Ajja

Its just not workable to ask people to pay extra without the guarantee of a home game in the cup. Its easy to suggest that it would work itself out over seasons, but it might not and there might be people who would buy one year and not another. They simply wouldn't do it.

Vernon may not be the greatest player in the world but as long as he keeps scoring the goals at the rate he is managing at the moment I'll be happy.  He is just 1 goal short of Lee Millers best haul of goals in a season for us now and it took 48 starts and 4 sub appearances for Miller to score 13 goals

A number of those 13 were penalties as well were they not ? With Hartley knocking in a good number of goals and Maguire on form we might have 3 players in double figures this season and still finish bottom 6. Now when was the last time we saw that ?

BBC stats say they had 59% possession. Sounds like we didn't get out of 2nd gear. I'll take that any day of the week.

Played 11 times for Notts County this season according to Soccerbase. Had two previous loan spells with Plymouth.

Well of course. If he hasn't been connected with Plymouth then he is no use to us.

Did Brown not say he's one for the future, not likely to feature in first team for a while?

Suspect he is just trying to soften his entry into the squad as he is young. At 20 he should be ready for the first team and the fact we have signed him for half a season suggests he will play sooner rather than later.

Does that mean Aluko has signed a new contract? Can't click the link at work.

Fucoon hell Bobo, you fair spooked me with that crack.

I'd send him back just to remove a drain on our management resource and a negative influence. Good enough reason on its own. We are NOT paying him a wage though, utter horseshit to suggest otherwise.

I suspect that the purse was pulled on McGhee but not because of the quality of his signings but for the quality of his management. The Board must have seen the writing on the wall last season and cut his hands off as a result.

Being reported in papers and radio he has agreed to loan.

The 'less home games' argument only really works if we had exactly the same number of people at every game (which we don't). We currently have 18 home games, unless the split is shit and then we can have only 17. Assuming the best of 18 home games, and using our average crowd of approx. 10,000 we get 180,000 gate reciepts a season.

 

If we manage to get our average crowd up to 12,000 (not exactly unrealistic) in a 16 team league we'd get the same amount of money. Surely to fuck a season ticket for a season which has 3 less games in it will be cheaper too, which might encourage a few more fans along, i'm sure i'm not the only one who would head along to a few more games if they didn't come around so often - we filled the away end (and some more) at Raith last season, then didn't manage to fill places like Tannadice.

 

As for SKY. Do they not realise that in a 10 team league they have 180 games a season to choose from, but the 16 team league has 240. Are they really suggesting that all 60 of these extra games are completely pointless? This also goes for advertising etc, the Clydesdale Bank will get its logo on a board shown an extra 60 times a year.

 

I just don't see the point in changing it to 10 teams, it won't be any better so why bother changing it at all? The thing that needs to change is the distribution of the money and as there's absolutely zero chance of the OF taking less of the cake all we're doing is rearranging the deckchairs here.

Same conclusion I have alluded to. The rest is a speculative argument (on both our parts) and seemingly a moot point as the clubs are not going to vote for anything other than 'as we were' because they can't agree.

So we can all sit back and watch as the OF drain the life from the game. Let's hope they either go find another host to be parasites to or they realise they have to bring parity to the table.

This may be a really stupid question but it is something that people keep mentioning which I don't really understand. They keep saying that clubs cannot afford to only play the Old Firm twice at home in any given season and still survive. Why is this the case? Wouldn't that mean every team in the first, second and third divisions would have gone out of business?

 

I'm assuming it must be because the SPL costs more overall for clubs, but what exactly about it costs more? There is tv revenue, more fans from other clubs attending the grounds, possibly more fans from their own club attending games which are perhaps more appealing than lower league games etc. Only thing I could really think of was that players would probably cost more in wages, though I still wonder if the likes of Hamilton Accies or St Mirren are paying that much more for players than those near the top of the first division.

 

I really know nothing about the business side of football so I'm sure there is something I've completely missed which makes it so expensive for a club in the SPL but what is it?

The loss of revenue from a coupe of home OF games is only one small part of the problem. The expanded league argument requires a move away from playing as many home games. Its the loss of these that is the real killer, for AFC, two less home games is a lot of income gone.

The other problem is that if you set up a league where there are less fixtures between the bigger clubs (lets say the top 4 non-OF teams playing the OF as well as them playing each other 4 times a season) then the TV companies look less favourably on it. The increase in the number of dead rubbers is not only poor fare for the fans, it diminishes the interests of the TV companies and so the deal gets worse and the revenue again decreases. There is already severe pressure in this area and I suspect a significant part of this 10-team set up is being driven by the prospect of TV money. The TV companies may even be telling the SPL that they are not interested in an expanded league, why would they want to shell out money for Raith Rovers against Hamilton ?

10 teams is the only viable solution at present. The onus has to be on the SPL and the clubs involved to ensure that there is more equality in that set up in terms of income. That is the only way that we will get more competition, a more attractive product and therefor better TV money and European success. There are two giant fucking hurdles to that unfortunately.

Pat Nevin was on radio Scotland last night commenting on this. It was very interesting listening. Only caught some of it but he was basically saying that most of the decision makers at the SPL clubs know that a 10 team league is not a solution for the quality of football on offer and the enhancement of the product. The problem is that they just can't make the finances work so they are bound to it as a fix.

The bottom line here is that as long as they OF continue to take the lions share of money and success then Scottish football will die a slow and painful death. Even they are going to have to realise that if they keep biting off the hand that feeds them there will soon be no hand.

but bothered enough by the topic to write one of the biggest replies of the thread 

Wouldn't it be so interesting if this forum was only populated by those who are simply running interference endlessly. 

Proof, were it needed, that football (In Scotland at least) isn't about entertaining the fans.

 

What's the expression?

 

Fuck all y'all.

Very true. Fans vote for entertainment but businessmen vote for income. Unfortunately, the long game has to give way to the immediate desperation for survival.

You taking a break from Mad for the day Kelt ?

So if we go to 10 teams in SPL1 for the season 2012/13 then has there been any suggestion of how the current 12 teams will be reduced to 10 at the end of next season ? If they still allow promotion from Div 1 to SPL1 then that would mean losing 3 teams from the SPL as it currently exists next season. My early tip for the trap door is UTD with Goodwillie leaving at the end of the week (according to SCL) they are going to fall off the pace over the next 18 months. 

He resigned but stayed on as a player.

 

John Robertson is their gaffer now.

 

 

Thats right, I remember reading something about Robertson. Is Gordon Durie involved there as well ?

Bit of a tricky one as the reasons for enjoying an away game have very little to do with things like catering, views, facilities etc for me. I put UTD as I love a quick splash in the train to Dundee, a good few beers in a local bar packed with Dons fans, a sing song, a good bounce in the shed. In all honesty the access to the stadium is awful, the pies run out at about 3:10, the toilets are a disgrace, the stewards are utter cunts and you have to walk for fucking hours to get back to the train, but I love it.

Just looked up their scores for the last few games. Beat Stenhousemuir 6-0 in their last game but that was way back on the 11th of Dec and the game before that was beating Forfar in the Scottish cup back in November.

 

Also realised that Stevie Crawford plays for them and will obviously be well up for scoring a goal against us.

Is he not the manager ? Thought him and Jason Dair were the management team there now.

For me, the flag in question is just a flag. It doesn't really affect me either way. The sentiment that has been expressed across several Aberdeen forums on this subject I find significantly more concerning.

By its definition politics is intrinsically linked to all aspects of society as it relates to the way in which human beings organise themselves, make collective decisions and exact power over one another. Ergo, football cannot be entirely de-coupled from politics. This is particularly the case in Scotland where politics and religion are bound together as are football and religion, unfortunately.

For me one of the most important decisions I made in my life at the tender age of 7 (pre-Fergie for the avoidance of doubt!) was to follow a team who were not part of that bond. I may not have understood much of the political ramifications of following the OF but I was aware of the bile and hatred that surrounded them and I didn't want it. I have grown up being proud of a club that not only avoided such bigotry and hatred but wore that position as a badge of honour. As a socialist I believe it is essential that prejudice, bigotry and venom towards a particular group in society should not be encouraged or supported. I like to think that this viewpoint tends to match well with being an Aberdeen supporter. For that reason, I think it is crucial that we do not get caught up in a situation where we are exhibiting the same set of unhealthy prejudices and paranoia as those who follow the OF. As an Aberdeen supporter, I will always look to stand free.

Has he signed yet? Can't say I am thrilled with more lower league English crap players signing.

He sent word via semaphore this morning.

Did Man U recall players from Preston because they sacked Darren ?

The British union is exactly that - a union of (and not a replacement of) the consituent nations. It is supposedly intended not to mean Scottish identity should be eroded, so the same argument doesn't apply against the Scottish flag as does against the Union flag because union supporters are as entitled to the St Andrew's flag as the Union one.

 

The argument would however run parallel to someone who happened to be a staunch supporter of the pictish, scots or gaelic kingdoms therefore opposing the notion of a unified Scotland that the St Andrew's flag represents...

 

But either way, by bringing those sorts of topics to football grounds, that way ruin lies.

 

And I don't think the colour scheme works with the white being in it. 

Could be worse, you could be the knob in that picture at Perth of the Globe and Glasgow Uni flags with the Irish rugby shirt on. Then you would need to be labelled a proper cunt 

I am not going to argue all day and night about this

In my opinion blanket coverage of English football is doing nothing for the good of our own league

Football used to control tv now its the other way round

you guys think its a good thing I think its not so i will end it there

 

But don't be surprised if the time comes when we don't get a TV deal as the digital companies decide to concentrate on the English premier league instead

WHERE WILL WE BE THEN

You have a remarkable ability to get things really wrong don't you.

1. You cannot compare the UK situation to any other country as our national structures are completely different. Whether you agree with the union of our government and many of the structures that support that, including most of the television broadcasting, or not it is fact that we are heavily linked to England and are dominated by a population that is 9 times ours. Supporting your argument by trying to draw comparisons to other countries TV content is just ridiculous.

2. Who exactly do you think is making the decisions about TV content ? Do you think the executives who are trying to secure revenue and profit for their channels are ever likely to sit in their board rooms and discuss how they might protect Scottish football ? We live in a market economy where supply follows demand, businessmen select the best products to enrich their offer not to look after a dying product. Ultimately this means that the best product in terms of football will make up the majority of the viewing in most countries. At present one of those products is the EPL.

If you really believe that there is either the desire or the ability to influence what football TV chooses to show or, as result, who kids choose to support then you are incredibly naive or just plain stupid.

Can I just add to this debate that Hartley has scored 8 times this season and we are only at the halfway point. That's about 30% more goals than any striker scored all season last year. I'd class that as contribution.

Well I don't fucking think you are!

Yes I fucking am. Who appointed you as the keeper of truth anyway ?