The Split

[robbojunior]

 

 

There may be less TV income. Then again BT currently have a contract with no old firm games, and are looking to increase their coverage, so there is every chance the TV deal could remain the same or even increase even with less old firm games.

 

They wouldn't be hit as hard as other clubs if the TV deal did reduce (well, maybe Rangers). Celtic certainly wouldn't give a toss if their TV income over the season reduced by £200,000 or so when they're raking it in from Europe.

 

The smaller clubs would, and it's them that would kick up more of a fuss, which was my point.

 

 

 

 

I wasn't defending them, I was correcting you.

 

 

 

 

Apologies, I thought it was an Aberdeen forum and therefore what the club's view is would be relevant. I don't know what I was thinking trying to engage a moron in an adult conversation.

 

They're totally against it. Any time it is mentioned they are vocally opposed to it.

 

I agree Stewart Milne also seems to be more than happy with a 10/12 team top league but this thread isn't asking him his opinion about the split - so what he thinks is totally irrelevant. No one is expecting anything meaningful to change for the betterment of the game in general while the pricks in charge of our game and the compliant media you work for are still here. Money is the be all and end all to them. Same goes for all club owners, hence Motherwell crying about it, and Kilmarnock telling their own fans to fuck off so they can sell more tickets to Celtic fans. To say they object more than celtic and rangers is absolute pish. They all are against anything that will lose them revenue.

 

I'll refine my comment for your benefit. If all the above are against a 16 team league, I'm all for it. No one with any influence or power in Scottish Football gives a fuck about anything other than how much money they will get. An the media let them away with this without any scrutiny. (EDIT: in fact the media are complicit. They bang on about TV money all the time and its importance - they never challenge the powers that be about why football itself is a distant afterthought behind the pursuit of money).

[V for Vendetta]

Actually, it's not them that are the biggest objectors. The Old Firm wouldn't be arsed what size of League it was as long as they didn't lose any TV revenue.

 

It's your Partick Thistles and Motherwells that are against it. Look at the stink they both caused when the fixtures were announced this season and they realised they had less home games v the Old Firm than the others.

 

And, Stewart Milne isn't exactly a visionary when it comes to how Scottish football is set up. Pretty sure he's voted for a 10 team league and the 8-8-8 nonsense.

Yep. Agreed.

 

Nearly all the clubs prefer the smaller league set up but it's up to fans to set their clubs straight if they feel strongly against it.

[Panda]

 

Money is the be all and end all to them. Same goes for all club owners, hence Motherwell crying about it, and Kilmarnock telling their own fans to fuck off so they can sell more tickets to Celtic fans. To say they object more than celtic and rangers is absolute pish. They all are against anything that will lose them revenue.

 

 

 

So why did they all (except St Mirren and Ross County) vote for 8-8-8?

 

At what point were they pushing for a 16 team league? Name the clubs. Falkirk did, but that's because they're out of the top flight and it would benefit them.

 

Your last sentence contradicts the rest of your paragraph.

 

 

 

 

and the compliant media you work for are still here.

: in fact the media are complicit. They bang on about TV money all the time and its importance - they never challenge the powers that be about why football itself is a distant afterthought behind the pursuit of money).

The media are complicit about what exactly? Name those who are never challenged, and I can guarantee I'll find articles from the media doing just that.

[robbojunior]

 

So why did they all (except St Mirren and Ross County) vote for 8-8-8?

 

At what point were they pushing for a 16 team league? Name the clubs. Falkirk did, but that's because they're out of the top flight and it would benefit them.

 

Your last sentence contradicts the rest of your paragraph.

 

 

The media are complicit about what exactly? Name those who are never challenged, and I can guarantee I'll find articles from the media doing just that.

You're misinterpreting what I'm saying. I agree with you none of the clubs appear to want a 16 team league. Like I said all they give a fuck about is money, not whether it will improve the game.

 

You however, said Celtic and rangers are not the biggest objectors. Firstly I never said they were the biggest, I merely said they objected and therefore i am in favour. And secondly they are just as much against it as any other club.

 

So, as I have said, the thread is about people's opinion of the split. We all know the clubs stance. They are in favour of money. Football is an afterthought.

 

And regarding the media, ok, point me to an article which poses tough questions as to why Celtic and rangers never had home matches televised prior to the zombies dying when this clearly gives them a financial advantage. And where were the questions about why prize money for 1st and 2nd was so dramatically higher than 3rd. Why do the media continually print articles about how many millions rangers need to compete, rather than ask what we can do to the setup in Scotland to make the league more competitive.

 

The media want to sell papers and subscription so they pander to the two clubs with the most fans. i.e. They follow the money just like the SFA, the Spfl and the chairmen of all clubs do. They are all compliant in not giving a fuck about how to improve the game in Scotland.

[Ramandu]

 

I agree Stewart Milne also seems to be more than happy with a 10/12 team top league but this thread isn't asking him his opinion about the split

Why not? Doesn't he have an account on here? My money's on Cheesepipes.

[slinkyvagabond]

If you think the Glasgow two would be happy playing only two derbies a season you are a bit naive.

 

The prospect of playing a minimum of four of these games will be used to try and persuade players to sign, generate income and excitement to those involved like no other fixture and dont forget those games are used exclusively by the powers that be to sell the Scottish game which is not right but wont change.

 

Absolutely no way they would want only two derbies.

[Panda]

And regarding the media, ok, point me to an article which poses tough questions as to why Celtic and rangers never had home matches televised prior to the zombies dying when this clearly gives them a financial advantage.

Well, that's incorrect.

 

Before Rangers died there was a rule in place that no club could have more than four home games televised in a season (now increased to six). Celtic and Rangers did have home games against other clubs that were televised. So what would the media be questioning?

 

It's one of the biggest myths in Scottish football that they never have home games televised.

 

Aberdeen and Dundee have both had (or will have had by the end of the season) the most home games televised with six each.

 

Celtic and Rangers will have had four each. The same as Kilmarnock and Ross County I think.

 

Most teams will have had five televised.

 

Hardly a huge difference between all the clubs.

 

And where were the questions about why prize money for 1st and 2nd was so dramatically higher than 3rd.

That was what was set up in 1998, by the clubs. They all agreed to it.

 

It was amended in 2003. Then changed again with the SPFL.

 

Who exactly should the media have challenged? Aberdeen? To ask why they agreed to that in the first place?

 

Why do the media continually print articles about how many millions rangers need to compete, rather than ask what we can do to the setup in Scotland to make the league more competitive.

The two are not mutually exclusive. That's like asking why they print match reports rather than covering what's happening in Syria.

 

Last week there was also an interview with Jonny Hayes saying Aberdeen need £20m to compete with Celtic.

 

The media run plenty of articles about league reconstruction whenever someone talks about it. No-one is currently talking about it. I could ask Stewart Milne if you like, but you said you couldn't give a toss about his opinion.

 

The media want to sell papers and subscription so they pander to the two clubs with the most fans. i.e. They follow the money just like the SFA, the Spfl and the chairmen of all clubs do. They are all compliant in not giving a fuck about how to improve the game in Scotland.

The first part is true. But show me a paper that ignores it's biggest readership and is still publishing never mind flourishing.

 

Your last sentence isn't true, and is actually ridiculous.

[alscotoz]

The split.

 

Is shit.

 

Yeah. I've never seen the point of it.

[RAZOR]

Why not? Doesn't he have an account on here? My money's on Cheesepipes.

@@cheesepipes is certainly about ages with Milne, better at squash though.

[robbojunior]

Well, that's incorrect.

 

Before Rangers died there was a rule in place that no club could have more than four home games televised in a season (now increased to six). Celtic and Rangers did have home games against other clubs that were televised. So what would the media be questioning?

 

It's one of the biggest myths in Scottish football that they never have home games televised.

 

Aberdeen and Dundee have both had (or will have had by the end of the season) the most home games televised with six each.

 

Celtic and Rangers will have had four each. The same as Kilmarnock and Ross County I think.

 

Most teams will have had five televised.

 

Hardly a huge difference between all the clubs.

 

We all know that 4 OF games were explicitly written into the tv deal. So outside of these 2 home games for each club, which of course will be a sell out regardless, how many did they have televised each season prior to rangers dying? You say it's a myth, and I'm willing to hold my hands up if proved wrong, but I cannot recall a single non OF league home game for either cheek on tv 1998-2012.

 

That was what was set up in 1998, by the clubs. They all agreed to it.

 

It was amended in 2003. Then changed again with the SPFL.

 

Who exactly should the media have challenged? Aberdeen? To ask why they agreed to that in the first place?

 

Yes, absolutely they should have been challenged. Our chairman and every other chairman should have been pressed on why on earth they voted for such an unfair split of prize money. But they weren't.

 

The two are not mutually exclusive. That's like asking why they print match reports rather than covering what's happening in Syria.

 

Last week there was also an interview with Jonny Hayes saying Aberdeen need £20m to compete with Celtic.

 

The media run plenty of articles about league reconstruction whenever someone talks about it. No-one is currently talking about it. I could ask Stewart Milne if you like, but you said you couldn't give a toss about his opinion.

 

Good misdirect there. Stewart Milnes opinion was irrelevant to this thread asking for peoples opinions of the split. His opinion should be very relevant in terms of how to improve Scottish football and yes you should be asking him, in fact grilling him, on why he voted for an uneven share of prize money and a shit tv deal that perpetuated the dominance of two clubs. Again, you didn't. And neither did anyone in the media.

 

The first part is true. But show me a paper that ignores it's biggest readership and is still publishing never mind flourishing.

 

Your last sentence isn't true, and is actually ridiculous.

It is true. If it was not true, the media, to this day would be asking tough questions of the people in charge of the game. I've never seen a tough question asked of Doncaster or Regan in my life. Barry Hearn came up here and ripped the piss out of them for how shite they were.

[V for Vendetta]

Well, that's incorrect.

 

Before Rangers died there was a rule in place that no club could have more than four home games televised in a season (now increased to six). Celtic and Rangers did have home games against other clubs that were televised. So what would the media be questioning?

 

It's one of the biggest myths in Scottish football that they never have home games televised.

 

Aberdeen and Dundee have both had (or will have had by the end of the season) the most home games televised with six each.

 

Celtic and Rangers will have had four each. The same as Kilmarnock and Ross County I think.

 

Most teams will have had five televised.

 

Hardly a huge difference between all the clubs.

 

 

That was what was set up in 1998, by the clubs. They all agreed to it.

 

It was amended in 2003. Then changed again with the SPFL.

 

Who exactly should the media have challenged? Aberdeen? To ask why they agreed to that in the first place?

 

 

The two are not mutually exclusive. That's like asking why they print match reports rather than covering what's happening in Syria.

 

Last week there was also an interview with Jonny Hayes saying Aberdeen need £20m to compete with Celtic.

 

The media run plenty of articles about league reconstruction whenever someone talks about it. No-one is currently talking about it. I could ask Stewart Milne if you like, but you said you couldn't give a toss about his opinion.

 

 

The first part is true. But show me a paper that ignores it's biggest readership and is still publishing never mind flourishing.

 

Your last sentence isn't true, and is actually ridiculous.

 

Aren't there a lot more Celtic and Rangers games televised though? (i haven't checked so thats a genuine questions).

 

If so then as a proportion of all the games each club has televised, that 4 or 5 is much smaller and I think that's where the perception may come from.

 

If there are similar number of games televised for every club then using a simple limit might work but if there are a lot more games for one or two clubs televised then there could be a better system.

 

I've suggested before that some of the TV money could be used as a "compensation" fee for the home club in each televised game (as they are likely to lose some revenue).

 

Or they could just ensure all clubs are covered more equally.

 

Or use a percentage target - so that approx half of any clubs televised games are home games.

[Lencarl]

I may be wrong but the majority of live Scottish TV matches feature Celtic or The Rangers as the opposition.

 

Maybe Celtic and The Rangers show the same home games as the other clubs but they are also on most weeks as the away opposition because these are the games that bring the biggest audience viewing figures.

 

[Panda]

We all know that 4 OF games were explicitly written into the tv deal. So outside of these 2 home games for each club, which of course will be a sell out regardless, how many did they have televised each season prior to rangers dying? You say it's a myth, and I'm willing to hold my hands up if proved wrong, but I cannot recall a single non OF league home game for either cheek on tv 1998-2012.

 

 

That's for you to go and find out. I don't need to spend my Saturday fact checking for you.

 

But, off the top of my head I can think of plenty games involving Aberdeen that were televised at Ibrox and Parkhead in that time. Surely even you don't believe there were no games televised.

 

Yes, absolutely they should have been challenged. Our chairman and every other chairman should have been pressed on why on earth they voted for such an unfair split of prize money. But they weren't.

 

Good misdirect there. Stewart Milnes opinion was irrelevant to this thread asking for peoples opinions of the split. His opinion should be very relevant in terms of how to improve Scottish football and yes you should be asking him, in fact grilling him, on why he voted for an uneven share of prize money and a shit tv deal that perpetuated the dominance of two clubs. Again, you didn't. And neither did anyone in the media.

If fans are unhappy than they can challenge him and the club at the agm every year. They don't need the media......or do they?

 

It is true. If it was not true, the media, to this day would be asking tough questions of the people in charge of the game. I've never seen a tough question asked of Doncaster or Regan in my life. Barry Hearn came up here and ripped the piss out of them for how shite they were.

Aye, right enough, no-one in the media want Scottish football to improve because, er, they just don't.

 

Very rarely do Doncaster or Regan do interviews. Recently Regan chose to release a puff interview with an SFA lackey asking questions with the video distributed to the press rather than take questions from the media. Neil Doncaster simply releases statements. Trust me, many would love the chance to actually question them.

 

When they do you will see plenty of tough questions asked. Listen back to when he's appeared on sportsound for example. They've both been slaughtered in the print media too, Gordon Waddell is especially critical.

[Panda]

 

Aren't there a lot more Celtic and Rangers games televised though? (i haven't checked so thats a genuine questions).

 

If so then as a proportion of all the games each club has televised, that 4 or 5 is much smaller and I think that's where the perception may come from.

 

If there are similar number of games televised for every club then using a simple limit might work but if there are a lot more games for one or two clubs televised then there could be a better system.

 

I've suggested before that some of the TV money could be used as a "compensation" fee for the home club in each televised game (as they are likely to lose some revenue).

 

Or they could just ensure all clubs are covered more equally.

 

Or use a percentage target - so that approx half of any clubs televised games are home games.

The TV money already is compensation for games being televised.

[Panda]

I may be wrong but the majority of live Scottish TV matches feature Celtic or The Rangers as the opposition.

 

Maybe Celtic and The Rangers show the same home games as the other clubs but they are also on most weeks as the away opposition because these are the games that bring the biggest audience viewing figures.

 

I quite often see people ask why there aren't more games involving the top clubs, and yet how many of you spent your lunchtime watching Inverness v Hamilton, games you're apparently desperate to see more of?

 

Personally I think there should be less games on TV. It shouldn't be televised until at least 80% of tickets are sold. Scottish football would be healthier if they spent more effort trying to fill the grounds rather than showing half empty grounds at lunchtime kick-offs. Hibs v Aberdeen should have been a Saturday 3pm kick-off with a TV black out.

[robbojunior]

I quite often see people ask why there aren't more games involving the top clubs, and yet how many of you spent your lunchtime watching Inverness v Hamilton, games you're apparently desperate to see more of?

 

Personally I think there should be less games on TV. It shouldn't be televised until at least 80% of tickets are sold. Scottish football would be healthier if they spent more effort trying to fill the grounds rather than showing half empty grounds at lunchtime kick-offs. Hibs v Aberdeen should have been a Saturday 3pm kick-off with a TV black out.

Here I agree with you.

 

Again though, I've not seen anyone in the media propose this or ask the top brass for there opinion on an idea like this.

[Panda]

Here I agree with you.

 

Again though, I've not seen anyone in the media propose this or ask the top brass for there opinion on an idea like this.

Because the media as a whole want more coverage, not less. The general talk is how to stream more games. Periscope, twitter streams, Facebook live, etc.

 

I was just giving a personal opinion as a fan, and I'm probably in the minority. You seem to think every time I have an idea I should phone Neil Doncaster and question why he doesn't have the same one.

[robbojunior]

Because the media as a whole want more coverage, not less. The general talk is how to stream more games. Periscope, twitter streams, Facebook live, etc.

 

I was just giving a personal opinion as a fan, and I'm probably in the minority. You seem to think every time I have an idea I should phone Neil Doncaster and question why he doesn't have the same one.

Nah I am nae expecting you to take responsibility for the entire media. And your opinion is a good one. My point is no one in the media appears to phone Neil Doncaster and question him. Or write articles criticising his shocking track record of improving the game whilst he's been in charge.

[Panda]

Nah I am nae expecting you to take responsibility for the entire media. And your opinion is a good one. My point is no one in the media appears to phone Neil Doncaster and question him. Or write articles criticising his shocking track record of improving the game whilst he's been in charge.

In the time it took you to write that you could have used google and found various examples.

 

Here's 30 seconds work:-

 

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/spfl-blundered-failing-lure-fans-9667115.amp

 

https://www.sundaypost.com/sport/sport-opinion/neil-doncaster-must-come-out-fighting-to-save-his-job-at-the-spfl/

 

https://www.sundaypost.com/fp/scottish-football-chiefs-banked-110000-performance-bonus-last-year/

 

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/gordon-waddell-new-spfl-must-2010716.amp

 

There are many more examples out there if you look hard enough.

 

I've already said Neil Doncaster isn't easily assesible. It's not easy getting an interview. He hides behind official statements.

[super_al]

In the time it took you to write that you could have used google and found various examples.

 

Here's 30 seconds work:-

 

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/spfl-blundered-failing-lure-fans-9667115.amp

 

https://www.sundaypost.com/sport/sport-opinion/neil-doncaster-must-come-out-fighting-to-save-his-job-at-the-spfl/

 

https://www.sundaypost.com/fp/scottish-football-chiefs-banked-110000-performance-bonus-last-year/

 

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/gordon-waddell-new-spfl-must-2010716.amp

 

There are many more examples out there if you look hard enough.

 

I've already said Neil Doncaster isn't easily assesible. It's not easy getting an interview. He hides behind official statements.

How easily assesible do you find Aberdeen FC regarding the media?

[Panda]

How easily assesible do you find Aberdeen FC regarding the media?

Are you asking me to rate it on a scale of one to Hearts/Hibs? ?

 

Aberdeen have always been great to deal with, but I dunno if that's just for me because I'm a top red or if everyone gets the same VIP treatment.

[Lencarl]

Premiership prize money this season

 

Celtic were handed £2.948m. Second-placed Aberdeen made £2.112m while Sevco received £1.815m for finishing third.

 

This is not including the circa £15m from TV money that is divvied up between the SPFL clubs. There’s also the William Hill Scottish Cup cash, with the winners of Saturday’s Final between Aberdeen and Celtic to receive £60,000 and the losers £30,000.

 

 

The Scottish Cup prize money is also dwarfed by the Betfred Cup cash pot. Winners Celtic were given £200,000 while runners-up Aberdeen received £100,000.

Those two sides also received a £30,000 payment from TV, in this competition’s case BT Sport.

 

 

 

Why is there more cash for Betfred Cup compared to Scottish Cup.

[Ramandu]

Think each team get 45% of the gate for the final, which dwarfs any prize money. Round about 700k?

[Lencarl]

Think each team get 45% of the gate for the final, which dwarfs any prize money. Round about 700k?

The Scottish Cup is always regarded as the main Cup to win but the prize money is less than the League Cup.

[craegDAMH]

The Scottish Cup is always regarded as the main Cup to win but the prize money is less than the League Cup.

 

Sponsors pay the prize money, the SFA must've got a shite deal from William Hill but managed to get more out of Betfred.

[Lencarl]

And another thing.....

 

Partick Thistle received more cash than Ross County.

 

Prize money should be paid on the final points tally of a club and not league position.

 

[BWG]

And another thing.....

 

Partick Thistle received more cash than Ross County.

 

Prize money should be paid on the final points tally of a club and not league position.

 

 

You better be fishing.

[V for Vendetta]

 

Sponsors pay the prize money, the SFA must've got a shite deal from William Hill but managed to get more out of Betfred.

 

The SFA don't run the League Cup, the SPFL do.

[craegDAMH]

 

The SFA don't run the League Cup, the SPFL do.

 

They must've got a better deal then.

[V for Vendetta]

 

They must've got a better deal then.

 

Yep.

 

Pretty poor from the SFA really considering the higher profile the Scottish Cup gets.