SPFL Strategic Review

[LeithMike]

I'm not sure there is an easy fix for Scottish football given the SPFL Premiership has teams from the quality equivalent to bottom half of English Premier League right down to Conference League. To make it better some kind of levelling up would be necessary but that will never happen.

I certainly amn't a fan of the current structure (an uneven split can impact who wins the title and who gets relegated) and would like to see an expanded league.

I get the argument that this might bring more meaningless games for some teams but the upside of that is half the league will not all be terrified of relegation and might, therefore, be in a position to play more youngsters. Taking the fear out of the game might also encourage teams to play more football. That can only be a good thing in the long-term.

Sent from my SM-N960F using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Did Ron not say somewhere a few weeks ago, that we had too many clubs in the SPFL?

He did and he is right. The SPFL really should only be the full time professional clubs. There is a place for all the other clubs but not within the full time set up.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Allez Hibs]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Did Ron not say somewhere a few weeks ago, that we had too many clubs in the SPFL?

The SPFL is made up of 42 member clubs.

Two leagues of 18 then regional below for me. That's what most countries in Europe do.

Grow the game.

[Peevemor]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

It's pretty obvious a bigger league playing each other twice provides a better chance of Hibs Hearts or Aberdeen winning the league. Aberdeen might have won the league a few years ago if it was home and away against every team. Every supporter of these clubs should want a bigger league playing each other twice. Forget revenues, isn't football about trying to be successful? Sporting integrity and all that.

Why is it obvious? From memory, the OF are generally at the top of the table by the time we get to 22 matches played (ie. all played each other once home & away).

[Ozyhibby]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Why is it obvious? From memory, the OF are generally at the top of the table by the time we get to 22 matches played (ie. all played each other once home & away).

Yip. It’s not the size of the league that keeps them winning. It’s the many multiples of pounds put into their wage bill that does that.
Seria A has 20 clubs but Juventus have won 9 out the last 10 championships.
Bundesliga has 18 teams and Bayern has won 9 out of 10 titles.
How come such big leagues are not providing multiple winners?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CMurdoch]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

It's a polite way for Ron and Dave etc to get rid of the current exec.

They'll put a plan forward and if the smaller club don't agree we'll see a breakaway again.

Id imagine the old firm are in agreement with the 5 clubs but are just staying out the spotlight for a change.

Correct, this is all about self interest I.e.
Why should we share our cake with East Fife.
Why should we allow East Fife a vote on important matters.
Etc.

This is all about revenue, power and restructure to ensure the bigger teams get a bigger cut.
Easiest way to do that is set up a new governing body and freeze out the part time teams obviously after an 'independent review' paid for by the interested group.
They will obviously dress it up as something positive but a break away is what it will be.
Scotland has 4 cities of any size and this group contains only the 5 big city clubs outside of Glasgow.

The real truth is that the biggest single factor that holds Scottish football back post Bosman is our tiny population.
No strategic review or any other review can change this. It dictates everything from advertising revenues to the much discussed TV deal.
Our market is our population plus ex pats and the Irish. That won't support an EPL type circus.

Despite this we currently have the 8th best league in Europe as per the UEFA coefficient and our top league has the 7th highest average attendances in Europe.
Accordingly for all it's faults our league structure is punching well above it's weight so must be fit for purpose.
Where Scottish clubs have fallen post Bosman has been the sale of players for a fraction of their real value.
I reckon this is where increased revenue for bigger Scottish clubs can come from. Hibs are on the launchpad with this and Ron has held his nerve.

That leads us back to the beginning.
Unless this group can come up with significant new revenue streams this is simply a trojan horse with selfish ulterior motives.
Celtic and Rangers are the elephants in the room. Are they part of this or have they not been invited?

FWIW I believe Hibs and Hearts are on the rise and will go up a level next season.
Both clubs are debt free and have all but completed any infastructure projects.
Both can now seek to build increased revenues from the sale of players then reinvest in new players. Rince and repeat.

We have no real need to force smaller clubs out of the league structure to grab another few quid at their expense or exert our will on them at every turn.
In essence this has nothing to do with the number of teams in the top league or any other sporting factor.
It's all about money and power and this group may be seeking to do to other clubs what the Old Firm have done to us in the past.
There is no magic bullet only the slight of hand of selfish businessmen.
I will be watching closely.

[CapitalGreen]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Why is it obvious? From memory, the OF are generally at the top of the table by the time we get to 22 matches played (ie. all played each other once home & away).

Non-Old Firm teams average more points per game against other non-Old Firm teams. In the current set up, 21% (8/38) of a top 6 teams games are v an Old Firm team, in an 18 team league that drops to just 11% (4/36).

Last season Hibs averaged 1.7 points per game (0.5 per game v the Old Firm & 2 per game v the rest). If we applied those percentages to an 18 team set up our points per game increases to 1.81 points per game.

[Allez Hibs]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Why is it obvious? From memory, the OF are generally at the top of the table by the time we get to 22 matches played (ie. all played each other once home & away).

Top 2 after 22 games

14/15 Celtic Aberdeen 1pt between top 2
15/16 Celtic Aberdeen 4pts between top 2
16/17 Celtic Aberdeen 11pts between top 2 Rangers now in league
17/18 Celtic Aberdeen 8pts between top 2
18/19 Celtic Kilmarnock
19/20 Celtic Rangers
20/21 Rangers Celtic

See above, less games against the old firm makes a massive difference.

https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/scottish-premiership/formtabelle/wettbewerb/SC1?saison_id=2014&min=1&max=22

[Moulin Yarns]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

He did and he is right. The SPFL really should only be the full time professional clubs. There is a place for all the other clubs but not within the full time set up.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

How would Kelty Hearts get a chance of higher level football if they were denied promotion because they can't go full time? How could these teams afford to be full time? Part of the enjoyment for some clubs is the pyramid system

[Ozyhibby]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Top 2 after 22 games

14/15 Celtic Aberdeen 1pt between top 2
15/16 Celtic Aberdeen 4pts between top 2
16/17 Celtic Aberdeen
17/18 Celtic Aberdeen
18/19 Celtic Kilmarnock
19/20 Celtic Rangers
20/21 Rangers Celtic

See above, less games against the old firm makes a massive difference.

https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/scot...4&min=1&max=22

Meaningless unless you are suggesting a 22 games season? It’s the second half of a season where the depth of talent in their squads starts to really count. Injuries for them mean another internationalist coming into the team where for most other clubs it’s a youngster or another journeyman pro that fans think is lucky to be there.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Allez Hibs]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Meaningless unless you are suggesting a 22 games season? It’s the second half of a season where the depth of talent in their squads starts to really count. Injuries for them mean another internationalist coming into the team where for most other clubs it’s a youngster or another journeyman pro that fans think is lucky to be there.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Your missing the point. Less games against the old firm means a more competitive league where Hibs Hearts or Aberdeen actually have a chance of winning the league.

[Ozyhibby]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

How would Kelty Hearts get a chance of higher level football if they were denied promotion because they can't go full time? How could these teams afford to be full time? Part of the enjoyment for some clubs is the pyramid system

They have to accept there is a ceiling to what they can achieve the same as Hibs fans accept we have our limits.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Moulin Yarns]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

They have to accept there is a ceiling to what they can achieve the same as Hibs fans accept we have our limits.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Restrictive practices! I can see the lawyers loving it 😉

What limits are imposed on hibs?

[Allez Hibs]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

They have to accept there is a ceiling to what they can achieve the same as Hibs fans accept we have our limits.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Why should we accept it? When it's clearly an old firm cartel.

[Peevemor]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Your missing the point. Less games against the old firm means a more competitive league where Hibs Hearts or Aberdeen actually have a chance of winning the league.

So you say. I don't see any reason why this might be the case.

[Fergus52]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Correct, this is all about self interest I.e.
Why should we share our cake with East Fife.
Why should we allow East Fife a vote on important matters.
Etc.

This is all about revenue, power and restructure to ensure the bigger teams get a bigger cut.
Easiest way to do that is set up a new governing body and freeze out the part time teams.
They will obviously dress it up as something positive but that is what it will be.

The real truth is that the biggest single factor that holds Scottish football back post Bosman is our tiny population.
No strategic review or any other review can change this.

Despite this we currently have the 8th best league in Europe as per the UEFA coefficient and our top league has the 7th highest average attendances in Europe.
Accordingly for all it's faults our league structure is punching well above it's weight so must be fit for purpose.
Where Scottish clubs have fallen post Bosman has been the sale of players for a fraction of their real value.
I reckon this is where increased revenue for bigger Scottish clubs can come from. Hibs are on the launchpad with this and Ron has held his nerve.

That leads us back to the beginning.
Unless this group can come up with significant new revenue streams this is simply a trojan horse with selfish ulterior motives.
Celtic and Rangers are the elephants in the room. Are they part of this or have they not been invited?

FWIW I believe Hibs and Hearts are on the rise and will go up a level next season.
Both clubs are debt free and have all but completed any infastructure projects.
Both can now seek to build increased revenues from the sale of players then reinvest in new players. Rince and repeat.

We have no real need to force smaller clubs out of the league structure to grab another few quid at their expense or exert our will on them at every turn.
In essence this has nothing to do with the number of teams in the top league or any other sporting factor.
It's all about money and power and this group may be seeking to do to other clubs what the Old Firm have done to us in the past.
There is no magic bullet only the slight of hand of selfish businessmen.
I will be watching closely.

This is a good post, but I feel the current governance's inability to secure a decent TV deal is also a factor.

We have one of the worst TV deals of all the main football nations in Europe. Countries like Poland, Greece, czech republic all have lower ranked leagues than us but get far more money.

They may have bigger populations, but I'm sure I seen that countries like Denmark, Croatia and Serbia also get far more TV money than Scotland despite having a similar population.

[Allez Hibs]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

So you say. I don't see any reason why this might be the case.

For me it's simple probability as CapitalGreen pointed out in his post. If you restrict the number of points the old firm can take off teams then surely it makes the whole league more competitive and narrows the gap at the top.

[Ozyhibby]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

This is a good post, but I feel the current governance's inability to secure a decent TV deal is also a factor.

We have one of the worst TV deals of all the main football nations in Europe. Countries like Poland, Greece, czech republic all have lower ranked leagues than us but get far more money.

They may have bigger populations, but I'm sure I seen that countries like Denmark, Croatia and Serbia also get far more TV money than Scotland despite having a similar population.

Actually the TV deal we have now is quite competitive.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Allez Hibs]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Actually the TV deal we have now is quite competitive.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Eh??? The current TV deal is pathetic when compared with other leagues ranked below us in the coefficient table!

[Andy74]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

For me it's simple probability as CapitalGreen pointed out in his post. If you restrict the number of points the old firm can take off teams then surely it makes the whole league more competitive and narrows the gap at the top.

They also play each other less so you’re giving them each a couple of easier fixtures too.

[Peevemor]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

For me it's simple probability as CapitalGreen pointed out in his post. If you restrict the number of points the old firm can take off teams then surely it makes the whole league more competitive and narrows the gap at the top.

So we increase the top league to include teams like Kilmarnock, Raith Rovers, partick, etc. Who are most likely to drop points against those sides - Hibs/Hearts/Aberdeen or the old firm?

Also in the current set up, one of the OF is guaranteed to drop points 4 times per season, that would reduce to twice under your suggestion.

What makes either of the OF favourites for the league is that they have 5-10 times the spending power of anyone else. This means that they can assemble squads that will pick up points more consistently than anyone else.

I'm not saying the current set-up can't be bettered (I honestly don't know), but playing each other twice in a bigger league won't change anything in terms of the OF duopoly, but will hurt the likes of Hibs financially due to a huge drop in gate receipts - the OF with 40k+ & 50k+ STs won't be affected.

[CapitalGreen]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

They also play each other less so you’re giving them each a couple of easier fixtures too.

Applying similar methodology to Rangers last season where Celtic, Hibs and Aberdeen are treated as their ‘difficult fixtures’ sees their average points per game actually drop slightly from 2.4 to 2.37 under an 18 team set up. Taking both together would have resulted in the gap between 1st and 3rd decreasing from 29 points to 20 points.

[Ozyhibby]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Eh??? The current TV deal is pathetic when compared with other leagues ranked below us in the coefficient table!

Which ones?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[jacomo]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Simple really. Follow Ron's plan to a degree and make the top league 16-18 teams playing each other twice like virtually every other top league in Europe as we do have the highest attended league per capita in Europe and all that.

Time to end the Old Firm reliance and have a proper competitive league. There's something wrong when we are the ONLY league out of the top 20 leagues to have the same TWO clubs play in the Champions League proper since it started.

Yes to all this. I think an expanded top division is the answer. It would hopefully drive up standards over time.

The Glasgow media will try to sabotage that by saying the smaller clubs rely on Old Firm crowds and the tv deal relies on 4 OF derbies a season. But that over reliance is in reality the problem… Scottish football needs a healthier and more competitive set up, which will in turn drive attendance and commercial income.

[CMurdoch]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

This is a good post, but I feel the current governance's inability to secure a decent TV deal is also a factor.

We have one of the worst TV deals of all the main football nations in Europe. Countries like Poland, Greece, czech republic all have lower ranked leagues than us but get far more money.

They may have bigger populations, but I'm sure I seen that countries like Denmark, Croatia and Serbia also get far more TV money than Scotland despite having a similar population.

Poland has 40 million people, so that is 40 million possible customers to sell football coverage to and 40 million people for advertisers to target their wares to. So no mystery why the Polish league have a bigger TV contract than SPFL.

Assessing only the top line revenue of a TV contract in isolation does not give an accurate picture of value.
You need to work how much the TV companies are paying per game and how much revenue their coverage costs the clubs in reduced attendances.

The leagues you mention are badly attended.
The people in those countries take their teams games in on TV rather than attend so the TV deal is bigger because the companies sell the product to more customers but gate money is vastly reduced, hospitality, club shop sales etc reduced and the atmosphere at games poor.

The most accurate way to assess true match income is to add the season tickets, walk ups, hospitality etc and TV revenues together.
What you will find is that our TV deal is better than you thought.

The only significant money teams like Hibs are missing out on is transfer fees.
Take our recent European opponents Rijeka. Tiny attendances, reasonable TV deal but make their real money from transfer fees.
Take goalkeepers alone. They have sold 4 keepers in the last 8 years and brought in circa £8 million in the process.
Last keeper we sold was Goram 30 years ago!
Hibs are now on the launch pad of following this model and this is where the key to our future revenue growth really lies.

[Allez Hibs]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

So we increase the top league to include teams like Kilmarnock, Raith Rovers, partick, etc. Who are most likely to drop points against those sides - Hibs/Hearts/Aberdeen or the old firm?

Also in the current set up, one of the OF is guaranteed to drop points 4 times per season, that would reduce to twice under your suggestion.

What makes either of the OF favourites for the league is that they have 5-10 times the spending power of anyone else. This means that they can assemble squads that will pick up points more consistently than anyone else.

I'm not saying the current set-up can't be bettered (I honestly don't know), but playing each other twice in a bigger league won't change anything in terms of the OF duopoly, but will hurt the likes of Hibs financially due to a huge drop in gate receipts - the OF with 40k+ & 50k+ STs won't be affected.

You would hope though in a more competitive league more Hibs fans would attend games and they would become more appealing to youngsters to support as a consequence.

[Peevemor]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

You would hope though in a more competitive league more Hibs fans would attend games and they would become more appealing to youngsters to support as a consequence.

We can hope but I can't see it in the long term. Even in the 50s & 60s crowds were normally pretty low for unglamorous matches. The 10 team premier league was introduced partly because of this. If we take a 20 team top league, by the time we get 3/4 of the way through the season there'll be around 10 teams who have nothing to play for (with say 6 teams in with a shout for Europe & 4 scrapping it out at the bottom).

[Ozyhibby]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

We can hope but I can't see it in the long term. Even in the 50s & 60s crowds were normally pretty low for unglamorous matches. The 10 team premier league waas introduced partly because of this. If we take a 20 team top league, by the time we get 3/4 of the way through the season there'll be around 10 teams who have nothing to play for (with say 6 teams in with a shout for Europe & 4 scrapping it out at the bottom).

And you can’t replace games v Heart, Aberdeen, Rangers and Celtic with Championship teams and expect crowds to rise. Hibs and Hearts are doing pretty well at bringing in good crowds just now. Certainly they are the highest they have been in my lifetime. I can’t see how swapping those fixtures will bring in more fans?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[bigwheel]

Why anyone thinks that a bigger league with more games against worse teams and less games against the bigger teams would be more interesting is beyond me ……and why they also view this will Somehow reduce the percentage of games The old firm win is another confused point for me

[Yorkshire HFC]

The only significant money teams like Hibs are missing out on is transfer fees.
Take our recent European opponents Rijeka. Tiny attendances, reasonable TV deal but make their real money from transfer fees.
Take goalkeepers alone. They have sold 4 keepers in the last 8 years and brought in circa £8 million in the process.
Last keeper we sold was Goram 30 years ago!
Hibs are now on the launch pad of following this model and this is where the key to our future revenue growth really lies.[/QUOTE]

Basing your future on selling players is not a business model - it's a massive gamble. What happens if you don't produce any decent players?

I'd guess that teams want the conclusion of this report to be that each team should be able to sell their own tv rights. The last year showed that attendances don't matter - clubs can survive without crowds - what they want to be able to do is to buy a Japanese player and sell the games to people in Japan. Buy an American player and get people in Texas to buy the games.

I was in Cairo when Liverpool were in the CL final - it was massive. Everyone in Egypt wants to watch Liverpool games just now because Salah plays for them - when he's sold to Barcelona, then they'll all change to supporting Barcelona.

The model that worked in Scotland in 1950, and which we're still using, is not the way forward.