League Reconstruction Poll

[StevieC]

Did a search and couldn't see any sign of a poll on league reconstruction, apologies if there has been one.

With all the talk of strike action this week I was wondering if supporters would be willing to carry out a one day strike regarding league reconstruction.

If the poll were to show a clear majority in favour of change would a strike send a clear message to the powers that be?

My thinking would be that supporters associations would co-ordinate to gauge the support of its members and if in favour a date would be chosen for strike action.

In order to be fair, each team would pick their own home game to ensure they weren't missing out on a derby game or hitting the club too hard financially. This would also keep the action in the headlines for a much longer period than a one-day-forgotten-about-next-week action.

[Hibbyradge]

I'm already on strike!

A 16 team league would cripple us in my opinion.

Too many meaningless games, to few visiting supporters, too little money shared amongst too many clubs.

A 14 team league with a top 6/bottom 8 split would be interesting.

Everyone would play each other twice - 26 games, then the top 6 would have another 10 games to sort out the league and the European places.

The bottom 8 teams would have 14 more games which would make up for not playing the bigger teams.

I'd like it if there was a way to involve the top teams in the 1st division at the end of the season in a sort of play-off scenario, but I can't think how that could be done.

[StevieC]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

A 16 team league would cripple us in my opinion.
Too many meaningless games, to few visiting supporters, too little money shared amongst too many clubs.
A 14 team league with a top 6/bottom 8 split would be interesting.
Everyone would play each other twice - 26 games, then the top 6 would have another 10 games to sort out the league and the European places.

Too few visiting supporters? You dont think that more supporters would be likely to travel to an away fixture knowing that it would be their only trip there that season? And more so if it were a team that may only be in the league for one season?

40 games for bottom 8 clubs? That's a huge ask.

Agree that it would undoubtedly mean less money from the TV/"League" Sponsorship pot, but in the big scheme of things is it really about the money? Could a bigger league attract more supporters to off-set this?

[Shaggy]

SPL 1--- Rangers, Celtic(let them play 36 times a year, see how they get on, seeing they dont need anyone)

Spl 2--- Us and 15 other teams with the biggest stadia and a 4 figure support. Share out the reduced prize funds more fairly... but who would win every year??

Rest of the teams will have to go Junior

.......Forget the comparing the quality of english leagues, I just want to see competitive football... I get so much more enjoyment following the wee boys under 15's.

Extreme, but something radical has to happen

[PatHead]

Voted for a 16 team league but know it is a non starter as Sky/ESPN insist on an Old Firm derby 4 times a season. At time of posting notice there has been no votes for status quo so I am sure I know what the SPL board will go for!

[Musselbound]

The question is what size of league do you want so I voted for 16. As I see it that would make for a more intereresting league that is more competitive at the top end. It's not going to happen though so a more realistic move to 14 would also get my backing as a step in the right direction. But the current nonsensical voting 11-1 voting system, which is in place to suit the Old Firm, makes any change very complicated and I don't foresee the number of teams in the top league changing any time soon. In what other walk of life would you need such a large number in favour of any change? It would be all talk and nothing would get done and so it is with the SPL.

I think the powers that be are already well aware of what the fans' favourite option is. I'm sure Neil Donkeycaster has already acknowledged this but we are viewed as plebs who know nothing about generating money. If change does eventually come about at some point, it will either be to 10 or 14. It will not be anything as radical as 16 or 18 unless the Old Firm go somewhere else which looks unlikely.

[StevieC]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Voted for a 16 team league but know it is a non starter as Sky/ESPN insist on an Old Firm derby 4 times a season.

Is it a non-starter though?

Doncaster stated that it would cost the league £20m in TV money if the OF only played twice a season, so there must be some sort of clause in there to cover this.

And if there's a clause there's a way.

[PatHead]

Spoke to a Director of another SPL club on Friday night who said that if any of the Old Firm left SPL there is an automatic review of contract with a view to re-negotiating. Doesn't think there is anything about re-negotiating through re-construction.

[Beefster]

Can someone explain to me how removing home games against the likes of Celtic, Rangers, Hearts and Aberdeen and replacing them with the likes of Ross County, Falkirk, Dundee and Queen of the South is going to get Hibs' attendances up?

About half of the away teams already only play at ER once a season already and still bring a crap support and is someone really going to give a Hearts game a miss but be champing at the bit to go to a QotS game?

[Hibbyradge]

A 16 team league would mean only 30 games a season, 8 less than we struggle to survive on now.

Of course there would be less away fans. A single game against each of the top 4. in the first division could never be expected to compensate for 2 home games against the likes of Celtic, Rangers, Hearts and Aberdeen.

[Mary Hinge]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Is it a non-starter though?

Doncaster stated that it would cost the league £20m in TV money if the OF only played twice a season, so there must be some sort of clause in there to cover this.

And if there's a clause there's a way.

They don't have to play 4 league games surely !!!

The infirm could play as many friendlies as they want to boost the TV coffers ....... it would also keep both sides of the knuckledragging bigots happy too

[StevieC]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Spoke to a Director of another SPL club on Friday night who said that if any of the Old Firm left SPL there is an automatic review of contract with a view to re-negotiating. Doesn't think there is anything about re-negotiating through re-construction.

Four OF games a season is a requirement for the TV deal. If a larger league were voted in (and it could be if enough teams voted for it) then there would be no option but to renegotiate the deal.

The 11-1 voting situation is obviously a major hurdle but I dont think it's 11-1 for ALL decisions. It may be possible for a majority vote to change the 11-1 at one AGM and then a majority vote to expand the league at the next?

[StevieC]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I think the powers that be are already well aware of what the fans' favourite option is.

Exactly, and they chose to ignore it. Would more drastic action (such as a strike) show them we mean business?

[MyJo]

The most sensible and workable option would probably be a 14 team league with a split.

1st round of games play each team in the league twice, once home and once away - 26 games

2nd round of games with top 7 / bottom 7 split playing twice again - 12 games

Would be good if they shook things up a bit as well and maybe after the first round of games they labeled the top 7 as SPL1 and bottom 7 SPL2 and wiped all the points from the first round of games and started again with SPL1 teams playing for the title and european places and SPL2 teams playing for relegation places.

[TheBall'sRound]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

The most sensible and workable option would probably be a 14 team league with a split.

1st round of games play each team in the league twice, once home and once away - 26 games

2nd round of games with top 7 / bottom 7 split playing twice again - 12 games

Would be good if they shook things up a bit as well and maybe after the first round of games they labeled the top 7 as SPL1 and bottom 7 SPL2 and wiped all the points from the first round of games and started again with SPL1 teams playing for the title and european places and SPL2 teams playing for relegation places.

Problem with 7 and 7 is that one team in each half sits out each week. There would be grief about who got the break where and the games proceeding the break and blah blah. Can of worms.

[patlowe]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

The most sensible and workable option would probably be a 14 team league with a split.

1st round of games play each team in the league twice, once home and once away - 26 games

2nd round of games with top 7 / bottom 7 split playing twice again - 12 games

Would be good if they shook things up a bit as well and maybe after the first round of games they labeled the top 7 as SPL1 and bottom 7 SPL2 and wiped all the points from the first round of games and started again with SPL1 teams playing for the title and european places and SPL2 teams playing for relegation places.

Excellent suggestions.

[WindyMiller]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I'm already on strike!

A 16 team league would cripple us in my opinion.

Too many meaningless games, to few visiting supporters, too little money shared amongst too many clubs.

A 14 team league with a top 6/bottom 8 split would be interesting.

Everyone would play each other twice - 26 games, then the top 6 would have another 10 games to sort out the league and the European places.

The bottom 8 teams would have 14 more games which would make up for not playing the bigger teams.

I'd like it if there was a way to involve the top teams in the 1st division at the end of the season in a sort of play-off scenario, but I can't think how that could be done.

I like 14 team set-up you've proposed but specially the highlighted.
You can see the excitement the play-offs create in England.

[patlowe]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I like 14 team set-up you've proposed but specially the highlighted.
You can see the excitement the play-offs create in England.

Why did they get rid of the play-offs in the first place? Why has it taken so long for them to be reinstated given the universal support for them? SPL clubs really need to get their finger out and start listening to what the fans want before it's too late.

[SlickShoes]

I was at the real radio thing a few weeks ago and everyone asked Neil Doncaster about reconstruction and he said that there is no way they can reconstruct to a larger league without teams losing out on money, also that the TV companies basically require the OF play 4 times a season. He is fully aware fans all want a larger league but financially it is not possible at all.

[patlowe]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I was at the real radio thing a few weeks ago and everyone asked Neil Doncaster about reconstruction and he said that there is no way they can reconstruct to a larger league without teams losing out on money, also that the TV companies basically require the OF play 4 times a season. He is fully aware fans all want a larger league but financially it is not possible at all.

Everything he says is based on the assumption that our game is completely at the mercy of television companies. A sad state of affairs.

[SlickShoes]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Everything he says is based on the assumption that our game is completely at the mercy of television companies. A sad state of affairs.

Aye and it pretty much is with regards to income, it is very sad.

Someone suggested to him summer football, starting in april and running to october or so, thus giving SKY and other channels something to show over the summer, which seemed to make sense until he mentioned that every two years you would be going up against the World Cup or Euros for coverage and it would just be a non starter.

No team is going to vote for losing money because they are all that skint and on the verge of collapse as it is, any drop in revenue even to make a more exciting league most teams won't buy into it sadly, so the fans suffer.

[MyJo]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Everything he says is based on the assumption that our game is completely at the mercy of television companies. A sad state of affairs.

It is though. Maybe not for the bigger teams like the OF and us, Hearts, Dundee United etc who would manage to muddle through but even in the SPL probably half the teams would not be able to carry on or even exist if it wasnt for the money from the TV deal

[patlowe]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

It is though. Maybe not for the bigger teams like the OF and us, Hearts, Dundee United etc who would manage to muddle through but even in the SPL probably half the teams would not be able to carry on or even exist if it wasnt for the money from the TV deal

Exactly and that is what's sad. However, if we had the balls to play our own game and concentrate solely on what entertains the fans and encourages real competition within our game then maybe at some stage we'd be in a position to negotiate a much better deal. Of course we'd have to take a financial hit initially but at the moment all we're doing is grasping on for dear life to this shoddy deal from SKY/ESPN that only serves to slow down the inevitable decline of our game.

[Purehibee_MYB]

16 is ideal...in no way is shortening the league a good idea...

[Hibbyradge]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

16 is ideal...in no way is shortening the league a good idea...

A 16 team league only gives us 30 games.

That's far from ideal.

[Sir David Gray]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I was at the real radio thing a few weeks ago and everyone asked Neil Doncaster about reconstruction and he said that there is no way they can reconstruct to a larger league without teams losing out on money, also that the TV companies basically require the OF play 4 times a season. He is fully aware fans all want a larger league but financially it is not possible at all.

Neil Doncaster also said recently that things such as Hearts failing to pay their players on time and Celtic being in trouble over their fans singing IRA songs could be good news for the league in terms of drumming up commercial interest in Scottish football.

I will therefore hold off in terms of listening to anything that Mr Doncaster has to say on issues relating to financial matters.

I understand that going for an 18 team league would be difficult at first because teams would be going from playing 19 home games per season to 17 and they would be going from playing at least one half of the Old Firm at home twice a season to just once each, however sometimes you need to think of the bigger picture.

Scottish football is a mess, the SPL structure is awful, very few people like the split and playing half of the league four times per season is extremely monotonous.

I can think of a number of First Division clubs who could bring something to the SPL. Clubs like Dundee, Falkirk, Partick Thistle, Raith Rovers and Livingston all have decent infrastructure and respectable attendances and I think they could hold their own in an enlarged SPL.

They're certainly no worse off than three or four of the teams who are in the current SPL.

[NorthNorfolkHFC]

14 team super league! Top 4 playoff at end of season for additional cup. bottom 4 playoff to assess who will go down. Great excitement at end of season!!!!!!! None of this split nonsense!!!

Make the lower leagues regional, say upper, east and west. Then have top two from each region playing off to reach Super League!!!

One 'Scottish Cup' for all teams.

I think that is a setup that would generate a bit interest throughout the season, especially at the end when traditionally nobody is interested!!!

Regardless of standard it would be good to watch cause there would be alot on the line for most!!!

[SlickShoes]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Neil Doncaster also said recently that things such as Hearts failing to pay their players on time and Celtic being in trouble over their fans singing IRA songs could be good news for the league in terms of drumming up commercial interest in Scottish football.

I will therefore hold off in terms of listening to anything that Mr Doncaster has to say on issues relating to financial matters.

I understand that going for an 18 team league would be difficult at first because teams would be going from playing 19 home games per season to 17 and they would be going from playing at least one half of the Old Firm at home twice a season to just once each, however sometimes you need to think of the bigger picture.

Scottish football is a mess, the SPL structure is awful, very few people like the split and playing half of the league four times per season is extremely monotonous.

I can think of a number of First Division clubs who could bring something to the SPL. Clubs like Dundee, Falkirk, Partick Thistle, Raith Rovers and Livingston all have decent infrastructure and respectable attendances and I think they could hold their own in an enlarged SPL.

They're certainly no worse off than three or four of the teams who are in the current SPL.

I'm not in any way agreeing with him, but he is the guy in charge so think whatever you want but whilst he is there and money is the key you can forget your 18 team league.

Couldn't agree more with the bold bit though, from the top all the way down its rotten, no relegation from div3 is as bad as the old firm winning the league every year.

[Beefster]

No TV equals poorer quality equals lower crowds equals poorer quality equals no TV.

The folk that think supporters are going to flood back to the games because they are 'closer', even although the quality of football is even more woeful than now, are kidding themselves IMHO.

There's a reason why the League of Ireland, which is competitive, has an average attendance of about 1,500, despite Ireland's population not being much less than Scotland.

Not that I'm saying that Scottish football is great, it's not. Just that an expanded league isn't the automatic solution that lots seem to think it is.

[Big Frank]

Its the whole package. Everything seems to be debated in isolation when dealing with Scottish Football.

Just ONE reason for the state we are in in this country is the boredom factor. With the current set up we are playing each other far too much. For such as small country, a minimum of 4 times a season is x2 too much. We should play home and away in the league and no more. A 16 or 18 league is a must.

For starters.

When the cost is debated, its (correctly) mooted that there is no benefit for clubs when reducing the pricing for a particular match. But the point is Scottish football is ridiculously priced and there should be a reduction season long. Get it back into the minds of those who used to go religiously in the 80s and 90s that, actually it isn't too expensive to go to the game. I'm sure over time crowds WOULD come back.

Football fans in general are treated disgracefully, from over zealous agressive stewards frothing at the mouth because a supporter has dared to stand up to Grampian policy in your face with a camera (been up to pittodrie lately). Fans need to be treated like humans. Its a disgrace what we put up with and what we have been putting up with for years. Easy, easy cash for the police and private security firms.

Wont bother boring you with crazy kickoff times and football matches on mondays, sundays and (now) fridays.


I would honestly love scottish football fans to do a strike. I agree wholeheartedly with the OP