players in scotland

im playing as partick in the spl and ive just won the premier league but i was wondering why do players values in scotland go down 2 the point where their only worth 500k

Are the contracts of these players nearly expiring?

The SPL is one of the worst leagues in Europe.

no there all in contract im guessing cos it is the worst league in the world like absolutegenius said

normally despite low values, you can still sell the players for a decent amount- but i agree the values look very low for SPL players sometimes

some people obviously dont grasp world football or are narrow minded that you think SPL is the WORST in europe or the world, Absolute genius you rank the might of the Estonian league or, Faroe League above scotland? and robsafc you rate the New zealand leagues over this? or guetamla? im sorry but why bash the league straight off the bat, by automatically ranking it so low where the fact is there its not that bad not on any scale close to the major european leagues, but come on the big two scotish clubs have both reached major european finals in the past 10 years. which more than can be said for alot of teams outside of "europes elite"

some people obviously dont grasp world football or are narrow minded that you think SPL is the WORST in europe or the world, Absolute genius you rank the might of the Estonian league or, Faroe League above scotland?

Nobody said that the SPL was the worst league in europe or the world. What he actually said was this it is one of the worst. Speaking as a Scotsman and someone who regularly attends and watch SPL games I would have to agree although I would probably say its one of the least competitive leagues instead of one of the worst. If we could persuade England (or anyone for that matter ) to let the old firm teams join their league then I think the SPL would become more competitive.

Nobody said that the SPL was the worst league in europe or the world. What he actually said was this it is one of the worst. Speaking as a Scotsman and someone who regularly attends and watch SPL games I would have to agree although I would probably say its one of the least competitive leagues instead of one of the worst. If we could persuade England (or anyone for that matter ) to let the old firm teams join their league then I think the SPL would become more competitive.

That would cause it to die though, not least because the TV money without the old firm will be pitiful.

Nobody said that the SPL was the worst league in europe or the world. What he actually said was this it is one of the worst. Speaking as a Scotsman and someone who regularly attends and watch SPL games I would have to agree although I would probably say its one of the least competitive leagues instead of one of the worst. If we could persuade England (or anyone for that matter ) to let the old firm teams join their league then I think the SPL would become more competitive.

well someone did say it was the worst quote.."no there all in contract im guessing cos it is the worst league in the world like absolutegenius said"

Beside that I laugh at every post that say''s the Scots league is the worst,I am Scottish but live in Holland and like Scotland the Dutch have maybe 2 or 3 teams that CAN win the league,is the rest of Europe so different,England has 20 teams in there league and from the very start only 4 teams have any chance,that could be only 3 for most season's,Scotland has 2 teams that can win it but with alot fewer teams in the league,the same goes for Spain,Portugal,etc etc.

Also the saying that Scottish teams are so poor..well they do very well against the English teams in Europe and unlike alot of other countries they have there league winner's go into the CL with the runner up going into the qualifer's.

Look down on Scots football if you will but do so in the proper manner and not something that is easy to type.

Gotta agree with Daylight.

The SPL is no worse in terms of "dominance" than the EPL, Realisticly its only been Chelsea and Man United vying for a trophy in recent years and beyond that you could only maybe add Liverpool or Arsenal (barring the teams who have 1 fluke season).

Every league in Europe has a dominant team(s), the SPL just gets flack because Rangers and Celtic have huge fan bases across the world and both come from Glasgow... so every game between them not only usualy decides the title race... but is one of the biggest Derby games in the wold.

And technicaly given population sizes all of the EPL teams should be capable of matching the old firm's financial success and fan base. (1-9 population ratio).

And even with the Sky money its only maybe the top 6 that are beyond the old firms spending, and only Man United that can claim to have a bigger support.

and only Man United that can claim to have a bigger support.

Well Japan and China do have large populations lol

Yeah the worst league in the world got a team into the Euro cup Final :S

Clever guys..

The SPL is one of the worst leagues in Europe.

LOL!

Out of 498 players only 170 were English in the EPL, or about 34.1%, which is absolutely disgraceful, by anyone's standards. The percentage of Scottish players playing in the SPL is in the 70% mark, or even higher.

Also, look at two of the players who have lit up the Championship down in England: Noel Hunt has scored 10 goals already for Reading, whereas he only managed to net 8 goals in 4 seasons in the SPL with Dunfermline. Although, he did manage to net 22 goals in 2 SPL seasons with Dundee United.

Ross McCormack had 2 seasons in the SPL with Motherwell, where he bagged a total of 10 goals. He's scored more than that in 17 league starts with Cardiff City. He has 13 goals already and he's been injured for a few weeks now.

That's only two examples, I'm sure that I could come up with more. If you're stating that the SPL is "one of the worst leagues in Europe" then that must reflect badly on the Championship also, and given the fact that the Championship is the breeding ground for the clear majority of English players (Although it has a high amount of foreign players) then all is not well for our friends in the south.

their values "go down"?!

meaning they were worth more than they were before they won the SPL?

that aside i can only think that their reputation doesn't really rise even if they do win the league.

i wouldn't go as far as to say the game sees it is a fluke, going by the rest of the game i doubt the developers thought that far ahead, or at least went to the trouble to implement it.

you won the league, the clubs rep rises slightly, the players EVER SO SLIGHTLY...

because it's a small team.

i'm Celtic, have won every trophy available for the past 7 years & the club still aren't favourites to win the CL

Yeah the worst league in the world got a team into the Euro cup Final :S

Clever guys..

"vun team doth not a league make, so say i!"

Most likely static league reputation has played a part.

look at how Rangers got to the Euro final, by boring everybody half to death. I had the misfortune to see Rangers knock out Sporting and good god it was a horrible advertisement for how football should be played. With the exception of Rangers and celtic in the Scottish premier, the rest of the teams would struggle in the championship and thats why its a poor league.

look at how Rangers got to the Euro final, by boring everybody half to death. I had the misfortune to see Rangers knock out Sporting and good god it was a horrible advertisement for how football should be played. With the exception of Rangers and celtic in the Scottish premier, the rest of the teams would struggle in the championship and thats why its a poor league.

To be fair to Celtic I wouldn't say that they've been anywhere near as negative as Rangers from what I've seen of them.

look at how Rangers got to the Euro final, by boring everybody half to death. I had the misfortune to see Rangers knock out Sporting and good god it was a horrible advertisement for how football should be played. With the exception of Rangers and celtic in the Scottish premier, the rest of the teams would struggle in the championship and thats why its a poor league.

Would you rather your team played

1. Attacking football and lost heavily.

or

2. Defence based counter attacking and win?

Managers like Sir Alex Ferguson appluaded the team and the management for getting so far in the competition as well as several commentators and ex players/managers pre, post, and during the matches stating that Rangers showed a defensive master class throughout the campaign.

Beating Lyon 3-0, Stuttgart 3-2, drawing with Barca, defeating Werder, Sporting and Fiorentina etc. etc. etc.

You play to your strengths after all.

thats my point though really about the scottish league, a team that regularly defeats the other teams in their league pretty comfortably, has to sit back and park the bus against half decent european sides ( Barca didn't need to win and Lyon just had a bad day at the office, it happens ) because they haven't got the players to give them a proper game of football. I don't deny that rangers defended well ( didn't see to many swift, pacey counter attacks ) but it was boring as hell. Obviously the wins were great for Rangers supporters, but for me the neutral, I found watching Rangers dull. So much so that I put a tenner on Zenit to win the final and won myself some money

Very good point. Rangers and Celtic play extremely negative football in Europe, which is why they have the occasional good result. If they didn't park the bus in front of goal like Greece in Euro 2004 then they wouldn't stand much of a chance.

there's a difference between playing "badly" & playing "negatively".

even if you were to say that Celtic played negatively in Europe it could only be based on this season as they've played so well in previous seasons.

and although i didn't see them this season i'm willing to bet "KASH-DOLLA!" that they didn't play "negatively" this season either... just badly (& maybe even were just unlucky at times)

so in conclusion... you dont know what you're talking about.

there's a difference between playing "badly" & playing "negatively".

even if you were to say that Celtic played negatively in Europe it could only be based on this season as they've played so well in previous seasons.

and although i didn't see them this season i'm willing to bet "KASH-DOLLA!" that they didn't play "negatively" this season either... just badly (& maybe even were just unlucky at times)

so in conclusion... you dont know what you're talking about.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2008/oct/02/celtic.championsleague

"Celtic's run of defeats on the road in the Champions League proper now extends to a toe-curling 17 out of 18, with just a draw against Barcelona several years ago going some small way towards hiding their shame."

Very good point. Rangers and Celtic play extremely negative football in Europe, which is why they have the occasional good result. If they didn't park the bus in front of goal like Greece in Euro 2004 then they wouldn't stand much of a chance.

Celtic don't play ' extremely negative ' football in Europe. Maybe away from home we play a bit more defensive, which is understandable when you look at our away record.

When teams come to Glasgow, we attack from the off, and I'm sure plenty of Europe's biggest names will back me up on that.

You say we wouldn't stand much of a chance? How come most of Europe's top clubs have come to Glasgow and lost?

look at how Rangers got to the Euro final, by boring everybody half to death. I had the misfortune to see Rangers knock out Sporting and good god it was a horrible advertisement for how football should be played. With the exception of Rangers and celtic in the Scottish premier, the rest of the teams would struggle in the championship and thats why its a poor league.

maybe it's a poor league because any decent payers that come through the other teams end up at the Old Firm or down south.

the league/country produces alot of fine payers. they just don't stick around.

that generalisation aside, i don't think either of the Old Firm look at those other teams other teams on matchday & think they've already won.

a few of the SPL teamswouldn't do too badly in England...

at least in the championship.

what the hell's my point?

yeah, i already said it before about club stature & payer value... & this thread has basically moved into the standard of the league...

so yes in the game it is of quite a low standard, but in terms of the OPs question, were these players performing at the same level in the championship they'd have went for more.

*breathes*

so in conclusion, the championship is more attractive than the SPL.

meh, i'm drunk.

there be gold in them thar hills!!

Values in the SPL fluctuate non stop. A players value can decrease by half and go up again within a few days. Basically, it's a bug. Also keep in mind that if you pay over the top for a player, his value will go down the longer he spends in a weaker league regardless of how well he plays.

On the debate side of things. I am also a regular SPL watcher, and to be honest it is probably one of the worst, least competitive leagues in Europe. Good runs in Europe over the past 3 years by 2 teams is the only reason our status in the rankings is so high, ever other team crashes every year, usually in the qualifying rounds. This season Scottish sides recorded just 1 win total, and that win was meaningless. Lets not forget Rangers lost to a Lithuanian team, a league most would consider a weak one.

Rangers and Celtic aren't too great right now, and the rest are a long way behind, not exactly a strong league.

On top of that the national team has been absent from the last 5 tournaments and are struggling again.

there's a difference between playing "badly" & playing "negatively".

even if you were to say that Celtic played negatively in Europe it could only be based on this season as they've played so well in previous seasons.

and although i didn't see them this season i'm willing to bet "KASH-DOLLA!" that they didn't play "negatively" this season either... just badly (& maybe even were just unlucky at times)

so in conclusion... you dont know what you're talking about.

i retract my statement... my bias came out here.

i couldn't accept that Celtic woud play negative/ugly defensive football unless they had to because that's just not the image i'm used to.

truth be told i havn't watched them play in a few seasons, i just check on the results now & then.

BUT from what i've heard there has been no mention of them playing "negatively" & from the flashes that i've seen it seems that they were just paying badly.

so although i do think that AbsoluteGenius was showing his anti-Old Firm bias, i have to admit that my "Celtic NEVER play ugly football & if they do it's still beautful!" bias came out also.

in conclusion i suck.

p.s Celtic did win all their CL home games 07-08 but the aesthetic level of beauty in their performances is unknwn to me.

& to further conclude.... i shut up now & play my game where i am King....

SILENCE!!!

I KILL YOU!!!

With the exception of Rangers and celtic in the Scottish premier, the rest of the teams would struggle in the championship and thats why its a poor league.

personally, I feel Rangers and Celtic would only be competitive in the championship and the rest would be league 1 or even league 2 for some, in standard.

If the Old Firm were to go to the Premiership as has been discussed by some for years, I'm sure they might be lucky and survive a year or so, but they would probably be yo-yoing up and down . Plus I also agree with another posters' thoughts, if they did go to the EPL, it would be the beginning of the end for the SPL.

If Celtic and Rangers went to the Premier League they'd be playing League 2 football within five years.

Very good point. Rangers and Celtic play extremely negative football in Europe, which is why they have the occasional good result. If they didn't park the bus in front of goal like Greece in Euro 2004 then they wouldn't stand much of a chance.

If Celtic and Rangers went to the Premier League they'd be playing League 2 football within five years.

No they wouldn't. If Celtic can hold their own against Manchester United, twice, then we could easily deal with the likes of Stoke, Newcastle and Wigan.

We have arguably, a few better players than those mentioned. And with the money we'd be bringing in, we'd have the chance to sign even more quality.

The fan-base is another thing which would give us an advantage over most teams in the league. Only one club in the EPL has a bigger stadium than we do. We're a huge, huge club, who could attract a better quality of player than teams outside the big 4, fact!

In the first few years, we'd finish in the lower half of the table, but within a few years of earning that much cash, there's no reason why we couldn't find ourselves in the position Aston Villa are in just now.

See people think if the OF went to the EPL, they'd continue with the same squads they have now. This is simply not the case. We build our squads for the SPL, if we were in the EPL, it's a fact we'd be considerably richer, therefore would be able to build a squad capable of competing at an extremely high level.

Stop being so arrogant.

No they wouldn't. If Celtic can hold their own against Manchester United, twice, then we could easily deal with the likes of Stoke, Newcastle and Wigan.

We have arguably, a few better players than those mentioned. And with the money we'd be bringing in, we'd have the chance to sign even more quality.

The fan-base is another thing which would give us an advantage over most teams in the league. Only one club in the EPL has a bigger stadium than we do. We're a huge, huge club, who could attract a better quality of player than teams outside the big 4, fact!

In the first few years, we'd finish in the lower half of the table, but within a few years of earning that much cash, there's no reason why we couldn't find ourselves in the position Aston Villa are in just now.

See people think if the OF went to the EPL, they'd continue with the same squads they have now. This is simply not the case. We build our squads for the SPL, if we were in the EPL, it's a fact we'd be considerably richer, therefore would be able to build a squad capable of competing at an extremely high level.

Stop being so arrogant.

I am not really a Celtic, Rangers or fan of any Scottish team but was just thinking that myself to be honest.

It is based on a clubs rep as well (the value of a player)

If Celtic and Rangers went to the Premier League they'd be playing League 2 football within five years.

well it would depend on how commercially successful they were.

and in that sense they have a greater following than 3/4 of the english divisions.

how many English teams have an international following?

it could go either way, they could bomb or take off, but what IS a fact here is that you're completely biased or are just trying to incite...

either way the reaction is "lol"

but yeah....

Pearl Jam said it better

I dont think they would be in europe ever again however if they did join the EPL, meaning there players would be unhappy, their squad would become smaller and they would just more than likely become a mid table to relegation fighting club with slight prospects of getting into the uefa cup if they were lucky. Thats what would happen tbh.

I dont think they would be in europe ever again however if they did join the EPL, meaning there players would be unhappy, their squad would become smaller and they would just more than likely become a mid table to relegation fighting club with slight prospects of getting into the uefa cup if they were lucky. Thats what would happen tbh.

both or at least one of TOF would be equal to Villa....

They'd have more oney coming in, larger fan base & being in the EPL they'd be able to attract a better class of player than they could in the SPL.

no but honestly...

THAT's what would happen...

I couldn't see it in all honestly. Most squads in the EPL are better than rangers and celtics if you look at it from a neutral point of view.

I couldn't see it in all honestly. Most squads in the EPL are better than rangers and celtics if you look at it from a neutral point of view.

what PearlJam said?

"See people think if the OF went to the EPL, they'd continue with the same squads they have now. This is simply not the case. We build our squads for the SPL, if we were in the EPL, it's a fact we'd be considerably richer, therefore would be able to build a squad capable of competing at an extremely high level."

that's what would happen.... tbh

honestly tho...

& i mean that...

ummm.... honestly...

what PearlJam said?

"See people think if the OF went to the EPL, they'd continue with the same squads they have now. This is simply not the case. We build our squads for the SPL, if we were in the EPL, it's a fact we'd be considerably richer, therefore would be able to build a squad capable of competing at an extremely high level."

that's what would happen.... tbh

honestly tho...

& i mean that...

ummm.... honestly...

Then they should be building for Europe insted.

is this turned into and england scotland debate? well im english put imo the scottish league is true football. hard hitting challenges are common whereas in england you get a bunch of foreign cheats. take out the foreigners, would the english league be so exciting? after all on setanta th had a big debate of who is better....torres or kris boyd.

after all on setanta th had a big debate of who is better....torres or kris boyd.

you're kidding right?

and no as far as i'm aware this isn't a Scotland v England thing.

at least not for me.

i don't care enough about either to bother. this is just fact.

if Villa can make it to 4th at this stage in the season, there's not much of a case agaist why one or both of TOF could manage it after a few seasons.

after all on setanta th had a big debate of who is better....torres or kris boyd.

well that is just lies. The debate albeit a stupid one was who is the better goal scorer, not the better player. A few people said boyd was a better natural finisher but obviously torres is 100 times the better player. It was not as cut and dry as who is better.

well that is just lies. The debate albeit a stupid one was who is the better goal scorer, not the better player. A few people said boyd was a better natural finisher but obviously torres is 100 times the better player. It was not as cut and dry as who is better.

You also have to take into account the quality of the teams each player is playing against. People in this thread have admitted that outside the OF they competition isn't very strong at all.

I also don't see how people could deny that if you looked at the squads of both the OF today then there isn't that many that would get into Premiership sides today. Kris Boyd is argueably Rangers best player, and he's wanted by a Championship club!

Also, look at two of the players who have lit up the Championship down in England: Noel Hunt has scored 10 goals already for Reading, whereas he only managed to net 8 goals in 4 seasons in the SPL with Dunfermline. Although, he did manage to net 22 goals in 2 SPL seasons with Dundee United.

Ross McCormack had 2 seasons in the SPL with Motherwell, where he bagged a total of 10 goals. He's scored more than that in 17 league starts with Cardiff City. He has 13 goals already and he's been injured for a few weeks now.

That's only two examples, I'm sure that I could come up with more. If you're stating that the SPL is "one of the worst leagues in Europe" then that must reflect badly on the Championship also, and given the fact that the Championship is the breeding ground for the clear majority of English players (Although it has a high amount of foreign players) then all is not well for our friends in the south.

No offense but those are very bad examples. Luis Fabiano only scored 3 goals in 22 matches for Porto. He is now in Sevilla and scored 24 last season. Diego was crap in Porto and became a star in Werder Bremen.

So is the Portuguese league better than the Spanish and German leagues?

IMO the Portuguese league is very little above the scottish league and I only say this because Porto is a regular in the last 16/Q-Finals in the CL, because apart from 3-4 teams the rest of the teams are very poor...

Surely the best way to determine the strength of any league/club/country in relation to others is based on the UEFA rankings.

http://www.xs4all.nl/~kassiesa/bert/uefa/index.html

So under UEFA country ranking 2009 - Scotland/SPL is at the moment 13th, think they started the season 10th.

http://www.xs4all.nl/~kassiesa/bert/uefa/data/method4/trank2009.html

Rangers, despite going out in the Qualifiers this season and only getting 0.3750 for this year are still ranked 25th in Europe.

Celtic are 43rd.

For comparison re. England V Scotland above

23rd Zenit

24th Valencia

28th Tottenham & Newcastle

38th Middlesboro

45th Ath Madrid

53rd Everton

Surely the best way to determine the strength of any league/club/country in relation to others is based on the UEFA rankings.

http://www.xs4all.nl/~kassiesa/bert/uefa/index.html

So under UEFA country ranking 2009 - Scotland/SPL is at the moment 13th, think they started the season 10th.

http://www.xs4all.nl/~kassiesa/bert/uefa/data/method4/trank2009.html

Rangers, despite going out in the Qualifiers this season and only getting 0.3750 for this year are still ranked 25th in Europe.

Celtic are 43rd.

For comparison re. England V Scotland above

23rd Zenit

24th Valencia

28th Tottenham & Newcastle

38th Middlesboro

45th Ath Madrid

53rd Everton

I think this would be a fairer comparison: http://www.xs4all.nl/~kassiesa/bert/uefa/data/method3/trank2008.html

Rangers are 24th in that one.

No offense but those are very bad examples. Luis Fabiano only scored 3 goals in 22 matches for Porto. He is now in Sevilla and scored 24 last season. Diego was crap in Porto and became a star in Werder Bremen.

So is the Portuguese league better than the Spanish and German leagues?

IMO the Portuguese league is very little above the scottish league and I only say this because Porto is a regular in the last 16/Q-Finals in the CL, because apart from 3-4 teams the rest of the teams are very poor...

# country 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09 ranking

1 England 15.571 14.428 16.625 17.875 9.888 74.387

2 Spain 12.437 15.642 19.000 13.875 10.562 71.516

3 Italy 14.000 15.357 11.928 10.250 9.625 61.160

4 Germany 10.571 10.437 9.500 13.500 8.687 52.695

5 France 11.428 10.812 10.000 6.928 7.857 47.025

6 Russia 10.000 10.000 6.625 11.250 7.000 44.875

7 Romania 5.500 16.833 11.333 2.600 2.642 38.908

8 Holland 12.000 7.583 8.214 5.000 5.333 38.130

9 Portugal 8.166 5.500 8.083 7.928 5.642 35.319

10 Ukraine 8.100 5.750 6.500 4.875 8.375 33.600

11 Turkey 5.375 4.000 6.100 9.750 6.000 31.225

12 Greece 6.166 3.333 4.666 7.500 6.250 27.915

13 Scotland 4.750 4.250 6.750 10.250 1.875 27.875

14 Switzerland 2.625 9.375 4.100 6.250 2.900 25.250

15 Belgium 6.125 5.500 4.700 4.500 4.250 25.075

16 Denmark 1.500 3.500 6.125 5.125 6.800 23.050

17 Bulgaria 2.375 8.750 5.125 2.750 2.250 21.250

18 Czech Republic 2.875 4.625 5.750 5.125 2.375 20.750

19 Norway 3.500 5.400 2.000 5.400 2.500 18.800

20 Austria 7.625 3.250 1.500 3.200 2.250 17.825

My mistake with my above post, I clicked the wrong link I think.

You still missed out the 4 English clubs at the top of the rankings tho

# country 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09 ranking

Dont understand exactly why my post was quoted there but I was talking about league quality not the UEFA rankings, specially considering that Romania (very poor performance this year, and the league is actually poor so their "climbing" was quite a surprise...)and Holland will be behind Portugal again soon (although Holland might go up again cos Sporting has an awful 05/06 record), but despite that, Ajax/PSV/Feyenoord players will still have no interest of playing in Portugal...

well that is just lies. The debate albeit a stupid one was who is the better goal scorer, not the better player. A few people said boyd was a better natural finisher but obviously torres is 100 times the better player. It was not as cut and dry as who is better.

yeah but surely if ou are a finisher then you are a better player becaue strikers are supposed to score. unless you have the big target man or the secondary striker (heskey, rooney) but torres and boyd are supposed to be 2 players who are out-and-out strikers so in my last post i meant that 'who is the better striker'. hope that clears it up for you.