hibs.net Messageboard

 

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast
Results 91 to 120 of 124
  1. #91
    Quote Originally Posted by Peevemor View Post
    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).
    My experience of the days of bigger leagues was that the aim of many clubs was to avoid relegation. Once it became clear,usually due to at least one club becoming detached,that a club would be safe instead of a relaxation with good football being played in an effort to move up that in fact many meaningless games took place. Tom Hart was a driving force in smaller leagues. He reasoned that the more games clubs played against the OF the more used they would become to the pressure of playing them. Although Hibs didnít get a huge amount of success Aberdeen certainly did as did Dundee United to a lesser extent. The only pity was that lack of ambition by owners along with poor financial decisions meant that eventually the OF re established themselves at the top of the Scottish game.


  2. Log in to remove the advert

  3. #92
    @hibs.net private member worcesterhibby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Worcester, Sassanachland
    Posts
    3,057
    Quote Originally Posted by CMurdoch View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

    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.
    The population of Scotland is 5.4million

    The population of Norway is 5.4 million

    The TV Deal for Scotland brings in 30 million

    The TV Deal for Norway brings in 63 million

    It's possible to earn significantly more from our TV deal without increasing our population. However it would involve far more live matches being shown, which might have a negative impact on attendances. We currently allow 48 live matches, plus play-offs. Norway currently allow 240 live matches.

    Maybe the best way of looking at TV deals is to see how much money they bring in per head of population of the country. If we ignore England, Italy, Spain and Germany as they have a truly global reach rather than a mostly national reach then here are some relevant figures:

    TV Money per head of population

    Scotland - £5.50

    Greece - £5
    Portugal - £12.6
    Poland - £1.24
    Austria - £3
    Belgium - £9
    Netherlands - £4
    Norway - £12
    Sweden - £5

    As you can see Portugal and Norway are over performing but both allow almost all matches to be broadcast live

    Greece, Netherlands, Sweden are in the same ballpark as Scotland

    Poland and Austria are under performing

    We need to stop judging out TV income by England which brings in £29 per head of population and look at more comparable leagues

  4. #93
    @hibs.net private member Moulin Yarns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Spinning a Yarn
    Posts
    20,853
    Quote Originally Posted by worcesterhibby View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    The population of Scotland is 5.4million

    The population of Norway is 5.4 million

    The TV Deal for Scotland brings in 30 million

    The TV Deal for Norway brings in 63 million

    It's possible to earn significantly more from our TV deal without increasing our population. However it would involve far more live matches being shown, which might have a negative impact on attendances. We currently allow 48 live matches, plus play-offs. Norway currently allow 240 live matches.

    Maybe the best way of looking at TV deals is to see how much money they bring in per head of population of the country. If we ignore England, Italy, Spain and Germany as they have a truly global reach rather than a mostly national reach then here are some relevant figures:

    TV Money per head of population

    Scotland - £5.50

    Greece - £5
    Portugal - £12.6
    Poland - £1.24
    Austria - £3
    Belgium - £9
    Netherlands - £4
    Norway - £12
    Sweden - £5

    As you can see Portugal and Norway are over performing but both allow almost all matches to be broadcast live

    Greece, Netherlands, Sweden are in the same ballpark as Scotland

    Poland and Austria are under performing

    We need to stop judging out TV income by England which brings in £29 per head of population and look at more comparable leagues
    Another way of looking at it is what is paid per league game.

    Scotland £625,000

    Norway £262,500
    WASH YOUR HANDS, WEAR A MASK, KEEP 2M APART AND GET THE VACCINE

  5. #94
    First Team Regular
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Location
    Bellshill
    Posts
    638
    Gamer IDs

    PSN ID: Dave1875
    Quote Originally Posted by worcesterhibby View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    The population of Scotland is 5.4million

    The population of Norway is 5.4 million

    The TV Deal for Scotland brings in 30 million

    The TV Deal for Norway brings in 63 million

    It's possible to earn significantly more from our TV deal without increasing our population. However it would involve far more live matches being shown, which might have a negative impact on attendances. We currently allow 48 live matches, plus play-offs. Norway currently allow 240 live matches.

    Maybe the best way of looking at TV deals is to see how much money they bring in per head of population of the country. If we ignore England, Italy, Spain and Germany as they have a truly global reach rather than a mostly national reach then here are some relevant figures:

    TV Money per head of population

    Scotland - £5.50

    Greece - £5
    Portugal - £12.6
    Poland - £1.24
    Austria - £3
    Belgium - £9
    Netherlands - £4
    Norway - £12
    Sweden - £5

    As you can see Portugal and Norway are over performing but both allow almost all matches to be broadcast live

    Greece, Netherlands, Sweden are in the same ballpark as Scotland

    Poland and Austria are under performing

    We need to stop judging out TV income by England which brings in £29 per head of population and look at more comparable leagues
    Tv deal becomes more difficult when you take into consideration the comparable nations you mention will have their own national broadcaster we donít have that, BBC Scotland wonít have £60m+ to spend on the football and probably canít commit to the amount of games that sum would require them to show, Skys commitments are elsewhere we are already well aware of that and BT seem to be winding down.

    SPFL TV Would maybe be an option but how thatís set up would need some real thinking, if clubs are handed the income on a stream by stream basis the gap between larger supported clubs and the smaller would grow and a Netflix style monthly sub model would probably have to be pretty steep for supporters to guarentee it covers or goes above the deal already in place, it will also likely hit clubs at the gate when the winter months kick in itís easier to sit on the couch than attend in horrible conditions.

  6. #95
    @hibs.net private member jacomo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    exile
    Posts
    19,530
    Quote Originally Posted by Ozyhibby View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I canít see how adding 6 teams weaker than the current 12 improves any league? Surely if you want to improve a league you ask better teams to join?


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

    But those teams would likely improve over time no? A bigger league might encourage fresh investment into clubs like Dunfermline, Dundee, Kilmarnock etc.

  7. #96
    @hibs.net private member WhileTheChief..'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    The East
    Age
    49
    Posts
    5,319
    Does anyone actually have a clue about how these things work?

    I don't. But I do know that TV companies don't just pick a number out of thin air.

    They know exactly who watches what for how long. This is the info the ad agencies use to sell ad space.

    They in turn know exactly what every second of screen time is worth.

    So, ultimately they come up with a figure based on loads of factors. The SPFL can then try and haggle for a bit more I guess.

    But what's the alternative? Sky are the only show in town and they know it. Premier Sports were never about to step up and offer more. Who else is there?

    If Scottish Football was as desirable as some make out we'd have broadcasters fighting over themselves to show it. But it's not so there is isn't.

    When teams in our top league barely get 5000 of their own fans in their stadium, it's a bit rich to expect a broadcaster to pay them zillions to put it on the telly. The demand simply isn't there.

    Maybe in other countries there are several broadcasters meaning competition? Maybe some of them charge £100pm to watch the football?

    Just saying that country X gets more than us therefore our deal is crap is pretty much just throwing toys out prams.

  8. #97
    @hibs.net private member jacomo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    exile
    Posts
    19,530
    Quote Originally Posted by WhileTheChief.. View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Does anyone actually have a clue about how these things work?

    I don't. But I do know that TV companies don't just pick a number out of thin air.

    They know exactly who watches what for how long. This is the info the ad agencies use to sell ad space.

    They in turn know exactly what every second of screen time is worth.

    So, ultimately they come up with a figure based on loads of factors. The SPFL can then try and haggle for a bit more I guess.

    But what's the alternative? Sky are the only show in town and they know it. Premier Sports were never about to step up and offer more. Who else is there?

    If Scottish Football was as desirable as some make out we'd have broadcasters fighting over themselves to show it. But it's not so there is isn't.

    When teams in our top league barely get 5000 of their own fans in their stadium, it's a bit rich to expect a broadcaster to pay them zillions to put it on the telly. The demand simply isn't there.

    Maybe in other countries there are several broadcasters meaning competition? Maybe some of them charge £100pm to watch the football?

    Just saying that country X gets more than us therefore our deal is crap is pretty much just throwing toys out prams.

    All of this is a very good argument for change.

    One unfortunate consequence of the internet is that money and attention becomes ever more focused on a smaller and smaller elite, with everyone else scrabbling for pennies.

    I do wonder if the frequency of league OF games (and the Edinburgh derby) actually diminishes their appeal. Drop them to twice a season and their value would increase.

  9. #98
    @hibs.net private member Moulin Yarns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Spinning a Yarn
    Posts
    20,853
    Quote Originally Posted by jacomo View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    All of this is a very good argument for change.

    One unfortunate consequence of the internet is that money and attention becomes ever more focused on a smaller and smaller elite, with everyone else scrabbling for pennies.

    I do wonder if the frequency of league OF games (and the Edinburgh derby) actually diminishes their appeal. Drop them to twice a season and their value would increase.
    Aye, familiarity breeds contempt.


    I know that a lot of people will watch whatever football is on the screen. Me, I will watch hibs, sometimes Scotland but rarely will I go out of my way to watch another game that has no interest for me.

    Let's face it, one week we have some team against rangers and the following week it will be another team against Celtc. Very rarely is there a game on telly that doesn't involve one of Them! I get it, the TV companies want the maximum audience, but they are alienating half the viewing public.. IMHO

  10. #99
    @hibs.net private member Lendo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Profile pic on Etsy as a print
    Posts
    1,458
    Quote Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Aye, familiarity breeds contempt.


    I know that a lot of people will watch whatever football is on the screen. Me, I will watch hibs, sometimes Scotland but rarely will I go out of my way to watch another game that has no interest for me.

    Let's face it, one week we have some team against rangers and the following week it will be another team against Celtc. Very rarely is there a game on telly that doesn't involve one of Them! I get it, the TV companies want the maximum audience, but they are alienating half the viewing public.. IMHO
    The Old Firm derbies have been a boring, stale foul-fest for years now, perhaps even going back to before the original Rangers died. The only thing that it had going for it was the vile atmosphere, but if away fans arenít coming back any time soon even that might die on its arse.

    Two games a year (plus their inevitable meeting in cups) might start to return some life to the game.

  11. #100
    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.[/QUOTE]

    Really, IMO teams selling their own TV rights would only suit the Old Firm.A lot of folk using IPTV and other free ways of streaming games would also cut deep into sales.That is to say nothing of the reduction in attendances and ancilliary sales such as match day food and drink and club shop sales.As for your chat about Salah. That is corporate circus football that has no relevance to Hibs. As for still using the same model as 1950 that is total rubbish.The model then was just to live for the day and spend all their money on players and wages.No thought for the future. No development. Players training in public parks.This amateur model was followed by Hibs until they finally ran the club right into the ground and we almost went out of business. At that point 30 years ago we were debt ridden and our ground was a slum collection of wooden and tin huts and the players trained in public parks. .The Hibs model after that was to live within our means and use monies raised to reduce our debt, rebuild our ground and build our own training centre. After 30 years Hibs and indeed Hearts have repaired the damage caused by the 1950-90 model and are ready to improve the team year on year and make progress in European competition.
    Last edited by CMurdoch; 15-09-2021 at 06:21 PM.

  12. #101
    Coaching Staff Smartie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Age
    43
    Posts
    15,417
    Quote Originally Posted by WhileTheChief.. View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Does anyone actually have a clue about how these things work?

    I don't. But I do know that TV companies don't just pick a number out of thin air.

    They know exactly who watches what for how long. This is the info the ad agencies use to sell ad space.

    They in turn know exactly what every second of screen time is worth.

    So, ultimately they come up with a figure based on loads of factors. The SPFL can then try and haggle for a bit more I guess.

    But what's the alternative? Sky are the only show in town and they know it. Premier Sports were never about to step up and offer more. Who else is there?

    If Scottish Football was as desirable as some make out we'd have broadcasters fighting over themselves to show it. But it's not so there is isn't.

    When teams in our top league barely get 5000 of their own fans in their stadium, it's a bit rich to expect a broadcaster to pay them zillions to put it on the telly. The demand simply isn't there.

    Maybe in other countries there are several broadcasters meaning competition? Maybe some of them charge £100pm to watch the football?

    Just saying that country X gets more than us therefore our deal is crap is pretty much just throwing toys out prams.
    I remember seeing the Sky UK viewing figures for English and Scottish games a few years back. Obviously the English figures were bigger, but they weren't by the many orders of magnitude you might expect, or certainly that the different deals would lead you to expect. I think it might have been during Sevco's banter years, and the numbers they were drawing for games against the likes of Stenhousemuir were pretty eye watering tbh. Maybe the most hun-positive thing I'll ever say - is that there sure are a lot of them.

    The OF drew big figures but even games involving "other Scottish teams" drew decent audiences.

    They were way out of kilter with what you might expect, based on the money put into English and Scottish football by Sky.

    Obviously there is then the global interest, where the English league will clearly appeal more to a global audience.

  13. #102
    @hibs.net private member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    7,051
    Quote Originally Posted by Irish_Steve View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Nothing is going to happen when we still have the farcical 11 - 1 voting system

    Agree and it is the Dons fault we have that. Seems a bit ironic them putting forward a proposal that won't happen because they have essentially given the New, New Firm the casting vote

  14. #103
    @hibs.net private member jacomo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    exile
    Posts
    19,530
    Quote Originally Posted by Smartie View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I remember seeing the Sky UK viewing figures for English and Scottish games a few years back. Obviously the English figures were bigger, but they weren't by the many orders of magnitude you might expect, or certainly that the different deals would lead you to expect. I think it might have been during Sevco's banter years, and the numbers they were drawing for games against the likes of Stenhousemuir were pretty eye watering tbh. Maybe the most hun-positive thing I'll ever say - is that there sure are a lot of them.

    The OF drew big figures but even games involving "other Scottish teams" drew decent audiences.

    They were way out of kilter with what you might expect, based on the money put into English and Scottish football by Sky.

    Obviously there is then the global interest, where the English league will clearly appeal more to a global audience.

    Secvo were great for the lower leagues, really boosted attendance figures and audiences. I think itís Celticís turn next

  15. #104
    Coaching Staff jgl07's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Merchiston
    Posts
    7,707
    The problem with Scottish football is the dominance of ĎRangersí and Celtic. The last time any other team won the League was in the early 1980s when Aberdeen and Dundee United were still competitive. That is not far off 40 years where two teams have a monopoly on League titles.

    Compare that to England where Manchester City, Manchester United, Chelsea, Leicester City and Liverpool have all won League titles in the last ten years. Going back to the mid-1980s, you could add Arsenal, Blackburn Rovers, Leeds United, and Everton to that list. Extend it back a few more years and you could include Nottingham Forest, Derby County, and Aston Villa.

    Until a formula is devised that can somehow break the dominance of the bigot brothers in Scotland, I donít see much changing. I am not sure if or how this can be done.

  16. #105
    @hibs.net private member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    481
    Quote Originally Posted by Ozyhibby View Post
    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
    I agree with you here Ozy. Iíd presume there would be specific criteria for what F/T Pro meant in terms of 1st team pool and academy. How many clubs then? 24 -28 perhaps. Promotion relegation between 1st and 2nd tier. No automatic relegation from tier 2 but maybe go back to re election of bottom club if bottom on consecutive seasons. How would you divide the leagues if 24, 26 or 28? Looking at the current positions the only decent sized club not in the current top 24 is Falkirk. Queens Park are 23 , Montrose 24, Dumbarton 25, Falkirk 26, Cove Rangers 27 and Airdrie 28

    12/12, similar to now
    14/12, safer for some ? More attacking football, more younger players play earlier. Even split in tier1
    14/14 as above but more so
    14/12 as above
    16/12 Needs splits through league , can still get 4 OF matches and probably Edinburgh derbies. Even more young players?
    16/10 as above just 2 less teams

  17. #106
    Coaching Staff HoboHarry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    8,595
    Hope this review is actually read and considered, unlike the Henry McLeish review which was filed under trash while being laughed at by the ugly sisters....

  18. #107
    Coaching Staff Smartie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Age
    43
    Posts
    15,417
    Quote Originally Posted by jgl07 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    The problem with Scottish football is the dominance of ĎRangersí and Celtic. The last time any other team won the League was in the early 1980s when Aberdeen and Dundee United were still competitive. That is not far off 40 years where two teams have a monopoly on League titles.

    Compare that to England where Manchester City, Manchester United, Chelsea, Leicester City and Liverpool have all won League titles in the last ten years. Going back to the mid-1980s, you could add Arsenal, Blackburn Rovers, Leeds United, and Everton to that list. Extend it back a few more years and you could include Nottingham Forest, Derby County, and Aston Villa.

    Until a formula is devised that can somehow break the dominance of the bigot brothers in Scotland, I donít see much changing. I am not sure if or how this can be done.
    Itís interesting that ďthe next biggest 5Ē are getting together to discuss what might be done. This is the size of Scottish club who have underperformed quite horrendously over the past 30 years or so. Rangers and Celtic do what they do, their big crowds and European appearances generate results generally proportionate to that revenue. Clubs like St Johnstone, Ross County, Motherwell should really be applauded for the trophies theyíve won and players theyíve produced.

    The 5 clubs mentioned? Ok, Aberdeen havenít been relegated, but between Hibs, Hearts, Dundee United and Dundee youíve got a couple of relegations each. Hearts and Dundee (at least once) have an insolvency event. Thereís the odd cup win in there, and we shouldnít easily dismiss the work these clubs have had to do since Hillsborough to get their grounds in order but the underachievement of Scotlandís biggest clubs out with the OF over the past quarter century or so has been shameful.

    Iím glad theyíre getting together to discuss it but remain a wee bit cynical about what they might come up with.

  19. #108
    Ultimate Slaver Keith_M's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    In der HŲlle
    Posts
    30,753
    Perhaps the proposal should be that Rangers and Celtc only get two points for a win and the other teams still get three.

    That would reduce the gap at the top quite a bit... though Rangers would still have won the league last season, ahead of Hibs in second place.

  20. #109
    Quote Originally Posted by chippy View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I agree with you here Ozy. Iíd presume there would be specific criteria for what F/T Pro meant in terms of 1st team pool and academy. How many clubs then? 24 -28 perhaps. Promotion relegation between 1st and 2nd tier. No automatic relegation from tier 2 but maybe go back to re election of bottom club if bottom on consecutive seasons. How would you divide the leagues if 24, 26 or 28? Looking at the current positions the only decent sized club not in the current top 24 is Falkirk. Queens Park are 23 , Montrose 24, Dumbarton 25, Falkirk 26, Cove Rangers 27 and Airdrie 28

    12/12, similar to now
    14/12, safer for some ? More attacking football, more younger players play earlier. Even split in tier1
    14/14 as above but more so
    14/12 as above
    16/12 Needs splits through league , can still get 4 OF matches and probably Edinburgh derbies. Even more young players?
    16/10 as above just 2 less teams
    So then we just chuck the rest of the pyramid under a bus for our own self interest? Fantastic idea that.

  21. #110
    Coaching Staff Ozyhibby's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Edinburgh
    Posts
    25,728
    Quote Originally Posted by hibbysam View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    So then we just chuck the rest of the pyramid under a bus for our own self interest? Fantastic idea that.
    In what way Chuck them under a bus? They would still exist just not as part of the professional set up.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  22. #111
    @hibs.net private member Moulin Yarns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Spinning a Yarn
    Posts
    20,853
    Quote Originally Posted by Ozyhibby View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    In what way Chuck them under a bus? They would still exist just not as part of the professional set up.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    With no incentive to progress?????

    What I said about Kelty Hearts earlier, these 'wee' clubs live to be part of the 'big boys'

    these 'wee' teams are admitted to the league on merit, remember, that's how Livingston started, Ferranti Thistle, became Meadowbank Thistle before moving out of town. Inverness Caley Thistle, Ross County? Do you deny them the chance to grow, win cups etc????
    WASH YOUR HANDS, WEAR A MASK, KEEP 2M APART AND GET THE VACCINE

  23. #112
    Quote Originally Posted by Ozyhibby View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    In what way Chuck them under a bus? They would still exist just not as part of the professional set up.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Chucking them out the league they are currently in for starters (see Arbroath who are one tier from the top), what would you do when they get promoted? Clubs that are doing absolutely no harm and are where they deserve to be are getting binned due to their location/size? All extremely jambo thinking that.

  24. #113
    Quote Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    With no incentive to progress?????

    What I said about Kelty Hearts earlier, these 'wee' clubs live to be part of the 'big boys'

    these 'wee' teams are admitted to the league on merit, remember, that's how Livingston started, Ferranti Thistle, became Meadowbank Thistle before moving out of town. Inverness Caley Thistle, Ross County? Do you deny them the chance to grow, win cups etc????
    Nah heíd still expect them to take part in a cup competition to make it worthwhile for the bigger clubs.

  25. #114
    @hibs.net private member WhileTheChief..'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    The East
    Age
    49
    Posts
    5,319
    Quote Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    With no incentive to progress?????

    What I said about Kelty Hearts earlier, these 'wee' clubs live to be part of the 'big boys'

    these 'wee' teams are admitted to the league on merit, remember, that's how Livingston started, Ferranti Thistle, became Meadowbank Thistle before moving out of town. Inverness Caley Thistle, Ross County? Do you deny them the chance to grow, win cups etc????
    Thing with this is, there are more fans of other clubs like yourself who stick up for these clubs, than there are of these wee clubs in the first place.

    If under 1000 people can be assed to turn up regularly, should they really be part of the professional set up?

    I'd say no. Sounds harsh, but hey-ho, under a bus they go.

    They should have zero say on how the professional game is run.

  26. #115
    @hibs.net private member Moulin Yarns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Spinning a Yarn
    Posts
    20,853
    Quote Originally Posted by WhileTheChief.. View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Thing with this is, there are more fans of other clubs like yourself who stick up for these clubs, than there are of these wee clubs in the first place.

    If under 1000 people can be assed to turn up regularly, should they really be part of the professional set up?

    I'd say no. Sounds harsh, but hey-ho, under a bus they go.

    They should have zero say on how the professional game is run.
    That's not the case though, I don't have the numbers to hand but the likes of Ross County were getting decent crowds in the highland league, same with Elgin. Why should the big clubs dictate who gets to join the club just because they don't get big crowds?
    WASH YOUR HANDS, WEAR A MASK, KEEP 2M APART AND GET THE VACCINE

  27. #116
    Quote Originally Posted by WhileTheChief.. View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Thing with this is, there are more fans of other clubs like yourself who stick up for these clubs, than there are of these wee clubs in the first place.

    If under 1000 people can be assed to turn up regularly, should they really be part of the professional set up?

    I'd say no. Sounds harsh, but hey-ho, under a bus they go.

    They should have zero say on how the professional game is run.
    Yes they should. Football isnít about size, if it was what right do we have to play with Rangers and Celtic? They got to where they are through merit and sporting achievement. The pyramid needs amended but in no way should we be binning over 100 clubs because they donít get 10k through the door.

  28. #117
    @hibs.net private member WhileTheChief..'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    The East
    Age
    49
    Posts
    5,319
    Quote Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    That's not the case though, I don't have the numbers to hand but the likes of Ross County were getting decent crowds in the highland league, same with Elgin. Why should the big clubs dictate who gets to join the club just because they don't get big crowds?
    Point taken, but I'm referring to the wee clubs with less than 1000 fans.

    The big clubs should dictate what happens because they are meant to be the elite clubs of Scottish football.

    These tiny wee clubs are nothing of the sort. They're community cubs, and more power to them for what they do, but they're a million miles form being elite.

    All you ever hear form their chairmen is how they need money from the league or SFA. Well, if that's the case maybe they need to look at how their club are set up / run.

    Look at the mess Brechin caused the last couple of years. Somehow their chairmen was a member of the board that decides what happens to the rest of Scottish football? The very definition of amateur hour and self interest.

    I want guys like Cormack and Gordon running the show.

  29. #118
    @hibs.net private member WhileTheChief..'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    The East
    Age
    49
    Posts
    5,319
    Quote Originally Posted by hibbysam View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Yes they should. Football isnít about size, if it was what right do we have to play with Rangers and Celtic? They got to where they are through merit and sporting achievement. The pyramid needs amended but in no way should we be binning over 100 clubs because they donít get 10k through the door.
    The clubs can still exist in the same way as any other community clubs do. Junior football manages pretty well. Why do they have to be part of the professional set up?

    They offer nothing.

    It's a well accepted fact within football that clubs are nothing without fans. Well these clubs pretty much don't have any!

    There were 230 people could be bothered going to watch Albion Rovers against Cowdenbeath last week. You think their chairmen should make decisions that could effect Hibs? Not on your Nelly.

  30. #119
    Two full time leagues of 12 teams
    Phase 1 22 qualifying games
    Phase 2 split 8/8/8
    All points returned to Zero round of 14 games.
    Phase 3 top 4 play off for Premiership
    38 game season

    Bottom 4 seeded play off against top 4 in tier 2 home and away 38 game season.

    Middle 8 see above

    Bottom 8 same up to play offs then bottom 4 play off to avoid a relegation play off against the pyramid winners

    Sound familiar? You can bet your 'tache on it

  31. #120
    Quote Originally Posted by WhileTheChief.. View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    The clubs can still exist in the same way as any other community clubs do. Junior football manages pretty well. Why do they have to be part of the professional set up?

    They offer nothing.

    It's a well accepted fact within football that clubs are nothing without fans. Well these clubs pretty much don't have any!

    There were 230 people could be bothered going to watch Albion Rovers against Cowdenbeath last week. You think their chairmen should make decisions that could effect Hibs? Not on your Nelly.
    Junior football is literally dying on its arse. Superb comparison. All their clubs are joining the senior set up.

    I want a football set up that is based on a clubs footballing ability. Very simple!

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
hibs.net ©2020 All Rights Reserved
- Mobile Leaderboard (320x50) - Leaderboard (728x90)