408 replies to this topic

[Inigima]

Quote

Kind of sad what's happened to Malaga.  I've been waiting for so long to see someone come along and try to compete with that cabal they have going on in La Liga.  But from some of the things I've read, some of the business deals tied to Malaga that the shiek wanted to do in Spain were not well recieved so now he's selling off players cutting Pellegrini and the sporting director and basically selling the club slightly better off than he found it.  Feel bad for the fans who were let down by all of this.  La Liga's such a crap league.

I don't really follow La Liga closely, but is this really so bad? By your own admission, he's leaving it better off than it was when he bought it.

To the extent that I care about Spanish football at all, I'm for Granada CF in a plastic sort of way. They were relegated last season, where do they play now? I understand relegation can be murder in the Spanish leagues.

Google says Liga España, FotMob doesn't even have a listing for that that I can find.

[Renasko]

Quote

Elevate the game in England? Utter nonsense.

All it would succeed in doing would be making Celtic look mediocre, and killing off the Scottish game as anything other than a Sunday league sport.

Quote

Evidence for these assertions is sadly lacking. Obviously, it'd increase revenue for any team to be admitted to a league with a bigger TV deal, but there's no reason to think that the OF have some untapped source of 'interest' out there that being admitted to an English league would suddenly free up. And there's no reason at all to believe it would 'elevate' the game in England. The addition of two more clubs, albeit with strong domestic support, is not going to make any significant positive difference to the standard of English football.

Yes, I believe it'd elevate the league. I find the whole sordid idea a pain in the rump, but there are a multitude of reasons why it would impact the game in the country for the better. How could adding a team like Celtic, for example, not be for the better? Would you rather have a team that can attract 45-50k season ticket holders, or a team like Wigan who have a mere 12k? The EPL has so many weak teams like poor Wigan that it is not hard to see why the prospect of a club such as ours joining in it's stead would not be intriguing.

If I had the choice between a United-Celtic match or a game between Arsenal-Bolton, I know which I'd be showing up at. I'm not a Rangers supporter, but I'd be more interested in seeing them play against a strong English team any day of the week. over a Welsh team like Swansea, for example.

It seems indisputable to me that the addition of two strongly backed teams wouldn't raise the general quality of the league. More people coming through the turnstiles is never a bad thing, which would further strengthen the league product. One of the reasons the Bundesliga, for example, is considered to be the best league on the continent is due to their strong league attendance averages. I fail to see how a team that has such a world-wide attraction as ours, that consistently has a good home support, would not turn this to their advantage in a league that offers so much. The likes of Liverpool and United pull in around 40-50m from sponsorship alone. The last TV deal was well in excess of a billion pounds, as well, split across the league. Plus, we're not exactly short of men with a few bob in our boardroom.

Any team that has a strong fan following should be doing well. Obviously, there'll be a couple sad cases like Everton and Newcastle who're weighed down by their overseers, but for the most part, it'll be the best supported teams leading the way, such as United, Arsenal, City, Chelsea, Liverpool, etc. We currently sit just outside the top ten best supported teams in Europe on average, a couple thousand short. That's a great pool to tap from, if we were in the right environment. Our stadium is in place to be expanded, as well. The current attendance potential sits around 60k, the same as Arsenal's, and we can increase it again by another 8-10k, given the right motivation to do so, bringing it very close to United's current stadium.

And there's no reason why we couldn't increase our club value, similarly to how Man United have done over the last decade, even though you wouldn't have imagined it could grow any higher. Ticket prices and season tickets would go up, naturally, which wouldn't hurt, either. We could rise from being 'mediocre'...how could we not, when we're only offering a few hundred thousand a week now, compared to the other big boys in the league, who can offer that to a couple players. Players are attracted to playing for big clubs, as well, and with stronger opposition, we would hold a good argument for many talented players.

Edited by Renasko, 03 August 2012 - 12:47 PM.

[mormont]

I don't think anyone has denied (how could they?) that Celtic has a higher attendance than Wigan. The question was, how does that translate into 'elevating the game'? How does it 'raise the general quality of the league'? You can't just say 'it seems indisputable' - you need to explain how that actually works.

To the extent that arguments to that effect exist, they seem to rely on assumptions about Celtic being successful, and even then suggest only a marginal overall improvement might result. Replacing a couple of clubs that have maybe 25,000 average gates with two that have about 50,000 is not the stuff of which revolutions are made. The EPL has had far more revolutionary changes with enormous additional funding in two clubs, which logically ought to have had a far larger effect than additional funding resulting from extra ticket sales and TV audiences. But I don't think anyone would argue that 'elevated the game' in a general sense.

Moving on, my worry about the game in Scotland now is that there seems to be a desperate wish to get back to 'business as usual'. The lesson of the whole Rangers farrago - that you can't sustain successful football in a small country by big spending alone - seems in danger of being forgotten. We really need a fundamental rethink in the game, and there'll never be a better opportunity than this. I fear it might be wasted.

[Renasko]

The quality of a league should judged by how great the interest the public takes in it, IMO. That is to say, how many people are showing up for games, and how enthusiastic they are. Northern Europe, in general, tends to have a great deal of ardor for the sport. In Scotland, however, outwith ourselves and Rangers, the clubs are declining season by season. Hibs sacrificed good youth products, so they could improve Easter Road. What did they get in return? Poor product on the pitch, and ever dwindling crowd figures.

When we rebuilt our ground during the 90's, McCann said he had no doubts it'd be a success, as the fans would always be there, and that we'd support the club in even greater numbers. We did, Rangers improved, yet the rest seem to have a sorry bunch of fans. Motherwell are now proposing a new stadium, but who's to say how they'll come out at the end? The worse for it, I'd say.

The country's football establishment stinks, and I'd jump ship at the first boat. Yes, even if that meant League of Ireland, as so many in Scotland want us to do.


ETA: FYI, I have been encouraged by the positive signs for the beginning of the season, so far. Aberdeen have sold out their allocation for our game this weekend, Ross County are doing their bit, etc. Long may it continue.

Edited by Renasko, 03 August 2012 - 01:30 PM.

[Inigima]

Renasko, on 03 August 2012 - 01:27 PM, said:

ETA: FYI, I have been encouraged by the positive signs for the beginning of the season, so far. Aberdeen have sold out their allocation for our game this weekend, Ross County are doing their bit, etc. Long may it continue.

That's good news. Besides counting myself a Celtic supporter, there were a lot of threats of boycotts if Rangers were shielded from consequences, and the flip side of that is now that the SPL clubs have held up their end of the bargain they should be rewarded for it with strong support.

[polishgenius]

Renasko, on 03 August 2012 - 01:27 PM, said:

The quality of a league should judged by how great the interest the public takes in it, IMO.

Of course it shouldn't. It should be judged by the quality of the teams involved. Which is why the assumption that Wigan are holding the league back as a team because they have few fans is utterly laughable - you can't blame the club, which is well run and managed, for that. If that was the case they'd have been relegated, they've regularly survived against teams with far bigger crowds and proud historical traditions.

Your whole post reads like 'Celtic should be allowed into the English leagues because the Scottish leagues are shit'. Well, they are, but that's not England's problem. Maybe if you stopped blaming every fucking thing on Rangers and took some responsibility yourselves for the lopsided state of the league it'd be a bit healthier. Other teams fans don't go to games because there's not even the illusion of the possibility of success any more, and that's happened because you and Rangers between you have stitched everyone else up financially.

[Renasko]

I called the whole thing 'sordid'. I didn't state a real preference for moving to the division, just that it makes sense why it should come to place. And you do realise how a team grows in quality, right? It's by acquiring talent, and you can't do that without selling tickets and we'd sell a ton, hence my previous posts. We have greater potential than Wigan and the rest of your relegation fodder.

I never once said anything against Rangers, either. Not sure where you're pulling that from.

And the accusation of anyone stitching up a league financially coming from a follower of one of the Manchester clubs is hilarious.

[polishgenius]

Fans and ticket sales help a team get the talent in, sure. It's not the be-all and end-all, which is why Wigan are in the Premier League and have been for some seasons.

Renasko, on 03 August 2012 - 02:15 PM, said:

I never once said anything against Rangers, either. Not sure where you're pulling that from.

That was aimed at 'Celtic' as a whole. I don't think you're actually in a position to take responsibility for Celtic's finances personally.

As for the Manchester club jibe - very pretty, but the Prem has the most even distribution of TV and prize money in the world. There's a difference between being rich and doing your level best to make sure no-one else gets rich.

[Jon AS]

Inigima, on 03 August 2012 - 11:54 AM, said:

I don't really follow La Liga closely, but is this really so bad? By your own admission, he's leaving it better off than it was when he bought it.

It's not, really. Viewed over the past 10-15 years there's plenty of movent at the top of the league (and the bottom, too). It's just that Barcelona's absolutely magnificent team has created a kind of arms race between them and Real Madrid. I think that the league will settle down again in a few years (provided not too many clubs go bankrupt in the meantime).

Inigima, on 03 August 2012 - 11:54 AM, said:

To the extent that I care about Spanish football at all, I'm for Granada CF in a plastic sort of way. They were relegated last season, where do they play now? I understand relegation can be murder in the Spanish leagues.

Ahem, they actually avoided relegation by a single point, their first game of the season will be away at Rayo Vallecano on the 20th.
If they had been relegated, they'd be playing in the Segunda División.

Inigima, on 03 August 2012 - 11:54 AM, said:

Google says Liga España, FotMob doesn't even have a listing for that that I can find.

The Primera División is often referred to as "La Liga" in English media. It's kind of like calling the German national team "Die Mannschaft", it's not strictly speaking wrong, it just doesn't carry anything beyond the most general meaning.

[Inigima]

Gotcha, thanks. I could have sworn they didn't make the cut. You can see just how much attention I pay to the Spanish. Well, good news abounds!

EDIT: duckmaster at Something Awful went to the trouble of compiling season predictions from five major news outlets and bookmakers and averaging them to come up with a predictive table for the new SPL season:

POSITION	TEAM
	
1		CELTIC
2		DUNDEE UTD
3		HEARTS
4		MOTHERWELL
5		ABERDEEN
6		HIBS  
7		ST JOHNSTONE
8		KILMARNOCK
9		ST MIRREN
10		ROSS COUNTY
11		DUNDEE  
12		ICT

Edited by Inigima, 03 August 2012 - 04:03 PM.

[Maltaran]

Renasko, on 03 August 2012 - 12:45 PM, said:

One of the reasons the Bundesliga, for example, is considered to be the best league on the continent is due to their strong league attendance averages.

The Premier League's average attendance is similar - they're the only two football leagues to average over 30k attendance per game. (Off-topic pub quiz question - name the three leagues in other sports that average over 30k attendance).

[mormont]

Inigima, on 03 August 2012 - 03:16 PM, said:

Gotcha, thanks. I could have sworn they didn't make the cut. You can see just how much attention I pay to the Spanish. Well, good news abounds!

EDIT: duckmaster at Something Awful went to the trouble of compiling season predictions from five major news outlets and bookmakers and averaging them to come up with a predictive table for the new SPL season:

POSITION	TEAM

1		CELTIC
2		DUNDEE UTD
3		HEARTS
4		MOTHERWELL
5		ABERDEEN
6		HIBS  
7		ST JOHNSTONE
8		KILMARNOCK
9		ST MIRREN
10		ROSS COUNTY
11		DUNDEE  
12		ICT

Seems off to me, as if people had simply based it on what happened last year and not really looked at changes in the close season. We've lost so many players and haven't signed a single one: if we come third, I'll be genuinely amazed. I think Hibs are also being overestimated, and Inverness underestimated.

[Jon AS]

Maltaran, on 04 August 2012 - 02:20 AM, said:

The Premier League's average attendance is similar - they're the only two football leagues to average over 30k attendance per game. (Off-topic pub quiz question - name the three leagues in other sports that average over 30k attendance).

The Premier League averages about 10,000 people less per game than the Bundesliga i think (then again, England has a smaller population pool to draw from than Germanyand the PL stretches that over 20 teams instead of 18; Bundesliga tickets are also cheaper), and I think the Primera División is also at about 30,000.

For the quiz, I guess NFL, MLB and some other outdoors sport that's really popular in only a small number of countries with good infrastructure. Aussie Rules Football maybe?

[Horus Bergeron]

Jon AS, on 03 August 2012 - 02:29 PM, said:

It's not, really. Viewed over the past 10-15 years there's plenty of movent at the top of the league (and the bottom, too). It's just that Barcelona's absolutely magnificent team has created a kind of arms race between them and Real Madrid. I think that the league will settle down again in a few years (provided not too many clubs go bankrupt in the meantime).

How can the league ever "settle down" when those two clubs are earning half of the league's television revenues?  They don't have to stop with that pipeline continuing to flow bc they'll never be hurt by it.  It's the rest of La Liga that bleeds until then.

[Maltaran]

Jon - can't quote on my phone, but you're the first person to get all three - NFL, MLB and Australian Football League. La Liga is slightly below 30k - Real and Barca arent quite big enough to pull the average up above that figure.

[Horus Bergeron]

Maltaran, on 04 August 2012 - 05:19 AM, said:

Jon - can't quote on my phone, but you're the first person to get all three - NFL, MLB and Australian Football League. La Liga is slightly below 30k - Real and Barca arent quite big enough to pull the average up above that figure.

I figured the first two, but it never occurred to me that the AFL pulled in so many numbers.  I've watched it once or twice on either GolTV or FSC Plus, can't remember, and the numbers did seem very strong though.   I feel really slow.

[Inigima]

mormont, on 04 August 2012 - 03:14 AM, said:

Seems off to me, as if people had simply based it on what happened last year and not really looked at changes in the close season. We've lost so many players and haven't signed a single one: if we come third, I'll be genuinely amazed. I think Hibs are also being overestimated, and Inverness underestimated.

Oh yeah for sure. I don't know enough about some of the clubs, like Inverness, but Hibs sure as fuck aren't finishing in the top half unless they have some kind of secret weapon no on knows about..

[ljkeane]

Horus Bergeron, on 04 August 2012 - 05:23 AM, said:

I figured the first two, but it never occurred to me that the AFL pulled in so many numbers.  I've watched it once or twice on either GolTV or FSC Plus, can't remember, and the numbers did seem very strong though.   I feel really slow.

I would have wavered a bit on MLB actually. I know it ranks highly on total attendance but they have so many games and there seem to be quite a few with smaller crowds in I would have thought it might slip down a bit on average attendance.

Edited by ljkeane, 04 August 2012 - 05:58 AM.

[Jon AS]

Horus Bergeron, on 04 August 2012 - 05:13 AM, said:

How can the league ever "settle down" when those two clubs are earning half of the league's television revenues?  They don't have to stop with that pipeline continuing to flow bc they'll never be hurt by it.  It's the rest of La Liga that bleeds until then.

It worked before the current madness, and I doubt the TV money was distributed more fairly in the past (there was just less of it as a whole). There's really only two ways the league can go in the long term: get its act together and realise that all clubs need to be financially secure or collapse. Frankly I don't think Real and Barca are stupid enough to commit suicide.

Maltaran, on 04 August 2012 - 05:19 AM, said:

Jon - can't quote on my phone, but you're the first person to get all three - NFL, MLB and Australian Football League. La Liga is slightly below 30k - Real and Barca arent quite big enough to pull the average up above that figure.

I originally wanted to say cricket since it's huge in India and Pakistan, but I know so little about that sport (is it even organised in leagues?) that I decided to take a stab in the dark. I picked AFL because I'd once seen a few minutes of a game on TV (contrary to cricket, which I don't think I've ever witnessed).

PS: Wikipedia says that Spanish first division clubs averaged an attendance of 30,275 in the 2011/12 season.

[Horus Bergeron]

Jon AS, on 04 August 2012 - 09:56 AM, said:

It worked before the current madness, and I doubt the TV money was distributed more fairly in the past (there was just less of it as a whole). There's really only two ways the league can go in the long term: get its act together and realise that all clubs need to be financially secure or collapse. Frankly I don't think Real and Barca are stupid enough to commit suicide.

When money is involved, what in recent history gives you the idea that they wouldn't be stupid enough to commit suicide?  They certainly haven't done anything for the past few years and the writing has been on the wall for some time.  Now Villareal is relegated and who knows will be next.  Barca and Real have shown little more concern for the welfare of their league than Celtic and Rangers did.  Hell, they really don't even show that much.

And the key statement is that there was less TV money as a whole, therefore TV didn't have as much ability to exacerbate disparity between the big markets and the smaller.  And I'd be willing to bet that with every new renegotiation, the disparity has gotten a little worse every time with Barca and Real able to use an ever-increasing status to leverage better and better deals from the networks.  They must be able to keep ahead with the biggest clubs in England, Germany, and Italy after all. It would be nice if the big two over there showed some sanity, but I have little faith in their willingness to do so.

ljkeane, on 04 August 2012 - 05:55 AM, said:

I would have wavered a bit on MLB actually. I know it ranks highly on total attendance but they have so many games and there seem to be quite a few with smaller crowds in I would have thought it might slip down a bit on average attendance.

You have to remember that, they have less competition than the other sports in the US which play a fall schedule.  With the college sports you have NCAA football and basketball, NFL, NBA, NHL all vying for consumer dollars.  MLB only competes, to some extent with MLS and for the most part those are largely different fanbases although the same can be said about the college sports.  Plus, some teams play in 35-45K stadiums, so  even games with unsold tickets is a large number.

Edited by Horus Bergeron, 04 August 2012 - 12:24 PM.