PDA

View Full Version : SPL Clubs Count Cost of Old Firm Failure in Europe



Woody70x2
08-06-2010, 09:03 AM
[URL="http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/scot_prem/8727389.stm"]

I read the article on the BBC website and I simply don't get it... can someone explain how Hibs would be counting the cost of the Old Firm's failure in Europe? Surely the title should read "The Old Firm count the cost of their own Failure in Europe?"

:confused::confused:

Golden Bear
08-06-2010, 09:20 AM
[URL="http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/scot_prem/8727389.stm"]

I read the article on the BBC website and I simply don't get it... can someone explain how Hibs would be counting the cost of the Old Firm's failure in Europe? Surely the title should read "The Old Firm count the cost of their own Failure in Europe?"

:confused::confused:

I'm not exactly sure either.

Unless they're assuming that a successful run in Europe results in rantic bringing a bigger "away" support when they play SPL fixtures.

I can't see how the other SPL clubs will benefit in the way of additional TV income however.

Sylar
08-06-2010, 09:24 AM
Perhaps due to their poor performances lowering the coefficient, meaning clubs have to finish higher in the SPL to qualify, meaning the SPL clubs are spending more money to try and obtain Europe, with everyone else having to spend more to try and compete to ensure survival?

Short of that rather far-fetched concept, I can't see it either.

DC_Hibs
08-06-2010, 09:24 AM
The headline is misleading as all the article refers to is that the total revenue of SPL clubs dropped and that was mainly due to old firms failure in Europe.

Nobody cares that the total revenue of SPL clubs is down they are more concerned with their own clubs (apart from the Ostrich brigade in Gorgie)

basehibby
08-06-2010, 09:37 AM
[URL="http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/scot_prem/8727389.stm"]

I read the article on the BBC website and I simply don't get it... can someone explain how Hibs would be counting the cost of the Old Firm's failure in Europe? Surely the title should read "The Old Firm count the cost of their own Failure in Europe?"

:confused::confused:

It's the sort of garbage you expect to read from a pig ignorant bbc reporter - jeez! you could actually have more faith in what's written by the Daily ****** than that mob. The truth is that as an organisation they couldn't care less about the Scottish game but are obliged to pay lip service to it by dint of our license money.

Also you could blame the misrepresentation in this article on the fact that the main quotes come from an accountant who is deriving his conclusions from balance sheets rather than actual knowledge of the Scottish Football scene.

The reality is that SPL clubs were hit in the pocket by their own poor performances affecting their own home attendances and merchandise sales, with the effects of the banking crisis also having an influence - Hibs for example had a drop in revenue in 08/09 due to poor team performances under Mixu - the performances of the OF in Europe being a complete irrelevance.

cockneymike
08-06-2010, 10:00 AM
The biggest way that the spl clubs count the cost of the OF failure is in the loss of potential transfer revenures. We made the most money in transfer fees when Celtic were doing well in the CL and were able to afford to spend a bit of cash, and as a result Rangers (who couldn't afford it) were forced to try and keep up.

i actually think the coefficient argument is moot, as it wasn't just the OF that were rubbish, we kept sending teams like Falkirk, Dunfermline etc that had lost the cup final. In fact I'd say that only Aberdeen under the tangoman actually punched above their weight in the last 10 years (OF excepted) in Europe.

Hibernian Verse
08-06-2010, 10:52 AM
It's not garbage. Whether we like it or not we count on them to keep our co-efficient up. As a poster has already stated, we spend more money to try and get into Europe then find ourselves entering at a lower stage which gets us less money anyway. Most SPL clubs will get punted at this round and end up where they started with regards to finances.

Also, Celtic and Rangers (again whether we like it or not) have traditionally helped clubs with finances through buying players. The more money the Old Firm have (e.g. Scott Brown days), the more money will be paid out in fees.

Then there's TV deals.

Just my opinion.

Hibernian Verse
08-06-2010, 10:53 AM
The biggest way that the spl clubs count the cost of the OF failure is in the loss of potential transfer revenures. We made the most money in transfer fees when Celtic were doing well in the CL and were able to afford to spend a bit of cash, and as a result Rangers (who couldn't afford it) were forced to try and keep up.

i actually think the coefficient argument is moot, as it wasn't just the OF that were rubbish, we kept sending teams like Falkirk, Dunfermline etc that had lost the cup final. In fact I'd say that only Aberdeen under the tangoman actually punched above their weight in the last 10 years (OF excepted) in Europe.

If Falkirk and Dunfermline had made it into the next round it would've had little effect. The co-efficient really gets boosted by the Old Firm making it into the group stages and beating good teams, getting far in the UEFA cup etc

NAE NOOKIE
08-06-2010, 11:13 AM
Lets face it. You could write a book on how dumb ass the UEFA coefficient system is.

They moan about clubs over spending and then have a system, which by its very nature, rewards clubs and associations which overspend in order to go further in domestic and European competition.

They have no regard for the fact that a club like Hibs going into the Europa League at the end of July have every chance of being up against a team who could be 10 to 15 games into their domestic season. A huge disadvantage IMO.

Though this could be easily sorted by keeping countries with Summer and Winter seasons apart in the early rounds.

The fact that Scottish football at the moment doesnt have an Aberdee or Dundee Utd circa the 80s. Or a Hibs team like in the 70s is a factor, no doubt about it.

But the two points I have made above certainly dont help our cause, or the cause of Scottish football in general.

Get it sorted Platini :grr:

StevieC
08-06-2010, 11:30 AM
It's not garbage. Whether we like it or not we count on them to keep our co-efficient up.

And the co-efficient relates to whether one team or two teams get to enter the CL (not how many teams actually enter) so how does that affect the other SPL teams?

The only other thing it affects might be seeding, but if you cant beat the teams you are paired against (as has been the case with most of the SPL clubs that have entered) then you dont deserve it.


As a poster has already stated, we spend more money to try and get into Europe then find ourselves entering at a lower stage which gets us less money anyway.

How do we spend more money? We are only competing against the teams that finish below the OF.
And entering at an earlier stage means you are playing poorer opposition, if you cant beat poorer opposition then do you really deserve the cash getting dished out in latter rounds?


Also, Celtic and Rangers (again whether we like it or not) have traditionally helped clubs with finances through buying players.

Dont you mean "pillaged" clubs for their best players? Usually for a pittance! How often have we kicked off about the Old Firm coming in and stealing our best players? Suits me fine if they can no longer afford to buy players up here, we've done alright out of Championship transfers recently. And again, we dont need to compete with the OF, just the other teams at our level.

:rolleyes:

basehibby
08-06-2010, 11:36 AM
It's not garbage. Whether we like it or not we count on them to keep our co-efficient up. As a poster has already stated, we spend more money to try and get into Europe then find ourselves entering at a lower stage which gets us less money anyway. Most SPL clubs will get punted at this round and end up where they started with regards to finances.

Also, Celtic and Rangers (again whether we like it or not) have traditionally helped clubs with finances through buying players. The more money the Old Firm have (e.g. Scott Brown days), the more money will be paid out in fees.

Then there's TV deals.

Just my opinion.

Re the first point highlighted above, the article made no reference whatsoever to Euro coefficients, but instead asserted that revenue was down accross the board because of the OF's failures in Europe.

I can see how that may have some substance with regard to transfer fees paid with OF Euro money, but that does presume that noone else would buy our players if the OF didn't get in there first - a point which is rendered pretty shaky when you look at the destinations of the likes of Fletcher and O'Connor in recent years.

The reality is that most of the losses referenced in the article are losses made directly by the OF themselves due to their own failure to live within their means having been dumped out of Europe and their glory hunting fans' tendency to disappear when the going gets tough.

Downturns in the finances of other clubs are similarly due to their own failings on the pitch along with the current economic climate, with the side-effects of the OF getting dumped out of Europe being minimal if they exist at all. Also IMO of course.

xyz23jc
08-06-2010, 12:00 PM
Dont you mean "pillaged" clubs for their best players? Usually for a pittance! How often have we kicked off about the Old Firm coming in and stealing our best players? Suits me fine if they can no longer afford to buy players up here, we've done alright out of Championship transfers recently. And again, we dont need to compete with the OF, just the other teams at our level.

:rolleyes:[/QUOTE]

:thumbsup::top marks

Hibernian Verse
08-06-2010, 12:11 PM
And the co-efficient relates to whether one team or two teams get to enter the CL (not how many teams actually enter) so how does that affect the other SPL teams?

Wrong. It also determines the points at which teams enter the CL (therefore determines prize money) and determines how many teams go into the Europa League (which directly effects all of us other teams) and the stage at which they enter.

The only other thing it affects might be seeding, but if you cant beat the teams you are paired against (as has been the case with most of the SPL clubs that have entered) then you dont deserve it.

Seeding is done based on the actual team's performance in Europe so isn't affected by the Old firm.



How do we spend more money? We are only competing against the teams that finish below the OF.
And entering at an earlier stage means you are playing poorer opposition, if you cant beat poorer opposition then do you really deserve the cash getting dished out in latter rounds?

Every club will strive to get into Europe, and did we not spend more this year in wages to try and make Europe? Whether it's deserved or not is debatable, but I was giving a fact not the moral chat.

Dont you mean "pillaged" clubs for their best players? Usually for a pittance! How often have we kicked off about the Old Firm coming in and stealing our best players? Suits me fine if they can no longer afford to buy players up here, we've done alright out of Championship transfers recently. And again, we dont need to compete with the OF, just the other teams at our level.

Pillaged or not, money is money to SPL clubs especially those below us. Of course we don't want them to do it and it's great that they can't now. I didn't say for a minute that I was in favour of it.

:rolleyes:

Edited in quote.

Hibernian Verse
08-06-2010, 12:14 PM
Re the first point highlighted above, the article made no reference whatsoever to Euro coefficients, but instead asserted that revenue was down accross the board because of the OF's failures in Europe.

I can see how that may have some substance with regard to transfer fees paid with OF Euro money, but that does presume that noone else would buy our players if the OF didn't get in there first - a point which is rendered pretty shaky when you look at the destinations of the likes of Fletcher and O'Connor in recent years.

The reality is that most of the losses referenced in the article are losses made directly by the OF themselves due to their own failure to live within their means having been dumped out of Europe and their glory hunting fans' tendency to disappear when the going gets tough.

Downturns in the finances of other clubs are similarly due to their own failings on the pitch along with the current economic climate, with the side-effects of the OF getting dumped out of Europe being minimal if they exist at all. Also IMO of course.

Have to say I haven't read the article. I agree with your point, especially the last bit until 'if they exist at all'.

Woody70x2
08-06-2010, 12:39 PM
Re the first point highlighted above, the article made no reference whatsoever to Euro coefficients, but instead asserted that revenue was down accross the board because of the OF's failures in Europe.

I can see how that may have some substance with regard to transfer fees paid with OF Euro money, but that does presume that noone else would buy our players if the OF didn't get in there first - a point which is rendered pretty shaky when you look at the destinations of the likes of Fletcher and O'Connor in recent years.

The reality is that most of the losses referenced in the article are losses made directly by the OF themselves due to their own failure to live within their means having been dumped out of Europe and their glory hunting fans' tendency to disappear when the going gets tough.
Downturns in the finances of other clubs are similarly due to their own failings on the pitch along with the current economic climate, with the side-effects of the OF getting dumped out of Europe being minimal if they exist at all. Also IMO of course.

Well at least it is not just me... the title should simply read OLD FIRM and not SPL CLUBS... terrible article from the BBC!