cinch Heritage: Scottish Premiership Thread 2022/23

[Joe Qunt]

Ian Cathro?

Is he not at the Arabic club with Nuno Santo? Thought he was part of his set up.

[monkfromhavana]

Yeah, turns out he is. Oh well.

[Joe Qunt]

Not a bad suggestion in terms of young Scottish coaches, however I'd much prefer an old pro who would be completely out of their depth. Like Damien Duff. Or Tim Clancy.

[monkfromhavana]

The return of Pedro Caixinha.

[the hum]

Only standout Scottish candidate at the moment is David Martindale, but I don't think he'd leave Livi, plus his shady past wouldn't fit in with United's current all marketing no trousers ethos.

[privatefriend]

Dutch football is absolutley dire, orange scum.

[Joe Qunt]

That coefficient though...

[Blinder Data]

Goddamit. How can they be this impressive (and lucky) in Europe, and at the same time hilariously inconsistent domestically? Strange. Still, the directors at Ibrox must be delighted that they won't need to dip their hands so deeply into their own pockets to keep the big hoose open.

Now that that's over, I'll be watching BBC Scotland tomorrow in the hope that Hearts beat FC Zurich to complete the set. Regrettably, I must say: 'Mon the coefficient!

Played pretty well last night, but a stroke of luck with the PSV keeper throwing one in the net offset some very some dodgy defending. PSV started to put some nice play together, and could've comfortably won if they had their shooting boots on. Really needed to take a win to the second leg to stand any chance. Can't see us getting through unfortunately.

Getting to this stage got us an extra 5 million, so that plus a decent europa league run would be good again this season.

I knew this unsevcolike humility and pessimism was going to reap rewards. You can't fool me. I see what you're doing. Where is the Tina Turner and delusion? Please discover them soon: it's the only way to ensure you'll get humped by the likes of PSG.

[Joe Qunt]

SELLICK TO TOP THE GROUP YOU HEARD IT HEAR FIRST.

HUNS TO FINISH ROCK BOTTOM, LOSERPOOL FANS TO BE SUCKING OUR ARSE THE WHOLE TIME.

[AllisonSays]

Saw Partick Thistle beat Raith Rovers 2-1 at Firhill today - good first half but the second was shite, Thistle surprisingly defensive in that period. I didn't know until today that you can't have a beer at half-time - the only other Scottish game I've seen was Rangers on a stag-do and we had beer in the box we were in - that's shit isn't it! But it was good crack and I'll go back since it's a walk away from where we're living. Couldn't really pick out a player but Tunji Akanola looked composed on the ball and good in the air, and Aidan Fitzpatrick was quick and strong when he came on. Despite apparently being younger than me Steven Lawless looks Methusalah-esque.

[Rizla]

Good lord. When did a manager have such a run of results as beleaguered Jack Ross?

[Joe Qunt]

This might be one of the best Celtic teams I've ever seen.

[Joe Qunt]

I know I said Ross would be alright after this result but...

[kngen]

This might be one of the best Celtic teams I've ever seen.

'... bring on your Spaniards by the score .... '

[Kankurette]

"Hold my beer, Liverpool."

[the hum]

But both the old firm in the champions league will be great for the rest of Scottish football, yeah?

[Blinder Data]

But both the old firm in the champions league will be great for the rest of Scottish football, yeah?

Well, the rest of the Premiership clubs will get £600k each thanks to Rangers and Celtic's Champions League qualification. Yer man from Motherwell sounds pleased about it:

"If Rangers can make it then that £600,000 will make a big difference to everyone who receives it – our annual turnover is between £4-5m but for some clubs that sum will represent 20 per cent of their turnover."

Obviously £600K is a lot less than what the Glasgow clubs will get, but they can't do much about that. I would love it for other Scottish clubs to get closer to Celtic and Rangers - and also achieve something in Europe - but, apart form that corrupt Lithuanian at Hearts, no club chairmen wants to spend to achieve that. Hearts have managed to stay a cut above the rest, and even they made a hash of qualifying for the Europa League.

I can understand why smaller teams dislike Celtic and Rangers, but without their fans filling their stands they'd be millions out of pocket. The TV deals, meagre and far too narrow-focused as they are, will always need Celtic-Rangers games because they generate the most interest. The two clubs effectively subsidise the rest of the Scottish football. It's a funny one.

[the hum]

Well, the rest of the Premiership clubs will get £600k each thanks to Rangers and Celtic's Champions League qualification. Yer man from Motherwell sounds pleased about it:

Obviously £600K is a lot less than what the Glasgow clubs will get, but they can't do much about that. I would love it for other Scottish clubs to get closer to Celtic and Rangers - and also achieve something in Europe - but, apart form that corrupt Lithuanian at Hearts, no club chairmen wants to spend to achieve that. Hearts have managed to stay a cut above the rest, and even they made a hash of qualifying for the Europa League.

I can understand why smaller teams dislike Celtic and Rangers, but without their fans filling their stands they'd be millions out of pocket. The TV deals, meagre and far too narrow-focused as they are, will always need Celtic-Rangers games because they generate the most interest. The two clubs effectively subsidise the rest of the Scottish football. It's a funny one.

To put that into perspective, £600k is half of what Hamilton Accies received for the sale of James McCarthy thirteen years ago, prior to selling-on fees. It also doesn't get paid til the following season and, given the huge costs of just keeping the lights on many clubs will face this winter (football economics not being divorced from economics in wider society, though many fans seem to think so) it's money that will be absorbed pretty rapidly. Plus a repeat payment is predicated on one or both of the OF making the CL group stages again, which is by no means guaranteed.

Of course no club chairman wants to take a spending gamble like that, not when the likes of Dundee and Hearts landed up nearly dead the last time they tried to keep up with them. Your out of pocket comment is patronising. We had a spell there with no Rangers for a few years during which the Prem got more interesting and the cup competitions were brilliant. The threat that's always issued by the OF and a compliant press is that Scottish football will become like the Irish league without the OF. Thing is though, OF aside, it really already is. The idea that they raise the standard of the rest is a myth. Besides which, what's so wrong with the Irish league? Sligo Rovers scudded Motherwell a few weeks back and Shamrock Rovers just matched Hearts in getting to the conference league groups. And the TV deal is worthless with or without the OF.

I think OF fans psychology is just so different from fans of other Scottish clubs to the extent that they just don't get it. As I saw someone on Pie and Bovril say the other day, it's quite unreal that OF fans are content to continue to watch a sports competition in the knowledge that there will never, ever be a third, nevermind a fourth challenger. Ever. Seriously the last season that could be described as widely competitive was 1993-94, and even at that point Rangers had won five on the bounce. The drawbridge was pulled up after that and, apart from Hearts' faltering challenge a couple years later that was that. They're simply going to have to go at some point, whether that'll be UEFA-sanctioned or not I've no idea.

Obviously Scotland isn't the only affected country, most are by the relentless capitalism within the game, creating mass inequalities just as it does in other aspects of life. It is though one of a handful of more extreme examples.

[Joe Qunt]

Jack Ross away.

[Joe Qunt]

Also this: https://theathletic.com/3515583/2022/08/30/spfl-the-new-deal-with-sky-sports-and-what-it-means/

Spoiler alert

Eleven of the 12 Scottish Premiership clubs have voted in favour of the Scottish Professional Football League's proposed new deal with Sky Sports, The Athletic understands, with Rangers still to reach a position.

The clubs have 28 days to respond to a vote of this nature but SPFL protocol has been to ask clubs to cast their decisions within 48 hours of the proposal being sent around.

The terms of the new deal will see the annual value of the broadcast partnership increase from £25million ($29.3m) to £29m, but it could potentially reach £37m by the end of the contract in 2029.

Sky Sports has held exclusive rights to the Scottish game since 2020 and, a fortnight ago, all 12 Premiership clubs met in one room for the first time since early 2020 to discuss the deal.

Most clubs are said to be "thoroughly on board" with what is on offer as no clubs stated an objection to the proposal in the meeting but Rangers are taking their time to consider the intricacies of the deal.

Rangers and the SPFL are still in dispute following the Cinch league sponsorship deal last year that saw the Ibrox club refuse to advertise the car dealer's branding due to it conflicting with an existing deal with Park's Motor Group, owned by Rangers chairman Douglas Park.

The deal was renegotiated to reflect the absence of inventory from Rangers, but it controversially contained a clause that means Rangers will not be part of any future league sponsorship offerings until 2026.

An email chain has been ongoing between both parties with regards to the parameters of a potential league-wide meeting to iron out the public war of words which stemmed from this incident and during the vote to end the pandemic-hit season in 2019-20, but they have so far failed to agree which parts are to remain confidential.

Clubs are said to be fed up of the ongoing battle but the Premiership meeting to discuss the Sky deal was a productive one. There were some questions raised about the league tying itself to just one broadcaster for another seven years but there is said to have been a consensus among most clubs that this represents a significant improvement.

The existing deal expires in 2025 and is worth £25m a year to the 42 clubs but the new contract will increase in value each year and, from season 2024-25, the number of games Sky can show will rise from 48 to 60.

Payments will reach a total of £29.5m per season from 2025-26 and remain at that level until 2028-29.

However, that figure could rise further to £37m a season as it is understood Sky will also have the option of showing an additional 20 games on top of that, which would be valued at £400,000 per fixture and worth £8m in total.

That is not a concrete figure that can be banked on, however, as they will decide in 2024 whether they are taking up the option of one package of ten games, the two packages, or none at all.

There are other tweaks, with the number of league games able to be broadcast at one ground per season increasing from four to five. An issue currently is Sky have not taken up their full allocation of games the last two seasons but that is because they often have to leave room to screen potential title showdowns, for example, and so cannot prematurely use up the three games at the ground it may be decided at.

Sky want exclusivity over the rights in exchange for their money but they have been flexible to allow Premiership clubs to show five of their home games on pay-per-view, which is a slight relaxation of the Saturday afternoon 3pm blackout. It is understood while the deal would still pass even if Rangers now voted against its implementation, the SPFL do need a waiver letter to allow five live home games per club to be shown.

Some clubs in the lower divisions had made clear they wanted the opportunity to broadcast games too but it appears that is not part of the deal, which has again been a frustration for lower league clubs who haven't been consulted despite their finances depending partly on the value of the deal brokered. One club simply said: "It will go through no matter what we think or vote."

The strategic review by accountancy firm Deloitte was the catalyst for the renegotiation. Aberdeen, Dundee, Dundee United, Hearts and Hibernian (all except Hearts are owned by US businessmen) joined forces and had the idea to commission an independent body to assess whether the current commercial deals were delivering value.

An independent consultant from a media background was also brought in to assist with the talks on the SPFL side and present the case for the value to be elevated in line with market trends.

Meanwhile, Hibernian owner Ron Gordon is understood to have taken a leading role in discussions with Sky Sports as he spent some of his career in the media industry and has a relationship with Sky's parent company NBC in the US.


The Hibernian owner Ron Gordon, right, has been heavily involved (Photo: Mark Scates/SNS Group via Getty Images)
The Deloitte report was more than 100 pages long and a summary version was sent to clubs. It made a number of recommendations and suggested the Sky deal, while not hugely out of kilter, may be marginally undervalued. The report also suggested the SPFL could generate revenues close to £50m a season when factoring in this broadcast renegotiation and other commercial changes.

Deloitte outlined that there is work to be done on the brand but the immediate priority was to secure an improved broadcast agreement.

Several Premiership club sources tell The Athletic this was seen as an opportune time for Scottish football to extract more value from Sky due to the EFL rights being up for grabs in 2024.

If the EFL decide to sell the entirety of their rights to Norwegian-based company Viaplay — which has bought over Premier Sports and has already secured the EFL rights in ten countries — it would leave a gap in Sky's catalogue of live sport rights.

Some figures interpreted this as giving the SPFL more bargaining power and clubs say that the security the deal provides is reassuring given the cost of living crisis and the potential for subscriber numbers to drop off, with Sky recording a loss of 255,000 subscribers for the second quarter of this year.

It is also noted that the recent renewal of Premier League rights did not increase in value-per-game for the first time ever — but that deal was seen as a coup by the Premier League given the landscape of the pandemic.

There are still 22.7 million Sky customers and the SPFL was part of a record for Sky Sports in October when over 14 million people tuned into the various sports offerings that day.

The issue for the SPFL in trying to create competition, however, is that BT Sport has moved away from live sports rights in the UK and instead chosen to pursue the European market by tying down all three European competitions until 2027, with other major leagues acquired and a venture with Discovery announced.

Potential disruptors into the market like Amazon Prime and Apple TV, which has just bought the rights to MLS for 10 years in a deal worth $250m (£213.6m) a year, are not banging on the door either.

There is a sense of loyalty to Sky as they played their part in ensuring £25 million of revenue continued to flow into Scottish football during the pandemic by allowing clubs to stream all games during lockdown.

They had exclusive rights and could have made it difficult but this allowed clubs to still sell season tickets by offering a replacement service.

While some clubs still believe that Sky could pay more for the rights, they are reluctant to go to auction or be seen to walk away from Sky for a third time.

The move to sell the rights to the BBC at the turn of the millennium (£46m over four years) and then the switch to Setanta Sport in 2008 (£125m over four years before they went bust) did not work out as planned and there is a feeling that it set the value of the rights back. Risking a revolt by Sky would not be welcome, although the opposition opinion to that is that Sky are paying what they want to due to a lack of competition.

The only other alternative would be to reject the offer from Sky and seek to build a direct-to-consumer type service, which was discussed in 2000 when SPL TV fell through.

"Clubs are nervous about new companies until they are proven," says one club chief. "Sky were rejected once before as people thought they could do better but they lived to regret that with Setanta after they went bust and there is a bit of trepidation that remains.

"People point to other deals like Belgium, Denmark and Austria but they don't share broadcasting territory with the biggest league in the world and aren't fighting for coverage with the same broadcasters like we are.

"People can criticise the deal but what it comes down to is, 'Have you got someone who is prepared to pay more money?' And fundamentally we don't."

For Scottish clubs, unlike in countries like Denmark and Belgium who sell nearly all of their live games to several different broadcasters, there is a balance to be struck in maintaining the traditional 3pm Saturday slot.

The Scottish Premiership is the highest supported league per head of population across Europe so alienating match-going supporters by moving even more games to suit TV schedules could financially damage their core support, with gate receipts representing the highest proportion of income compared to every other league in Europe.

Clubs will have to decide in 2024 whether they wish to dislocate these five games from the Saturday afternoon schedule. It costs money to put together these productions and so it is being viewed as a metaphorical toe in the water when it comes to PPV.

Another potential breakthrough is that Deloitte is understood to have recommended that SPFL and SFA work closer together to maximise commercial value. The SPFL don't have a large commercial arm currently but it is noted by some clubs that this was at the behest of the bigger clubs in years gone by, as they just wanted a league body that ran the league and that taking out extra costs simply reduced the revenue to be shared.

One of Deloitte's main points was that the SPFL could improve their international rights. There are existing deals with dozens of countries across the globe but some of these only cover a small portion of the higher-value games and are not overly lucrative. Infront Sports & Media agency are understood to have the contract to broker these deals for the next two years. MP and Silva, co-owned by Leeds owner Andrea Radrizzani, previously bought up the rights and sub-sold them to different territories, which was worth millions. One Premiership club chief said there was widespread belief they had paid above the market value at the time.

There are plans now in the pipeline to start an umbrella organisation that brings together the men's, women's, youth and national teams so that it can be sold as a complete package.

From a marketing perspective, the leading brains behind it believe this makes Scottish football more attractive as the new agreement also gives the women's game a deal of substance for the first time.

Whether Scottish football is undervalued or not has been a topic of contention for about as many years as football has been on the box but the new Sky deal represents incremental improvement and Deloitte's findings could mark the first delve into a new chapter of Scottish football.

[close]

[kngen]

Sevco acting like petulant weans once again - what a surprise.

I have no doubt Celtic's long-term plan has been to jump ship to a European Super League¹ if they're ever given the chance - unfortunately, it's been made clear that Celtic's owners view 'the Old Firm' as being the most attractive asset available to make this happen, and the board have sat on their hands and kept their mouths shut while Sevco have girned and whined and generally acted like the rules don't apply to them (which, given the SFA's reticence of enforcing them when it comes to a club playing out of Govan, they generally don't) during the process of inheriting the status of the old club. I know a lot of Celtic fans view the SFA's complicity in Sevco's 'revival' as part of a massive conspiracy against their own club, but I see it as purely a business transaction - a corrupt one, of that there is no doubt, but driven by money rather than personal allegiance. They, too, are so short-sighted that they can't see past 'the Old Firm' as being the only way Scottish football continues to survive, no matter how wide the income gap between the two clubs and the rest of the country's clubs becomes, and how detrimental that is to the game in general. It's hugely fucking depressing.

However, if Celtic and Sevco were to leave, and perhaps retain a presence in the cups with B teams or under-21s, it would be the only thing that would save Scottish football in the long term, IMO. Tax their superleague earnings and use the money to revitalise the grassroots, too. There are probably FIFA and UEFA regulations that prohibit this (using clubs' earnings to fund other clubs) but Spanish and Italian clubs do this sort of shit all the time and UEFA are happy to turn a blind eye (see also the City Group).

_{1 There haven't been many rumbling about a breakaway of late - but if Man City or QSG dominate the CL for the next couple of years, expect to hear the Spanish and German heavyweights start floating the idea again.} 

[Joe Qunt]

Interesting post @kngen. I personally am opposed to a Super League solution, but it's hard to think of other alternatives that would be palatable to both Glasgow derby clubs (OF? get it right pal).

I read an article a few months ago about how to make the Bundesliga more competitive. The author suggested the best solution was to "arm the best-placed competitor" i.e. giving RB Leipzig a bigger share of prize/TV money.  Maybe this could work, by negotiating a bigger share of money for Hearts, Hibs and Aberdeen we'd see a bit more competition.

[Blinder Data]

To put that into perspective, £600k is half of what Hamilton Accies received for the sale of James McCarthy thirteen years ago, prior to selling-on fees. It also doesn't get paid til the following season and, given the huge costs of just keeping the lights on many clubs will face this winter (football economics not being divorced from economics in wider society, though many fans seem to think so) it's money that will be absorbed pretty rapidly. Plus a repeat payment is predicated on one or both of the OF making the CL group stages again, which is by no means guaranteed.

Of course no club chairman wants to take a spending gamble like that, not when the likes of Dundee and Hearts landed up nearly dead the last time they tried to keep up with them. Your out of pocket comment is patronising. We had a spell there with no Rangers for a few years during which the Prem got more interesting and the cup competitions were brilliant. The threat that's always issued by the OF and a compliant press is that Scottish football will become like the Irish league without the OF. Thing is though, OF aside, it really already is. The idea that they raise the standard of the rest is a myth. Besides which, what's so wrong with the Irish league? Sligo Rovers scudded Motherwell a few weeks back and Shamrock Rovers just matched Hearts in getting to the conference league groups. And the TV deal is worthless with or without the OF.

I think OF fans psychology is just so different from fans of other Scottish clubs to the extent that they just don't get it. As I saw someone on Pie and Bovril say the other day, it's quite unreal that OF fans are content to continue to watch a sports competition in the knowledge that there will never, ever be a third, nevermind a fourth challenger. Ever. Seriously the last season that could be described as widely competitive was 1993-94, and even at that point Rangers had won five on the bounce. The drawbridge was pulled up after that and, apart from Hearts' faltering challenge a couple years later that was that. They're simply going to have to go at some point, whether that'll be UEFA-sanctioned or not I've no idea.

Obviously Scotland isn't the only affected country, most are by the relentless capitalism within the game, creating mass inequalities just as it does in other aspects of life. It is though one of a handful of more extreme examples.

I would argue that £600K to other Premiership clubs for doing nothing in the Champions League is not a fair comparison with record transfer fees for players they have developed. Also, if it's being absorbed rapidly due to high costs, is that not an argument it's badly needed?

In any case, I think you misunderstand me. I'm not saying Celtic and Rangers are wholly positive influences on the Scottish game. They clearly dwarf other clubs who are dependent on them for income. There is an argument to be made for them to join the EPL or a European league instead. However, the chances of that happening are slim, so the best thing to do is improve the status quo as much as possible, which would mean encouraging other clubs - specifically bigger ones like Hibs, Hearts, Aberdeen, etc. - to build themselves up sustainably to support challenges to top two and Europe.

I don't agree that the league became interesting after Rangers got liquidated. There was barely a challenge in the Premiership 2012-2016, and even after Rangers came into the top flight, only last year's title race was close, the first time in ten years. The cups were shared out, which was great, but a league without challengers is bad all round.

It's no surprise Celtic and Rangers fans have different POVs from other clubs - I'd imagine it's the same for Real Madrid and Getafe fans. The Bundesliga is even worse for competitiveness - even so, I remember some German football expert on a podcast said most fans are deeply opposed to any change to the system to support a challenger (à la RB Leipzig) because they value the fan ownership principle so much.

Interesting post @kngen. I personally am opposed to a Super League solution, but it's hard to think of other alternatives that would be palatable to both Glasgow derby clubs (OF? get it right pal).

I read an article a few months ago about how to make the Bundesliga more competitive. The author suggested the best solution was to "arm the best-placed competitor" i.e. giving RB Leipzig a bigger share of prize/TV money.  Maybe this could work, by negotiating a bigger share of money for Hearts, Hibs and Aberdeen we'd see a bit more competition.

I remember seeing how the prize money was split in the days of the SPL. It was an astonishing carve-up by Celtic and Rangers! 1st got something like 40%, with 2nd on 35%, and then a very even split of crumbs for the rest. It's a fairer performance-based split now in the SPFL, but remember any change would need to be agreed by the rest. I don't think the yo-yo clubs would support losing money so Hearts can afford a couple of new players.

[kngen]

(OF? get it right pal).

That's why I put it in quotes - we might not see it that way, but those that consistently sell Scottish football short - including Desmond and Lawwell - definitely do. Why else would the board consistently hobble our progression when the gap between the two clubs started to get too big - or be happy to allow the new entity to appropriate all the trappings of the old one, and be complicit in them riding roughshod over the rulebook? In their eyes, we are joined at the hip, and are far more marketable that way.

I read an article a few months ago about how to make the Bundesliga more competitive. The author suggested the best solution was to "arm the best-placed competitor" i.e. giving RB Leipzig a bigger share of prize/TV money.  Maybe this could work, by negotiating a bigger share of money for Hearts, Hibs and Aberdeen we'd see a bit more competition.

I'm not sure if throwing money at clubs is the answer - the Edinburgh clubs and the New Firm have a pretty bad track record of sqaundering their riches with daft purchases and appointments, particularly when Sky opened their chequebook the first time around. I'm interested to see the effect English clubs, now that Europe is closed to them due to Brexit, hoovering up young Scottish talent will have on the league - it's bad news for Celtic and Rangers' academies, but those development fees could be a rich seam for smaller clubs to mine. Another Brexit knock-on effect could potentially be the reintroduction of the 'three foreigners' rule - it was scrapped due to EU regulations, but those don't apply now, of course. Celtic and Rangers would never stand for it in the league, as it would cripple them in Europe - but maybe restrict cup comps to homegrown players only. Would make them far more competitive and give the youngsters in the bigger clubs a rare chance in the limelight too. It wouldn't transform things overnight, but I think it might redress the imbalance somewhat over a few years.

[the hum]

IIRC the three foreigners rule only applied in European competition, and went due to Bosman. It didn't apply domestically, but clubs tended to restrict their foreign intake in the knowledge it would hamper them if they qualified for Europe. Would be interested to know the consequences of the Bosman ruling post-Brexit though. Could clubs potentially start tying their players down to long, restrictive contracts again (essentially how Dundee United gained success in the 80s)? No idea.

Interesting video here on how non OF clubs don't have a prayer; comes down to exponential wage gaps that make Leicester's achievement in winning the English Prem seem fairly humdrum in comparison. https://youtu.be/LUpmblcJy3s

[the hum]

I would argue that £600K to other Premiership clubs for doing nothing in the Champions League is not a fair comparison with record transfer fees for players they have developed. Also, if it's being absorbed rapidly due to high costs, is that not an argument it's badly needed?

I'm trying to make the point that it doesn't transform the landscape of the game, just as twice that amount plus addons didn't transform Accies into a footballing powerhouse. Of course what is effectively free money isn't going to be knocked back, but what it'll do for the clubs is being ridiculously overstated (not by you, I must emphasise; I listened at the weekend though to a gaggle of idiotic pundits - including Tom English, who I previously credited with more intelligence - who basically lined up to tell supporters of other clubs to shut up and rejoice at this windfall. Had to switch off Sportsound for the first time in years.)

In any case, I think you misunderstand me. I'm not saying Celtic and Rangers are wholly positive influences on the Scottish game. They clearly dwarf other clubs who are dependent on them for income. There is an argument to be made for them to join the EPL or a European league instead. However, the chances of that happening are slim, so the best thing to do is improve the status quo as much as possible, which would mean encouraging other clubs - specifically bigger ones like Hibs, Hearts, Aberdeen, etc. - to build themselves up sustainably to support challenges to top two and Europe.

Scottish clubs are, by and large, already run sustainably. You can't "build yourself up" in a sustainable fashion to challenge the OF - the gap is too massive to bridge without taking wreckless financial risks or banking on a chancer who claims they can do it. Paul Conway, who's been attempting the moneyball approach with a portfolio of European clubs, including AS Nancy, Esbjerg and Barnsley, was in the news a while back claiming he could break the OF dominance with his approach; most of the clubs he's involved with are in a mess.

I don't agree that the league became interesting after Rangers got liquidated. There was barely a challenge in the Premiership 2012-2016, and even after Rangers came into the top flight, only last year's title race was close, the first time in ten years. The cups were shared out, which was great, but a league without challengers is bad all round.

That's the internalised OF view though. Aberdeen sustaining a challenge until late March a few seasons ago provided a glimmer of something far more entertaining to the rest of us than the status quo. Granted they faltered badly in the end, and the final league table didn't really reflect much evidence of a challenge. But for a good 3/4 of the season something was on, rather than an insurmountable gap by late October.

[Blinder Data]

This might sound a tad overconfident but I simply can't see Celtic losing a domestic game this season.

Roll on Saturday.

[Joe Qunt]

This might sound a tad overconfident but I simply can't see Celtic losing a domestic game this season.

Roll on Saturday.

Fingers fucking crossed. Would be a brilliant way for Ange to prove everyone who said he would be sacked by Christmas wrong (i.e. me).

[kngen]

Haksbanovic looked a bit special last night, even from a 15-minute cameo. And we might finally get that midfield enforcer we need in the shape of a big Danish chap fleeing Russia and into our welcoming embrace. Things are looking pretty good right now - although ask me again at the back of 2 on Saturday.

[Joe Qunt]

CELTIC 4 - SEVCO 0

Huns are shite! Get it up ye!