PDA

View Full Version : SPL may consider 16 team league?



The_Todd
04-03-2010, 01:25 PM
From today's EEN

http://sport.scotsman.com/sport/SPL-chief--says-.6122051.jp (http://sport.scotsman.com/sport/SPL-chief--says-.6122051.jp)

But then, I suspect it's all talk, no action myself.

Phil MaGlass
04-03-2010, 01:33 PM
Aboot f,n time,the leagues been screaming for a change for years,mind you this will save hertz being relegated.Atleast for a season

Leith Green
04-03-2010, 01:35 PM
This would be a problem though as We would only have 30 games a season.. Kidding themselves on if they are gonna try play offs etc as well in my opinion.. You finish the season in your league position on merit .. Play offs and league splits are a complete joke ...

They should stop ****ing about and make it a 18 team league playing each other home and away once a season, then its 34 games a season, simple as that .. !

Leith Green
04-03-2010, 01:37 PM
This would be a problem though as We would only have 30 games a season.. Kidding themselves on if they are gonna try play offs etc as well in my opinion.. You finish the season in your league position on merit .. Play offs and league splits are a complete joke ...

They should stop ****ing about and make it a 18 team league playing each other home and away once a season, then its 34 games a season, simple as that .. !



Also forgot to add scrap the 3rd and 2nd division and have one 22 team first division with more promotion and relegation place up for grabs, much more exciting and gives teams a better chance of competing!!

greenlex
04-03-2010, 07:03 PM
From a footballing point of view I think its a good thing. Playing each other more or less than four times a season is stale IMO.

Rod wont be happy. A new stand straight out the packet with an increased capacity that would only ever be close to full when the Old Firm and Hearts come calling. Instead of them coming twice it would only be once. He will be voting against I would imagine.

GreenCastle
04-03-2010, 07:41 PM
Change is long over due in the league.

The structure and split are a farce.

Play each other once a season = bigger crowds.

Scottish football has to be set up like the English pyramid system - if you are good enough you can make it all the way up - but on the way up you must have certain criteria ( ground etc ) to get furthur up.

davym7062
04-03-2010, 07:44 PM
This would be a problem though as We would only have 30 games a season.. Kidding themselves on if they are gonna try play offs etc as well in my opinion.. You finish the season in your league position on merit .. Play offs and league splits are a complete joke ...

They should stop ****ing about and make it a 18 team league playing each other home and away once a season, then its 34 games a season, simple as that .. !

but then there will be meaningless games from about october.

play offs:thumbsup:

Sunny1875
04-03-2010, 07:45 PM
From a footballing point of view I think its a good thing. Playing each other more or less than four times a season is stale IMO.

Rod wont be happy. A new stand straight out the packet with an increased capacity that would only ever be close to full when the Old Firm and Hearts come calling. Instead of them coming twice it would only be once. He will be voting against I would imagine.


Rod will be delighted the new stand is in preparation for when the ugly sisters go south for the winter. We will then be the club who are best positioned both financially and with a class stadium to take our rightfull position as scotlands top team.

hibsbollah
04-03-2010, 07:46 PM
[/SIZE]

but then there will be meaningless games from about october.

play offs:thumbsup:

:agree: Playoffs please. Theres nothing that will damage attendances like a load of meaningless winter games against partick thistle and ross county...

Big Frank
04-03-2010, 08:10 PM
16 or 18 team league - cannae wait:thumbsup::thumbsup:

Once home and away - all cup games on a saturday. Much higher chance of the weegies getting split if they dont have the chance to hump you 4x a season.

Long, long overdue changes needed in this country.

Jonnyboy
04-03-2010, 08:12 PM
16 teams

Play each other twice = 30 games

Reintroduce old league cup format = 6 games

Plenty IMO

Franck is God
04-03-2010, 08:32 PM
16 teams

Play each other twice = 30 games

Reintroduce old league cup format = 6 games

Plenty IMO


Agree 100%

Majority of games at the weekend, leaves midweek for European nights....

BroxburnHibee
04-03-2010, 08:34 PM
Never gonna happen - turkey's wouldn't vote for Christmas.

Hainan Hibs
04-03-2010, 08:39 PM
It needs to happen, there is nothing exciting about playing the same teams 4 times every season, and 1 up 1 down is pathetic.

Get in a 16 or 18 team league, playing each other twice a season, 2 up 2 down, and bring back the old style League Cup to put excitement back into that competition.

Can't see it happening but good to see someone at the SPL at least acknowledge the want for change.

Gatecrasher
04-03-2010, 08:45 PM
16 teams

Play each other twice = 30 games

Reintroduce old league cup format = 6 games

Plenty IMO

unless you get the cup games on your season ticket i cant see many people losing 8 games and paying 350-400 for a ST, it needs to be 18 and play each other twice IMO

Franck is God
04-03-2010, 09:08 PM
unless you get the cup games on your season ticket i cant see many people losing 8 games and paying 350-400 for a ST, it needs to be 18 and play each other twice IMO

You would lose 4 home league matches in a 16 team league not 8.

The ST would have to be priced accordingly but thats no different to now.

Gatecrasher
04-03-2010, 09:21 PM
You would lose 4 home league matches in a 16 team league not 8.

The ST would have to be priced accordingly but thats no different to now.

38 games just now, 16 team league - play each team 2 times= 15 teams to play = 30 games no?

ballengeich
04-03-2010, 09:22 PM
unless you get the cup games on your season ticket i cant see many people losing 8 games and paying 350-400 for a ST, it needs to be 18 and play each other twice IMO

We get 19 games now. I agree that the league cup section games would need to be included to give you 18. I don't see where you get the loss of 8 on the ST from.

Gatecrasher
04-03-2010, 09:24 PM
We get 19 games now. I agree that the league cup section games would need to be included to give you 18. I don't see where you get the loss of 8 on the ST from.

i mean over the course of the season there would be 8 less games excluding cups

i do realise it would be 4 less home games in the league :agree:

i realise i worded my post wrong and maths hurt my head :greengrin

mim
04-03-2010, 09:40 PM
The split would make much more sense with a 16 team league.

For starters everyone would have played everyone else home and away once.
With a 16 team league,the split would continue to minimise the number of meaningless games towards the end of the season.

So, 30 matches before the split and 7 after the split, giving 37 - very similar to now.

The bottom 8 would be playing to avoid 2 or 3 relegation spots and the top 8 would be competing for the European slots.

I think this would work.

ballengeich
04-03-2010, 09:48 PM
i realise i worded my post wrong and maths hurt my head :greengrin

Mine too, and I've a degree in it. Going back to Jonnyboy's suggestion of 30 league games and league cup sections, that could give 18 games on a season ticket with Scottish Cup and league cup after the sections to pay for. Financially not too different from now.

ballengeich
04-03-2010, 09:53 PM
The split would make much more sense with a 16 team league.

For starters everyone would have played everyone else home and away once.
With a 16 team league,the split would continue to minimise the number of meaningless games towards the end of the season.

So, 30 matches before the split and 7 after the split, giving 37 - very similar to now.

The bottom 8 would be playing to avoid 2 or 3 relegation spots and the top 8 would be competing for the European slots.

I think this would work.

The problem I see here is that home and away games wouldn't be equal. Say Dundee and Dundee United were equal after 30 games, well ahead of everyone else (I choose them in case anyone thinks I have an agenda) then the advantage would be with whichever got the home game in the final 7. The top or bottom teams should have an equal number of home and away games against each other.

Seep
04-03-2010, 10:16 PM
Would only be a good thing for the league IMO. If the league was more spread out it would give the 'smaller' teams like your Killies, Hamiltons and Falkirk etc a bigger chance of staying in the top tier and once the bigger games like the Edinburgh Derbys come around they will be more exciting.

mim
04-03-2010, 10:21 PM
The problem I see here is that home and away games wouldn't be equal. Say Dundee and Dundee United were equal after 30 games, well ahead of everyone else (I choose them in case anyone thinks I have an agenda) then the advantage would be with whichever got the home game in the final 7. The top or bottom teams should have an equal number of home and away games against each other.

Ideally, yes, but it doesn't work that way now, so it would be no worse. At the moment you can play a team once at home and three times away.

hibbytam
04-03-2010, 10:30 PM
From a footballing point of view I think its a good thing. Playing each other more or less than four times a season is stale IMO.

Rod wont be happy. A new stand straight out the packet with an increased capacity that would only ever be close to full when the Old Firm and Hearts come calling. Instead of them coming twice it would only be once. He will be voting against I would imagine.

Ah but 6 more 'winnable' games a season. Go on a good run without playing the old firm so much, meaning more likelihood of being able to challenge for 2nd at least. Plus those games would be more special.

Jonnyboy
04-03-2010, 10:34 PM
I think an added factor in favour of change is that the days of filling your stadium when the OF are in town seem long gone. It is rare that home teams have sell outs when Rantic appear, especially as loads of their away games are on TV.

I know there are those who oppose a bigger league but I reckon there's a good case for it now more than ever before

Gatecrasher
04-03-2010, 10:35 PM
I think an added factor in favour of change is that the days of filling your stadium when the OF are in town seem long gone. It is rare that home teams have sell outs when Rantic appear, especially as loads of their away games are on TV.

I know there are those who oppose a bigger league but I reckon there's a good case for it now more than ever before

i agree its the way forward :agree:

ballengeich
04-03-2010, 10:38 PM
Ideally, yes, but it doesn't work that way now, so it would be no worse. At the moment you can play a team once at home and three times away.

Yes, but at present the final 5 games are arranged so that the title contenders have 19 home and 19 away, including 2 home and 2 away against each other. In your system the top two would always finish the season with one having had two home games and one away against the other.

Diclonius
04-03-2010, 10:49 PM
A majority of Scottish Premier League clubs favour expanding the division, with several managers also calling for a shake-up in the top flight.


BBC Scotland spoke to nine of the 12 clubs on Thursday, with seven supporting a larger league and one refusing to comment.


9 - 7 = 2.

One refusing to comment, and if you read between the lines, one against.

I wonder who. :rolleyes:

K.Marx
04-03-2010, 10:52 PM
really hope something comes of this, from a fans viewpoint i cant see any reason not to support it whatsoever...just depends whether the folk at the top think the same :rolleyes:

An Leargaidh
04-03-2010, 10:54 PM
i agree its the way forward :agree:

Me too. I think it would make a more viable and interesting league :agree:

jgl07
04-03-2010, 11:24 PM
The split would make much more sense with a 16 team league.

For starters everyone would have played everyone else home and away once.
With a 16 team league,the split would continue to minimise the number of meaningless games towards the end of the season.

So, 30 matches before the split and 7 after the split, giving 37 - very similar to now.

The bottom 8 would be playing to avoid 2 or 3 relegation spots and the top 8 would be competing for the European slots.

I think this would work.
Not a hope.

One of the OF would probably end up with 19 home and 18 away and the other would have 18 home and 19 away.

Same argument in the relegation battle.

I would prefer 18 teams and some sort of play-off for promotion/relegation.

Failing that a 16 team league with group qualifiers for the League cup.

Jonnyboy
04-03-2010, 11:29 PM
Not a hope.

One of the OF would probably end up with 19 home and 18 away and the other would have 18 home and 19 away.

Same argument in the relegation battle.

I would prefer 18 teams and some sort of play-off for promotion/relegation.

Failing that a 16 team league with group qualifiers for the League cup.

My favoured option :agree:

Woody1985
04-03-2010, 11:54 PM
I don't think this is ever going to happen. The comment has been done to appease the people whom have suggested it IMO. I think there was a caveat along the lines of 'but there's still lots of things we can look at'.

As discussed a few times on here, you'd play the OF for 12 points a season rather than 24, meaning there's a greater chance of someone challenging for the league.

24 points is too big a gap to overcome. 12 points would be more feasible. The OF won't accept that.

Vini1875
05-03-2010, 12:26 AM
I think 16 teams, simply playing home and away giving a total of 30 games. I think less would produce a higher average gates. I am sure one game a season v OF and a derby would certainly sell out, excluding cup games. 30 games would also allow for a winter shut down.

Familarity has bred comtempt in my opinion.

CentreLine
05-03-2010, 07:07 AM
So for a change it is the smaller clubs screaming out for an increase in the SPL to 16 teams meaning the possibility of a welcome return to only playing one home and one away fixture each year. But interesting to see how it has been led by the clubs most fearful of a relegation dogfight. I notice hahahearts name in there early :devil:

This is something that most people have been crying out for for years but of course the money men at the smaller clubs have traditionally opposed it because the present system guarantees two home games against the OF and other teams like us that carry a decent away support.

KWJ
05-03-2010, 08:46 AM
Hey Robbie, welcome to Celtic. Your first game is at Somerset Park.

Think that's one of the things they don't like but in truth there isn't much difference between some prem grounds and first division ones now.

We need to make it happen IMO. Chicko and others should be getting right behind it forcing the OF to make a change.

Lucius Apuleius
05-03-2010, 09:31 AM
Don't really understand this "meaningless games" argument. Is that not the same for every league in the wrold that has more than 12 teams?

16 teams with the old LC format has always been my preferred option although the 16 team with a split sounds OK too.

The_Todd
05-03-2010, 09:33 AM
So for a change it is the smaller clubs screaming out for an increase in the SPL to 16 teams meaning the possibility of a welcome return to only playing one home and one away fixture each year. But interesting to see how it has been led by the clubs most fearful of a relegation dogfight. I notice hahahearts name in there early :devil:


Erm, Hibs came out in favour yesterday too!

One nice change is only a grand total of OF matches a year instead of 8 - useful for a potential challenger. May not make for more money in the bag, but certainly makes for less OF-shaped obsticles in the may of a title challenge.

Antifa Hibs
05-03-2010, 09:40 AM
Hopefully something comes from this. The current setup is boring as fk, Motherwell, St Mirren etc 4 times a season :yawn:

Airdrie, Dundee, Dunfi, Caley, Morton, Partick, QoS, and Raith all in the first division that could hold there own in the SPL aswell as Livi and the likes of Cylde possibly.

Make it happen :agree:

Phil D. Rolls
05-03-2010, 09:45 AM
Post #41 and not one in favour of the status quo. Can there be any other league in the world where the teams play each other 4 times?

I'm for an 18 team league myself, if there is competition for who can win it then it can only be good for attendances. If the Sheep - for example - were in the mix, they would bring as many fans as the OF.

The OF would like to play each other every week if they could. That was the whole ethos behind setting up the Premier League in the first place. Since then, they have treated the other teams with contempt and will continue to do so left unchecked.

It's for someone to do the sums, and sell the case to the medium sized clubs - Motherwell, Killie, Dunfermline etc - that they can't be any worse off in a changed set up.

We also need variety the SPL is a bit tired with a hard core that seems to get freshened up every year by a Dundee, Dunfermline or Partick. I'd rather they were permanent features of our game.

I also wholly support a pyramid system, but I think you'll never get the Albion Rovers or Arbroaths of our world to vote for that. They have far too much to lose.

mim
05-03-2010, 09:49 AM
Yes, but at present the final 5 games are arranged so that the title contenders have 19 home and 19 away, including 2 home and 2 away against each other. In your system the top two would always finish the season with one having had two home games and one away against the other.


Not a hope.

One of the OF would probably end up with 19 home and 18 away and the other would have 18 home and 19 away.

Same argument in the relegation battle.

I would prefer 18 teams and some sort of play-off for promotion/relegation.

Failing that a 16 team league with group qualifiers for the League cup.

Good points. I think you're both right and my suggestion is a non-starter.

Try kicking this one about:

Increase league to 14 clubs.
26 games then a split.
Home and away after split against 6 opponents is 12 games.
Total 38 games, as now.
2 up 2 down.

Advantages:
No lost revenue as against today's structure.
19 home and 19 away games for everyone.
Very competitive games after the split in both halves of the league.

Disadvantages:
Bottom 7 would only get 2 home games against OF (assuming both in top 7).
Top and bottom 7 would still be playing each other 4 times a season (is this really bad?)

Please rip apart. :wink:

J-C
05-03-2010, 10:07 AM
Good points. I think you're both right and my suggestion is a non-starter.

Try kicking this one about:

Increase league to 14 clubs.
26 games then a split.
Home and away after split against 6 opponents is 12 games.
Total 38 games, as now.
2 up 2 down.

Advantages:
No lost revenue as against today's structure.
19 home and 19 away games for everyone.
Very competitive games after the split in both halves of the league.

Disadvantages:
Bottom 7 would only get 2 home games against OF (assuming both in top 7).
Top and bottom 7 would still be playing each other 4 times a season (is this really bad?)

Please rip apart. :wink:


I was going to suggest the same with the 16 team format, play 30 games then a split, then another 7 games similar to what we have now, that gives 37 games.

erskine-hibby
05-03-2010, 10:15 AM
Good points. I think you're both right and my suggestion is a non-starter.

Try kicking this one about:

Increase league to 14 clubs.
26 games then a split.
Home and away after split against 6 opponents is 12 games.
Total 38 games, as now.
2 up 2 down.

Advantages:
No lost revenue as against today's structure.
19 home and 19 away games for everyone.
Very competitive games after the split in both halves of the league.

Disadvantages:
Bottom 7 would only get 2 home games against OF (assuming both in top 7).
Top and bottom 7 would still be playing each other 4 times a season (is this really bad?)

Please rip apart. :wink:

This looks much like the status quo to me, the only real difference being that 2 go up and 2 go down.

A 16/18 team league for me, play each other twice, no split and a better LC set up.:agree:

Phil MaGlass
05-03-2010, 10:30 AM
I was going to suggest the same with the 16 team format, play 30 games then a split, then another 7 games similar to what we have now, that gives 37 games.

My idea aswell

oxymoron
05-03-2010, 12:44 PM
16 teams - play each other twice = 30 games

then a three-way split:

top 6 H&A = 40 in total
mid 6 H&A = 40 in total
bottom 4 plus top 2 in first division = 40 in total

top 6 challenge for championship and europe

bottom 6 relegation places (and yes, youd need to determine a points place for them to start at - say exactly the same as the existing bottom)

Mid 6, not a good place but maybe a sop thrown in - eg early bye in next years Scottish and/ or league cup)

...could be just another over-complicated/ wacky/ not-thought-through idea, but hey ho...

Franck is God
05-03-2010, 01:14 PM
16 teams - play each other twice = 30 games

then a three-way split:

top 6 H&A = 40 in total
mid 6 H&A = 40 in total
bottom 4 plus top 2 in first division = 40 in total

top 6 challenge for championship and europe

bottom 6 relegation places (and yes, youd need to determine a points place for them to start at - say exactly the same as the existing bottom)

Mid 6, not a good place but maybe a sop thrown in - eg early bye in next years Scottish and/ or league cup)

...could be just another over-complicated/ wacky/ not-thought-through idea, but hey ho...


I think that the complication of a split is completely unnecessary and has made our league a bit of a joke anyway.

The OF would be the biggest losers in any restructuring as they would potentially lose two big derbies and the revenue from 2-4 home games which is a lot of money. For them to agree there will have to be something in it for them.

Much as I'd like to see a 16 team league, playing each other twice and the re-introduction of a winter break I'm not sure if they'll go for it and as all 12 current clubs need to agree....

steakbake
05-03-2010, 01:16 PM
From a footballing point of view I think its a good thing. Playing each other more or less than four times a season is stale IMO.

Rod wont be happy. A new stand straight out the packet with an increased capacity that would only ever be close to full when the Old Firm and Hearts come calling. Instead of them coming twice it would only be once. He will be voting against I would imagine.

Dont know about that. In that case all the directors would vote against it. The indications are there is enough support.

Franck is God
05-03-2010, 01:27 PM
I was also thinking that if we went back to playing each other twice in a bigger league we could go back to the old home one week away the next, there would always be a two week gap between games which might help all teams take better care of their pitches, fewer games will help this too.

MyJo
05-03-2010, 01:37 PM
Fwiw i think the 16 team league is the way to go if Scottish Football is to progress at all. I'd prefer to see a two league set up with the 16 team SPL and a 16 team Scottish Championship then regionalised leagues below that.

2 automatic relegations/promotions from/to the SPL and playoffs for a third promotion/relegation place.

play each other twice, once home once away giving a 30 game season and run the league cup on a champions league style format with the 32 league teams drawn into 8 groups from 4 pots based on league placing from the previous season 1st pot with 1 to 8 in SPL 2nd pot with 9 to 16 from SPL 3rd pot with 1 to 8 from the championship and the 4th pot with 9 to 16 from the championship.

would give every league club a guaranteed 36 games but would mix it up a bit with teams from both leagues being involved in each group.

Woody1985
05-03-2010, 01:42 PM
I was speaking to a ref who was at the annual refs dinner last night. When I asked what the feeling at the event last night was in relation to this idea. His words were 'Turkey's don't vote for Christmas'.

He also said that there is a proposal for Juniors to move to summer football as some Junior clubs were close to going under during the winter due to lack of games.

CelticEnd
05-03-2010, 02:01 PM
I can see why a 16 team league or even an 18 team league would improve Scottish football but feel it's a complete non-starter.

Without TV money the likes of Falkirk, Killie etc would sink without trace. I can't see TV having the appetite for an SPL with only two Old Firm games so the value of the deal will fall.

Even if the value of the deal stays the same the 's are split 16/18 ways instead of 12.

Not viable imho.

The_Todd
05-03-2010, 02:09 PM
I can see why a 16 team league or even an 18 team league would improve Scottish football but feel it's a complete non-starter.

Without TV money the likes of Falkirk, Killie etc would sink without trace. I can't see TV having the appetite for an SPL with only two Old Firm games so the value of the deal will fall.

Even if the value of the deal stays the same the 's are split 16/18 ways instead of 12.

Not viable imho.

Maybe so, but I hope enough SPL clubs can see the big picture and are willing to cope with short-term pain for long-term gain.

The fact 7 are in favour to begin with shows there is recognition that things HAVE to change.

Earl o'Montrose
05-03-2010, 02:10 PM
I don't think this is ever going to happen. The comment has been done to appease the people whom have suggested it IMO. I think there was a caveat along the lines of 'but there's still lots of things we can look at'.

As discussed a few times on here, you'd play the OF for 12 points a season rather than 24, meaning there's a greater chance of someone challenging for the league.

24 points is too big a gap to overcome. 12 points would be more feasible. The OF won't accept that.

But surely this would give the OF the 'challenge' that they've been going on about for years? :confused: :wink:
I would be delighted with 16 teams, but isn't there a UEFA (or maybe FIFA) rule somewhere which requires each country's top league to have a minimum number of fixtures? 36 or something?

CelticEnd
05-03-2010, 02:17 PM
Maybe so, but I hope enough SPL clubs can see the big picture and are willing to cope with short-term pain for long-term gain.

The fact 7 are in favour to begin with shows there is recognition that things HAVE to change.

I don't think anyone can argue things need to change.

Attendances in the SPL are pathetic.

People are buying season tickets at Celtic Park and Ibrox and then not even going to games.

Changing the format of the league may be part of the answer but bigger changes than that are required.

GreenCastle
05-03-2010, 02:26 PM
I can see why a 16 team league or even an 18 team league would improve Scottish football but feel it's a complete non-starter.

Without TV money the likes of Falkirk, Killie etc would sink without trace. I can't see TV having the appetite for an SPL with only two Old Firm games so the value of the deal will fall.

Even if the value of the deal stays the same the 's are split 16/18 ways instead of 12.

Not viable imho.

But there would be more interesting games and more chances of upsets / shocks in a one off home game - really like a cup game.

Would be more interesting than Rangers v Falkirk for the 3rd time a season.

I think a few years ago Hibs played Rangers 6 times.

4 league and 2 cup games - maybe even one was a replay ?

League needs changed - get rid of the split - we are a laughing stock in the world for it :grr:

erskine-hibby
05-03-2010, 02:42 PM
I can see why a 16 team league or even an 18 team league would improve Scottish football but feel it's a complete non-starter.

Without TV money the likes of Falkirk, Killie etc would sink without trace. I can't see TV having the appetite for an SPL with only two Old Firm games so the value of the deal will fall.

Even if the value of the deal stays the same the 's are split 16/18 ways instead of 12.

Not viable imho.

If clubs rely solely on TV money then they are in big trouble anyway, they should have cut their cloth to suit.
Apart from the fact that it is not an even split anyway and the OF take the majority. The only real losers, in the long term, as far as I can see will be the OF. IMHO that is no bad thing.

CelticEnd
05-03-2010, 02:45 PM
But there would be more interesting games and more chances of upsets / shocks in a one off home game - really like a cup game.

Would be more interesting than Rangers v Falkirk for the 3rd time a season.

I think a few years ago Hibs played Rangers 6 times.

4 league and 2 cup games - maybe even one was a replay ?

League needs changed - get rid of the split - we are a laughing stock in the world for it :grr:

Couldn't agree more...

Whatever way Scottish football moves forward it should be about trying to improve standards AND competition.

There's far too many clubs in the country for starters.

Danderhall Hibs
05-03-2010, 02:45 PM
If clubs rely solely on TV money then they are in big trouble anyway, they should have cut their cloth to suit.
Apart from the fact that it is not an even split anyway and the OF take the majority. The only real losers, in the long term, as far as I can see will be the OF. IMHO that is no bad thing.

Noone said clubs rely solely on TV money. BUt if they've got even less money the standard of player will drop even further and the league will be even pisher.

Someone posted a while back that the current deal is split evenly - Rangers and Celtic get more because they finish higher in the league.

CelticEnd
05-03-2010, 02:48 PM
If clubs rely solely on TV money then they are in big trouble anyway, they should have cut their cloth to suit.
Apart from the fact that it is not an even split anyway and the OF take the majority. The only real losers, in the long term, as far as I can see will be the OF. IMHO that is no bad thing.

Not really.

I don't know what % of Hibs turnover comes from TV money but I'm going to guess it's quite sizeable.

Celtic get 2.5m a year from the SPL's TV deal and have a turnover of 50m in a REALLY bad year so the SPL TV deal only accounts for 5% of the clubs turnover.

Celtic would be the LEAST effected club in teh SPL if TV money disappeared. It's the other teams who are reliant on this money and would be the big losers if TV ever walked away.

erskine-hibby
05-03-2010, 02:53 PM
Noone said clubs rely solely on TV money. BUt if they've got even less money the standard of player will drop even further and the league will be even pisher.

Someone posted a while back that the current deal is split evenly - Rangers and Celtic get more because they finish higher in the league.

I can understand where you are coming from, but as I said everyone will have to cut their cloth to suit.
IMHO an expanded league with fewer games against the OF will make the league more competitive. More competition = better league (in the long term). If the status quo is kept, or if the league only goes to 14 teams with the stupid split still kept, then the only winners will be the OF.

Hibs On Tour
05-03-2010, 02:57 PM
Noone said clubs rely solely on TV money. BUt if they've got even less money the standard of player will drop even further and the league will be even pisher.

Someone posted a while back that the current deal is split evenly - Rangers and Celtic get more because they finish higher in the league.

Have to say I think that's debatable. FWIW I think there are many clubs in Scotland who are paying foreign players of no better standard than those available players here to come and play in the SPL/SFL. Its getting no far from being like Arsenal reserves sometimes when even in mid-table or first div games you are playing 'spot the Scot' to a degree. And the standard is for me no better than before we had the mass influx of foreign players. I wouldn't necessarily agree that the standard would drop that much therefore and you may find that with more home-grown players at more clubs that attendances increase as the fans view their team as having more affinity with those in the stands?

CelticEnd
05-03-2010, 03:01 PM
Have to say I think that's debatable. FWIW I think there are many clubs in Scotland who are paying foreign players of no better standard than those available players here to come and play in the SPL/SFL. Its getting no far from being like Arsenal reserves sometimes when even in mid-table or first div games you are playing 'spot the Scot' to a degree. And the standard is for me no better than before we had the mass influx of foreign players. I wouldn't necessarily agree that the standard would drop that much therefore and you may find that with more home-grown players at more clubs that attendances increase as the fans view their team as having more affinity with those in the stands?

I think there should be an Academy system whereby a young Scottish player can only play for his local SPL team up to the age of 18. Legally I don't know how this would work but the fact is the best youngsters end up at Celtic or Rangers. They don't develop them properly and they're then lost to Scottish football.

Example. Celtic have signed a young kid from Motherwell a winger. He was on the verge of the Motherwell first team now he's behind Kamara, McGeady, Maloney, McCourt, McGinn, Samaras, Ki, Zhi - AT LEAST - for a place in the Celtic team.

The kids career is going to stall badly which will effect his chances of every fulfilling his potential.

erskine-hibby
05-03-2010, 03:04 PM
Not really.

I don't know what % of Hibs turnover comes from TV money but I'm going to guess it's quite sizeable.

Celtic get 2.5m a year from the SPL's TV deal and have a turnover of 50m in a REALLY bad year so the SPL TV deal only accounts for 5% of the clubs turnover.

Celtic would be the LEAST effected club in teh SPL if TV money disappeared. It's the other teams who are reliant on this money and would be the big losers if TV ever walked away.

And if the competition increased and the gap closed, as seems to happening to yourselves this year, how much would your turnover decrease then?? In % terms i hazard a guess that you would lose more...hence the reason for you wanting to keep the status quo. Not for the good of the league, but rather for the good of yourselves alone.
How many times have we heard from the OF that the competition is not good enough in Scotland, but when things start to even up, even slightly, you talk about moving leagues and such like?. The real truth is you are quite happy to dominate Scottish football and take the lions share, but would turn your backs on the rest of us given half a chance.

CelticEnd
05-03-2010, 03:36 PM
And if the competition increased and the gap closed, as seems to happening to yourselves this year, how much would your turnover decrease then?? In % terms i hazard a guess that you would lose more...hence the reason for you wanting to keep the status quo. Not for the good of the league, but rather for the good of yourselves alone.
How many times have we heard from the OF that the competition is not good enough in Scotland, but when things start to even up, even slightly, you talk about moving leagues and such like?. The real truth is you are quite happy to dominate Scottish football and take the lions share, but would turn your backs on the rest of us given half a chance.

Eh? The gap has decreased because the Old Firm have got worse. Only Celtic and Rangers over the last 10 years give the SPL any credability! Hoping that Celtic and Rangers standards drop so much that they are fighting it out with Hibs, Hearts and Aberdeen is not the answer to Scottish footbalsl problems.

seanraff07
05-03-2010, 03:46 PM
16 team league would be better as everytime Hibs have the same time twice in the same week we can never beat them in both games.:boo hoo:

Joe Baker II
05-03-2010, 04:26 PM
And if the competition increased and the gap closed, as seems to happening to yourselves this year, how much would your turnover decrease then?? In % terms i hazard a guess that you would lose more...hence the reason for you wanting to keep the status quo. Not for the good of the league, but rather for the good of yourselves alone.
How many times have we heard from the OF that the competition is not good enough in Scotland, but when things start to even up, even slightly, you talk about moving leagues and such like?. The real truth is you are quite happy to dominate Scottish football and take the lions share, but would turn your backs on the rest of us given half a chance.

I do not see how you can accuse other clubs for looking at their own interests foremost, when we were a leading club in forcing through ending the sharing of gate receipts in 1980s, and keep a straight face. This has been raised before on here and many posters said Hart was right because Hibs were a net gainer (regardless of the impact on the rest of Scottish football).

Which does not mean Celtic do not deserve some criticism, even a change to 5% of gate/ST receipts being split between all clubs would make some headway toward a more level playing field and have far more impact than tinkering with league structure, 12 teams have been chosen for a reason to balance access, revenues and avoidance of a proliferation of meaniongless games.

Though I accept a play off between 2nd bottom and 2nd top in Division 2 (1) would be a huge step forward, as well as increasing crowds during the season with more to play for a 2 legged game between for example Falkirk and Patrick Thistle itself would probably generate around 500k in income which would go someway to offset costs of relegation. But this requires SPL chairmen to see beyond what they see as their own clubs immediate self-interest and any vote would almost certainly indicate that the attitudes you describe are not a prerogative of Boards of any particular club.

Joe Baker II
05-03-2010, 04:30 PM
I think an added factor in favour of change is that the days of filling your stadium when the OF are in town seem long gone. It is rare that home teams have sell outs when Rantic appear, especially as loads of their away games are on TV.

I know there are those who oppose a bigger league but I reckon there's a good case for it now more than ever before

I suspect games against OF (and various other games too) would be far more likely to be full if they were only once a season, even with TV coverage at absurd times at the moment some games do come close to selling out. Although as per my previous post unconvinced increasing number of teams for this reason alone is worthwhile.

Joe Baker II
05-03-2010, 04:41 PM
League needs changed - get rid of the split - we are a laughing stock in the world for it :grr:

Some posters have said this but given you live in USA wondering if you have any evidence to back up saying split makes Scotland "a laughing stock in the world for it." Would be interested to know if Americans, English (who generally need to encoragement to be condescending toward Scottish football anyway) and other nationalities are really regularly making jokes in bars about Scottish football split and falling about laughing. I cannot help suspecting not but was wondering, equally same question applies to other posters who have made such comments. I would habve thought the Burley reign as maanger plus performance of our clubs in Europe since 2008 would have provided ample opportuniy for those determined to have a go at Scottish football for a laugh, as opposed to the structure of the league.

I accept split can be inconvenient for Scottish fans as hard to make plans when do not know when fixtures will be much in advance, but benefit is that it allows a sensible number of fixtures while 12 teams is the consensus as optimum number, provides some although arguably not enough variety and usually means meaningful end of season games and chance of larger end of season crowds

Gatecrasher
05-03-2010, 05:54 PM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/r/rangers/8552328.stm

GreenCastle
05-03-2010, 06:12 PM
Some posters have said this but given you live in USA wondering if you have any evidence to back up saying split makes Scotland "a laughing stock in the world for it." Would be interested to know if Americans, English (who generally need to encoragement to be condescending toward Scottish football anyway) and other nationalities are really regularly making jokes in bars about Scottish football split and falling about laughing. I cannot help suspecting not but was wondering, equally same question applies to other posters who have made such comments. I would habve thought the Burley reign as maanger plus performance of our clubs in Europe since 2008 would have provided ample opportuniy for those determined to have a go at Scottish football for a laugh, as opposed to the structure of the league.

I accept split can be inconvenient for Scottish fans as hard to make plans when do not know when fixtures will be much in advance, but benefit is that it allows a sensible number of fixtures while 12 teams is the consensus as optimum number, provides some although arguably not enough variety and usually means meaningful end of season games and chance of larger end of season crowds

It's hard to collect evidence as such about the SPL split as I am basing my argument on various opinions of all different nationalities in several different countries.

As for opinion on Scottish Football - again this is based on -

1. The National team being poor and not being at a major tournament since 1998 :grr:

2. The league having the Old Firm in 1st and 2nd for the last few years.

3. The "split" that can mean uneven home and away games in a season.

The reality is the MLS over here is slowly catching up standard wise with the SPL.

erskine-hibby
05-03-2010, 07:35 PM
Eh? The gap has decreased because the Old Firm have got worse. Only Celtic and Rangers over the last 10 years give the SPL any credability! Hoping that Celtic and Rangers standards drop so much that they are fighting it out with Hibs, Hearts and Aberdeen is not the answer to Scottish footbalsl problems.

We really are in a bad state then.

If celtic and rangers have got worse it is more their own doing than that of anyone else.
They have raped the Scottish game of all money and players, they have stamped out any competition by buying up other clubs better players then leaving them on the bench, or rotting in the reserves. If these clubs kept those players, then they may have done better in Europe than they had, but as I said the OF do not want competition they want to control.
If it has come to the point where, if you are of that frame of mind, they are being dragged down by other clubs around them, then, great!, they have dragged others down for decades.

Most of the ills of Scottish football can be laid squarely at the doors of both Ibrox and Parkhead:agree:

fiolex1
05-03-2010, 08:34 PM
Walter Smith is favouring an 18 team league, however what happens to the TV money if it does go up to 18 that's a third of the money lost against the current 12, but Rangers and Celtic will increase their TV opportunity

Example below based on 18 teams

Rangers 17 away games on TV, 4 at Home 21 total x 60,000 = 1,260,000
Celtic 17 away games on TV, 4 at Homes 21 total x 60,000 = 1,260,000
Hibs 4 away games on TV, 4 at Homes 8 total x 60,000 = 480,000
Hearts same and so on

Now I'm not saying that each club get 60,000 per TV game I don't know and I'm guessing at the number of games on TV, if there was an 18 team league or 16 the TV money would have to be distributed more evenly.



I might be talking Tom Kite who know's

hfc rd
05-03-2010, 11:07 PM
16 team league with summer football, the reserve league back as well and scraping the stupid SPL split. That will definitely turn Scottish football around and about time the SPL did something to improve Scottish football

Diclonius
05-03-2010, 11:51 PM
Good on him.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/r/rangers/8552328.stm

Sergio sledge
06-03-2010, 12:19 AM
Good on him.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/r/rangers/8552328.stm

Now that the great one has said it, it's sure to happen and Chick Dung etc will fall into line behind him.... If he'd come out and said it was a pish idea then no more would have even been said about it!

jamesjamieson
06-03-2010, 12:47 AM
When the English Premiership talked about restructure I vaguely remember there being a minimum number of games being mentioned. I think a team has to play a certain number of games in a domestic league programme to qualify for Europe and I think it's over 30.

I could be talking nonsense but if anyone knows that might clear up the debate about a 16-team league, as there would need to be extra games to get over the 30-game mark, e.g. a split.

Steve-O
06-03-2010, 02:12 AM
Some posters have said this but given you live in USA wondering if you have any evidence to back up saying split makes Scotland "a laughing stock in the world for it." Would be interested to know if Americans, English (who generally need to encoragement to be condescending toward Scottish football anyway) and other nationalities are really regularly making jokes in bars about Scottish football split and falling about laughing. I cannot help suspecting not but was wondering, equally same question applies to other posters who have made such comments. I would habve thought the Burley reign as maanger plus performance of our clubs in Europe since 2008 would have provided ample opportuniy for those determined to have a go at Scottish football for a laugh, as opposed to the structure of the league.

I accept split can be inconvenient for Scottish fans as hard to make plans when do not know when fixtures will be much in advance, but benefit is that it allows a sensible number of fixtures while 12 teams is the consensus as optimum number, provides some although arguably not enough variety and usually means meaningful end of season games and chance of larger end of season crowds

Agree with the first bit, I'm not really sure the split is making us some sort of worldwide joke? Not sure if anyone even knows about it?!

What does make us a joke is that people think only Rangers and Celtic win anything, ever. Sadly it's not so far from the truth!

Besides, if you think the split is bad, what about the A-League here - 10 teams (going up to 11 or 12 next season I think), play each other THREE times (so uneven games home and away) and then the top SIX out of 10 go into the play offs where there is a 'grand final' and whoever wins are the Champions! :faf:

Mental, but the Aussies / Kiwis do love their 'finals' format in all sports!

Sunny1875
06-03-2010, 05:29 AM
Maybe interesting maybe not but thought I would just throw this into the mixer 2008/2009 stats for leagues number of teams and attendances



Teams Avg Att.

Bundesliga 18 42k
EPL 20 35.5K
La Liga 20 30K
Mexico 18 25+ K
Italy 20 25K
France 20 21K
Argentina 20 21K
Holland 20 20K

SPL 12 15K

Turkey 18 14K
Russia 16 13.5K
Belgium 18 11.3K
Swiss 10 11K
Norway 14 10.5K
Denmark 12 9K
Greece 16 7.6K
Ireland 10 2K


Now population goes some way to explaining the attendances

But Scotland has some 5M souls Turkey 73M Swiss 8M Denmark 5.4M
Norway 4.6M Holland 16M Belgium 10.5M

Now of the countries listed (european) how many different clubs have won thier respective leagues in the previous 10 seasons ?

Which countries have produced international stars and done well in international competitions

Does it tell us anything other than we would be better off with an expanded league ?

Sunny1875
06-03-2010, 06:19 AM
When the English Premiership talked about restructure I vaguely remember there being a minimum number of games being mentioned. I think a team has to play a certain number of games in a domestic league programme to qualify for Europe and I think it's over 30.

I could be talking nonsense but if anyone knows that might clear up the debate about a 16-team league, as there would need to be extra games to get over the 30-game mark, e.g. a split.

Cleared up then from leagues around Europe

Turkey 30 games per season
Swiss 36 games (10 team league)
Russia 30 games
Norway now 30 (league expanded to 16 teams in 2009) but used to be 26 games
Belgium 34 games (18 team league being Restructured to 16 teams from 2009) so 30 from now on

Denmark 33 games (3 times a season against each club ??)

Hibs On Tour
06-03-2010, 11:53 AM
I think there should be an Academy system whereby a young Scottish player can only play for his local SPL team up to the age of 18. Legally I don't know how this would work but the fact is the best youngsters end up at Celtic or Rangers. They don't develop them properly and they're then lost to Scottish football.

Example. Celtic have signed a young kid from Motherwell a winger. He was on the verge of the Motherwell first team now he's behind Kamara, McGeady, Maloney, McCourt, McGinn, Samaras, Ki, Zhi - AT LEAST - for a place in the Celtic team.

The kids career is going to stall badly which will effect his chances of every fulfilling his potential.

Not until they're fully established first team players at other Scottish clubs they don't. Neither Rangers or Celtic have a great record at bringing through youngsters from their own youth systems in recent years, certainly not even in the same ballpark as Hibs or even the likes of Motherwell and even Aberdeen are starting to do so to a degree.

More and more players will IMHO take the route of going down South rather than to the OF, precisely because many have just been stuck on the bench and wasted a couple of years of their careers away instead of progressing [ala Deek]. First team in a Championship challenging team is more attractive than bench with the OF really from a career perspective and I think more Scottish players will go that way in future.

Unless you introduce some form of cap on the number of non-Scottish players in a starting 11, there is no way you will ever get past the situation whereby young players going to the OF are behind bought-in players...

The OF are now reaping the crap they've sown in not investing in youth when they were rolling in dough. They no longer have the dough to bring in top-notch players [you can hardly count a 6-month loan for RK as being long-term] and the other Scottish clubs are no longer rolling over and selling their young players to them for peanuts.

One good thing though, the OF are finally going to have to take the other teams and the overall package into consideration when thinking about changes for the better rather than just what is best for them. That's part of the reason we've got such a **** situation now - them just looking out for no1 so bit rich of them to greet about it now.

--------
06-03-2010, 12:08 PM
WHAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!


We've never done it that way befo-o-o-o-o..... :rolleyes:

jgl07
06-03-2010, 12:31 PM
Couldn't agree more...

Whatever way Scottish football moves forward it should be about trying to improve standards AND competition.

There's far too many clubs in the country for starters.
What a load of arrogant rubbish.

How do you propose to reduce the number of clubs?

Mergers? Kick out teams from the league?

How about a two team league in which Rangers play Celtic every week?

--------
06-03-2010, 01:49 PM
What a load of arrogant rubbish.

How do you propose to reduce the number of clubs?

Mergers? Kick out teams from the league?

How about a two team league in which Rangers play Celtic every week?



It isn't the number of clubs that's the problem. It's the fact that far too much of the money ends up in the pockets of two of those clubs; it's the fact that the structures don't allow the viable clubs to rise to the top of the game while allowing others to hold onto positions they really don't deserve; it's about too many teams not cutting their cloth to match their budgets; it's about certain clubs cheating by running up huge debts over-spending on their teams and winning competitive success at the expense of the clubs who keep to the rules; and it's about the constant recycling of the same old pals and the same old faces running the various league committees, protecting their own backs and feathering their own nests at the expense of the punters who pay to watch the rubbish that passes for football in this country.

I genuinely don't know how we can sort things out.