Scottish club football

[Diamond Scot]

For years to me it has seemed like a large percentage of non OF fans arent particuarly happy with how the game in Scotland is run. Im more recent years the OF fans also arent happy, with both sides seemingly thinking that the refs / authorities etc are against them.

Its all becoming a bit boring as far as im concerned but my question is, do people think the problems in Scottish football can be resolved? Is there a collective will to at least try and address any issues and what if anything would you realistically suggest.

I think one of the fundamental problems in Scottish football is the focus on and the power the OF have however at the same time accept that alot of the money coming into the Scottish game is because of the OF. That being said I think the non OF clubs should come together and form 1 voice. Issues such as Hampden ticket split could be easily addressed.

I also think the non OF clubs need to address the broadcasting. The reality is that the focus will always be on the OF as the biggest clubs but the current approach is so short sighted. There needs to be so much more done to promote the other clubs, other big games, teams battling for europe, top 6 or avoiding relegation. I think teaming with Amazon / Netflix etc could really help with this. Do something before the Premier league and get ahead of thr curve.

The final thing for me would be going to summer football. So many positives and very little negatives. Weather for the actual game but also the fans but one of the main things is that it would put our game on at a different time from the EPL which lets face it is massive. Combined with an Amazon type deal and you could try and build viewing figures in England when everybody is keen to watch competitive football.

[mr mojo risin]

It's boring because half the country supports the 2 teams that win & only 2 teams can win because half the country supports them. In the modern Sky hype world I'm not sure how you ever change that (especially when UEFA throw £Millions at them even when they don't get any points).

We're closing in on the 40th anniversary of anyone else winning the league (nobody has even challenged in the Sky/Bosman/Champions League era) and on top of that all you see are Rangers & Celtic strips at Edinburgh airport; Rangers & Celtic birthday cakes in ASDA in Aberdeen etc. My 8yo has picked up on that already.

Sadly the only hope maybe these Burnley/Dundee & Bournemouth/Hibs deals although neither of these seem set up to properly compete at the top.

[vanderark14]

1 hour ago, mr mojo risin said:

It's boring because half the country supports the 2 teams that win & only 2 teams can win because half the country supports them. In the modern Sky hype world I'm not sure how you ever change that (especially when UEFA throw £Millions at them even when they don't get any points).

We're closing in on the 40th anniversary of anyone else winning the league (nobody has even challenged in the Sky/Bosman/Champions League era) and on top of that all you see are Rangers & Celtic strips at Edinburgh airport; Rangers & Celtic birthday cakes in ASDA in Aberdeen etc. My 8yo has picked up on that already.

Sadly the only hope maybe these Burnley/Dundee & Bournemouth/Hibs deals although neither of these seem set up to properly compete at the top.

It's one hell of a sad state of affairs. The old firm don't want to change it. The other clubs are afraid or at least some are afraid of losing what scraps they get from the old firm focused TV deal. IMO the coverage is even worse now. Every match has a Rangers and Celtic representative, even when one of those clubs is not playing. There's zero knowledge of the other ten sides with the exception of certain players like shankland who gets a lot of media attention. 

I didn't realise till tonight that the 1950s had 4 different champions, the OF, hibs and Aberdeen

The 60s had an incredible 5, The OF, Hearts, Dundee and Killie.

The 1980s had 4, the OF, Aberdeen, and Dundee United 

But as you say, in May 2025 it will be 40 years since a team outwith the OF won it. The longest period without a non OF club winning the title was 27 years, back in the 1910s and 1920s, Motherwell ended the run in the 1932 season. From 1932 the longest period was 9 and 13 years when hibs ended the 9 in a row in the 50s Aberdeen stopped the 13 year dominance in 1980, they then won three of the next 5 titles. 

 

[Diamond Scot]

9 minutes ago, vanderark14 said:

It's one hell of a sad state of affairs. The old firm don't want to change it. The other clubs are afraid or at least some are afraid of losing what scraps they get from the old firm focused TV deal. IMO the coverage is even worse now. Every match has a Rangers and Celtic representative, even when one of those clubs is not playing. There's zero knowledge of the other ten sides with the exception of certain players like shankland who gets a lot of media attention. 

I didn't realise till tonight that the 1950s had 4 different champions, the OF, hibs and Aberdeen

The 60s had an incredible 5, The OF, Hearts, Dundee and Killie.

The 1980s had 4, the OF, Aberdeen, and Dundee United 

But as you say, in May 2025 it will be 40 years since a team outwith the OF won it. The longest period without a non OF club winning the title was 27 years, back in the 1910s and 1920s, Motherwell ended the run in the 1932 season. From 1932 the longest period was 9 and 13 years when hibs ended the 9 in a row in the 50s Aberdeen stopped the 13 year dominance in 1980, they then won three of the next 5 titles. 

 

I wouldnt expect the OF to want it to change. Why would they?

I really think the way forward is for the non OF teams to come together to force change. The interests of Hearts / Hibs etc cant be that much different from Motherwell / St Mirren etc. 

Scottish football cant exist without non OF teams. Its about time they used that. Otherwise they will be scrapping over smaller and smaller scraps as the years go on.

[vanderark14]

2 minutes ago, Diamond Scot said:

I wouldnt expect the OF to want it to change. Why would they?

I really think the way forward is for the non OF teams to come together to force change. The interests of Hearts / Hibs etc cant be that much different from Motherwell / St Mirren etc. 

Scottish football cant exist without non OF teams. Its about time they used that. Otherwise they will be scrapping over smaller and smaller scraps as the years go on.

Why would the OF change it? For the good of the league, to increase competition. Winning at all costs and strangling competition doesn't help anyone.

I.agree with the 2nd part. All of the clubs out with the OF need to come together but it won't happen. 

[dan cake]

We had an opportunity to change things in 2012 Aberdeen fucked that for everyone 

[Diamond Scot]

1 hour ago, vanderark14 said:

Why would the OF change it? For the good of the league, to increase competition. Winning at all costs and strangling competition doesn't help anyone.

I.agree with the 2nd part. All of the clubs out with the OF need to come together but it won't happen. 

Ultimately the OF report to their fans and shareholders. Having a monoply over the league and therefore access to europe is perfect for them.

Lets be honest, creating a more competitive league isnt going to turn the SPFL into the EPL in terms of revenue etc. Having the focus solely on the OF suits them. It drives column inches, merchandice sales, season tickets etc.

We shouldnt expect and will never get buy in from the OF. What needs to happen is the non OF clubs force their hand on things that are either a minor thing for them, such as hampden ticket allocations or even better try and get them on board for things that might actually be good for them. Ie Amazon investing in Scottish football might mean every OF game being available live, throughout the UK or world. Profits from that, greater access and programmes like the ones done with the big clubs down south. 

[vanderark14]

6 hours ago, Diamond Scot said:

Ultimately the OF report to their fans and shareholders. Having a monoply over the league and therefore access to europe is perfect for them.

Lets be honest, creating a more competitive league isnt going to turn the SPFL into the EPL in terms of revenue etc. Having the focus solely on the OF suits them. It drives column inches, merchandice sales, season tickets etc.

We shouldnt expect and will never get buy in from the OF. What needs to happen is the non OF clubs force their hand on things that are either a minor thing for them, such as hampden ticket allocations or even better try and get them on board for things that might actually be good for them. Ie Amazon investing in Scottish football might mean every OF game being available live, throughout the UK or world. Profits from that, greater access and programmes like the ones done with the big clubs down south. 

I disagree. A short sighted old firm fan or shareholder may think a monopoly is good but it's a laughing stock. Creating more revenue via a competitive leafue could help both of them and other clubs. 

Nobody would expect revenues like the EPL, I haven't suggested that but is there any harm in aiming for being on a par with dutch football?

You and I only disagree on who we expect to help the game evolve, you think we shouldn't expect the OF to sacrifice anything, as part of the organisation and its two biggest clubs, too fucking right they should. EVERY team should be expected to do something. 

The OF may think what they have is good but the reality is they don't, they're now getting battered from pillar to post in the CL, that top table isn't for them anymore. 

Getting a more competitive league will only attract more interest.

The first thing on any agenda tho is getting rid of sky. We will soon see scottish football have less primes spots than the WSL, however I dont believe that's actually down to viewing figures. It's virtue signalling but they can't stop it now

[EddardStark]

The OF clubs have a financial model that is sustained by the 2 club monopoly. However I think most Rangers fans I know would welcome more competitiveness, however they don’t want to endure the pain of getting to that point with periods of lack of success.

 

We are not the most uncompetitive league though. France holds that position. 

Edited March 6 by EddardStark

[vanderark14]

30 minutes ago, EddardStark said:

The OF clubs have a financial model that is sustained by the 2 club monopoly. However I think most Rangers fans I know would welcome more competitiveness, however they don’t want to endure the pain of getting to that point with periods of lack of success.

 

We are not the most uncompetitive league though. France holds that position. 

France has had ten champions since a team out with the OF won the scottish top league. In the last 7 years they've had 3 different teams win their league

PSG have the most titles with 11. Two teams in Scotland share 

Over 100

But yes France holds the position of most uncompetitive league 😆 

[Squirrelhumper]

12 hours ago, mr mojo risin said:

y hope maybe these Burnley/Dundee & Bournemouth/Hibs deals although neither of these seem set up to properly compete at the top.

I think that model will be a disaster, certainly don't want to see Killie go down that route.

[Squirrelhumper]

10 hours ago, dan cake said:

We had an opportunity to change things in 2012 Aberdeen fucked that for everyone 

Working out well for them.

[EddardStark]

1 hour ago, vanderark14 said:

France has had ten champions since a team out with the OF won the scottish top league. In the last 7 years they've had 3 different teams win their league

PSG have the most titles with 11. Two teams in Scotland share 

Over 100

But yes France holds the position of most uncompetitive league 😆 

PSG have won  5 of the last 6 leagues and I will be happy to place a bet with you they will win the next 3 at least. 

[vanderark14]

1 minute ago, EddardStark said:

PSG have won  5 of the last 6 leagues and I will be happy to place a bet with you they will win the next 3 at least. 

Not sure what thats got to do with what I said, I proved France is not as uncompetitive as Scotland. 

[EddardStark]

6 minutes ago, vanderark14 said:

Not sure what thats got to do with what I said, I proved France is not as uncompetitive as Scotland. 

Oh I didn't realize you were ignoring the current competitive nature of the leagues 

[Squirrelhumper]

How many French teams win cups?

Since 2010 i can think of Celtic, Rangers, Aberdeen, St Johnstone x3, Hibs, Inverness, Hearts, Dundee Utd, Aberdeen, Killie, St Mirren, Ross County all winning domestic cups in Scotland.

[Fairbairn]

22 minutes ago, Squirrelhumper said:

How many French teams win cups?

Since 2010 i can think of Celtic, Rangers, Aberdeen, St Johnstone x3, Hibs, Inverness, Hearts, Dundee Utd, Aberdeen, Killie, St Mirren, Ross County all winning domestic cups in Scotland.

Since 2010, 8 different teams have the Coupe De France (PSG have won it 7 times in that spell).  The Coupe De Ligue was discontinued in 2020 but if you look at the same time frame between 2007-2020, 5 different teams won it.  Across both cups you have PSG, Marseille, Strasbourg, Saint Étienne, Bordeaux, Lille, Lyon, Guingamp, Rennes, Nantes & Toulouse.  Pretty similar numbers across both countries.

[vanderark14]

1 hour ago, EddardStark said:

Oh I didn't realize you were ignoring the current competitive nature of the leagues 

I didn't I went back 7 and also 40 years. You never mentioned anything about the current competitive nature of the leagues, you just the french is the most uncompetitive. 

[vanderark14]

1 hour ago, Squirrelhumper said:

How many French teams win cups?

Since 2010 i can think of Celtic, Rangers, Aberdeen, St Johnstone x3, Hibs, Inverness, Hearts, Dundee Utd, Aberdeen, Killie, St Mirren, Ross County all winning domestic cups in Scotland.

The vast majority of which were won when rangers were in the lower leagues and the other clubs only had to deal with Celtic. A great period for the game in Scotland with some memorable days for non OF sides

[Squirrelhumper]

9 minutes ago, vanderark14 said:

The vast majority of which were won when rangers were in the lower leagues and the other clubs only had to deal with Celtic. A great period for the game in Scotland with some memorable days for non OF sides

Killie's wasn't 😜

[Orraloon]

2 hours ago, EddardStark said:

Oh I didn't realize you were ignoring the current competitive nature of the leagues 

Celtic have just won 11 out of the last 12. Rangers might be top at present but this season isn't over yet. 

[Orraloon]

I think a two horse race is slightly better than a one horse one. Over the past decade it's really been all Celtic. Rangers might be starting to claw their way back? Time will tell.  

For most of the history of Scotland's top league it has been one dominant team, with the other teams winning now and again. Between the war and 1966, Celtic only won the league once. That all changed with Jock Stein. For those folk who don't like the two horse race, they should maybe blame Jock Stein for that, but at least he made it a bit more competitive for a while. 

What we need is another Jock Stein to appear at one of the other clubs to maybe make it a three horse race for a while.

We have only had a competitive league for a short time in the early 80s. Fergie and Jim McLean didn't have huge budgets but what money they did have they used very wisely, and they obviously had great football brains. When will the next Stein, Ferguson or McLean appear?

Of course the finances in football are very different nowadays.

Maybe Warnock will surprise us all when he stays on for another season at Pittodrie?

 

[vanderark14]

2 minutes ago, Orraloon said:

I think a two horse race is slightly better than a one horse one. Over the past decade it's really been all Celtic. Rangers might be starting to claw their way back? Time will tell.  

For most of the history of Scotland's top league it has been one dominant team, with the other teams winning now and again. Between the war and 1966, Celtic only won the league once. That all changed with Jock Stein. For those folk who don't like the two horse race, they should maybe blame Jock Stein for that, but at least he made it a bit more competitive for a while. 

What we need is another Jock Stein to appear at one of the other clubs to maybe make it a three horse race for a while.

We have only had a competitive league for a short time in the early 80s. Fergie and Jim McLean didn't have huge budgets but what money they did have they used very wisely, and they obviously had great football brains. When will the next Stein, Ferguson or McLean appear?

Of course the finances in football are very different nowadays.

Maybe Warnock will surprise us all when he stays on for another season at Pittodrie?

 

I used to think our only competitive period was the 80s too but if you look at my earlier post, I found out the 50s and 60s were just as competitive 

[Orraloon]

5 minutes ago, vanderark14 said:

I used to think our only competitive period was the 80s too but if you look at my earlier post, I found out the 50s and 60s were just as competitive 

Aye, maybe about the same level of competitiveness, now that you point it out? Between the war and Jock Stein's arrival as Celtic manager, Rangers won about half of the league titles on offer. As you say that's still a lot more competitive than nowadays. Even in the Fergie/ McLean era, Celtic still won about half the league titles available, and although Rangers weren't winning much, they were still competing well with the other three. They just weren't quite at the same level, but not far behind.

[Diamond Scot]

5 hours ago, vanderark14 said:

I disagree. A short sighted old firm fan or shareholder may think a monopoly is good but it's a laughing stock. Creating more revenue via a competitive leafue could help both of them and other clubs. 

Nobody would expect revenues like the EPL, I haven't suggested that but is there any harm in aiming for being on a par with dutch football?

You and I only disagree on who we expect to help the game evolve, you think we shouldn't expect the OF to sacrifice anything, as part of the organisation and its two biggest clubs, too fucking right they should. EVERY team should be expected to do something. 

The OF may think what they have is good but the reality is they don't, they're now getting battered from pillar to post in the CL, that top table isn't for them anymore. 

Getting a more competitive league will only attract more interest.

The first thing on any agenda tho is getting rid of sky. We will soon see scottish football have less primes spots than the WSL, however I dont believe that's actually down to viewing figures. It's virtue signalling but they can't stop it now

Celtic have 70 odd million in the bank. Rangers are getting back to a level position and with champions league money may soon be turning in good profits etc. The OF have next to zero incentive for change. Having kids in Aberdeen buying OF stuff suits them. They are the very definition of big fish in small pond.

In the same way it would be nice if the worlds elite enacted change to redress the financial imbalance, it just wont ever happen and we cant expect it to. Unfortunetly change only happens when the people who need it, make it happen.

I think we concentrate too much on league winners. Germany has only had 1 league winner recently but generally its a really well run and thriving league. We need to get to a point where the non OF teams can grow fan base, interest and product on the pitch.

Totally agree regarding Sky but again I feel this needs to be driven by the non OF clubs. The OF are pretty much on every game and the pundits are OF based. Even though Scottish football coverage is rubbish the OF probably get more weekly coverage / attention from Sky than mid table EPL teams like Brighton, Crystal Palace, Villa etc.

My proposal would be for the 10 non OF top flight clubs and maybe even some of the bigger Championship clubs to come together and form a body. Like the F1 teams did years ago. That body then discusses matters with the SPFL / OF with 1 stronger voice. Threaten to pull out of cups etc if needs be.