Hall Of Fame
I watched 18-team league fitba from 1966 to 1975. Everything was decided (2 clubs challenging for the title, another 3 looking at European places, and 4 scrapping against relegation, by March. I watched some frocking awful mid-table, sod-all-at-stake dreck from March to May most seasons. If that?s on the table, I?m eating elsewhere.Originally Posted by Mason89
Hall Of Fame
That?s was in a time though when other teams thought they might have a chance of doing something. 10, 20, 40 team league, theres only one side winning it now.
I have zero expectation levels and just quite fancy getting drunk in other parts of the country for a change
Hall Of Fame
It was exactly the same duopoly with the odd cup win (us 1970, Dunfermline 1968) and two league challenges from us in 70-71 and the following season. When I heard that Killie had won the 64-65 title, I was surprised, especially since I witnessed them get a 4-0 doing from us on the last day of 1966).
Two relegated, one of whom was usually one of the clubs newly promoted, with one or two others on the fringes of the drop (us in 68-69). It was vucking scheidt, believe me.
The first time we qualified for Europe was only due to the Tims having won the European Cup even though we finished 4th (and Clyde were gerry-mandered out of a Fairs Cup place).
There?s too much of a gap between the coalition of cuountery and the rest of us, but it was always thus in my 61 years of supporting a club that at least did have a short period of joy 40 years ago. Fornicating about with numbers will have little effect. As Bamber said in the Young Ones? University Challenge episode, ?Oh, the rich kids ALWAYS win?.
Hall Of Fame
Doesn't mean it can't work now. Was it really as bad as watching a shyte Motherwell/Livi/Hearts team up here twice a season kicking anything other than the ball.
Would only have four games against the cheeks, which is better than the current eight, if we finish top six.
Make it interesting and relegate four teams a season. With so little between clubs, you could see some interesting developments.
Not a cat in hells chance we would ever see a league with less cheek games.
Hall Of Fame
See post 163. Believe me, it was verkin dire once everything had been settled around March, unless we were still in the Scottish Cup. The bruteball to which you refer has an antidote in scoring early against the ****s, drawing them out, and giving them a sound spanking, admittedly something with which we have struggled. However, the bland, dull, boring, tedious fitba which we had to watch when ferkall was at stake for both participants, bearing in mind that we’d had two credible championship runs in 70-71 (probably my favourite-ever squad) and 71-72) was the worst period I have been party to since 1966.
Hall Of Fame
A ten team league has eight teams playing to avoid relegation before a ball is kicked, ourselves included
You would like to think that a bigger league might give some clubs a level of comfort so that they might try to play a bit, throw on a youngster, try something different etc
I?m probably being a bit naive but I know for certain what ten teams would look like and it aint pretty
Hall Of Fame
What about a 16 team league with a split? Play each other twice (30 games), then the top eight and bottom eight play each other once (7 games).
That reduces the fixtures by one, but does not solve the "problem" of having four Old Firm games. Mind you, nobody outside their fan base watches them. I do not think pubs in the rest of the UK are full to bursting whenever they play each other.
Hall Of Fame
Yep, the old firm viewing figures in the UK are a bit of a myth. 4 times as many people would rather find out what the Sugdens are up to in the Woolpack, than the Dingles at Ibrox
Hall Of Fame
https://www.afc.co.uk/2025/04/07/jac...ong-term-deal/
Great news and well done to the club for getting this done
Hall Of Fame
But, you got to live in hope ? I agree, I don`t want it back to 10.
Would rather only play the cheeks twice each a season, and would choose a 16 or 18 team league, with some rule ordering each team to play a few young Scottish players. How about making it suitably cooky by deciding the bigger your turnover , or share of tv money, the more u-21 Scots need to be played ? ( Currently we`d struggle with that. As would a few other sides. But mainly the cheeks !!! )
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote