Rangers and Celtic - 27 years old firm dominance in league - healthy for SPL future ?

[GreenCastle]

Are there any other leagues in the world where two teams have been so dominant in the last 27 years ?

Looking at this link - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ball_champions - the yams managed to split the Old Firm in 2005 / 2006 and between 84 and 94 there were a few teams who managed to split them again.

But what I wanted to discuss is the future of SPL and when will the next time we have a non Old Firm winner ?

I think as the top 2 lose more money the gap will shorten but 3rd place teams still seem quite far away from ever challenging - the richer still seem to be getting richer with the uneven T.V money split / prize money for league placings.

It's not healthy for the SPL surely having two teams so dominant and other fans / attendances seem to be reflecting that every season. Will attendances ever rise again ? (cheaper tickets /food costs/kick off times/summer football ?)

Thoughts?

[WhileTheChief..]

When you look at the amount of prize money in £'s instead of % its a pretty insignificant amount to the old firm. You could give them nowt for league placings and their wage budget would still be at least 4x hours probably.

The way forward could be to pool every single bit of revenue generated by all 12 teams then divide it equally amongst the 12. Might work in N Korea but can't see it taking on here I'm afraid!!

[seanshow]

The argument was always that 2 or 3 teams will always dominate leagues around Europe, But in other leagues over the same timescale there has been a certain amount of rotation, like England for example where all these teams have either won or came very close to winning the League -
Chelsea,Manchester United,Arsenal,Liverpool,Newcastle,Everton,Blackbu rn Rovers,Leeds Utd,Aston Villa.

In the Spl its always the same two apart from that once when the jamboids finishing 20 points behind in 2nd place or whatever it was...........It's time for a NFL style player draft system, And even revenues. :)

[Sir David Gray]

Since 1985-86 season, there has only been two winners of the Scottish league.

In other leagues, over the same period it is;

England-7
Spain-5
Italy-7
Germany-6
Holland-5
France-9
Portugal-4

Rangers and Celtic's duopoly over Scottish football has lasted for many decades now and I cannot see a time when that is ever going to change.

Despite often being described as weak and really poor, Rangers and Celtic are already around 20 points clear of Motherwell in 3rd place and there's still almost half the season left to play.

It doesn't say too much for the rest.

[Earl o'Montrose]

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

Since 1985-86 season, there has only been two winners of the Scottish league.

In other leagues, over the same period it is;

England-7
Spain-5
Italy-7
Germany-6
Holland-5
France-9
Portugal-4

Rangers and Celtic's duopoly over Scottish football has lasted for many decades now and I cannot see a time when that is ever going to change.

Despite often being described as weak and really poor, Rangers and Celtic are already around 20 points clear of Motherwell in 3rd place and there's still almost half the season left to play.

It doesn't say too much for the rest.

It gets worse than this.
Kilmarnock won the title in season 66-67 (by beating the Yams on the last day of the season in a winner takes all title decider ).
Since then, there has only ever been 4 seasons when the top league in Scotland has been won by a non OF club.
Think about that; only 4 times out of the last 44 years have the OF not won the title.

[PeeJay]

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

It gets worse than this.
Kilmarnock won the title in season 66-67 (by beating the Yams on the last day of the season in a winner takes all title decider ).
Since then, there has only ever been 4 seasons when the top league in Scotland has been won by a non OF club.
Think about that; only 4 times out of the last 44 years have the OF not won the title.

Wasn't that 65-66?

[Purple & Green]

Prior to 95, Rangers & Celtic had finished 1-2 in five consecutive seasons only twice before in history - 1917-1922 & 65-70.

From 95 onwards, apart from one solitary season in 2006 Rangers and Celtic have finished 1-2 in 17 seasons on the bounce.

Ergo, the situation we have now is unparalleled in Scottish Football history - a generation of old firm dominance and I think that is very bad for the development of our game.

[down the slope]

It was ever thus...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ball_champions
between the wars the uglies dominated as well , for someone else to win it we would have to throw them out the league !.

[Earl o'Montrose]

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

Wasn't that 65-66?

Yeah, cheers. Insomnia last night, so was posting at 4am when the grey cells weren't too active

[GreenCastle]

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

Since 1985-86 season, there has only been two winners of the Scottish league.

In other leagues, over the same period it is;

England-7
Spain-5
Italy-7
Germany-6
Holland-5
France-9
Portugal-4

Rangers and Celtic's duopoly over Scottish football has lasted for many decades now and I cannot see a time when that is ever going to change.

Despite often being described as weak and really poor, Rangers and Celtic are already around 20 points clear of Motherwell in 3rd place and there's still almost half the season left to play.

It doesn't say too much for the rest.

Thanks for that - that's what I was hoping to find out.

In every league there are dominant teams but it seems ours is really just 2 sadly and that's affecting the state of the game.

I believe the attendances would improve if the league was more even and obviously kick off times and prices are very important also.

The problems we have is the SFA does still seem to be very Old Firm biased and they don't want the status quo to change.

[Finbar]

You expect Rangers and Celtic to dominate, they're the biggest teams. But you would expect other teams to challenge and occasionally win the league. There were times in the 50s, 60s and 80s when this happened. If we want a more competitive league we need to look at what was done differently in those times. For a start the gate money must be shared out more equally, IF we want a more competitive league. I certainly do.

[GreenCastle]

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

You expect Rangers and Celtic to dominate, they're the biggest teams. But you would expect other teams to challenge and occasionally win the league. There were times in the 50s, 60s and 80s when this happened. If we want a more competitive league we need to look at what was done differently in those times. For a start the gate money must be shared out more equally, IF we want a more competitive league. I certainly do.

It's difficult as I believe if a team such as Hibs spend money updating their stadium then they should reap the rewards.

Who was the last team in the SPL to actually improve their stadium - Hibs have possibly suffered due to sorting there infrastructure first.

The Old Firm have the largest fan bases but remember when they aren't doing well which has happened over the years there crowds decrease. Success usually brings in fans.

One of the main issues of the gap is the T.V money for domestic and Europe - especially the Champions League. That's why I often hope for Rangers or Celtic to fail in Europe early so they don't get more money - making the divide wider.

I do believe it is possible for a team outwith the Old Firm to challenge if only a little investment was made - but whose actively seeking to put money into the league right now - that's the depressing part.

[bournehibby]

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

Yeah, cheers. Insomnia last night, so was posting at 4am when the grey cells weren't too active

Actually think it was '64/'65

bh

[Exiled Hibby]

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

Who was the last team in the SPL to actually improve their stadium - Hibs have possibly suffered due to sorting there infrastructure first.

St Mirren got a whole new stadium AND

I believe the yams put a sun roof in the main stand at PBS

[HibsMax]

http://www.hibs.net/showthread.php?2...%29&highlight=

[GreenCastle]

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

http://www.hibs.net/showthread.php?2...ld)&highlight=

Thanks - I remember reading that on here.

Is there any action which could be taken by the 10 other SPL clubs to close the gap or are the rest just going to keep suffering and aim for 3rd or 2nd for the rest of time ?

[GreenCastle]

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

St Mirren got a whole new stadium AND

I believe the yams put a sun roof in the main stand at PBS

Forgot about St Mirren - fair play - they have upgraded facilities.

The yams...don't get me started on the state of that pink bus shelter and health hazard of a main stand - not quite sure how it's still open

[HibsMax]

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

Thanks - I remember reading that on here.

Is there any action which could be taken by the 10 other SPL clubs to close the gap or are the rest just going to keep suffering and aim for 3rd or 2nd for the rest of time ?

I don't know. There doesn't seem to be much interest in the Scottish game to make it competitive. The problem is that the two big teams in Scotland dwarf the others so it's difficult to be heard. The vocal majority (majority in terms of size, fanbase, etc.) will always drown out everyone else even though they only represent the minority. If the SPL really cared about the product they would recognise that it's totally biased right now and they would make proposals of ways to make it more competitive. There are things they could do. They could "reward" teams for finishing in last place (I mean above the relegation spot) e.g., give them some sort of cash boost to help them bolster their sqaud for the next season. The problem as it stands right now is the dominant teams continue to be strong whereas there is nothing in place to help out the rest. Why should they help out the rest? To make the league competitive. A competitive league would probably make for a more entertaining league as well. Might make TV deals easier to come by. That's just one suggestion. Whatever they do they need to make the league more competitive otherwise the majority of the teams playing know they are playing for 3rd place. Yay!

[ancient hibee]

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

It gets worse than this.
Kilmarnock won the title in season 66-67 (by beating the Yams on the last day of the season in a winner takes all title decider ).
Since then, there has only ever been 4 seasons when the top league in Scotland has been won by a non OF club.
Think about that; only 4 times out of the last 44 years have the OF not won the title.

It was 64'65 and neither of the OF were in the top 4.

[DCI Gene Hunt]

The answer to the OP's question is most definately NO. It is not healthy for the SPL in the current or the future.

People ask so many questions about the SPL.

Why is the SPL such a poor standard?
Why is interest declining in the SPL?
What can be done to improve the SPL?
Etc.

The problem is that if two teams win everything then there's not much in it for anyone else taking part. Rankers and Smelltick are largely victims of their own success... it's up to everyone else to compete but sadly nobody can compete with the ££££££ that the Ugly Sisters have. It's a bit like Navid's Corner Shop trying to compete with Tesco.

Also, let's not forget the considerable political power said two clubs have in the SPL and its running. Without getting into Yammish/Sellickish conspiracy theories you can't deny that they have the say in how things are run.

What to do about it? Don't know myself, but the easiest way would be to chuck the Weegies out. No bigotry/shame, more competitive league/cups, much fairer run SPL

Gene

[Eyrie]

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

the easiest way would be to chuck the Weegies out. No bigotry/shame, more competitive league/cups, much fairer run SPL

[GreenCastle]

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

The answer to the OP's question is most definately NO. It is not healthy for the SPL in the current or the future.

People ask so many questions about the SPL.

Why is the SPL such a poor standard?
Why is interest declining in the SPL?
What can be done to improve the SPL?
Etc.

The problem is that if two teams win everything then there's not much in it for anyone else taking part. Rankers and Smelltick are largely victims of their own success... it's up to everyone else to compete but sadly nobody can compete with the ££££££ that the Ugly Sisters have. It's a bit like Navid's Corner Shop trying to compete with Tesco.

Also, let's not forget the considerable political power said two clubs have in the SPL and its running. Without getting into Yammish/Sellickish conspiracy theories you can't deny that they have the say in how things are run.

What to do about it? Don't know myself, but the easiest way would be to chuck the Weegies out. No bigotry/shame, more competitive league/cups, much fairer run SPL

Gene

The only real positive I can think of are the cup competitions - the real only chance teams have to succeed. Obviously Hibs and the Scottish Cup don't go together but games like Ayr v Killie today and other times when there are teams outwith the Old Firm take large crowds to Hampden or other venues show there are fan bases there - but each week and over the season there is no real incentive except to get 3rd / top 6 or avoid relegation - rather than go for 1st or 2nd place.

Change needs to happen - but don't think it will before it's too late.

[The_Todd]

At the end of the day the Weegies want out, and most non OF fans want them out. OK, so the 10 clubs don't really want the OF out but the fans do.

The OF have no intention, desire or need to improve the SPL, the status quo suits them fine for as long as they're "imprisoned" in the SPL so losing the Glasgow pair is the only option for any change IMO. Of course, this heavily depends on the OF having somewhere to actually go.

But that in itself has its own perils. Loss of TV revenue. Goodbye sponsorship. Standards will slip further. But is that all that bad when at least there will be competition? It's a tough one.

[NAE NOOKIE]

The honest truth is that most leagues in Europe are dominated by 2 or 3 clubs and in countries a lot bigger than Scotland.

But in these countries there is always hope that somebody will come through with a challenge from time to time. The problem with Scotland is that there is no hope. So heres my radical solution.

Celtic & Rangers split into 4 clubs from 2.

Do a survey to find out how many OF fans live in Glasgow and how many dont. When you have the figures bulldoze Darkheid & Castle Greyskull and build 4 stadiums with capacity in keeping with the number of fans each team would have.

Bobs yer uncle, another 2 teams in the expanded SPL but perhaps with a little less dominance.

[sparky]

Firstly, it would be incredibly simple to make the SPL competitive. Split ALL league revenues equally. Not just gate and TV money but everything from shirt sales to half time pies. All teams would then have exactly the same amount of cash to spend on transfer fees and wages. Remember it is supposed to be sport, not free market capitalism. Of course there is no way even the gate money will ever be split again.

Secondly, those calling for the Old Firm to 'leave' have to take into account that should by some miracle they actually did get to join the English setup they are not actually going anywhere. They will still be playing in Glasgow. They'd continue to suck the life (or call it money/fans) out of the remaining Scottish game as they'd be an even more attractive proposition for fans despite not being able to win leagues every other year. The remaining SPL would indeed be more competitive but would suffer greatly IMHO.

[Vini1875]

I think only having to play each other twice would make all the difference. Less games would make derbies hugely important, so more fans would. The OF would drop points over a home and away game to clubs like Hibs, hearts, Aberdeen and DUFC. Less games would also make the cup games bigger. The fact is it is monotonous ar present.

[1950's hibbie]

After the consistency of 27 years of total domination, it hardly seems credible without major renovation of the SPL that another 27 years is not a very high probability. Crowd numbers have dropped everywhere, teams have been in and out of financial difficulties, including Rangers. The present set up of fixtures maintains the status quo, and the extreme leaning to the west as far as SFA/SPL decisions and thinking is concerned , as well as the cloned attitude of referees to the west are all signals of pending serious problems for Scottish football.

It cannot all be blamed on all seated stadiums, but look at those old archived videos of Easter Road in the fifties/sixties, packed to the gunnels of rabid supporters, standing shoulder to shoulder like a sea of people. Scottish football had something in these days where has it gone and why, to me the SPL/SFA must accept total responsibility, they are so involved in Rangers/Celtic, that they cannot see that the disease is systemic, and if they do not attack the problem, the patient will die.

[GreenCastle]

Some very good points made - the worrying thing is that not one person has said they think the dominance is healthy.

Even Rangers and Celtic fans must get fed up with the lack of competition. Ibrox didn't look full today and from what I've heard Celtic games haven't been selling out either.

They have become a victim of their own success - winning - spending - buying other teams talent and now stuck in the SPL.

They are stuck as England doesn't need them or want them - they would never be allowed to play in England unless they started off at the bottom of the pile - but who in England would suffer and the old firm wouldn't want that.

People have to make more of this dominance and the 10 other SPL clubs should stand together and do something for the sake of the game.

Mad Vlad may be bonkers but he does understand the monopoly the Glasgow teams have on the league.

I do also agree playing them only twice a season would mean losing less points to them - but the chairmen at clubs are so blind by the money they won't risk it. I think attendances would improve as you would only get a chance to see that one team at once at home if you didn't draw them in the cup.

25,000 for Ayr v Killie today....says it all

[GreenCastle]

Thought I would bring this back up considering everything which is going on at Rangers - a real chance to break the mould possibly ?

Does the SPL really need Rangers - I really don't think they do - Celtic would become more successful most certainly but would give other teams more chance to get 2nd or 3rd.

Thoughts?

[jgl07]

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

It gets worse than this.
Kilmarnock won the title in season 66-67 (by beating the Yams on the last day of the season in a winner takes all title decider ).
Since then, there has only ever been 4 seasons when the top league in Scotland has been won by a non OF club.
Think about that; only 4 times out of the last 44 years have the OF not won the title.

Aberdeen 1980, 1984, 1985

Dundee United 1983

That can't be right.

What about 1986?

Hang on though!