile fans, who are tired of being messed around.

Fans cannot afford to attend every week... end a week away is a chance of being lost to the game.

Yet Doncsster and the likes continue to flick us the vicky and chase TV cash!

Unfeckinbelievably believable!

Clubs like Saints and Thistle have started to work on a new generation of supporters and are to be commended.

When the dhit hits the fan we will be better placed than most to survive.

At that point, the "bigger" clubs will be the ones hardest hit and desperate for anything that will bring fans back.

Of course... we could be pro-active and advocate change that fans want... but aye... greed is STILL preventing common sense from kicking in!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still think it will... IF enough fans are left to stop the death of full time professional football as we know it once TV cash dries up.

I have said for a decade or more that budgets should be based on realistic guaranteed income and NOT tv cash.

Setanta was a warning... that went unheeded.

Live TV id killing the game for turnstile fans, who are tired of being messed around.

Fans cannot afford to attend every week... end a week away is a chance of being lost to the game.

Yet Doncsster and the likes continue to flick us the vicky and chase TV cash!

Unfeckinbelievably believable!

Clubs like Saints and Thistle have started to work on a new generation of supporters and are to be commended.

When the dhit hits the fan we will be better placed than most to survive.

At that point, the "bigger" clubs will be the ones hardest hit and desperate for anything that will bring fans back.

Of course... we could be pro-active and advocate change that fans want... but aye... greed is STILL preventing common sense from kicking in!

More folk will turn up to watch Dundee Utd play Hearts than to watch Dundee Utd play Alloa.

Its not really about greed. Scottish football club owners don't make money out of it. Quite the opposite in fact.

What its really about is what most punters actually want to watch.

And while you get these fan surveys which indicate folk want a bigger league... The reality regarding what they will actually turn out to watch is quite difference.

TV money doesn't matter. Clubs will never ever vote for an 18/20 team league in Scotland. Ever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More folk will turn up to watch Dundee Utd play Hearts than to watch Dundee Utd play Alloa.

Its not really about greed. Scottish football club owners don't make money out of it. Quite the opposite in fact.

What its really about is what most punters actually want to watch.

And while you get these fan surveys which indicate folk want a bigger league... The reality regarding what they will actually turn out to watch is quite difference.

TV money doesn't matter. Clubs will never ever vote for an 18/20 team league in Scotland. Ever.

It will happen...

Just possibly too late to save our game.

I went to watch Albion Rovers v Peterhead rather than spend over £60 on taking two of us to see ICT vs Saints.

I enjoyed the outing.

I watched 3 PTFC games as a neutral over the last 2 seasons as it was affordable whilst our away games were not.

TV money does indeed matter.

As long as we chase it we will continue to lose our paying fan base.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More folk will turn up to watch Dundee Utd play Hearts than to watch Dundee Utd play Alloa.

You say that, but what if having that small group of lower quality clubs leads to slightly higher attendances due to the possibility of wins and unbeaten runs. Aberdeen, Dundee Utd etc would also have a chance to be closer to Celtic through assuming away less points. Plus, home games against bigger teams become events as they only come round once a season. Meanwhile, lower down the tree you have clubs either at the top table or one promotion away...exactly what they all want now. You have some clubs able to charge more for sponsorship, others being more family friendly as the kids could see more wins or better football.

Dunfermline and Raith have been in Europe, East Fife and others have had cup runs or big cup games. Down south they would get a bit of respect, documentaries etc. Up here it's "pfft, they're not the Old Fim" or Premiership Chairman trying to railroad them. It's sickening and has to stop, indeed as a club we'd surely see an overall attendance jump. One 1,500 lost by not playing Celtic at home X2, replaced by 8 or so rises of 200 due to a decent run and top half placing. More fans, more sales, more footfall...I'd rather trial that than summer football.

Edited by TsuMirren

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know the number of games work. What doesn't work is the standard of opposition.

Dundee Utd, as an example, aren't going to want to replace home games against the Old Firm, Aberdeen, Hearts, Dundee, etc with games against Alloa, Dumbarton, Cowdenbeath.

That would be a huge loss in revenue.

Scotland's bigger clubs will never vote for that so it will never happen.

Similarly, "summer" football in Scotland will never happen.

We can have these debates until the cows come home but but neither will ever happen.

Andy, we need to split these issues. Summer football won't happen - we both agree on that. I don't think it's because football chairmen are against the idea, but simply because we cannot predict the weather in this country with any degree of accuracy. In the last two years we have had parks waterlogged in August, September and October, 90 mph winds in March causing structural damage and we've had snow and sleet as late this year as the last week of April. We also know parks need the summer months to be reseeded and repaired.

As for larger leagues - they should happen. There's absolutely no logical reason why they shouldn't. Fans want variation. In repeated questionnaires fans cite the repetition of fixtures as one of the worst elements of the Scottish game and only the utterly demented - like Oaksoft - support the current system where in our top league it's possible for one side to play the other in four league fixtures - once at home and three times away from home or vice versa! You talk about glamour ties and big gates - you're right but what is a glamour tie? St Mirren might well love Celtic coming to town and the gate receipts that come from that, but do Celtic fans see a fixture against St Mirren as attractive? The high number of empty seats at Celtic Park for any game between the two clubs clearly shows that they don't. Would chairmen vote for a larger league set up with every member having the same voting rights? No, unless their customer base starts to vote with our feet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stuart, I addressed the issue of "fans" questionnaires earlier.

Folk say one thing in surveys but do something different in reality.

Celtic is a great. To a man they will say they don't miss Rangers, don't want them back.

But their gates have fallen through the floor.

The sort of folk that complete these surveys aren't representative of wider football audiences anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If those who rule Scottish fitba had any clue, they would have been already looking at taking the broadcasting and selling of Scottish fitba on tv in-house a long time ago.

It's not that difficult nor impossible to do. It would be themselves in control of times and selling of the product - and many fans (like all the Shellic ones who subscribe to THEIR matches) like me would actually pay to be able to see my team regularly. On my computer.

I have no interest in watching any other team.

Indeed, I am abandoning BT's offer for what was previously FREE BT SPORT.

lite, as they call it, includes Scottish fitba. Anyway, I'd still prefer to join London Saints in a pub for that, when Saints are on.

The tv model has changed since SKY breenged onto the scene. SKY is no longer the sole alternative. Which is nice. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another argument detractors of a bigger league tend to roll out is the so called "meaningless games". Another red herring as, for the clubs, there's cash for final league positions at stake, for the payers, there's the small matter of win bonuses and new contracts and, for the supporters, they hopefully get the chance to see the new generation and, support their teams in the better weather in the knowledge that those kids can relax and perform. A time of year when only the disillusioned tend to desert the sinking ship.

No need to change the season. Just the system.

Share this post


Link to post
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...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...