Gabby

A live game on the telly into Oz tonight

Respect!

That is commonly known as "The Greece Solution".

I have alsways said that if it wasn't for professional sport, the unemployment benefits budget in any country would at least double and we would have to build more jails.

I would def have Bingham in the top 5, he was immense to get us promoted. He scored goals for fun that seaosn. Maybe he isn;t held in such high esteem for chasing a bigger contract elsewhere (Gretna from memory)

I think it is also worth mentioning.... 5. An very short close season that has made the effects of the other 4 reasons worse

One or two quiet ales. it's important to keep the fluids up before a game.

There were 18 teams in the old Scottish First Division when Celtic won the European Cup in 67 though you may be referring to the fact that there are only 10 teams in the League of Ireland Premier Division. Shamrock Rovers' turnover is also less than 2% that of the Old Filth which helps to put the scale of the failure of the OF in perspective. Their failure diminshes Scottish Football and we will all suffer the consequences of that. Interestingly Shamrock Rovers' leading scorer is a Scot called Twigg. It seems there is very little incentive for talented young Scots to ply their trade in Scotland these days. Let's hope the national team can restore a bit of pride and give the game the boost it so desparately needs. It's not the same game it was in 1967. TV money means that other leagues are able to develop and attract quality players. My point is, and always has been, that the small amount of money generated by Scottish football is spread way too thin. I am certainly not saying this so just Celtic and Rangers can compete in Europe. Would it not be good for Scottish football is Hearts and other SPL teams could be playing European football in December? It is your last point that hits the nail on the head, there is no incentive for young Scots to ply their trade in Scotland and drastic changes are required before this will change.

This highlights the need for a 10 team SPL, without it Scotland out of Europe by August will be the norm instead of the exception.

The Rangers game was the first time I have seen Tade and quite frankly he got no service in 90 mins. In the rare opportunity he got, he held the ball well and looked for opportunities. Why can't we pass out of defence? This long ball game just makes Tade the front defender becasue as soon as we get posession, we kick it long to the opposition defenders. Tudor-Jones is in the same boat. he is probably a good midfielder, trouble is we don't know because the ball sails over his head. I don't think the players are the problem, the tactics or lack thereof are the problem.

I agree, the Tokely decision was terrible. We got punished twice first with the send off, then with the penalty. Second one was a penalty, it was soft and he just didn't need to do it. In saying that we were never in the game. How can we expect any of the midfielders to have an impact when the defender constantly kick the ball over their heads? Some of them even went past Tade's head. We were pish and the sad we should have had a draw as Rangers didn't create anything either.

However, their TV audience is probably growning as fans watch the game at home or at the pub. This makes broadcasters very happy. You insist of confusing bums on seats at the stadiums with income derived from TV rights that are dispersed by the SPL. These 2 income sources are not related. In fact it could be argued that Celtic are already paying the price of reduced attendances because reduced attendences affect their bottom line only. You also said that you would doubt if Celtic would even notice. I'm sorry but I do not know a single businessman that wouldn't notice a reduction in revenue and wouldn't be doing their best to retrieve it. You are asking one businesses to give up their competitive advantage over another business. That is quite naive.

We are are talking about 2 completely seperate income streams here. The money distributed to Clubs by the SPL is largely generated from broadcast contracts. Like it or not (and I don't) Broadcasters will only get a return on their investment by showing Rangers and Celtic games. As a result, these clubs have been able to successfully argue that since they are responsible for generating the income, they should receive the lion share of it. This is a completley different issue to bums on seats at venues. This is a Club issue, as shown by the ability for the Clubs to charge different prices for admission. If attendance was centrally controlled then tickets would be the same price for each club. As a result it is a folly for anyone to suggest that money should be distributed to Clubs on the basis of rising/falling attendances. It would result in Clubs fiddling attendance figure such as Ross County ALLEGEDLY does for Cup ties. In saying that, it would be nice if Rangers and Celtic saw the ethical argument of helping the league is helping themselves but at the end of the day all Clubs are businesses competing against each other for trophies and revenue

We have a winner - that's gold

Also, it looks like the A League will be following the other professional football codes in Australia by having microphones on the referees left on during TV coverage. This technology is also available for fans at the stadium using an earpeice that can be purchased. It certainly helps fans to know what the ref's are thinking when they make decisions. The audio also includes converstations between the Refs and Players.

The game generates many millions of pounds each year yet the key "on field" decisions are made by glorified amateurs. This is not fair to the professional players that train hard or the fans that spend their hard earned watching them. Referees would be more accountable if they were fulltime, professional because it would be their main source of income.

It always amazes me when people complain about referee performance and pay. We have a situation where football is professional where players are identified at 10 years of age, nurtured, placed in special programs so they can be ready for professional football. A simiar program should be in place for referees. What about targeting players that don't make it as professionals. Nurturing them, build refeering programs - in essence build a career path for them and then pay them appropriatly as professionals. The result would be professional players being refereed by referees of at least a similar standard.

Caley D, I would argue that you are too close to this to look at the proposal objectively, as a result I suspect you are letting your prejudices determine your decision making rather than considering facts. This results in quite frankly hysterical comments such as 12 teams to 10 teams means less money for clubs and 12 to 14 teams means more money. Taking straw polls of fans is really of little consequence. This is because at the end of the day fans vote with their wallets by either attending games and buying merchandise. This is how clubs survive and therefore this is the only true measurement indicating what fans are thinking (Obviously I can't attend many games but I do buy a heap of merchandise, especially now the Aussie Dollar has appreciated against the Bristish Peso) Also you mistake the word elitist with elite. When I speak of an elite competition, I am talking strictly about the athletes involved. The premier division should be a showpiece for the best Scottish footballers to compete and develop. I am tryiing to look at the bigger picture. This is not about individual clubs this is about improving the product to attract more sponsors, more fans. I know it is unlikely we will see eye to eye on this, all I am trying to do is add some balance to the debate.

Hi Caley D I can see what you are saying but I believe your argument is flawed for the following reasons: 1. I don't understand how reducing the league to 10 teams provides less value to sponsors. Companies sponsoring the league want to sponser a quality product regardless of the number of teams involved. Team sponsors sponser a team regardless of all other teams in the league. 2. Yes 2 extra teams will require a parachute payment, this is a one of payment to reduce the number of teams in the league. As such, it no longer becomes an issue after the first season.) 3. Scrapping the U21 rule means that players earn their spots on merit instead of taking up bench spots. If they aren't good enough for the elite competition they shouldn't be playing in it. 4. The OF are still a cash cow. While the stadium doesn't always fill I would hate to see the average crowd for the season without these games. 5. Increased variety doesn't mean better quality. In fact the opposite would be the case. More lower quality teams means more lower quality games that people wouldn't want to watch. Are you seriously saying that fans want regular games against Raith, Falkirk or QoS? This idea improves Scottish football by exposing elite players to regular games at a higher level. It won't happen overnight but I think it would be a step in the right direction. What has dawned on the teams is self interest, the SPL was built on self interest and the tradition continues. Enjoying the debate.

Two of them (Hibs and Aberdeen) were fighting relegation this season. Which makes they're stance even less understandable. At least we agree on something.We must be doing something right - Australia ranked 20, Scotland ranked beyond 60. This is a fair reflection of the standing of both teams. Especially given the situatin where Scotland receiveds more ranking points for defeating the Faroe Islands than Australia would get for defeating Japan even though Japan is ranked 100 places higher than the Faroe Islands. The Aussie national team may well be better than the Scottish national team. That does not mean the league is better. It is not. And that is what this is about... improving the SPL. It is impossible to realistically compare the SPL and the A League. The A League is only 6 years old and it competes against 3 other different professional football codes for finances and athletes. Given time I would expect the A League to surpass the standard of the SPL.

At least we agree on something. We must be doing something right - Australia ranked 20, Scotland ranked beyond 60. This is a fair reflection of the standing of both teams. Especially given the situatin where Scotland receiveds more ranking points for defeating the Faroe Islands than Australia would get for defeating Japan even though Japan is ranked 100 places higher than the Faroe Islands.

Have to totally disagree with you on most points Gabby. Ten team league means playing each team four times a season. Fans have indicated they dont want this. Ten team league means teams fill up with tried and tested players and abandon youth development. Nobody wants this. The available money would become less and less in the long term because fans will stay away so gate reciepts will be down. Initial SPL was ten team and it failed then. Nothing indicates it will work again. More OF games will not increase exposure for other teams simply because the TV deal allows for the screening of 36 games a season regardless of number of times each play the OF. Ten team is dead and long may it remain that way If what you say is true Alex then expanding the league to 14 or even 18 teams is a false economy. Less money to go around combined with more teams that fans don't want to see. SPL attendance has been in decline for years. Rather than fans "indicating" this, reduced attendance is what is actually happening at the moment. I would also argue that very little real youth developement occurs at SPL level. While I will submit that ICT has a good current crop of youth this really seems to be the exception rather than the rule. Teams may fill their squad with tried and tested, because they are tried and tested. In an elite competition, these tried and tested players should elevate to a different level. By playing games at a consistently higher standard they will be better prepared for international football. I still believe that this should be further explored and tweaked. Edited to correct spelling

In all honesty, I think this decision to say no to a 10 team league is a grave mistake in the long term. I have been looking at this and when I take the emotional hysterics and the self interest (that the old firm are quite regularly and quite rightly accused of) I actually think there are some medium and long term benefits to Scottish football. Why do I think this: 1. Scottish football does not have the financial muscle or the available talent to support a 12 team premier competition. It certainly does not have the financial muscle or available talent to support 4 professional and semi-professional leagues. A ten team premier league reduces the amount of players required and therefore provides positions to elite players only. There should not be positions available for players over 36 years of age in an elite competition. As a side note, this would work best in conjuntion with the scrapping of the silly U23 rule. 2. The split goes. 2 rounds of home and away games. 4 home old firms games a season - locked in. This actually increases TV exposure for all teams. The draw for the entire season is known at the start of the year. (Imagine how much earler the HM could be organised!) 3. The available money is distributed to less teams which means the premier league teams have more cash. Ideally a better split of the available cash would be an even better outcome. In conclusion the dismissing of this idea reeks, as usual, of self interest instead of the benefit of Scottish Football as a whole. I suppose I will be accused on being a mad Aussie with no understanding of Scottish football culture and you would be right. But I also know that the SPL has been going backwards since inception and it has taken Scottish Football as a whole with it. Discuss.....

It gets really depressing when you are older than the Manager