PDA

View Full Version : Scottish Premier League Reconstruction - 14 Team SPL?



YehButNoBut
20-10-2010, 08:11 AM
It looks like we are heading for a 14 team SPL, according to this article on the BBC website. Will this be any better?

If the majority get their way, the new-look SPL will welcome two new teams and become a division of 14.
The favoured new set-up will also include relegation play-offs with a two-up, two-down system.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/scot_prem/9108392.stm

Steve-O
20-10-2010, 08:14 AM
And the split would remain :grr:

bighairyfaeleith
20-10-2010, 08:16 AM
Why do they consistently choose the most ridiculous option every time. Teams in the top half after the split play 36 matches while teams in the bottom play 40 games. You couldn't make this **** up.

Just have 16 teams with everyone playing each other twice. Simple!!

Lucius Apuleius
20-10-2010, 08:16 AM
Would rather 16

Godsahibby
20-10-2010, 08:19 AM
Many fans favour a larger division still, but several chairmen are fearful of losing the financial benefits of playing the Old Firm clubs twice at home

This is the problem we are always going to have, its the money men deciding whats best for them rather than the football men deciding whats best for Scottish football.

YehButNoBut
20-10-2010, 08:20 AM
It seems riduculous that some teams would play 36 games and the rest 40 games. :dunno:

The plan is for each team to play each other once home and away (26 fixtures) before splitting into two sections, either six/eight or eight/six.
Teams would then play other teams in their section once more home and away.
It means those in the post-split section of six would play 36 matches and those in the group of eight would play 40 games.

H18sry
20-10-2010, 08:20 AM
18 teams 2 up 2 down and restructure the league cup into regional groups of 4 playing home and away then a knockout, each team is then guaranteed 20 home games a season. :agree:

alfie
20-10-2010, 08:23 AM
BBC Sport:
Many fans favour a larger division still, but several chairmen are fearful of losing the financial benefits of playing the Old Firm clubs twice at home.

That says it all! :bitchy:

It needs to be 16 teams or more to make the SPL more interesting. Playing teams more than twice in a season (home and away) is getting boring. Add in possible cup ties and at the moment you could play the OF 8 times (I'm guessing) in a season FFS! :grr:

Is it any wonder that SPL crowds having been dropping?

Sandy
20-10-2010, 08:24 AM
Why do they consistently choose the most ridiculous option every time. Teams in the top half after the split play 36 matches while teams in the bottom play 40 games. You couldn't make this **** up.

Just have 16 teams with everyone playing each other twice. Simple!!

:agree: Not ****in rocket science is it ?

Steve-O
20-10-2010, 08:25 AM
Teams rarely even fill the ground for OF visits these days anyway...it's a load of pish!

Haven't they thought that they might be more likely to have fans turn up if they were challenging near the top of the league?

This 14 team idea is guff and will just create more post-split pish, especially if there are 8 teams in the bottom section! They'd be as well having teams 7-10 just give up at the split and have the bottom 4 fight it out for relegation!

Hibbyradge
20-10-2010, 08:26 AM
I like it. Better than what we've got.

And the top 6 split doesn't bother me.

Spike Mandela
20-10-2010, 08:37 AM
As a fan it's 18 for me. Home and away 34 games a season. No split.

ballengeich
20-10-2010, 08:40 AM
18 teams 2 up 2 down and restructure the league cup into regional groups of 4 playing home and away then a knockout, each team is then guaranteed 20 home games a season. :agree:

So why did we give this up nearly 40 years ago?

Westie1875
20-10-2010, 08:42 AM
Has to be at least 16, the 14 team idea is worse than what we have now.

Holmesdale Hibs
20-10-2010, 08:49 AM
Why do they consistently choose the most ridiculous option every time. Teams in the top half after the split play 36 matches while teams in the bottom play 40 games. You couldn't make this **** up.

Just have 16 teams with everyone playing each other twice. Simple!!

This is utter stupidity - the 14 teams idea that is, not your post. You would be better off in the finishing 8th than 7th so you have the revenue from the extra home games. Can't believe a body who is paid to organiuse football leagues could come up with this.

Also agree re the 16/18 teams and less games. With less fixtures our national team would benefit, teams would maybe take the league cup more seriously and we could have a winter break.

lyonhibs
20-10-2010, 08:52 AM
"The plan is for each team to play each other once home and away (26 fixtures) before splitting into two sections, either six/eight or eight/six.



Teams would then play other teams in their section once more home and away.
It means those in the post-split section of six would play 36 matches and those in the group of eight would play 40 games"


This is a sherry fuelled joke from the blazers, right??? :faint:

Posh Swanny
20-10-2010, 08:52 AM
Just have 16 teams with everyone playing each other twice. Simple!!

Agreed.

One of the great things about football down south is the psychological effect of only playing each other twice, as you get just the one chance for revenge each season. There is definitely something added to an away game at Hartlepool in April if you battered them 6-0 at home in October.

Would the hype surrounding Chelsea vs Man Utd at Stamford Bridge be quite as high had they played each other twice already and there was at least one more to come?

The fact is that EVERY game in England is a one-off spectacle each season. Up here you get frequent repeats throughout the year and then an Omnibus at the end.

hibs0666
20-10-2010, 08:55 AM
As usual, these guys are considering lots of solutions before they fully understand the problem(s) that a league reconstruction is meant to fix.

There was a golden opportunity to make radical, innovative, change but it is going to be an opportunity missed.

Steve20
20-10-2010, 08:59 AM
18 team league, with either 2 or 3 teams getting relegated.

Stevie Reid
20-10-2010, 09:07 AM
I like it. Better than what we've got.

And the top 6 split doesn't bother me.

:agree:

Whilst the 14 teams still doesn't sound ideal, it would still be a refreshing change from what we have.

SlickShoes
20-10-2010, 09:11 AM
18 team league or leave it the way it is.

We have to be the only league in europe coming up with these stupid structures and splits.

Like others have said as long as money dictates everything Scottish Football is doomed, there is no point even worrying about it.

H18sry
20-10-2010, 09:15 AM
So why did we give this up nearly 40 years ago?

To re-brand Scottish football, which worked back then but has fallen flat on its face in recent years.

We have seen in recent years that there are 1st division team who can hold there own against SPL teams in cup tie's, so why can't they hold there own in a league system, in which they will have a bigger more realistic playing budget.

MrSmith
20-10-2010, 09:17 AM
Things just couldn't get any worse eh?? Then up pops the all knowing chairmen oracles of the SPL to create another farce set-up!

How much lower can Scottish football get with these clowns at the helm??

We need; One Association, 16-18 team league playing each other once home and away; and; drop the points system back to two points for a win and one for a draw.

The final knife in the back....Goodbye Scottish Football...

Hibbyradge
20-10-2010, 09:36 AM
All options have been considered, from a top flight of ten, all the way through to a league of 24.

Lists of pros and cons have been collated next to each option and, after consideration, a 14-team league is regarded as the favoured option.

.
.
The plan is for each team to play each other once home and away (26 fixtures) before splitting into two sections, either six/eight or eight/six.
Teams would then play other teams in their section once more home and away.
It means those in the post-split section of six would play 36 matches and those in the group of eight would play 40 games..
.
.

The SPL see the main benefit of this format as the balancing up the games after the split, since there has been controversy in recent seasons surrounding the disparity of teams facing more away games than others.

I think it sounds pretty good.

Getting into the top 6 would be more important than it is now. That's good for the league.

The top 6 would be better, with home and away games against all 5 teams, and the bottom half would have an extra edge if 2 teams could be relegated.

A 16 team league is a non-starter. 32 games isn't enough to keep the bank managers happy.

An 18 team league would be an utter snore fest, with low attendance records being broken regularly.

14 seems to be worth a try.

David@EasterRoad
20-10-2010, 09:37 AM
Things just couldn't get any worse eh?? Then up pops the all knowing chairmen oracles of the SPL to create another farce set-up!

How much lower can Scottish football get with these clowns at the helm??

We need; One Association, 16-18 team league playing each other once home and away; and; drop the points system back to two points for a win and one for a draw.

The final knife in the back....Goodbye Scottish Football...

The only teams that want to play each other 4 times a season are the Old firm.

Steve-O
20-10-2010, 09:40 AM
All options have been considered, from a top flight of ten, all the way through to a league of 24.

Lists of pros and cons have been collated next to each option and, after consideration, a 14-team league is regarded as the favoured option.

Oh well that's it settled then.

I wonder if the not playing the OF twice at home 'negative' was given more weight than other 'cons' in those lists...

edit - you cheated my adding more to your post afterwards! :greengrin:

Spike Mandela
20-10-2010, 09:41 AM
That says it all! :bitchy:

It needs to be 16 teams or more to make the SPL more interesting. Playing teams more than twice in a season (home and away) is getting boring. Add in possible cup ties and at the moment you could play the OF 8 times (I'm guessing) in a season FFS! :grr:

Is it any wonder that SPL crowds having been dropping?

That's only 30 games though, 15 home games. 8 weeks less of football than we have now. Might be good for footballers but rubbish for the fan IMO.

Edit: Sorry quoted wrong post it should have been one saying 16. Simples.

For me has to be 18 or 20 if only playing each other twice.

Hibbyradge
20-10-2010, 09:42 AM
Oh well that's it settled then.

I wonder if the not playing the OF twice at home 'negative' was given more weight than other 'cons' in those lists...

Maybe you should email them and ask.

I'm merely quoting the article.

I have, however, added to that post and concluded that 14 seems to be worth a try.

Hibbyradge
20-10-2010, 09:43 AM
edit - you cheated my adding more to your post afterwards! :greengrin:

I like to employ a piecemeal approach. :greengrin

Beefster
20-10-2010, 09:54 AM
The only teams that want to play each other 4 times a season are the Old firm.

Every team will want four games against the OF, including Hibs and Hearts. There's a big difference in revenue between having 18/19k for a further two OF games to having 10k for games against Raith Rovers and Dunfermline.

I like the two up / two down idea.

Spike Mandela
20-10-2010, 10:00 AM
All options have been considered, from a top flight of ten, all the way through to a league of 24.

Lists of pros and cons have been collated next to each option and, after consideration, a 14-team league is regarded as the favoured option.

.
.
The plan is for each team to play each other once home and away (26 fixtures) before splitting into two sections, either six/eight or eight/six.
Teams would then play other teams in their section once more home and away.
It means those in the post-split section of six would play 36 matches and those in the group of eight would play 40 games..
.
.

The SPL see the main benefit of this format as the balancing up the games after the split, since there has been controversy in recent seasons surrounding the disparity of teams facing more away games than others.

I think it sounds pretty good.

Getting into the top 6 would be more important than it is now. That's good for the league.

The top 6 would be better, with home and away games against all 5 teams, and the bottom half would have an extra edge if 2 teams could be relegated.

A 16 team league is a non-starter. 32 games isn't enough to keep the bank managers happy.

An 18 team league would be an utter snore fest, with low attendance records being broken regularly.

14 seems to be worth a try.

Why would 18 team league be any more of a snorefest than it is now? When Hibs were in first division and winning games against'lesser' opposition games were good, Hibs played well and got good crowds.

Sure Ross County V QOS might get a low crowd but it still does in First Division anyway:confused: This might be compensated by a ICT v Ross County game though.

14 teams is ridiculous. Just miss out on top six after 26 games and then rest of season really will be a snorefest.

Hibee Daz
20-10-2010, 10:42 AM
These smaller clubs do my nut in, I know they rely on the large unwashed hoards descending on them like the plague to boost their coffers.
But do they not realise that it would be better to get more of your own supporters bums on seats, by playing against more evenly matched opposition your giving yourself a chance of collecting more points thus possibly earning more money by finishing higher up the table!
Plus the more of your own supporters you encourage to come back, the more dosh you stand to make selling club merchandise as well!

When will these clubs realise that the OF are killing the game up here, rather than helping it. The SPL need to do this reconstruction right, as has been mentioned a 16 team league is the way to go for me, with 1 automatic relegation spot and 1 automatic promotion from the first and then having a 2nd,3rd bottom and 2nd,3rd top from the first playing off for survival and promotion!

If the SPL and SFL have the balls to do this properly it gives them the opportunity to possibly barter a better TV deal, with the added play-offs and the league becoming more competitive they should generate a more interested and wider audience!
Then the next move would be for them to say to the uglys that the TV money is to be evenly split, as people no longer just want to watch you, they want to watch football that is genuinely competitive and far more entertaining because of this!

Is it just me or would more people want to watch Scottish football if, it wasn't about watching the uglys pump everbody most of the time? It's been made all to easy for them to become the financial heavy weights for way to long now and the time for change is needed to save the Scottish game from fading into obscurity.:pray:

Maybe I'm just making it all sound way to easy, maybe it is to much of a financial gamble for the smaller clubs.:dunno:

Mikeystewart
20-10-2010, 10:44 AM
Why do they consistently choose the most ridiculous option every time. Teams in the top half after the split play 36 matches while teams in the bottom play 40 games. You couldn't make this **** up.

Just have 16 teams with everyone playing each other twice. Simple!!

This is the key word that should be used by the SPL/SFL when deciding on the new structure.

If I ever talk to someone who doesn't follow Scottish football they find the whole split business funny but confusing as you said 16 teams play each other twice once home once away no problem no confusion , no embarrassment.

Westie1875
20-10-2010, 10:55 AM
How many people would still buy a season ticket knowing they could be done out of 2 home games should their team finish in the wrong half before the split?

Hibbyradge
20-10-2010, 11:06 AM
Why would 18 team league be any more of a snorefest than it is now? When Hibs were in first division and winning games against'lesser' opposition games were good, Hibs played well and got good crowds.


You should look up the stats for that season. You'd be surprised how low the crowds were, even though we had something to play for, and were playing well and winning.

I'll be pleased if we move from 12 to 14.

SidBurns
20-10-2010, 11:08 AM
Gotta be 16 for me:-

* One home and one away match against each team = 30 matches
* Four groups of four play home and away, two top go through to QF's = 6 games guaranteed (do a seeding system based on previous seasons league positions)
* One down one up
* 2nd bottom plays 3rd top of 1st, 3rd bottom plays 2nd in 1st

SHIMPLES

Keith_M
20-10-2010, 11:13 AM
Am I right in saying that if you're in the lower half of the table after 26 games you can't make a challenge for a European spot?

If so, that's got to be wrong.

Surely a team in 7th place could have a really good chance of catching the club in fourth if there's still 2/3 months of the season left?

CyberSauzee
20-10-2010, 11:22 AM
So why did we give this up nearly 40 years ago?

That was when it was 2 points for a win, so there were loads of meaningless games the last 2+ months of the season.

Maybe we need to think about bonus points as Jack Ross mentioned in his blog here.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/jackross/2010/09/parking_the_bus_is_no_easy_foo.html

We've changed things before, when goal average was used to deicde league placings if the points were the same. Nice to think back to the title deciding match in 1964/65, when Killie needed to beat Hearts by 2-0 to pip the Yams on goal average. Killie won 2-0 :greengrin

Gatecrasher
20-10-2010, 11:32 AM
nice to see scottish football is going down the ****ter :rolleyes:

GreenPJ
20-10-2010, 11:36 AM
I presume the blazers are concerned with the number of financially viable clubs which is why they are considering 14 as opposed to a greater number?

They can't have another Gretna or Dundee scenario but at the same time if you just have the same whipping boys going up and down all the time it makes it a farce.

My personal preference is 18 teams but again not sure if leaves enough depth in a 1st division to have a meaningful promotion process.

I personally would prefer less league games, it might encourage more people to actually come along and if its income that is then the issue then amend the cup competitions.

I would like to have seen how thorough this report has genuinely been to have come up with the current recommendation.

Geo_1875
20-10-2010, 12:01 PM
It's a total joke. They're pissing around trying to keep the OF happy. Nobody gets capacity crowds at home to the OF as they are always on tv and they have increased costs for police and stewards. The only number of teams that makes less sense than 14 is 13 and I'm surprised they haven't suggested that. Ditch the split and get back to a league of 18.

flash
20-10-2010, 12:09 PM
All options have been considered, from a top flight of ten, all the way through to a league of 24.

Lists of pros and cons have been collated next to each option and, after consideration, a 14-team league is regarded as the favoured option.

.
.
The plan is for each team to play each other once home and away (26 fixtures) before splitting into two sections, either six/eight or eight/six.
Teams would then play other teams in their section once more home and away.
It means those in the post-split section of six would play 36 matches and those in the group of eight would play 40 games..
.
.

The SPL see the main benefit of this format as the balancing up the games after the split, since there has been controversy in recent seasons surrounding the disparity of teams facing more away games than others.

I think it sounds pretty good.

Getting into the top 6 would be more important than it is now. That's good for the league.

The top 6 would be better, with home and away games against all 5 teams, and the bottom half would have an extra edge if 2 teams could be relegated.

A 16 team league is a non-starter. 32 games isn't enough to keep the bank managers happy.

An 18 team league would be an utter snore fest, with low attendance records being broken regularly.

14 seems to be worth a try.

Aye better than what we have particularly the 2 up 2 down part as we will see a few new faces.

Ken
20-10-2010, 12:24 PM
SPL - 20 teams - Play each team home and away - 38 games each
SL1 - 10 teams - Play each team 4 times - 36 games each
SL2 - 10 teams - Play each team 4 times - 36 games each

Next season no relegation from the SPL, top 8 promoted from the 1st division, 8 promoted from the 2nd to the 1st and 8 promoted from the 3rd to the 2nd. The remaining 2 teams in division 3 will be relegated to their regional leagues (East of Scotland or Highland league, not sure what is set up for West of Scotland teams?)

From 2012 onwards, 2 up 2 down in the SPL and 2 up 2 down in SL1. 2 teams will be relegated from SL2 into their regional leagues and the winners of these league will be promoted into SL2.

Benefits

SPL - Gap between Old Firm and the rest of the league could be closer due to the fact you only play them twice a season.

SL1 - Competition would be increased knowing that top 2 can get promoted into the SPL, and the bottom 2 getting relegated therefore only 6 teams will remain in the division.

SF2 - Same as the SL1 but the importance of remaining in the league (relegation to regional leagues) would be a huge factor, especially financially.

Promotion from regional leagues would give smaller teams like Spartans a goal to aim for rather than just winning the league year in year out with no promotion. Same for the highland league teams.

Stadium requirements for newly promoted teams to be reviewed, with at least 2 years timescale for effected teams to comply.

HibbyAndy
20-10-2010, 12:29 PM
Am I right in saying that if you're in the lower half of the table after 26 games you can't make a challenge for a European spot?

If so, that's got to be wrong.

Surely a team in 7th place could have a really good chance of catching the club in fourth if there's still 2/3 months of the season left?



Spot on.

16 team League for me.

GreenPJ
20-10-2010, 12:49 PM
SPL - 20 teams - Play each team home and away - 38 games each
SL1 - 10 teams - Play each team 4 times - 36 games each
SL2 - 10 teams - Play each team 4 times - 36 games each

Next season no relegation from the SPL, top 8 promoted from the 1st division, 8 promoted from the 2nd to the 1st and 8 promoted from the 3rd to the 2nd. The remaining 2 teams in division 3 will be relegated to their regional leagues (East of Scotland or Highland league, not sure what is set up for West of Scotland teams?)

From 2012 onwards, 2 up 2 down in the SPL and 2 up 2 down in SL1. 2 teams will be relegated from SL2 into their regional leagues and the winners of these league will be promoted into SL2.

Benefits

SPL - Gap between Old Firm and the rest of the league could be closer due to the fact you only play them twice a season.

SL1 - Competition would be increased knowing that top 2 can get promoted into the SPL, and the bottom 2 getting relegated therefore only 6 teams will remain in the division.

SF2 - Same as the SL1 but the importance of remaining in the league (relegation to regional leagues) would be a huge factor, especially financially.

Promotion from regional leagues would give smaller teams like Spartans a goal to aim for rather than just winning the league year in year out with no promotion. Same for the highland league teams.

Stadium requirements for newly promoted teams to be reviewed, with at least 2 years timescale for effected teams to comply.

Whilst I agree with an increase in numbers of the top league am not sure if we have enough 'quality' teams to justify the top 8 being promoted to the Premier league. Would teams like Cowdenbeath or Stirling Albion ever be in a position to be promoted to the SPL normally, probably not so they then become yo-yo teams or worse try to break the bank in order to stay up.

RyeSloan
20-10-2010, 01:03 PM
Gotta be 16 for me:-

* One home and one away match against each team = 30 matches
* Four groups of four play home and away, two top go through to QF's = 6 games guaranteed (do a seeding system based on previous seasons league positions)
* One down one up
* 2nd bottom plays 3rd top of 1st, 3rd bottom plays 2nd in 1st

SHIMPLES

Eh?

Four groups of 4?

Why 1 up and 1 down...1 down in a 16 team league but with play offs. Naa I think there has to be at least 2 certain relegation places.

Diclonius
20-10-2010, 01:32 PM
If this goes ahead, will it be implemented immediately for season 2011-12? :confused:

MrHibs1982
20-10-2010, 03:16 PM
:grr::grr::grr::grr::grr: seriously what is with this freakin split, it is shocking and only bearable and just (by the skin of its teeth and cos we have no other option but to accept it) acceptable now cos 95% of the time get 2 home and away games with each team but come on a 16 team league and a split to make 37 games.
I am seriously considering pounding my head of my desk a dozen times or so at the thought.
Who else does this split (i tried googling for it and only found "SPL split" and "hajduk split") it is just my opinion but i think it is the one of the worst things in our game, teams finishing in 7th with more points than 6th and now i see an idea to have a 14 team league with a 8 & 6 split so we wont even have a league where we all play the same games.
Seriously glad i am now in China, no OF bias SPL drivel, at least 3 live EPL and 3 La Liga games every week, Uefa cup, Champions league, internationals (inc Scotland Spain live) and best of all not a scottish (or english) commentator in site, give me a chinese commentator talking god knows what over that any day!!
God its been a long day - perfect thread for me to vent my anger, cheers http://www.hibs.net/images/smilies/thumbs%20up.gif
ps 16 or 18 teams suit me even throw in a winter break if you want, just scrap the split i dont care if there is a 4 or 24 team league just no split!!!!!!

latapy10
20-10-2010, 03:38 PM
It looks like we are heading for a 14 team SPL, according to this article on the BBC website. Will this be any better?

If the majority get their way, the new-look SPL will welcome two new teams and become a division of 14.
The favoured new set-up will also include relegation play-offs with a two-up, two-down system.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/scot_prem/9108392.stmWe have got to try something differant as the league is not very entertaining at the moment i think keeping the split makes the end of the season more interesting and the play off was good the last time we had it so bring it on.

Ken
20-10-2010, 06:13 PM
Whilst I agree with an increase in numbers of the top league am not sure if we have enough 'quality' teams to justify the top 8 being promoted to the Premier league. Would teams like Cowdenbeath or Stirling Albion ever be in a position to be promoted to the SPL normally, probably not so they then become yo-yo teams or worse try to break the bank in order to stay up.

I don't think there is much difference between more than half of the First Division teams and the bottom few SPL teams. Falkirk are the perfect example.

woody47
20-10-2010, 06:37 PM
Since when have the chairmen of ANY club given a ***** about the supporters? If they did there would be 16-18 teams in 2 leagues with 2 up and 2 down AND SATURDAY football at 3pm only.
Do these money men not realise that it is the pandering to TV that has pi$$ed off the supporters as no one can plan in advance now what games they can go to and what ones they cannot due to some games being to early on a Saturday on playing Sundays.
If there was no LIVE football and only the highlights plus reduce the high prices I reckon the crowds would come back.
But then again I am only a supporter so my thoughts count for FA. :grr:

ScottB
20-10-2010, 06:47 PM
Surely these clubs that need the 2 home games a year against each of the Old Firm are those clubs that are likely to end up in the bottom half anyway!

Utter madness and they've actually managed to come up with a system even more ridiculous than the one we already have. That alone simply boggles the mind.

Saorsa
20-10-2010, 06:58 PM
It looks like we are heading for a 14 team SPL, according to this article on the BBC website. Will this be any better?

If the majority get their way, the new-look SPL will welcome two new teams and become a division of 14.
The favoured new set-up will also include relegation play-offs with a two-up, two-down system.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/scot_prem/9108392.stmNO! It's complete and utter bollocks :bitchy: :grr:

16-18 (I'd prefer 18) teams, 2 up, 2 down,

nae f'n split :grr:

davehiby
20-10-2010, 06:59 PM
i like 16 or 18 with bottom team relegated and league winner up and the next 2 bottom and next 2 top having a play off ..in a league especially of 16 that gives teams a lot to play for in both divisions

Gatecrasher
20-10-2010, 07:05 PM
Surely these clubs that need the 2 home games a year against each of the Old Firm are those clubs that are likely to end up in the bottom half anyway!

Utter madness and they've actually managed to come up with a system even more ridiculous than the one we already have. That alone simply boggles the mind.

and only end up with 1 home game rather than 2 :top marks

blackpoolhibs
20-10-2010, 07:15 PM
I know the smaller clubs will prefer 2 homes games against the uglies than 1, but these games are not selling out now. If we went back to 1 home and 1 away game, i'm pretty sure they would. I am fed up playing the same teams so many times, they are not special anymore. If the football is to get better, and more competitive, 16-18 teams, back to 2 points and no split.

Yes its back to what we had years ago, but what we have now is worse.

IWasThere2016
20-10-2010, 08:10 PM
I agree with the comments endorsing change - we MUST try someting new! Hope its Pars and Dees or Raith up :agree:

Renfrew_Hibby
20-10-2010, 08:58 PM
Had an idea and posted it in a rush on the thread with the poll on this subject. Having thought it through more and more here goes...

I've taken my inspiration from over the pond and the NFL to be precise. What if we adopted the conference system?
So we have lets say 20 sides and instead of one big league lets have four mini leagues of 5 sides.

They might be grouped like this for example but the composition doesn't really matter:

Group A: Hibs Motherwell Inverness Morton QOS
Group B: Hearts Dundee Utd Kilmarnock Ross County Partick Thistle
Group C: Celtic Hamilton St Johnstone Raith
Group D Rangers Kilmarnock Aberdeen Dunfermline Falkirk

Ok now we have the groups, this is how it works. All 20 teams play each other home and away once, so that's 19 home and 19 away but every side is just competing in their own wee groups.

At the end of the 38 rounds of fixtures we then go to a post season where the top 2 sides in each group then go into a simple knock out, last eight tournament.
This would be seeded with the group winners playing one of the other runner ups.
You would then ultimately be left with a grand final or 'Super Bowl' type situatuion!

The beauty of this set up is that we all get to play everyone just the onec at home and once away but the season should remain very competitive for most of the sides if not all right up until the end.

Scotland can't support any more than 20 professional sides (probably not even that many) So the remaining SFL sides would then drop into new regionalised leagues with the top junior, highland league sides ect. This would be part-time semi pro so no change there then. It could be structured in a pyrimid type way with maybe one super league.

What about relegation I hear you ask?
Well the side with the worst record out of the 20 group sides, i.e. the side that would've finished bottom had it been just the one big league would then either be relegated to the super regional pyrimid set up with the champs comming up (and turning pro) or you could have a play off or whatever.

The Scottish cup would continue with all sides in the pyrimid set up having the chance to compeate and maybe drawing the Gers or Celts at home if they get far enough.
As for the league cup, that might have to go, after all most European federations only have the one cup tourney anyway.

I know it sounds totally mental and it would never happen but if I was starting from scratch tomorrow then the American conference system is one that certainly works and I think it would raise standards and excitment all over the country!

BroxburnHibee
20-10-2010, 09:30 PM
Why would 18 team league be any more of a snorefest than it is now? When Hibs were in first division and winning games against'lesser' opposition games were good, Hibs played well and got good crowds.

Sure Ross County V QOS might get a low crowd but it still does in First Division anyway:confused: This might be compensated by a ICT v Ross County game though.

14 teams is ridiculous. Just miss out on top six after 26 games and then rest of season really will be a snorefest.


Am I right in saying that if you're in the lower half of the table after 26 games you can't make a challenge for a European spot?

If so, that's got to be wrong.

Surely a team in 7th place could have a really good chance of catching the club in fourth if there's still 2/3 months of the season left?


Exactly why this is a non-starter for me.

We do need change - its called get rid of the split.

ScottB
20-10-2010, 10:44 PM
How the hell would season tickets work in this system anyway!?

Would you have to pay extra if you end up in the bottom half? Or pay full price and get a refund if you end up in the top 6? Or end up paying for a season ticket for the first stage of the season then another for the post split?

Utter insanity likes.

barcahibs
21-10-2010, 12:12 AM
For me the issue with the SPL as it stands is boredom. Playing each other 4-6 times a season is ludicrous, by the time we're playing Kilmarnock for the 4th time in a season I'm starting to lose the will to live.

I don't get the idea of meaningless games personally, all Hibs games have meaning so I don't get that arguement against large leagues. I don't follow Hibs to watch them win the league (or I'd have given up a long time ago), I follow them to watch them play football.

I'd go for a 16 team league playing each other twice. 16 teams would be the optimum number for me as I don't think the Scottish game could support 18 top flight teams and still have a meaningful first division. 16 team first division as well and then split into regions below that.

Playing each team only once home and away would add interest IMO. Most fans only go to home games so would therefore only have one chance to see each team. This could add impetus for people to actually go to games. Generally most teams will have something vaguely interesting going for them that might tempt people along to see them. it would also make rivalries much more intense.

Make up the shortfall in games with a 32 team league cup split into seeded 4 team sections, as described by others above. This gives you another 6 guaranteed games leaving you a minimum of 36 games a season, 18 home 18 away.

Split all tv monies equally (or ditch the Sky deal altogether).

Then move it to the Summer. :devil:

alanhall69
21-10-2010, 07:51 AM
new league of 14 ok if you finish in top 6 .season ticket should be same price for top 6 or bottom 8 as always cost more for old firm and **** .
would like to see league cup played this way bottom 21 teams get home draw v top 21 . gives smaller teams some gate money early in season and hope it helps them to bring players on.
or even better british league cup .this would put some life back in the cup ..:taxi

blackpoolhibs
21-10-2010, 09:06 AM
For me the issue with the SPL as it stands is boredom. Playing each other 4-6 times a season is ludicrous, by the time we're playing Kilmarnock for the 4th time in a season I'm starting to lose the will to live.

I don't get the idea of meaningless games personally, all Hibs games have meaning so I don't get that arguement against large leagues. I don't follow Hibs to watch them win the league (or I'd have given up a long time ago), I follow them to watch them play football.

I'd go for a 16 team league playing each other twice. 16 teams would be the optimum number for me as I don't think the Scottish game could support 18 top flight teams and still have a meaningful first division. 16 team first division as well and then split into regions below that.

Playing each team only once home and away would add interest IMO. Most fans only go to home games so would therefore only have one chance to see each team. This could add impetus for people to actually go to games. Generally most teams will have something vaguely interesting going for them that might tempt people along to see them. it would also make rivalries much more intense.

Make up the shortfall in games with a 32 team league cup split into seeded 4 team sections, as described by others above. This gives you another 6 guaranteed games leaving you a minimum of 36 games a season, 18 home 18 away.

Split all tv monies equally (or ditch the Sky deal altogether).

Then move it to the Summer. :devil:

This. :agree:

dangermouse
21-10-2010, 10:22 AM
For me the issue with the SPL as it stands is boredom. Playing each other 4-6 times a season is ludicrous, by the time we're playing Kilmarnock for the 4th time in a season I'm starting to lose the will to live.

I don't get the idea of meaningless games personally, all Hibs games have meaning so I don't get that arguement against large leagues. I don't follow Hibs to watch them win the league (or I'd have given up a long time ago), I follow them to watch them play football.

I'd go for a 16 team league playing each other twice. 16 teams would be the optimum number for me as I don't think the Scottish game could support 18 top flight teams and still have a meaningful first division. 16 team first division as well and then split into regions below that.

Playing each team only once home and away would add interest IMO. Most fans only go to home games so would therefore only have one chance to see each team. This could add impetus for people to actually go to games. Generally most teams will have something vaguely interesting going for them that might tempt people along to see them. it would also make rivalries much more intense.

Make up the shortfall in games with a 32 team league cup split into seeded 4 team sections, as described by others above. This gives you another 6 guaranteed games leaving you a minimum of 36 games a season, 18 home 18 away.

Split all tv monies equally (or ditch the Sky deal altogether).

Then move it to the Summer. :devil:

This is by far the most sensible suggestion yet (although no mention of relegation). I'd go for 2 up 2 down automatically then 13th & 14th in SPL v 3rd and 4th in SFL fighting it out for the final place in the league.

Speedway
21-10-2010, 10:29 AM
Ultimately I think, that moving to a 14 team league structure would allow more clubs a taste of the top division than are currently permitted.

TheEastTerrace
21-10-2010, 10:56 AM
It does really make one stop and think about the people who are the key decision makers for the sport in this country. We had the PR spin for change from the SPL, the football phone-in 'parliamentary debate', and the promise of consultation with the fans. What do they trot out?

Drum roll please....

Adding two more teams and implementing, and I didn't think this was possible by the way, an even more ludicrous league split mechanism. That, after spending time and money consulting with fans and clubs, is what they come back with? If that's the case, let's have the memorial now, because Scottish Football is dead in the water. It doesn't even touch the surface of what is wrong with the sport in this country.

Bravo to the powerbrokers. :grr:

Joe Baker II
21-10-2010, 04:03 PM
The only teams that want to play each other 4 times a season are the Old firm.

What is your evidence for this?

SRHibs
21-10-2010, 04:05 PM
Why do they consistently choose the most ridiculous option every time.

To make it look like they're doing a proper restructure while making sure that the OF retain their dominance and still play each other a ridiculous amount of times each season.

:yawn:

HibbyAndy
21-10-2010, 04:51 PM
Ultimately I think, that moving to a 14 team league structure would allow more clubs a taste of the top division than are currently permitted.



Id tend to side with this qoute.

Diclonius
29-10-2010, 05:48 PM
So is this actually happening, or what?

TheEastTerrace
30-10-2010, 09:54 AM
Proposal put forward by the SPL on Monday I read