PDA

View Full Version : Media SPL Plans Unveiled (merged)



TowerHibs
12-12-2010, 12:31 PM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/scot_prem/9279663.stm

We'll get nowhere fast in our country until we stop putting the cash before the product. So back to playing everyone 4 times a season.....what happened to it being boring????

Also refering to another thread, noone else will win the league if you are playing the old firm 4 times a year.

I agree with the winter break coming back and for the league to begin earlier but what about the idea of letting B teams playing in the next league down???? think that is another strange idea which will surely only benefit a handful of teams while being unfair to other teams who will be pushed out of their current league status.

to coin a phrase that big mixu loves: "time will tell!"

Gatecrasher
12-12-2010, 12:47 PM
The leagues beneath the top two would be regionalised if the plans

that bit i agree with, the rest is the same old boring pish we have put up with since i can remember

Hardly "radical" as the bbc put it :rolleyes:

bingo70
12-12-2010, 12:51 PM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/scot_prem/9279663.stm

We'll get nowhere fast in our country until we stop putting the cash before the product. So back to playing everyone 4 times a season.....what happened to it being boring????

Also refering to another thread, noone else will win the league if you are playing the old firm 4 times a year.

I agree with the winter break coming back and for the league to begin earlier but what about the idea of letting B teams playing in the next league down???? think that is another strange idea which will surely only benefit a handful of teams while being unfair to other teams who will be pushed out of their current league status.

to coin a phrase that big mixu loves: "time will tell!"

Think the idea of having b teams is a good idea, the teams it will benefit will be those with a good youth set up which is obviously what we need to encourage.

not a fan of playing each other 4 times a season and the problem with a winter break is when would you have it? weather can stop play anything between november and about march now, the weather here is too unpredictable, i'd rather we just went for a summer league.

Antifa Hibs
12-12-2010, 12:57 PM
Think the idea of having b teams is a good idea, the teams it will benefit will be those with a good youth set up which is obviously what we need to encourage.

not a fan of playing each other 4 times a season and the problem with a winter break is when would you have it? weather can stop play anything between november and about march now, the weather here is too unpredictable, i'd rather we just went for a summer league.

Majority of punters in Scotland want a bigger league, so lets make it smaller. Getting fed up off these ****s running fitba.

Won't happen anyway. Nae chance Aberdeen and Hamilton are gonna vote for it this season.

The B team thing sounds a good idea. At these present times watching the B team at some of the old skool grounds seems more fun than going to Motherwell for the 546446 time in 5 seasons.

TheEastTerrace
12-12-2010, 12:58 PM
New structure for SPL proposed

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/scot_prem/9279663.stm

degenerated
12-12-2010, 01:01 PM
same old rubbish really.

what this league needs is more teams with less fixtures against each other, are they too stupid to see this :grr:

grunt
12-12-2010, 01:02 PM
A lot of thinking and talking still has to be done, but it appears Scottish football is closer to change than any time in the last decade.Interesting.

skipster7
12-12-2010, 01:05 PM
i cant believe one of the reasons qouted in a much needed league reconstruction was more time for the bigots to play money spinning friendlies:grr:
FFS folk are bored sensless watching the same teams at least four times and we are crying out for a bit of novelty value.im convinced only playing teams once a season at home would add enough numbers to the gate to make up for umpteen Cat A games which dont exactly sell out anyway:bitchy:

bingo70
12-12-2010, 01:06 PM
same old rubbish really.

what this league needs is more teams with less fixtures against each other, are they too stupid to see this :grr:

I agree but suppose the logic is that if that was to happen you'd lose home games to rangers, celtic and hearts and they'd be replaced with games against the likes of dunfermline, dundee and partick, would that really be much more entertaining?

lucky
12-12-2010, 01:07 PM
Backward step having a top league of 10 teams. Also unlikely that clubs are going to vote for 3 teams going down next season. That's 25% of the league getting relegated. But even higher when you take out the old firm. Can't see it happening

Saorsa
12-12-2010, 01:08 PM
Majority of punters in Scotland want a bigger league, so lets make it smaller. Getting fed up off these ****s running fitba.

Won't happen anyway. Nae chance Aberdeen and Hamilton are gonna vote for it this season.

The B team thing sounds a good idea. At these present times watching the B team at some of the old skool grounds seems more fun than going to Motherwell for the 546446 time in 5 seasons.:agree:

Every poll I've seen on this subject suggest fans want a bigger league, will these people ever listen tae the fans or will they keep up this pish until enough fans are so bored with it they stop going.


10 teams :bitchy: :grr: boring :yawn:

Barney McGrew
12-12-2010, 01:09 PM
would that really be much more entertaining?

It would make it a lot more competitive

Hibby70
12-12-2010, 01:09 PM
"Among the other details still to be settled upon is how to revert from the current top 12 to a league of 10, with one possibility being the relegation of three teams at the end of the season prior to change, with just one coming up."

This bit will be interesting at the end of next season!!! We better get our act together soon.

skipster7
12-12-2010, 01:10 PM
I agree but suppose the logic is that if that was to happen you'd lose home games to rangers, celtic and hearts and they'd be replaced with games against the likes of dunfermline, dundee and partick, would that really be much more entertaining?
i think it would.any team that are on a decent run (best of the rest)could actually mount a challenge without a fair chance of losing 24 points a season to the bigot bros:agree:

Antifa Hibs
12-12-2010, 01:10 PM
I agree but suppose the logic is that if that was to happen you'd lose home games to rangers, celtic and hearts and they'd be replaced with games against the likes of dunfermline, dundee and partick, would that really be much more entertaining?

Not at all.

But Cat A games just now are 'big' games, in a larger league they would become 'massive' games.

For example, Hibs v Hearts could meet each other in August season 2011/2012, then might not meet each other until April in the 2012/2013, that would be over a year and a half for a Derby home match, dead cert to sell out, much larger TV audience etc.

Judas Iscariot
12-12-2010, 01:10 PM
What a utter croc of shît..

The SPL is dead on it's feet as it is, do they really think this will improve it?!

Crowds will drop furthermore, I'd personally favour going back playing Saturday amatuer than having a season ticket..

Every club outwith the mank should vote against this..

basehibby
12-12-2010, 01:12 PM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/scot_prem/9279663.stm

We'll get nowhere fast in our country until we stop putting the cash before the product. So back to playing everyone 4 times a season.....what happened to it being boring????

Also refering to another thread, noone else will win the league if you are playing the old firm 4 times a year.

I agree with the winter break coming back and for the league to begin earlier but what about the idea of letting B teams playing in the next league down???? think that is another strange idea which will surely only benefit a handful of teams while being unfair to other teams who will be pushed out of their current league status.

to coin a phrase that big mixu loves: "time will tell!"

What a bunch f*****g idiots - is Scottish Football even the slightest bit capable of learning from it's mistakes?!? We had a ten team league for the majority of the two decades between 1975 and 1995 and it was NOT popluar with the fans, players OR managers IIRC - we've been trying to get away from that set up for the last 15 years FFS!

Now this bunch of so called experts dredge up the same old drudgerous formula and try to paint it as progress :confused::grr::confused:

BigKev
12-12-2010, 01:15 PM
Not at all.

But Cat A games just now are 'big' games, in a larger league they would become 'massive' games.

For example, Hibs v Hearts could meet each other in August season 2011/2012, then might not meet each other until April in the 2012/2013, that would be over a year and a half for a Derby home match, dead cert to sell out, much larger TV audience etc.

I agree with this. A 16 or 18 team league would give others a chance to build decent runs and games against Hearts, Celtic and Rangers would have ER rocking again. At the moment you play one or t'other a few weeks apart and they lose a lot of the big game appeal.

GordonHFC
12-12-2010, 03:15 PM
Backward step having a top league of 10 teams. Also unlikely that clubs are going to vote for 3 teams going down next season. That's 25% of the league getting relegated. But even higher when you take out the old firm. Can't see it happening

Completely agree with this. It didn't work then and it will be equally unpopular with supporters this time round. The fact that football this time round is a business rather than a sport it will get the go ahead because there is more chance of them signing a better TV etc deal than there would be if there were 16 or 18 teams.

Football is no longer a game for the supporters but a machine for screwing the public.

ScottB
12-12-2010, 03:35 PM
Dumping 3 SPL teams in one go? I'll wager one or two would immediately hit the wall.

And then you'll have SPL2, with 3 SPL clubs joining the remaining First Division clubs, 3 of which will get punted into the regional set up for their privilege, quite possibly also hitting the wall in the process.


Surely all this would need the approval of all SFL clubs? Who are the SPL working group to tear up the entire league set up just because Rangers fancy a 10 team league?


An utter joke, a 10 team league will make the non Old Firm clubs even weaker and I would think see a sizable number of clubs collapse, who is going to pay for TV rights to SPL2? Never mind the Scottish League: Highland Division?

Presumably this would also invalidate the TV deals currently in place too, so another potential drop in income ahead there then as well.


And it's made all the worse by our club being involved in this dumbass idea.

jgl07
12-12-2010, 03:41 PM
How will this ever be voted through?

Three teams to be relegated. That means that all bar he OF (and possibly Hearts) will consider themselves vulnerable.

Will turkeys vote for an early Christmas?

SloopJB
12-12-2010, 03:51 PM
How will this ever be voted through?

Three teams to be relegated. That means that all bar he OF (and possibly Hearts) will consider themselves vulnerable.

Will turkeys vote for an early Christmas?

I think it may be down to the voting system, 97% agreement is required to facilitate any change. Rangers and Celtic have an increased percentage because they are a firm and they are old which means they miss out on many of the benefits available from the Scottish wastemoneyment.
Rangers hold 65% as do celtic making it slightly easier for them to reach the 97% agreement mark.

down the slope
12-12-2010, 04:01 PM
If like me you think a ten team league is the worst thing ever then we have to lobby our chairman to make him aware of our feelings, get your letters and e-mails going now before these balloons that run our football make things even worse !.

ScottB
12-12-2010, 04:02 PM
How will this ever be voted through?

Three teams to be relegated. That means that all bar he OF (and possibly Hearts) will consider themselves vulnerable.

Will turkeys vote for an early Christmas?

Given our form this year, it would be criminal for our board to vote for it, we could easily be one of the three!

jgl07
12-12-2010, 04:04 PM
I think it may be down to the voting system, 97% agreement is required to facilitate any change. Rangers and Celtic have an increased percentage because they are a firm and they are old which means they miss out on many of the benefits available from the Scottish wastemoneyment.
Rangers hold 65% as do celtic making it slightly easier for them to reach the 97% agreement mark.
Each SPL club gets one vote.

I think that 9 votes are required to change things.

Any 4 clubs can veto the change if that is the case.

snooky
12-12-2010, 04:06 PM
Didn't Wattie Smith say in the press this week that he favoured a SPL league of ten? Well, say nae mair - ten it is.

We'll have no rebellion from the majority, thank you, the Chosen One has spoken.

:grr:

down the slope
12-12-2010, 04:07 PM
Does anyone know the e-mail address of E R ?.

Part/Time Supporter
12-12-2010, 04:12 PM
What the hell are Hibs playing at here?

Its like they (and the other clubs on the working group) have just taken a bunch of half-baked OF proposals and passed them on as their collective thinking. I do not see what is in this proposal for any club outside the OF that is presently in the SPL.

Part/Time Supporter
12-12-2010, 04:15 PM
I think it may be down to the voting system, 97% agreement is required to facilitate any change. Rangers and Celtic have an increased percentage because they are a firm and they are old which means they miss out on many of the benefits available from the Scottish wastemoneyment.
Rangers hold 65% as do celtic making it slightly easier for them to reach the 97% agreement mark.

Nonsense.


Each SPL club gets one vote.

I think that 9 votes are required to change things.

Any 4 clubs can veto the change if that is the case.

You're correct to say it is one club one vote, but on fundamental reform like this it still requires 11-1 majority to pass. Effectively the OF have a veto on any major change.

SneakersO'Toole
12-12-2010, 04:23 PM
Another joke proposal from a joke organisation run by clowns pandering to the infirm's wants and needs.

As long as these glasgow parasites have the final say, the Scottish game will never flourish, never develop and never give back to the people who support it from the ground up, the fans.

You have got to believe that this ludicrous idea won't get the go ahead due to the 3 teams getting relegated? Its absolutely laughable.

The most frustrating thing is that WE the fans have no voice. Nothing to fight back against this farse. Our own club chairmen are so used to years of bending over backwards to the Glasgow cretins that they are actually considering this dross.

Its an un-winnable war. Its the reason the Scottish game is rotten to the core and why we are light years behind our European counter-parts where in some instances they weren't even independent countries 30 years ago.

Depressing.

blackpoolhibs
12-12-2010, 04:27 PM
Nonsense.



You're correct to say it is one club one vote, but on fundamental reform like this it still requires 11-1 majority to pass. Effectively the OF have a veto on any major change.

Why is this 11-1 majority system in place? I forget the reason, but why have our clubs allowed this to happen? 7-5 is fair 11-1 is not.:confused:

Part/Time Supporter
12-12-2010, 04:30 PM
Why is this 11-1 majority system in place? I forget the reason, but why have our clubs allowed this to happen? 7-5 is fair 11-1 is not.:confused:

Because the OF insisted on it when the SPL was set up. The other clubs were too damned greedy and stupid to realise what was going on until it was too late.

They went on strike a few years later to try and get rid of 11-1 voting, after the OF exercised their veto for the first time on a major issue (SPL TV) (http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/scot_prem/1916133.stm). They compromised to the present position (http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/scot_prem/2120769.stm), where it is 11-1 for major reform but 8-4 for most routine matters.

blackpoolhibs
12-12-2010, 04:38 PM
Because the OF insisted on it when the SPL was set up. The other clubs were too damned greedy and stupid to realise what was going on until it was too late.

They went on strike a few years later to try and get rid of 11-1 voting, after the OF exercised their veto for the first time on a major issue (SPL TV) (http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/scot_prem/1916133.stm). They compromised to the present position, where it is 11-1 for major reform but 8-4 for most routine matters.

Thanks, i remember that now. Shocking greed and stupidity from the rest of the clubs.:agree:

Dashing Bob S
12-12-2010, 04:40 PM
Fairly sensible proposals - if your brief is to take a product that's already dying on it's feet and drive it to the brink of extinction.

Alas the Scottish football authorities have been doing this for years and are pretty much unsurpassed at it. You have to salute them.

TheEastTerrace
12-12-2010, 04:45 PM
Because the OF insisted on it when the SPL was set up. The other clubs were too damned greedy and stupid to realise what was going on until it was too late.

They went on strike a few years later to try and get rid of 11-1 voting, after the OF exercised their veto for the first time on a major issue (SPL TV) (http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/scot_prem/1916133.stm). They compromised to the present position, where it is 11-1 for major reform but 8-4 for most routine matters.

In other words, the OF decide what happens in Scottish football when it comes to the crunch. Only in Scotland would this farcical voting mechanism be allowed. The SFA, SPL and SFL are in their back pockets too.

Seriously, what's the effing point anymore? The SPL threw a token gesture to the fans by 'consulting' us on the future of the league. What was always going to happen was pandering to the OF's wants and the lure of TV money.

What frustrates me is that us fans DO hold the power. Let's see how they feel when we stop turning up to games, stop watching the live games or canceling sports channel subscriptions, and actively demonstrating. It's our game, so why should we just sit back and take this?:grr:

Keith_M
12-12-2010, 04:50 PM
Dec 10th: Walter Smith calls (http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/r/rangers/9277439.stm) for a 10 team league.

Dec 12th: SPL propose a 'radical shake-up (http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/scot_prem/9279663.stm)', with a 10 team league.



Maybe Celtc are right after all. :bitchy:

Part/Time Supporter
12-12-2010, 04:57 PM
In other words, the OF decide what happens in Scottish football when it comes to the crunch. Only in Scotland would this farcical voting mechanism be allowed. The SFA, SPL and SFL are in their back pockets too.

Seriously, what's the effing point anymore? The SPL threw a token gesture to the fans by 'consulting' us on the future of the league. What was always going to happen was pandering to the OF's wants and the lure of TV money.

What frustrates me is that us fans DO hold the power. Let's see how they feel when we stop turning up to games, stop watching the live games or canceling sports channel subscriptions, and actively demonstrating. It's our game, so why should we just sit back and take this?:grr:

:agree:

This "reform" agenda is blatantly driven by the OF. They believe that they need four games a season between each other to sell season tickets. The derbies are the only games that are now sellouts, with attendance more normally in the 40-45 thousand range at both grounds. As mentioned above, many OF season tickets are sold outside Scotland (ie Ireland), with many of them only turning up for the two games against the significant other. Would they sell those season books with only one home derby?

If Hibs (or any of the other clubs on this panel) came forward and said "we want an 18 or 20 team league because our fans are bored rigid", the OF would say sorry, veto, not having that. They are only interested in reform if it suits their agenda. Therefore any reform has to start from the point of being acceptable to them, which almost by default makes it rubbish. There are some interesting ideas in this (b teams, providing more revenues to the other teams trying to produce professional football) but the overall package is a painted pig because of their corporate interest.

The disgusting thing about this is that many Old Firmers themselves wouldn't mind an 18 or 20 team league!

This is another example of why I was so cynical about Celtic's ridiculously pious attitude towards the refereeing problems. "We will seek reform to the benefit of all clubs" and all that schtick. Aye ****ing right they will. Celtic have been shafting other Scottish clubs since their formation.

Diclonius
12-12-2010, 05:04 PM
Dec 10th: Walter Smith calls (http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/r/rangers/9277439.stm) for a 10 team league.

Dec 12th: SPL propose a 'radical shake-up (http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/scot_prem/9279663.stm)', with a 10 team league.



Maybe Celtc are right after all. :bitchy:

My thoughts exactly.

It's quite astounding how there was zero talk of reducing the size of the league until Uncle Walter 'suggests' it.

LancashireHibby
12-12-2010, 05:04 PM
I think the 11-1 system will for once work against Rantic, which will make a pleasant change when at the very least Hamilton and Aberdeen vote against the proposals.

SneakersO'Toole
12-12-2010, 05:05 PM
:agree:

This "reform" agenda is blatantly driven by the OF. They believe that they need four games a season between each other to sell season tickets. The derbies are the only games that are now sellouts, with attendance more normally in the 40-45 thousand range at both grounds. As mentioned above, many OF season tickets are sold outside Scotland (ie Ireland), with many of them only turning up for the two games against the significant other. Would they sell those season books with only one home derby?

If Hibs (or any of the other clubs on this panel) came forward and said "we want an 18 or 20 team league because our fans are bored rigid", the OF would say sorry, veto, not having that. They are only interested in reform if it suits their agenda. Therefore any reform has to start from the point of being acceptable to them, which almost by default makes it rubbish. There are some interesting ideas in this (b teams, providing more revenues to the other teams trying to produce professional football) but the overall package is a painted pig because of their corporate interest.

The disgusting thing about this is that many Old Firmers themselves wouldn't mind an 18 or 20 team league!

This is another example of why I was so cynical about Celtic's ridiculously pious attitude towards the refereeing problems. "We will seek reform to the benefit of all clubs" and all that schtick. Aye ****ing right they will. Celtic have been shafting other Scottish clubs since their formation.

Great post and conveys exactly why Scottish football is dying a slow and painful death.

The worst part of all of it is it will never change.

TheEastTerrace
12-12-2010, 05:17 PM
:agree:

This "reform" agenda is blatantly driven by the OF. They believe that they need four games a season between each other to sell season tickets. The derbies are the only games that are now sellouts, with attendance more normally in the 40-45 thousand range at both grounds. As mentioned above, many OF season tickets are sold outside Scotland (ie Ireland), with many of them only turning up for the two games against the significant other. Would they sell those season books with only one home derby?

If Hibs (or any of the other clubs on this panel) came forward and said "we want an 18 or 20 team league because our fans are bored rigid", the OF would say sorry, veto, not having that. They are only interested in reform if it suits their agenda. Therefore any reform has to start from the point of being acceptable to them, which almost by default makes it rubbish. There are some interesting ideas in this (b teams, providing more revenues to the other teams trying to produce professional football) but the overall package is a painted pig because of their corporate interest.

The disgusting thing about this is that many Old Firmers themselves wouldn't mind an 18 or 20 team league!

This is another example of why I was so cynical about Celtic's ridiculously pious attitude towards the refereeing problems. "We will seek reform to the benefit of all clubs" and all that schtick. Aye ****ing right they will. Celtic have been shafting other Scottish clubs since their formation.

Agree. :agree:

Although I agree in principle, it's no coincidence that when Walter Smith demanded we start looking at pulling the start of the season forward, the SPL sat up and took notice. We didn't hear this argument when Rangers and Celtic were directly qualifying for the Champions League, did we? No, quite the contrary, they wanted a later start to accommodate the pre-season money spinners at home and abroad.

Celtic and Rangers will always exert their corrupt power because the rest of the clubs are willing to suck at their teets for the four games a season and TV deals that the OF bring to them. Disgusts me.

This 'reform', like you say, is pushing their agenda and serves no purpose of improving the game for fans in this country.

WindyMiller
12-12-2010, 05:32 PM
Haven't read half the threads but I have a good idea what the majority say.
For me it's; re-arranging the deck-chairs on the Titanic.



:yawn:

SloopJB
12-12-2010, 05:35 PM
Nonsense.



Quite clearly.
whooooooosh.

Removed
12-12-2010, 05:36 PM
I posted pre thread merge but it seems to have disappeared :confused:

Anyone know who the Hibs representative is in the working group?

SneakersO'Toole
12-12-2010, 05:39 PM
I posted pre thread merge but it seems to have disappeared :confused:

Anyone know who the Hibs representative is in the working group?

Pretty sure its the Tache himself.

TheEastTerrace
12-12-2010, 05:40 PM
I posted pre thread merge but it seems to have disappeared :confused:

Anyone know who the Hibs representative is in the working group?

Petrie sits on the SPL board, so one would think.....PETRIE :grr:

Part/Time Supporter
12-12-2010, 05:52 PM
Dec 10th: Walter Smith calls (http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/r/rangers/9277439.stm) for a 10 team league.

Dec 12th: SPL propose a 'radical shake-up (http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/scot_prem/9279663.stm)', with a 10 team league.



Maybe Celtc are right after all. :bitchy:

Smith would have said that knowing what was in the offing. He previously stated support for an 18 team league, but commented last week that it wouldn't be practical in Scotland (ie because the OF boards would veto it).

Part/Time Supporter
12-12-2010, 05:58 PM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/scot_prem/8889822.stm

Seven of nine clubs surveyed by BBC Scotland in August favoured a larger top league. The proposals are suggesting a smaller league.

:wtf:

Mary Hinge
12-12-2010, 06:10 PM
same old rubbish really.

what this league needs is more teams with less fixtures against each other, are they too stupid to see this :grr:

Exactly :top marks

ScottB
12-12-2010, 06:26 PM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/scot_prem/8889822.stm

Seven of nine clubs surveyed by BBC Scotland in August favoured a larger top league. The proposals are suggesting a smaller league.

:wtf:

Your making the mistake of assuming that logic and reason has any place within Scottish football...

NAE NOOKIE
12-12-2010, 07:11 PM
A 10 team league would be a disaster.

ARE THESE PEOPLE INSANE, CORRUPT, OR JUST VERY VERY STUPID.


:grr::grr::grr:

GreenCastle
12-12-2010, 07:18 PM
If the league goes to 10 teams I am done with Scottish Football.

3 teams getting relegated ? I am not sure the bottom clubs are going to vote for that right now...

This 11 - 1 thing is a massive joke and so are those running the game.

Play each other twice a season - make it exciting playing each other once home and away - more of an occasion - games would sell out more :agree:

TheEastTerrace
12-12-2010, 07:19 PM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/scot_prem/8889822.stm

Seven of nine clubs surveyed by BBC Scotland in August favoured a larger top league. The proposals are suggesting a smaller league.

:wtf:

These are just my gut feelings on why, so here goes:

1. Rangers and Celtic require four games against each other per year to market and sell to season ticket holders, and reduce the impact of falling home attendances. Both clubs are on the downward trend.

2. Similarly, the other clubs believe that four OF games (Rangers x 2, Celtic x 2) per season at home will still be more attractive over the longer term to supporters than only two OF games per season and hosting your Particks, Dunfermlines, etc instead.

3. That the TV companies won't buy into a 16-18 team league because of a perceived lack of quality coming into the league i.e your Falkirks, Particks, Dunfermlines, etc.

4. The SPL requires four Old Firm games a season to sell to TV companies, such as Sky and ESPN.

5. Rangers and Celtic now require the season to start earlier in preparation for European competition, as Scotland's Champions League status requires pre-qualification rounds now. Rangers and Celtic out of Europe early means reduction in TV and matchday income.

6. Would Rangers 'B' versus Celtic 'B' also be a crowd puller for them potentially? Nothing more the bigots would love than eight tear-ups per season

7. Was there a past argument made that it would be benefit the national team and Scottish players more if the top clubs were playing each other more often - a perceived better standard of football and degree of club competition? Have the SFA had a say here?

8. The SFL clubs in Division 1 have been appeased with the idea of a second tier of the SPL receiving a larger payment of cash from the newly packaged SPL structure.

9. Money talks

10. The sheer arrogant attitude that the fans will just accept what is served up.

Just my two penneth, but believe there is an element of truth in a number of them. Only one, you'll note, may be performance related. None, you'll see, benefit the fans. :grr:

marinello59
12-12-2010, 07:23 PM
Tinkering presented as a revolution.
Doncaster speaks for the SPL yet he is proposing drafting in 8 teams from the SFL. Guess their ruling body will have something to say. Did he mention regionally based lower leagues? None of his business really is it? Did he mention replacing the three ruling bodies with just one? Ah..................

heidtheba
12-12-2010, 07:35 PM
Backward step having a top league of 10 teams. Also unlikely that clubs are going to vote for 3 teams going down next season. That's 25% of the league getting relegated. But even higher when you take out the old firm. Can't see it happening


If you also add in the fact that not only rarely have any of the 'other' SPL clubs managed to mount a regular attack on 3rd place, more often than not they end up scraping around the lower places a couple of years after, then surely more clubs with the chance of relegation also means that the Old Firm end up even stronger as they are the only two clubs in Scotland who are certainties (sadly) at the start of each season NOT to get relegated.

Look at us last year, challenged for third then this year people are/were worried about relegation. Look at hertz the year before, third then we were taking the mic for long enough because they looked awful.

thebakerboy
12-12-2010, 07:53 PM
I am sitting here pondering the voting system a. if change is not for next season 1 team will be voting on something they won't be involved as they will have been relegated this season. b. if the change is for next season apart from the bigot bros. which other teams are going to vote for it 'cause 33% of them will be relegated and with our refereeing problems a few bad decisions and no matter how well you are playing you would be going down. In my opinion there is no way the vote could be any worse than 9 3 against so I don't see how this could be driven through unless several club chairmen want to face lynch mobs outside their offices.:grr::grr::grr:

Saorsa
12-12-2010, 07:59 PM
If the league goes to 10 teams I am done with Scottish Football.

3 teams getting relegated ? I am not sure the bottom clubs are going to vote for that right now...

This 11 - 1 thing is a massive joke and so are those running the game.

Play each other twice a season - make it exciting playing each other once home and away - more of an occasion - games would sell out more :agree:People being done with Scottish fitba is rather sadly probably the only thing that would make the people who run the game in this country sit up and take notice.

jdships
12-12-2010, 09:01 PM
If the league goes to 10 teams I am done with Scottish Football.

3 teams getting relegated ? I am not sure the bottom clubs are going to vote for that right now...

This 11 - 1 thing is a massive joke and so are those running the game.

Play each other twice a season - make it exciting playing each other once home and away - more of an occasion - games would sell out more :agree:


Agree totally with all you write.especially the highlghted quote.
The game as we knew it is dying, if not close to death, and if this crazy 10 team league goes through it will bury Scottish football
If it is agreed I won't be back

:fuming:

snooky
12-12-2010, 09:08 PM
A 10 team league would be a disaster.

ARE THESE PEOPLE INSANE, CORRUPT, OR JUST VERY VERY STUPID.


:grr::grr::grr:

Correctomundo
Correctomundo
Correctomundo

Albion Hibs
12-12-2010, 09:37 PM
A ten team league? WTF?

There has been so much chat about our league getting bigger which has to be positive, to make it smaller seems ridiculous.

But lets be honest surely this will never happen, 11 votes required to put in place a league of 10 teams - never surely.

Winter break, B team introduction and removal of the split all good news IMO, but cant get over this requirement to make it 10 teams.

Liberal Hibby
12-12-2010, 10:36 PM
I think there's some merit in the proposals. The idea that there is no chance of anyone other than the OF winning in a ten team league is nonsense - Aberdeen and United have won a ten team top division (and in fact when they did it was the change to 10 teams that was seen as part of the reason). The primary supporter of the original ten team top division was Hibs chairman Tom Hart who was fed up with the way Hibs lost their title chance in the 18 team top flight when Brownlie had his leg broken by some huddy at Cowdenbeath.

Introducing a regional pyramid is also welcome - particularly if some accomodation can be made with the Highland league and SJFA.

The unintended consequence of this would also have to be a diluted OF veto - there is no way that the proposals could work (or even pass) if 19/20 votes were required.

snooky
12-12-2010, 10:46 PM
I think there's some merit in the proposals. The idea that there is no chance of anyone other than the OF winning in a ten team league is nonsense - Aberdeen and United have won a ten team top division (and in fact when they did it was the change to 10 teams that was seen as part of the reason). The primary supporter of the original ten team top division was Hibs chairman Tom Hart who was fed up with the way Hibs lost their title chance in the 18 team top flight when Brownlie had his leg broken by some huddy at Cowdenbeath.Introducing a regional pyramid is also welcome - particularly if some accomodation can be made with the Highland league and SJFA.

The unintended consequence of this would also have to be a diluted OF veto - there is no way that the proposals could work (or even pass) if 19/20 votes were required.

Just for the record, it was Ian Printy of East Fife at ER, Jan 1973

Diclonius
12-12-2010, 10:55 PM
Can I also state that I'd prefer to play the likes of Raith Rovers, Dunfermline, QOTS etc at home rather than having the Bigot Bros come to ER four times a season? We're almost always guaranteed 0 points, there's a fair chance of a humping and we have to put up with their sectarian sh*te for 90 full minutes.

It's come to the point where I don't actually look forward to these games and will them to be over as quickly as possible so we can concentrate on getting points back on the board. An 18 team league would let us do that, and it would make sure the ***** darken Edinburgh a whole lot less than they do now.

Mary Hinge
12-12-2010, 11:52 PM
Agree totally with all you write.especially the highlghted quote.
The game as we knew it is dying, if not close to death, and if this crazy 10 team league goes through it will bury Scottish football
If it is agreed I won't be back

:fuming:

My sentiments exactly :agree:

I've been a regular at ER for some 45 years and I've never felt so "unattracted" to the game as I have done this season.
I've said for quite a few seasons now year that I wouldn't be back but when push came to shove I renewed my season ticket as a matter of course.
This 10 team nonsense will kill the game stone dead and I'd rather not be a part of that. :grr:

down the slope
13-12-2010, 10:12 AM
I got this reply from E R when i put my points to them ,
http://bl111w.blu111.mail.live.com/default.aspx?wa=wsignin1.0

If like me you think these proposals are nonsense then get stuck in while you have a chance.

Baldy Foghorn
13-12-2010, 10:18 AM
I'm amazed that the ten team league is being proposed...... It is common knowledge that most teams want a bigger league than the 12 at present, and a number of clubs have bemoaned that fact that they already play each other too much......

This is not what the clubs or fans want as far as I can see, so everybody gets what nobody wants, BRILLIANT!!!!!!

I suppose the only good thing is the farcical split being abolished, but that should be taken away anyway....

If only the other Clubs had voted the old firm out when the chance was there, but they all bottled it.....Doubt they will ever get that chance again unfortunately.....

I actually thought initial soundbytes from Neil Doncaster sounded ok, but this is just a garbage proposal imo

Ritchie
13-12-2010, 10:36 AM
What a utter croc of shît..

The SPL is dead on it's feet as it is, do they really think this will improve it?!

Crowds will drop furthermore, I'd personally favour going back playing Saturday amatuer than having a season ticket..

Every club outwith the mank should vote against this..

:bye:

TheEastTerrace
13-12-2010, 10:43 AM
I got this reply from E R when i put my points to them ,
http://bl111w.blu111.mail.live.com/default.aspx?wa=wsignin1.0

If like me you think these proposals are nonsense then get stuck in while you have a chance.

Would you be able to post the reply mate? Am interested to see, but link takes me to hotmail login?

StevieC
13-12-2010, 11:53 AM
Majority of punters in Scotland want a bigger league, so lets make it smaller. Getting fed up off these ****s running fitba.

:top marks

Sylar
13-12-2010, 12:06 PM
So should the second division and indeed third division clubs just give up playing this season then? After all, if these proposals go through, they can't get into the SPL 2, as there's already sufficient numbers (22) to go into 2 leagues?

It's absolutely no wonder I'm beyond caring about football this year.

Ritchie
13-12-2010, 12:10 PM
if the SPL reduces to a 10 team league i wont be renewing my ST.

ScottB
13-12-2010, 12:18 PM
So should the second division and indeed third division clubs just give up playing this season then? After all, if these proposals go through, they can't get into the SPL 2, as there's already sufficient numbers (22) to go into 2 leagues?

It's absolutely no wonder I'm beyond caring about football this year.

Very much so, indeed your gonna see the 3 bottom first division clubs dumped out of the national leagues as well, surely a death knell? Never mind the chat of having B teams in SPL2, are we gonna kick even more SFL1 clubs out to make room? I'd wage 1 or 2 of the 3 relegated SPL clubs would also hit the wall.

I would suggest a 16 or 18 team top league, then either 2 divisions of 10 or one of 20, then a regional pyramid below that, 3 up, 3 down plus playoffs.

It's not that bloody difficult!!

TheEastTerrace
13-12-2010, 12:27 PM
IIRC the SPL TV deal is up for renegotiation soon. Don't be surprised if this proposal has been dictated by TV demands.

Saorsa
13-12-2010, 12:41 PM
if the SPL reduces to a 10 team league i wont be renewing my ST.:agree:

I'll not be paying £400+ tae watch that league, I'll not even bother going at all.

Antifa Hibs
13-12-2010, 01:02 PM
IIRC the SPL TV deal is up for renegotiation soon. Don't be surprised if this proposal has been dictated by TV demands.

New TV deal needed for the start of the 2012/13 season, which is when they are planning on starting this 10 team league.

Just having a wee look at The Sun, Leckie, Yorkson and some other columnist agaisnt it, all favour a 16 team leagye.

Planning on having the winter shutdown in Jan after the Boxing Day and New Years Day fixtures, just in time for the USA/Austrilian leagues pre-season, nice wee earner for the old firm, few winter friendlies :agree:

down the slope
13-12-2010, 01:13 PM
Would you be able to post the reply mate? Am interested to see, but link takes me to hotmail login?

Oops, try this to see the reply i got from Fife Hyland



Many thanks for your email. All supporter feedback and points of view are welcomed by the Club and your points have been circulated around my colleagues on the Board.

The proposals from the SPL for restructure are obviously at an early stage and have a deeper and wider scope than just the top league, all of which will be discussed and debated by the Clubs at the meeting a week today.

Thanks again for writing in.

Fife

Can you imagine if Rod voted for this and we get relegated ?.

SneakersO'Toole
13-12-2010, 01:20 PM
New TV deal needed for the start of the 2012/13 season, which is when they are planning on starting this 10 team league.

Just having a wee look at The Sun, Leckie, Yorkson and some other columnist agaisnt it, all favour a 16 team leagye.

Planning on having the winter shutdown in Jan after the Boxing Day and New Years Day fixtures, just in time for the USA/Austrilian leagues pre-season, nice wee earner for the old firm, few winter friendlies :agree:

Jim Trayner also suggested on the radio this morning that a 16 team league would be better for all.

Quote from Neil Doncaster this morning on 810 MW.

"There are some fundamental problems with Scottish football at the moment.One of them is that there's a staleness about the top division and, by moving to a system of a 10-team top division and 10-team second division but with more teams passing up and down between the two divisions, we hope that that staleness will be removed and that there will be a freshness about the new set-up."

Is this guy really so thick that he doesn't remember the 90's when we had the same set up? It didn't work then so why will it work now?

An excellent early Xmas present would be for this ludicrous idea to be thrown out by all clubs outside the mank next Monday.

TheEastTerrace
13-12-2010, 01:33 PM
New TV deal needed for the start of the 2012/13 season, which is when they are planning on starting this 10 team league.

Just having a wee look at The Sun, Leckie, Yorkson and some other columnist agaisnt it, all favour a 16 team leagye.

Planning on having the winter shutdown in Jan after the Boxing Day and New Years Day fixtures, just in time for the USA/Austrilian leagues pre-season, nice wee earner for the old firm, few winter friendlies :agree:

:agree:

Alan Purtillo and Michael Grant were of similar opinion in their Scotsman and Herald columns. Purtillo was saying that this seems to be very cutely timed before the next installment of McLeish report. Not sure why, but sure we will all find out soon.

Also read that SPL would possibly grant some flexibility to July fixtures being played mid-week, which would allow OF to play pre-season 'glamour' friendlies on the weekends.

I had been actually encouraged by Doncaster before this came out. Now, he's just another in the long line who pander to the OF and elitist agenda. And to hell with the fans.

Gatecrasher
13-12-2010, 01:34 PM
I personally think it would be stupid of the clubs to vote for this and cant see it happening, The main reason being i cant see the likes of Aberdeen, Hamilton, St Mirren (or even Hibs :worried:) voting for relegation.


From my point of view it would be the thing that makes me give up on Scottish Football all togather.

With the TV deal up for renewal soon. This is a great oppertunity for the SPL and SFL to restrucure the leage to make it something a bit better and something we can be a bit more proud off. They have the right idea when talking about earlier start to the league, Winter Breaks, Splitting the Lower leagues into Regional Divisions Some of those ideas have been touted on here for the last couple of years IIRC.

However! to go and say a 10 team league and play each other 4 times and :blah:

Give us a break FFS! What a pish and unimaginative idea that is!

Why dont they listen to what the fans want? At the end of the day its us thats going to make them more money in the long run (ST's, Merchandise, TV Subscriptions etc) because if the fans lose interest, ticket sales go down, the tv subscriptions stop then there is only one way left for the SPL and thats tits up!

If they continue to listen to the tv companies and the OF theres only one result here IMO

Time for the SPL clubs to make a stand ( i dont think they will though):rolleyes:

TheEastTerrace
13-12-2010, 01:34 PM
Oops, try this to see the reply i got from Fife Hyland



Many thanks for your email. All supporter feedback and points of view are welcomed by the Club and your points have been circulated around my colleagues on the Board.

The proposals from the SPL for restructure are obviously at an early stage and have a deeper and wider scope than just the top league, all of which will be discussed and debated by the Clubs at the meeting a week today.

Thanks again for writing in.

Fife

Can you imagine if Rod voted for this and we get relegated ?.

Thanks mate

ScottB
13-12-2010, 01:37 PM
Jim Trayner also suggested on the radio this morning that a 16 team league would be better for all.

Quote from Neil Doncaster this morning on 810 MW.

"There are some fundamental problems with Scottish football at the moment.One of them is that there's a staleness about the top division and, by moving to a system of a 10-team top division and 10-team second division but with more teams passing up and down between the two divisions, we hope that that staleness will be removed and that there will be a freshness about the new set-up."

Is this guy really so thick that he doesn't remember the 90's when we had the same set up? It didn't work then so why will it work now?

An excellent early Xmas present would be for this ludicrous idea to be thrown out by all clubs outside the mank next Monday.

So is he complaining that there are too many of the same clubs in the SPL on a regular basis?

What nonsense!

An SPL without Hibs, Hearts, Dundee United, Aberdeen etc would be cheapened IMO. A smaller division won't improve clubs by 'keeping them on their toes,' we will all be terrified of relegation! A bigger division will give the bigger clubs more safety, more stability and the opportunity to plan long term. We shouldn't be looking to make the game more exciting by trying to make everything from 3rd down a relegation scrap.

TheEastTerrace
13-12-2010, 01:39 PM
Jim Trayner also suggested on the radio this morning that a 16 team league would be better for all.

Quote from Neil Doncaster this morning on 810 MW.

"There are some fundamental problems with Scottish football at the moment.One of them is that there's a staleness about the top division and, by moving to a system of a 10-team top division and 10-team second division but with more teams passing up and down between the two divisions, we hope that that staleness will be removed and that there will be a freshness about the new set-up."
Is this guy really so thick that he doesn't remember the 90's when we had the same set up? It didn't work then so why will it work now?

An excellent early Xmas present would be for this ludicrous idea to be thrown out by all clubs outside the mank next Monday.

He must think we came down the Forth in a banana boat. The SPL are just dressing up what has been done in the past with the top leagues.

Green Man
13-12-2010, 01:43 PM
Scottish football is dying on its arse, and has been for some time now. This is a nice way of accelerating that decline. I've already given up my ST this year as I'm bored of Scottish football, a 10-team league would make me even less likely to go back.

Saorsa
13-12-2010, 01:56 PM
I personally think it would be stupid of the clubs to vote for this and cant see it happening, The main reason being i cant see the likes of Aberdeen, Hamilton, St Mirren (or even Hibs :worried:) voting for relegation.


From my point of view it would be the thing that makes me give up on Scottish Football all togather.

With the TV deal up for renewal soon. This is a great oppertunity for the SPL and SFL to restrucure the leage to make it something a bit better and something we can be a bit more proud off. They have the right idea when talking about earlier start to the league, Winter Breaks, Splitting the Lower leagues into Regional Divisions Some of those ideas have been touted on here for the last couple of years IIRC.

However! to go and say a 10 team league and play each other 4 times and :blah:

Give us a break FFS! What a pish and unimaginative idea that is!

Why dont they listen to what the fans want? At the end of the day its us thats going to make them more money in the long run (ST's, Merchandise, TV Subscriptions etc) because if the fans lose interest, ticket sales go down, the tv subscriptions stop then there is only one way left for the SPL and thats tits up!

If they continue to listen to the tv companies and the OF theres only one result here IMO

Time for the SPL clubs to make a stand ( i dont think they will though):rolleyes:Yes it is but maybe it's also time for the fans tae do the same instead of just passing the buck. Contact your club (thats' right your club that without you wouldnae exist) and tell them it is unacceptable. Contact the SPL (who without the fans wouldnae exist) and tell them it isnae acceptable, none of those people would be in their £100,000+ a year jobs if there were nae punters. I'll not be going back (and people not going will be the only thing that will make these people listen) tae the fitba if this 10 team league is implemented. Scottish fitba is dying on it's erse and this plan will probably see it off :bye: and quite frankly by that time I'll probably be past caring.

Gatecrasher
13-12-2010, 02:09 PM
Yes it is but maybe it's also time for the fans tae do the same instead of just passing the buck. Contact your club (thats' right your club that without you wouldnae exist) and tell them it is unacceptable. Contact the SPL (who without the fans wouldnae exist) and tell them it isnae acceptable, none of those people would be in their £100,000+ a year jobs if there were nae punters. I'll not be going back (and people not going will be the only thing that will make these people listen) tae the fitba if this 10 team league is implemented. Scottish fitba is dying on it's erse and this plan will probably see it off :bye: and quite frankly by that time I'll probably be past caring.

You are correct and have inspired me to do this!

Thanks :greengrin:

PaulSmith
13-12-2010, 02:39 PM
if the SPL reduces to a 10 team league i wont be renewing my ST.

As a ST holder I'd prefer to have extra games against Dundee Utd, Aberdeen, Hearts and the OF rather than Queen of the South, Dundee, Falkirk, Dunfermline

NAE NOOKIE
13-12-2010, 02:50 PM
Sent an E Mail to ER last night begging them to vote against this stupid idea.

I dont go into other SPL / SFL forums but I can only imagine they are saying the same as us.

What I find astonishing is that with fans forums to use as a baromiter of what the fans are thinking that the SPL ever thought that this proposal would be greeted with anything other than dismay by the fans. Or do they think that our opinion is of so little importance that they dont even bother to look at what we are saying.

I mean c'mon .... Next to the TV companies, Armchair Fans, corporate sponsors and Club owners, we are nearly quite important.

If this is the best that Mr Doncaster can come up with I fear that any impression he may have given when appointed that he would be the man to drive the SPL forward with original and forward thinking ideas have been firmly blown out of the water.

:bitchy:

Cocaine&Caviar
13-12-2010, 02:59 PM
Although a 10 team league would be very boring, I'm actually in favour of this shake up, I might not get a season ticket, both due to the large amount of games missed when not in the City for University, but I'd pick and choose my league games, and instead try and see a bit more of the Hibs 'B' team.

These games would no doubt be cheaper, and although the quality wouldnt be as high, seeing new grounds, teams and tasting new pies would make up for it.

I'm also all for the regionalising of the lower leagues, and the disbanding of the SFL, we dont need 3 governing bodies (SPL, SFL, SFA), for a country our size.

Although I would prefer Two 16 Team SPLs, with the teams after this being regionalised, the planned redevelopment would be better for the mean time. F#ck the Split.

Ritchie
13-12-2010, 03:03 PM
As a ST holder I'd prefer to have extra games against Dundee Utd, Aberdeen, Hearts and the OF rather than Queen of the South, Dundee, Falkirk, Dunfermline

i wouldnt, i want a more competitive league.

paxtonhibby
13-12-2010, 03:08 PM
Over the last few seasons Ive found generally enthusiasm has steadily dwindled among the group I travel to the games with.If these proposals come to fruition that as,they say,will be that.The problem is clubs such as ours rely on the old squirm too much.Grow a set and refuse this nonsense.

StevieC
13-12-2010, 03:12 PM
i wouldnt, i want a more competitive league.

I wouldn't either. Not sure it would be more competitive though, but would certainly have more variety.

I'm also pretty sure a lot of the hard-core going to away games would prefer to visit 17 different grounds once than 7 different grounds twice.
:dunno:

StevieC
13-12-2010, 03:25 PM
In other words, the OF decide what happens in Scottish football when it comes to the crunch.

To an extent.


I think the 11-1 system will for once work against Rantic, which will make a pleasant change when at the very least Hamilton and Aberdeen vote against the proposals.

The downside is that, at the moment, votes against the proposal will simply mean the status quo.


This "reform" agenda is blatantly driven by the OF. They believe that they need four games a season between each other to sell season tickets.

There's no doubt, in my mind, that these proposals are specifically to suit an OF agenda (as you mention) and plans need to be changed to extend the league rather than change just for changes' sake.

I can see this coming to a head again with clubs, outwith the OF, threatening to break away (as they did a number of years ago, but bottled it at the last minute).

Maybe this is what the OF are hoping for .. in order to realise their dream of playing down south?

ScottB
13-12-2010, 03:31 PM
There's no doubt, in my mind, that these proposals are specifically to suit an OF agenda (as you mention) and plans need to be changed to extend the league rather than change just for changes' sake.

I can see this coming to a head again with clubs, outwith the OF, threatening to break away (as they did a number of years ago, but bottled it at the last minute).

Maybe this is what the OF are hoping for .. in order to realise their dream of playing down south?

But will it?

If these proposals really are from the working group, which only contains Rangers as far as Old Firm representation goes, then surely at least a majority of the club representatives in that group must back these plans?

Golden Bear
13-12-2010, 03:45 PM
But will it?

If these proposals really are from the working group, which only contains Rangers as far as Old Firm representation goes, then surely at least a majority of the club representatives in that group must back these plans?

:agree:

Including us probably.

StevieC
13-12-2010, 03:46 PM
But will it?

If these proposals really are from the working group, which only contains Rangers as far as Old Firm representation goes, then surely at least a majority of the club representatives in that group must back these plans?

I doubt it, but we all know how the OF work so it wouldn't surprise me if they at least tried it.

I dont know exactly who has said what, but I would be very surprised if a majority of the other clubs voted for something that involved 3 teams getting relegated at the end of next season.

I suspect the meeting would have started ..
"We (the OF) will not sanction anything that does not involve 4 OF games a season .. discuss .. "

ScottB
13-12-2010, 03:54 PM
I doubt it, but we all know how the OF work so it wouldn't surprise me if they at least tried it.

I dont know exactly who has said what, but I would be very surprised if a majority of the other clubs voted for something that involved 3 teams getting relegated at the end of next season.

Yes, but tellingly, Doncaster said...


"We have had six clubs represented on a steering group to try and come up with these fairly radical plans," said the SPL chief executive.

"Obviously we have six clubs represented on the steering group and a further six with whom we have been consulting over the period, but next Monday will be the first chance we will have to go through in detail with all 12 clubs sitting round the table what it would mean for them.

"I think the whole process that we have been engaged in since April this year has been about all clubs sitting round the table, all compromising.


I can't imagine Rangers alone pushed these plans within the 6 club steering group. If they had no doubt there'd have been an outcry by now. I don't imagine for one minute all the clubs are in agreement, unless turkeys are planning on voting for Christmas this year, but to lay the blame for these dumbass plan solely at the Old Firms door does a disservice to the stupidity of the other clubs involved, quite possibly including our own.

Hibee87
13-12-2010, 03:55 PM
To an extent.



The downside is that, at the moment, votes against the proposal will simply mean the status quo.



There's no doubt, in my mind, that these proposals are specifically to suit an OF agenda (as you mention) and plans need to be changed to extend the league rather than change just for changes' sake.

I can see this coming to a head again with clubs, outwith the OF, threatening to break away (as they did a number of years ago, but bottled it at the last minute).

Maybe this is what the OF are hoping for .. in order to realise their dream of playing down south?

I dont understand this 11-1 rule it should be a majority vote. Who decided 11-1 and why cant it be changed or legally challenged to have it changed to a majority?

in regards to your break away league and bottling it.

From what i remeber/ was informed that hibs, dundee utd and aberdeen never backed the idea to split away they voted in favour to stay.

there is no way the rest of us would breakaway for the sheer fact we cant afford to. no tv deal means reduced sponsers. IF eufa didnt recognise this as a valid league then no europe and you can almost certainly guarentee no champs league places. ok so the league might be more cometitive but what do you get if you win? no major league sponser or lack of it means less winning money basically were stuck wi them unless they leave us....which takes me back to the first point if it was a majority vote and not 11-1 then some serious changes for the better MIGHT happen but as it stands its the O/F way or no way

Nakedmanoncrack
13-12-2010, 04:01 PM
Present set up is bad enough, this proposal achieves the near impossible by being even worse.

jdships
13-12-2010, 04:07 PM
" The SPL are just dressing up what has been done in the past with the top leagues. "
SAME SHIP DIFFERENT FUNNEL
Complete joke :bye:

StevieC
13-12-2010, 04:12 PM
there is no way the rest of us would breakaway for the sheer fact we cant afford to. no tv deal means reduced sponsers. IF eufa didnt recognise this as a valid league then no europe and you can almost certainly guarentee no champs league places. ok so the league might be more cometitive but what do you get if you win? no major league sponser or lack of it means less winning money basically were stuck wi them unless they leave us....which takes me back to the first point if it was a majority vote and not 11-1 then some serious changes for the better MIGHT happen but as it stands its the O/F way or no way

What makes you think there wouldn't be a TV deal? Or that we wouldn't be recognised by UEFA?
Why would UEFA side with 2 clubs trying to establish a monopoly, rather than 10 clubs trying to establish a more democratic voting system?
Threatening a breakaway might be the only way to actually get the OF to loosen their stranglehold on Scottish football.

Hibee87
13-12-2010, 04:30 PM
What makes you think there wouldn't be a TV deal? Or that we wouldn't be recognised by UEFA?
Why would UEFA side with 2 clubs trying to establish a monopoly, rather than 10 clubs trying to establish a more democratic voting system?
Threatening a breakaway might be the only way to actually get the OF to loosen their stranglehold on Scottish football.

There would be a T.V deal but a fraction of what we are getting jsut now BBC alba might be the station who would take it on but the O/F are the money makers for the tv comapnies hence the reason one of them is on the telly nearly every week if you took that away interest from anyone outwith scotland would drastically decrease - its a sad situation but true.

uefa may recognise it in some form but it would be somthing like the winner of the league getting going into the eufa cup qualifying round at the very first round possible one champ league place playing at the very first stage and going by recent displays in europe we would take decades to build up a decent co-efficient.
also why would uefa back us?

so looking at all the realistic factors of less t.v money, less sponsership amd IMO less fans as well we wouldnt come close to being able to afford to keep any decent players we have and you would end up with a team full of 1st and second divison players being first choice and any promising youngsters going away down south for more money and better teams. why would the SPL as it stands without celtic and rangers be any better than the irish league?
Also a lthe teams with major debt - majority of the SPL excluding hibs, st mirren and poss 1 or 2 more how would those other teams survive witthout selling all there players and assests to get back in the black?

im not saying i want the 10 team league and i think the league is a joke as it is with the split etc but TBH mate i just cant see how any change without the O/F would work - I really do hope im wrong though

blackpoolhibs
13-12-2010, 04:42 PM
There would be a T.V deal but a fraction of what we are getting jsut now BBC alba might be the station who would take it on but the O/F are the money makers for the tv comapnies hence the reason one of them is on the telly nearly every week if you took that away interest from anyone outwith scotland would drastically decrease - its a sad situation but true.

uefa may recognise it in some form but it would be somthing like the winner of the league getting going into the eufa cup qualifying round at the very first round possible one champ league place playing at the very first stage and going by recent displays in europe we would take decades to build up a decent co-efficient.
also why would uefa back us?

so looking at all the realistic factors of less t.v money, less sponsership amd IMO less fans as well we wouldnt come close to being able to afford to keep any decent players we have and you would end up with a team full of 1st and second divison players being first choice and any promising youngsters going away down south for more money and better teams. why would the SPL as it stands without celtic and rangers be any better than the irish league?
Also a lthe teams with major debt - majority of the SPL excluding hibs, st mirren and poss 1 or 2 more how would those other teams survive witthout selling all there players and assests to get back in the black?

im not saying i want the 10 team league and i think the league is a joke as it is with the split etc but TBH mate i just cant see how any change without the O/F would work - I really do hope im wrong though

And thats why we have the old firm by the bollox. Hibs dont play in the champions league, so its ok by me if we enter it at the first stage. Rantic are going nowhere, we now have another chance to get a fairer deal with regards the voting system, they have to abide by the majority, if not and we break away, they would need to find a league to play in, and england dont want them. They'd have to crawl back to us, and accept whats on offer. Thats fine by me.

StevieC
13-12-2010, 04:49 PM
so looking at all the realistic factors of less t.v money, less sponsership amd IMO less fans

Would the TV money be any less than what we are getting just now (after the OF have taken their 80% share).
Possibly less sponsorship money.
Why would fan levels drop in a more competitive league that pretty much any team would have a chance of winning???

Judas Iscariot
13-12-2010, 04:57 PM
:bye:

Yes SB?

http://www.wildsound-filmmaking-feedback-events.com/images/superman_logo.jpg

Dr What If?
13-12-2010, 05:05 PM
Dear Mr Doncaster, you want radical? Dispand the SPL!!!!

Two divisions 16 top flight (2 up 2 down + play-offs), 20 team second tier (with relegation), 3 regional leagues.
Not enough games? Get in touch with the other Celtic leagues, replace the league cup with a Celtic cup of nations (with group stages).

Tax the rich - top flight teams should pay for regional youth academies, a percentage of annual turnover???

All administered collectively by the SFL and SFA, what the hell, why not merge the two.

Move Hampden OUT of Glasgow. Perception is everything and everyone perceives the 3 bodies can't see past Glasgow.

Reaportion the revenues, why do the top two in Scottish football get all the money?

and finally,
Add more glam, throw HMFC out of the league, their fan are just too bloody ugly for TV!!!!

Hibbyradge
13-12-2010, 05:06 PM
Would the TV money be any less than what we are getting just now (after the OF have taken their 80% share).


I'm not sure how the current deal breaks down, but when it was Setanta, if the OF finished 1st and 2nd, they received a maximum of 32% of the total TV income.

NAE NOOKIE
13-12-2010, 05:10 PM
Dear Mr Doncaster, you want radical? Dispand the SPL!!!!

Two divisions 16 top flight (2 up 2 down + play-offs), 20 team second tier (with relegation), 3 regional leagues.
Not enough games? Get in touch with the other Celtic leagues, replace the league cup with a Celtic cup of nations (with group stages).

Tax the rich - top flight teams should pay for regional youth academies, a percentage of annual turnover???

All administered collectively by the SFL and SFA, what the hell, why not merge the two.

Move Hampden OUT of Glasgow. Perception is everything and everyone perceives the 3 bodies can't see past Glasgow.

Reaportion the revenues, why do the top two in Scottish football get all the money?

and finally,
Add more glam, throw HMFC out of the league, their fan are just too bloody ugly for TV!!!!

:top marks

I like the League cup idea a lot. And the rest of you post is bang on too.

And just think. There is a guy over in Glasgow who gets 100k a year or something like that to be a lot less intelligent about the game than you.

Its a funny old world eh ?

:cool2:

sundo1875
13-12-2010, 05:11 PM
lol

Gatecrasher
13-12-2010, 06:51 PM
glad to see its not just us hibees that are pissed off

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/606/A78329235

jgl07
13-12-2010, 07:07 PM
I dont understand this 11-1 rule it should be a majority vote. Who decided 11-1 and why cant it be changed or legally challenged to have it changed to a majority?
Presumably to give the OF a veto.

With a 10:2 majority sufficient, the other clubs could vote through an even split of TV plus sponsorship money between all clubs (as they have in the EPL) rather than giving the ugly sisters the vast proportion.

Hibercelona
13-12-2010, 07:15 PM
If the SPL drops down to 10 clubs. I won't be going back to games until it is resolved. :grr:

jgl07
13-12-2010, 07:35 PM
There are two things that would cause me the to call it a day with Scottish Football. One would be summer football and the other would be a 10-team SPL.

I am sick and fed up of watching the usual subjects come to Easter Road twice a year. And that would especially include Hearts, Rangers and Celtic.

I found the 'great adventure' in Division One a breath of fresh air.

The argument about insufficient big clubs is nonsense.

OK the OF are much stronger than the rest. Hibs, Hearts, and Aberdeen are much bigger than the remainder. However beyond that there is little to chose between a number of teams.

Dundee United probably edge it ahead of Kilmarnock, Motherwell, St Mirren, St Johnstone, and Inverness. Hamilton are probably a smaller club than the likes of Falkirk, Dunfermline, Dundee, Partick Thistle, and, for that matter Raith.

Queen of the South and Morton could also be there with a few ground improvements.

Going back to 10 clubs would probably put the SPL out of its misery.

offshorehibby
13-12-2010, 07:39 PM
I'm thinking along the lines of 16 top division with 12 in division 2. I don't think the standard will support any more in div 2. We can then look seriously into rationalising the lower leagues with a pyramid system to allow progressive clubs to move up.

TheEastTerrace
13-12-2010, 08:12 PM
If you listened to that erse Cameron tonight, it's quite he and some of his chums in the meedja are pushing these proposals too. That said, there is a number criticising the proposals too.

SteveHFC
14-12-2010, 12:37 AM
Dear Mr Doncaster, you want radical? Dispand the SPL!!!!

Two divisions 16 top flight (2 up 2 down + play-offs), 20 team second tier (with relegation), 3 regional leagues.
Not enough games? Get in touch with the other Celtic leagues, replace the league cup with a Celtic cup of nations (with group stages).

Tax the rich - top flight teams should pay for regional youth academies, a percentage of annual turnover???

All administered collectively by the SFL and SFA, what the hell, why not merge the two.

Move Hampden OUT of Glasgow. Perception is everything and everyone perceives the 3 bodies can't see past Glasgow.

Reaportion the revenues, why do the top two in Scottish football get all the money?

and finally,
Add more glam, throw HMFC out of the league, their fan are just too bloody ugly for TV!!!!


:agree::top marks

Liberal Hibby
14-12-2010, 01:40 AM
I'm not sure how the current deal breaks down, but when it was Setanta, if the OF finished 1st and 2nd, they received a maximum of 32% of the total TV income.

Indeed - I saw the report on SSN and it was clear that Rangers have been positively engaging with other significant teams about the review. The silence from Celtc was interesting and suggests under their new, piss poor, war mongering leadership that John Reid - once again - has missed a trick.

Expect the excuses and new conspiracy theories to start any moment now...

Dr What If?
14-12-2010, 01:51 AM
I still can't get over the idea of SPL teams being able to play a reserve team in the second tier, theoretically, half the Scottish league could be made up of just 5 teams!!!

Here is another utterly radical thought.....a reserve league!!!

ScottB
14-12-2010, 10:15 AM
Really hope the McLeish report suggests a 16 or 18 team league! I mean, would adding Dunfermline, Raith Rovers, Dundee and Falkirk really weaken the league? I can't see them as being any weaker than any teams currently in the SPL. Beyond that QoS and Ross County have held their own in the Scottish Cup, Partick Thistle are a decent sized club, etc etc.

Part/Time Supporter
14-12-2010, 10:24 AM
Really hope the McLeish report suggests a 16 or 18 team league! I mean, would adding Dunfermline, Raith Rovers, Dundee and Falkirk really weaken the league? I can't see them as being any weaker than any teams currently in the SPL. Beyond that QoS and Ross County have held their own in the Scottish Cup, Partick Thistle are a decent sized club, etc etc.

I'm mystified by the chat you hear on the radio about how they don't want to go to a 16 or 18 quickly because the OF are concerned that the other teams wouldn't be competitive. Traynor was suggesting last night the 10 team thing could be done as a stop-gap with a view to going to 16/18 after 3-4 years.

I don't see why they can't do it straight away. Only Inverness have bounced straight back after being relegated since Hibs did it over 10 years ago. When was the last time a promoted team went straight back down? Even a relatively small club like Accies has stayed up no bother. In fact they were closer to being in the top six in their first two seasons. If there was such a big gap between SPL and SFL you wouldn't have thought this would be the case, you would think it would be more like England, where last year Newcastle bounced back with >100 points and West Brom were the other automatic promotion.

Barney McGrew
14-12-2010, 10:40 AM
2. Similarly, the other clubs believe that four OF games (Rangers x 2, Celtic x 2) per season at home will still be more attractive over the longer term to supporters than only two OF games per season and hosting your Particks, Dunfermlines, etc instead.

4. The SPL requires four Old Firm games a season to sell to TV companies, such as Sky and ESPN.

That in a nutshell is what's behind it. The OF will pretty much sell out every weekend at home anyway, so they're not really bothered if they play each other twice or four times. The other clubs (and I include HIbs in this) will look at losing two guaranteed near capacity games plus the hospitality add ons that go with it each season if it goes to a bigger league. A simple calculation on gate money alone would mean us losing around 5000 seats per game at say £25 - that's £250k in gate money for those two lost fixtures. Sky and the other TV companies make their money on subsrciptions and advetising, and like it or not it's the OF games that bring that in.

Unfortunately, they'll put money over a more competitive league every day of the week. I would even argue that the last thing either of the OF want is to have to play teams less often, since it would make it more difficult for them to be 1 and 2 every year.

Joe Baker II
14-12-2010, 10:43 AM
This review has missed the major points.

Given Scotland's popuulation there will never be a perfect structure but moving back to ten teams is a backward step, split imperfect but 12 team league an improvement on that and there were reasons (not just financial) an 18 league Division 1 was abandoned.

There are one or two sensible ideas in proposals to be fair but they are drowned out by the negatives.

I do not go to games because of the standard on offer but absurd that return of terracing does not even appear to have been considered - I have given up the SPL this season in favour of junior and East of Scotland league football (with the exception of one or two SPL grounds where standing for away fans is generally tolerated), and this review is hardly going to tempt people like me back to the SPL - and I am hardly alone in objecting to paying current admission prices for soulless stadiums.

Scottish representation should return to 4 teams in Europe next year which itself will improve coeffiecient, part of problem in last 2 seasons has been extra teams who have generally been an embarassment in Europe - no need for reform to improve this.

Joe Baker II
14-12-2010, 10:46 AM
If the league goes to 10 teams I am done with Scottish Football.
:

Plenty of Scottish football outwith SPL mate - have been thoroughly enjoying Junior and East of Scotland leagues this season.

Part/Time Supporter
14-12-2010, 10:47 AM
That in a nutshell is what's behind it. The OF will pretty much sell out every weekend at home anyway, so they're not really bothered if they play each other twice or four times. The other clubs (and I include HIbs in this) will look at losing two guaranteed near capacity games plus the hospitality add ons that go with it each season if it goes to a bigger league. A simple calculation on gate money alone would mean us losing around 5000 seats per game at say £25 - that's £250k in gate money for those two lost fixtures. Sky and the other TV companies make their money on subsrciptions and advetising, and like it or not it's the OF games that bring that in.

Unfortunately, they'll put money over a more competitive league every day of the week. I would even argue that the last thing either of the OF want is to have to play teams less often, since it would make it more difficult for them to be 1 and 2 every year.

That's not really the case now. Celtc are down to 40-45K for most games and even the Huns attendance has been a little soft this year, there was barely 40,000 for their Hibs game (albeit that was in midweek). I think they are now bothered about having four games for driving ST sales.

An option, which I haven't seen discussed, would be to reinstate the Glasgow Cup (and the East of Scotland Shield) as first team games if the SPL went to 16 or bigger. That would give you you a third derby. Those local cups only really died after they went to 10 teams, meaning they became a 5th (or more, with the national cups) derby.

Part/Time Supporter
14-12-2010, 10:49 AM
This review has missed the major points.

Given Scotland's popuulation there will never be a perfect structure but moving back to ten teams is a backward step, split imperfect but 12 team league an improvement on that and there were reasons (not just financial) an 18 league Division 1 was abandoned.

There are one or two sensible ideas in proposals to be fair but they are drowned out by the negatives.

I do not go to games because of the standard on offer but absurd that return of terracing does not even appear to have been considered - I have given up the SPL this season in favour of junior and East of Scotland league football (with the exception of one or two SPL grounds where standing for away fans is generally tolerated), and this review is hardly going to tempt people like me back to the SPL - and I am hardly alone in objecting to paying current admission prices for soulless stadiums.

Scottish representation should return to 4 teams in Europe next year which itself will improve coeffiecient, part of problem in last 2 seasons has been extra teams who have generally been an embarassment in Europe - no need for reform to improve this.

Insulting.

Well in that case why don't we just take two european places and let the OF get on with it?

:rolleyes:

Barney McGrew
14-12-2010, 10:51 AM
An option, which I haven't seen discussed, would be to reinstate the Glasgow Cup (and the East of Scotland Shield) as first team games if the SPL went to 16 or bigger. That would give you you a third derby. Those local cups only really died after they went to 10 teams, meaning they became a 5th (or more, with the national cups) derby.

That's far too sensible, so you can bet it would be ruled out straight away by the beaks :greengrin

The strange thing is, I've yet to find a fan of any club who thinks that this is anything other than a ridiculous suggestion to go back to ten teams. Even OF supporters I've spoken to think it's bonkers.

The SPL/SFL couldn't be any further out of touch with their customers if they proposed playing games on the moon.

Don Giovanni
14-12-2010, 11:34 AM
Money, unfortunately, wil be the deciding factor. Football must be one of the few products were the consumers' wants, needs, or tastes are almost entirely ignored.

Clubs won't vote for fewer games and more teams with which to spread the revenue (in the same way most of us wouldn't be keen to volunteer for a pay cut plus longer hours) even if it was for the good of the game in the long-run. We'll be told noone can guarantee a larger league will be an improvement on the status-quo and that in the current financial conditions it could be suicide for some clubs.

The 14 team league proposals, whilst ridiculous at first glance, are no more ridiculous than our current set-up and I would take a few years of 14 if it was part of a structured plan to move to 16 teams 3 years later, for example. This would allow clubs to plan budgets effectively.
Alas, the guardians (administrators) of our national sport lack the combination of the power or the vision to improve our lot and the individual clubs are too greedy and selfish to be trusted to do what is right for the game.

Unfortunately, I think the future of Scottish football is pretty bleak...

Long live the Hibs!!

Dan Sarf
14-12-2010, 01:51 PM
That's far too sensible, so you can bet it would be ruled out straight away by the beaks :greengrin

The strange thing is, I've yet to find a fan of any club who thinks that this is anything other than a ridiculous suggestion to go back to ten teams. Even OF supporters I've spoken to think it's bonkers.

The SPL/SFL couldn't be any further out of touch with their customers if they proposed playing games on the moon.

Nah, there'd be no atmosphere. Oh wait...

Keith_M
14-12-2010, 02:12 PM
And still no mention of cheerleaders at every game......






:grr:

essexhibee
14-12-2010, 04:18 PM
If we go back to a ten league system it will be Goodnight Vienna for scottish football.

Potentially playing teams six times in a season? Horrific decision.

sambajustice
14-12-2010, 08:14 PM
Absolutely the worst idea ever. Playing the same keech 4 times a season! great! Rangers are only pushing this because its 2 less league games and has a winter break!

It would be torture!

Gatecrasher
14-12-2010, 08:16 PM
Why is Mr Doncaster so exited about this?

TBH i thought we had finally got someone to do something decent but he is turning out just as bad as anyone before him.