Fans' response to league reconstruction plans - survey results

[s.a.m]

Someone posted a survey on here a few weeks back, which a number of us filled in. The Scotland on Sunday has a brief article on the findings in today's paper, if anyone's interested:

http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com...ose.6677232.jp

[Green_one]

Good article. No-one was consulted or in favour apart from a discredited politician and a bunch of near sighted clubs who care only about themselves and have no history of doing the right thing for Scottish football.

Not to consult the fans is a PR disaster.

[Golden Bear]

The timing of the publication of the Mcleish report suggests that the findings were heavily "influenced" by the recommendations of the SPL working group.

Anyone who thinks differently is living in cloud cuckoo land.

[Saorsa]

Wonder if (the real results) of the SPL's own will ever see the light of day

[BroxburnHibee]

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

Good article. No-one was consulted or in favour apart from a discredited politician and a bunch of near sighted clubs who care only about themselves and have no history of doing the right thing for Scottish football.

Not to consult the fans is a PR disaster.

I genuinely believe that they don't give a monkey's what the fans think.

And why should they? They know that the majority of football fans will blindly follow whatever setup is on show no matter how good the product.

This season being the perfect example.

Fans are the last thing on their minds.

[TheEastTerrace]

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

Good article. No-one was consulted or in favour apart from a discredited politician and a bunch of near sighted clubs who care only about themselves and have no history of doing the right thing for Scottish football.

Not to consult the fans is a PR disaster.

They did. The real PR disaster is that they will not produce a transparent set of findings and are blatantly indicating that they give not two monkeys about the supporters in this country. Well, the chickens will come home to roost eventually.

[NaeTechnoHibby]

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

[/B]

They did. The real PR disaster is that they will not produce a transparent set of findings and are blatantly indicating that they give not two monkeys about the supporters in this country. Well, the chickens will come home to roost eventually.

Seems right from I have read too:

This is happening tomorrow

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/foot...em/9334707.stm

[sparky]

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

Seems right from I have read too:

This is happening tomorrow

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/foot...em/9334707.stm

And the final paragraphs from that article:

"The format was introduced for the 2000-2001 season, but only Celtic and Rangers have ever won the championship under the current set-up.
However, Aberdeen and Dundee United broke the Old Firm dominance under the 10-club format that ran from 1975-1998, winning four titles between them."

Problem 1: Implication appears to be that the Dons and Arabs won the title(s) due to the league consisting of 10 clubs and that the 12 team league is to blame for the Old Firm dominance. They fail to mention that non old firm wins only numbered 4 (out of 20 seasons of the 10 team system) and all were in the first 10 seasons.

Problem 2: Incorrect fact, the 10 club format was NOT contiguous from 75 - 98; we had a 12 team league for 5 of those seasons (86–87, 87–88, 91–92, 92–93, 93–94).

When you actually look up the top flight league size we have jumped about from 10 to 12 five times since the mid 70s and it's made no difference to the quality of the football or league competitiveness.

Scottish football's gradual 'decline' is far more complicated, so what is the underlying cause?

How about the "No Ball Games" signs on every bit of available grass around Scotland's housing estates for starters.

[Moulin Yarns]

One thing nobody has picked up on, as far as I can see, is that, over the same number of seasons prior to 1975, a similar number of league titles were won by 'non OF' teams, and I believe occupied 2nd place more frequently.

As for the 'no ball games' signs, they have no legal standing. A more likely reason for the decline in the quality is the demise of reserve teams, and I don't think they should be playing in lower leagues, but their own proper reserve team league where teams play on their own merit.

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

And the final paragraphs from that article:

"The format was introduced for the 2000-2001 season, but only Celtic and Rangers have ever won the championship under the current set-up.
However, Aberdeen and Dundee United broke the Old Firm dominance under the 10-club format that ran from 1975-1998, winning four titles between them."

Problem 1: Implication appears to be that the Dons and Arabs won the title(s) due to the league consisting of 10 clubs and that the 12 team league is to blame for the Old Firm dominance. They fail to mention that non old firm wins only numbered 4 (out of 20 seasons of the 10 team system) and all were in the first 10 seasons.

Problem 2: Incorrect fact, the 10 club format was NOT contiguous from 75 - 98; we had a 12 team league for 5 of those seasons (86–87, 87–88, 91–92, 92–93, 93–94).

When you actually look up the top flight league size we have jumped about from 10 to 12 five times since the mid 70s and it's made no difference to the quality of the football or league competitiveness.

Scottish football's gradual 'decline' is far more complicated, so what is the underlying cause?

How about the "No Ball Games" signs on every bit of available grass around Scotland's housing estates for starters.

[Sir David Gray]

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

I genuinely believe that they don't give a monkey's what the fans think.

And why should they? They know that the majority of football fans will blindly follow whatever setup is on show no matter how good the product.

This season being the perfect example.

Fans are the last thing on their minds.

Attendance figures will remain the same, no matter what size of league we have.

Kilmarnock won't suddenly have 10,000 people going to every home game if the league increases to 16 teams and by the same token, Rangers won't be getting 35,000 fans at Ibrox if the league goes down to 10 teams.

Football clubs are in the unique position of not having any rival for their customers' business. As long as their club performs well on the pitch, people will continue going to matches every week, regardless of how many teams are in the league or how many times a season their team plays another team.

The only thing that drives football fans away from the football grounds is poor results.

With that in mind, the chairmen will do what they think is best for their club's financial interests.

For most of them, that will mean favouring whatever structure will retain the three or four visits to their stadium by Rangers and Celtic.

[GreenCastle]

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

Attendance figures will remain the same, no matter what size of league we have.

Kilmarnock won't suddenly have 10,000 people going to every home game if the league increases to 16 teams and by the same token, Rangers won't be getting 35,000 fans at Ibrox if the league goes down to 10 teams.

Football clubs are in the unique position of not having any rival for their customers' business. As long as their club performs well on the pitch, people will continue going to matches every week, regardless of how many teams are in the league or how many times a season their team plays another team.

The only thing that drives football fans away from the football grounds is poor results.

With that in mind, the chairmen will do what they think is best for their club's financial interests.

For most of them, that will mean favouring whatever structure will retain the three or four visits to their stadium by Rangers and Celtic.

I agree with most things you post but this part in bold is way off the mark.

Football clubs have rivals for their business - just look how many buses leave Edinburgh / Livingston to go to Rangers / Celtic games. This hasn't helped Hibs / Hearts / Livingstons crowds one bit.

Poor results don't just drive fans away - the value for money / product on show drives people away - even Rangers and Celtics away supports have been lower than normal recently.

Many fans in Scotland don't go as they know the quality isn't on offer - they can drive to Sunderland / Newcastle and catch a Premiership game for the same price with usually much better players on show and without all the bigoted vile we have to put up with in Scotland which is a also a huge problem still.

[Sir David Gray]

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

I agree with most things you post but this part in bold is way off the mark.

Football clubs have rivals for their business - just look how many buses leave Edinburgh / Livingston to go to Rangers / Celtic games. This hasn't helped Hibs / Hearts / Livingstons crowds one bit.

Poor results don't just drive fans away - the value for money / product on show drives people away - even Rangers and Celtics away supports have been lower than normal recently.

Many fans in Scotland don't go as they know the quality isn't on offer - they can drive to Sunderland / Newcastle and catch a Premiership game for the same price with usually much better players on show and without all the bigoted vile we have to put up with in Scotland which is a also a huge problem still.

Yes but that's not what I was meaning. Of course people from all over Scotland go to watch Rangers and Celtic, instead of their local team but these people will have supported Rangers and Celtic from an early age. Once someone supports a certain football club, the vast majority don't then change to another team at a later date.

I agree with what you say about value for money but I just don't think that the size of our league will have that great a bearing on the attendance figures every week in Scotland.

That's why I think the authorities and the clubs will pay lip service to the wishes of the fans groups that have stated that they want a larger league and not a smaller one.

The average attendance figures of each club so far this season;

Aberdeen-10,316
Celtic-47,058
Dundee Utd-7,868
Hamilton-2,957
Hearts-13,977
Hibs-12,355
Inverness-4,956
Kilmarnock-5,897
Motherwell-5,508
Rangers-45,199
St Johnstone-4,290
St Mirren-4,691

I'm not certain that those figures will change too much, whether we stick with 12 teams, increase to 16 teams or go down to 10 teams.

[GreenCastle]

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

Yes but that's not what I was meaning. Of course people from all over Scotland go to watch Rangers and Celtic, instead of their local team but these people will have supported Rangers and Celtic from an early age. Once someone supports a certain football club, the vast majority don't then change to another team at a later date.

I agree with what you say about value for money but I just don't think that the size of our league will have that great a bearing on the attendance figures every week in Scotland.

That's why I think the authorities and the clubs will pay lip service to the wishes of the fans groups that have stated that they want a larger league and not a smaller one.

The average attendance figures of each club so far this season;

Aberdeen-10,316
Celtic-47,058
Dundee Utd-7,868
Hamilton-2,957
Hearts-13,977
Hibs-12,355
Inverness-4,956
Kilmarnock-5,897
Motherwell-5,508
Rangers-45,199
St Johnstone-4,290
St Mirren-4,691

I'm not certain that those figures will change too much, whether we stick with 12 teams, increase to 16 teams or go down to 10 teams.

In hindsight and I don't think we will get the chance to see it happen in the near future - I am almost certain crowds would increase for the lower teams plus the teams such as Hibs, Aberdeen, Yams etc if we were only to play each other twice a season.

The way things are going and the averages are DOWN again this year the SPL...then going to a 10 team league will make more people boycott it when it happens.

Regarding supporting your local team - if more supported their local team who played at a reasonable level the league would be more competitive / exciting.

There is more to it than than and I am sure we both agree the OLD FIRM are still a huge poison in the position we are in and where we are going...

[sparky]

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

One thing nobody has picked up on, as far as I can see, is that, over the same number of seasons prior to 1975, a similar number of league titles were won by 'non OF' teams, and I believe occupied 2nd place more frequently.

True:
1955–56 18 Rangers Aberdeen
1956–57 18 Rangers Hearts
1957–58 18 Hearts Rangers
1958–59 18 Rangers Hearts
1959–60 18 Hearts Kilmarnock
1960–61 18 Rangers Kilmarnock
1961–62 18 Dundee Rangers
1962–63 18 Rangers Kilmarnock
1963–64 18 Rangers Kilmarnock
1964–65 18 Kilmarnock Hearts
1965–66 18 Celtic Rangers
1966–67 18 Celtic Rangers
1967–68 18 Celtic Rangers
1968–69 18 Celtic Rangers
1969–70 18 Celtic Rangers
1970–71 18 Celtic Aberdeen
1971–72 18 Celtic Aberdeen
1972–73 18 Celtic Rangers
1973–74 18 Celtic Hibernian
1974–75 18 Rangers Hibernian

4 Non-old firm champions and 14 occasions of non old firm 1st and 2nd in the exactly 20 years of an 18 team top flight compared with the same number of non old firm champions and 12 occasions non old firm 1st and 2nd in the 10 setup.

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

As for the 'no ball games' signs, they have no legal standing.

If only I had known that 20 years ago!

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

I'm not certain that those figures will change too much, whether we stick with 12 teams, increase to 16 teams or go down to 10 teams.

The only thing that can improve league competitiveness (and perhaps attendance) is even distribution of the 'wealth'. How much more interesting would it be if all teams had the exact same wage budget? No doubt the old firm would balk at this but it would allow their glory hunting fans to support their local team as well.

In summary, I think tinkering with the number of teams (I favour increasing BTW) will have little or no effect on the league competitiveness or attendance as we are already too far down the road. It all comes down to lack of money and uneven distribution of the amount we do have.

[Moulin Yarns]

Thanks for doing the research Sparky, it confirms my suspicion. The statistics used by the working party ignore the facts that it was lactually ess competitive after 1975 compared to a similar period before 1975. Indeed, go back another couple of Years and you find Hibs winning the damn thing.

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

True:
1955–56 18 Rangers Aberdeen
1956–57 18 Rangers Hearts
1957–58 18 Hearts Rangers
1958–59 18 Rangers Hearts
1959–60 18 Hearts Kilmarnock
1960–61 18 Rangers Kilmarnock
1961–62 18 Dundee Rangers
1962–63 18 Rangers Kilmarnock
1963–64 18 Rangers Kilmarnock
1964–65 18 Kilmarnock Hearts
1965–66 18 Celtic Rangers
1966–67 18 Celtic Rangers
1967–68 18 Celtic Rangers
1968–69 18 Celtic Rangers
1969–70 18 Celtic Rangers
1970–71 18 Celtic Aberdeen
1971–72 18 Celtic Aberdeen
1972–73 18 Celtic Rangers
1973–74 18 Celtic Hibernian
1974–75 18 Rangers Hibernian

4 Non-old firm champions and 14 occasions of non old firm 1st and 2nd in the exactly 20 years of an 18 team top flight compared with the same number of non old firm champions and 12 occasions non old firm 1st and 2nd in the 10 setup.