Financial Distribution

[Pudgie]

When the SPFL was created, there was talk in great depth over how fair the new financial distribution was and how much of a success it was. I'm pretty sure I was in the same boat but there was a link to the figures in a recent story and it still heavily favours the top teams in the league.

 

The current set us is as below.

 

 

 

 

 

With a 8.9% difference between the top and the bottom of the league it still looks a bit off. For a team that will have increased numbers in gate money, increased merchandise sales and the glory of winning the league, it seems a bit off that they should also get the guts of £515,000 more for participating in the same amount of games as their bottom of the league counterparts. And fuck knows why there's £275,000 more going to top 6 teams when they get the benefit of playing the teams with (usually) the highest attendances.

 

Surely a fairer split would be akin to the one below.

 

 

 

 

 

The top 4 have the chance of making a lot more cash in European competition which is a prize for finishing higher up the league as it is which, although it won't make up for this loss in revenue, as most teams qualifying for Europe are used to this money, it certainly offers enough of an incentive for clubs to finish higher up the table.

 

 

 

Now I don't expect there to be a drop of one million pounds in prize money over 1 season for the top ranking team, but surely this could be worked towards in stages over a 3 year period to allow the league to even out a bit and have things more competitive. It would surely be more exciting going to see St Mirren, Ross County, Killie etc if they had enough cash to add one or two Premiership standard players to their squads and where the top teams lose one or two vital players.

 

 

It's hard to get behind when you think that this could wind up with us not being able to hold onto Jack, Pawlett or take loan signings like Hector or Daniels, but if the league was to become a more exciting event, I think it would attract a better standard of player all throughout the league instead of just the top teams.

 

 

 

 

Am I talking shite, do Doncaster and Regan have their heads up their arses or is there a better idea that I've completely missed?

[MMG]

Is it not called "Prize Money"? In which case I think it's pretty fair as it is.

 

If you think it's bad now, you should have seen the split in money when Rangers were still alive.

[Pudgie]

Is it not called "Prize Money"? In which case I think it's pretty fair as it is.

 

If you think it's bad now, you should have seen the split in money when Rangers were still alive.

Yeah, I tried to look at that but I couldn't find percentage values which makes my spreadsheeting a lot easier.

[Pudgie]

 

When the SPFL was created, there was talk in great depth over how fair the new financial distribution was and how much of a success it was. I'm pretty sure I was in the same boat but there was a link to the figures in a recent story and it still heavily favours the top teams in the league.

 

The current set us is as below.

 

 

 

 

 

With a 8.9% difference between the top and the bottom of the league it still looks a bit off. For a team that will have increased numbers in gate money, increased merchandise sales and the glory of winning the league, it seems a bit off that they should also get the guts of £515,000 more for participating in the same amount of games as their bottom of the league counterparts. And fuck knows why there's £275,000 more going to top 6 teams when they get the benefit of playing the teams with (usually) the highest attendances.

 

Surely a fairer split would be akin to the one below.

 

 

 

 

 

The top 4 have the chance of making a lot more cash in European competition which is a prize for finishing higher up the league as it is which, although it won't make up for this loss in revenue, as most teams qualifying for Europe are used to this money, it certainly offers enough of an incentive for clubs to finish higher up the table.

 

 

 

Now I don't expect there to be a drop of one million pounds in prize money over 1 season for the top ranking team, but surely this could be worked towards in stages over a 3 year period to allow the league to even out a bit and have things more competitive. It would surely be more exciting going to see St Mirren, Ross County, Killie etc if they had enough cash to add one or two Premiership standard players to their squads and where the top teams lose one or two vital players.

 

 

It's hard to get behind when you think that this could wind up with us not being able to hold onto Jack, Pawlett or take loan signings like Hector or Daniels, but if the league was to become a more exciting event, I think it would attract a better standard of player all throughout the league instead of just the top teams.

 

 

 

 

Am I talking shite, do Doncaster and Regan have their heads up their arses or is there a better idea that I've completely missed?

 

Could you supply the summary?

 

The best teams get lots of prize money and the shite teams don't get very much.

[RTYD]

The best teams get lots of prize money and the shite teams don't get very much.

 

The best teams get lots of prize money and the shite teams don't get very much.

Like it or not Celtic would still be able to sign up rival clubs players. We're up there finally, let's not start giving away cash to clubs which are in my opinion to small for the league, e.g. Ross County.

[Pudgie]

 

Like it or not Celtic would still be able to sign up rival clubs players.

Oh certainly, but that million a year would slowly but surely lessen the gap between top and bottom. The best teams are always going to receive the biggest prize money, but I think the gap between the elite and the rest is just too big for there to be any realistic challenge from a number of teams for players or for league positions.

 

 

We're up there finally, let's not start giving away cash to clubs which are in my opinion to small for the league, e.g. Ross County.

Isn't that because there's such a preference to the more elite clubs in the league? Surely if there was to be a more even spread of cash, you'd see less kids wanting to support teams from elsewhere in the country because they've got fuck all chance of wining anything.

[RTYD]

Oh certainly, but that million a year would slowly but surely lessen the gap between top and bottom. The best teams are always going to receive the biggest prize money, but I think the gap between the elite and the rest is just too big for there to be any realistic challenge from a number of teams for players or for league positions.

 

Isn't that because there's such a preference to the more elite clubs in the league? Surely if there was to be a more even spread of cash, you'd see less kids wanting to support teams from elsewhere in the country because they've got fuck all chance of wining anything.

I think you're kidding yourself on if that would change kids decisions.

[daytripping]

Money should be divided equally, you play for trophies not cash, bigger spread of wealth creates a more level playing field. Gates should be split as well, even if we'd be one of the losers it's only fair, takes 2 teams to make a game.

[Pudgie]

Money should be divided equally, you play for trophies not cash, bigger spread of wealth creates a more level playing field. Gates should be split as well, even if we'd be one of the losers it's only fair, takes 2 teams to make a game.

I think a small percentage is enough to mean the end of season games not pointless and there's still something left to play for for the club. Nae that the players would really be too fussed either way for a couple of grand but i suppose the chairman would be worried.

 

I think you're kidding yourself on if that would change kids decisions.

Of course it would. The Old Firm only had a massive support because they used to win everything. Successful teams will have a bigger support. Now it might take a few years but it'll eventually get competitive again and the allure of Partick and St Mirren will be closer to that of Celtic.

[Bluto10]

Pudgey

 

Could you give Synopsys in 3 bullet pints please.

I dinna read paragraphs on AFC chat.

 

My two pennies worth

 

- a hand full of non of league wins in history is the biggest alarm

 

- rangers 9 in a row. Just wrong in the modern day

-too many national clubs

- in too many national league

-money

 

Fix those and well be fine.

 

As long as we keep producing decent players of course (like we used to)

[StandFree1982]

Pudgey

 

Could you give Synopsys in 3 bullet pints please.

I dinna read paragraphs on AFC chat.

 

My two pennies worth

 

- a hand full of non of league wins in history is the biggest alarm

 

- rangers 9 in a row. Just wrong in the modern day

-too many national clubs

- in too many national league

-money

 

Fix those and well be fine.

 

As long as we keep producing decent players of course (like we used to)

Rangers 9 in a row was because they overspent on money they shouldn't have actually had.

 

Judging by that SKY Deal, I don't think you'll fix the money issue anytime soon.

 

Too many clubs? nah.

[Bluto10]

Im Nae going into details but why has the lack of non-OF league wins been allowed to continue?

 

This included rangers 9; regardless of cheating.

 

No league is perfect but considering g Scotland's historical standing we shouldn't have so many greedy clubs

[Bluto10]

Too many clubs?

That much is obvious?

 

We have half as many national sides as England yet they have ten times as many people .

 

Sco needs no more than 25 or two leagues of national clubs

[StandFree1982]

Too many clubs?

That much is obvious?

 

We have half as many national sides as England yet they have ten times as many people .

 

Sco needs no more than 25 or two leagues of national clubs

Most of them are part time though. If you resolve the money issue, the rest will take care of itself. Rangers and Celtic would never have won the titles they had during the 90s and 2000s without the huge investments of money from TV, Cheating, the ridiculous money they got from the SPL for finishing top 2 and, obviously, crowds.

 

I would prefer a larger top league though.

[Bluto10]

SF min

 

The OF do.finance has preceded the TV bubble

 

No historically significant nation has oversee such a one/two/3/4 do.infant league

 

We used to produce world class players now we have a league won only by one cite

[ericblack4boss]

I have to ask did you really think that that cartel the SPL, would disband and amalgamate, with the SFL, and willingly surrender more cash in a fair and honest fashion, the 14 years of greed tbat those shithouses that formed their cartel, was never goin to be relinquished, don't forget the game is about money and greed, and since the cartel was formed this has been the case.

[dj_bollocks]

Based on those spreadsheets the money for the arse cheeks in the top flight is inconsequential compared to the money they get from ticket sales merchandising etc (not including tv rights)

 

Just based on Celtic park alone if they were getting 50,000 through the gate at 20 quid a pop for 19 games a season equals 19 million quid - same applies for the Zombies...

 

For us - we'd be lucky to get an average of 15,000 at 20 quid a pop for 19 games… A huge difference of 5.7 million quid. SPFL prize money is relatively inconsequential cash in terms of Septic's bottom line as regards % of earnings, for us it's still a pretty big deal...

 

Imagine if you can barely get 3000 people to bother to turn up for your game… SPFL prize money is going to be like you won the lottery.

 

In short our game is fucked, no one but the arse cheeks win and even one of them can't fucking balance their books properly… The #fuds...

[dave_min]

Too many clubs?

That much is obvious?

 

We have half as many national sides as England yet they have ten times as many people .

 

Sco needs no more than 25 or two leagues of national clubs

 

What are you talking about?

 

Scotland has a single National side, as does England.

[Pudgie]

Pudgey

 

Could you give Synopsys in 3 bullet pints please.

I dinna read paragraphs on AFC chat.

 

My two pennies worth

 

- a hand full of non of league wins in history is the biggest alarm

 

- rangers 9 in a row. Just wrong in the modern day

-too many national clubs

- in too many national league

-money

 

Fix those and well be fine.

 

As long as we keep producing decent players of course (like we used to)

Celtic (as the league is a one horse race) receive a cuntload more money than the second placed team. I think it should be shared more evenly.

 

The non Euro placed teams would all be up in prize money whereas the qualifying teams all get less than before as they can offset that with Euro money.

 

There should be a difference of 2.5% between top and bottom, not 8.9% as it is now. The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer.

 

Based on those spreadsheets the money for the arse cheeks in the top flight is inconsequential compared to the money they get from ticket sales merchandising etc (not including tv rights)

 

Just based on Celtic park alone if they were getting 50,000 through the gate at 20 quid a pop for 19 games a season equals 19 million quid - same applies for the Zombies...

 

For us - we'd be lucky to get an average of 15,000 at 20 quid a pop for 19 games… A huge difference of 5.7 million quid. SPFL prize money is relatively inconsequential cash in terms of Septic's bottom line as regards % of earnings, for us it's still a pretty big deal...

 

Imagine if you can barely get 3000 people to bother to turn up for your game… SPFL prize money is going to be like you won the lottery.

 

In short our game is fucked, no one but the arse cheeks win and even one of them can't fucking balance their books properly… The #fuds...

 

That's why I thought it was so important for this to be one of the main focal points for change. That's a massive amount of money for some of the smaller clubs. It might even lead to them being able to charge less for admission and getting more fans through the door.

 

As for Celtic's fanbase being their cash cow, there's nothing you can do to stop that. You can't say, "oh Celtic, you've got a cuntload more fans than anyone else, share your dough". The only way you can stop this is by making the league more competitive ala the above. Evening out the prize money a bit more would surely see this happen after a few years. Scottish football is in a great position with a lot of clubs getting rid of their debt and I think now is the time to allow clubs the chance to thrive.

[The Boofon]

Celtic (as the league is a one horse race) receive a cuntload more money than the second placed team. I think it should be shared more evenly.

 

The non Euro placed teams would all be up in prize money whereas the qualifying teams all get less than before as they can offset that with Euro money.

 

There should be a difference of 2.5% between top and bottom, not 8.9% as it is now. The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer.

 

 

 

That's why I thought it was so important for this to be one of the main focal points for change. That's a massive amount of money for some of the smaller clubs. It might even lead to them being able to charge less for admission and getting more fans through the door.

 

As for Celtic's fanbase being their cash cow, there's nothing you can do to stop that. You can't say, "oh Celtic, you've got a cuntload more fans than anyone else, share your dough". The only way you can stop this is by making the league more competitive ala the above. Evening out the prize money a bit more would surely see this happen after a few years. Scottish football is in a great position with a lot of clubs getting rid of their debt and I think now is the time to allow clubs the chance to thrive.

 

Spastic.

[Pudgie]

Spastic.

 

Y'er nae wrang, but that was