Mcleish report

[down the slope]

I t looks like Henry is going down the route of the rest of the muppets ,

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/scotland/9291848.stm

Do they never ever listen to what the fans want ?, if this goes ahead then that's it for me.

[bingo70]

I t looks like Henry is going down the route of the rest of the muppets ,

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/scotland/9291848.stm

Do they never ever listen to what the fans want ?, if this goes ahead then that's it for me.

I agree that i'd prefer to play each other twice a season, however i don't think they're doing this just to piss the fans off so maybe after looking into it thats not viable?

Maybe the TV companies insist on four old firm and edinburgh derbies a season? or maybe the clubs rely on playing the old firm so many times? Maybe the likes of hibs and hearts said they would prefer the bigger games against each other and the old firm instead of playing the likes of Dundee, Partick and Dunfermline?

Whatever the reason, i hope they come out and are honest behind the reasons of going back to a 10 team league when its so unpopular but i won't be holding my breath.

[Jim44]

I was interested to hear, in a pre 6PM news advert that they would be reporting on ' what they would like to hear' in the second McLeish report. I thought it was a strange thing to say. They're one big happy Mafia family.:grr:

[Beefster]

I t looks like Henry is going down the route of the rest of the muppets ,

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/scotland/9291848.stm

Do they never ever listen to what the fans want ?, if this goes ahead then that's it for me.

What makes you think that the fans know what the best thing for Scottish Football, the clubs, the national team, youth development etc is?

McLeish has done an extensive review into the game so to write his findings off because of a headline seems fairly short-sighted.

[down the slope]

What makes you think that the fans know what the best thing for Scottish Football, the clubs, the national team, youth development etc is?

McLeish has done an extensive review into the game so to write his findings off because of a headline seems fairly short-sighted.

Eh, we are the paying public, without us there is no league to reconstruct, to ignore the vast majority of fans views on this is utter contempt.

[Beefster]

Eh, we are the paying public, without us there is no league to reconstruct, to ignore the vast majority of fans views on this is utter contempt.

How do you know that McLeish hasn't spoken to fans?

[Jim44]

How do you know that McLeish hasn't spoken to fans?

How do you know he has? Going off topic for a minute, this reminds me of a great example of kid's logic. I was in a queue in a Pakistani corner shop when a kid of about seven asked the old guy for a KitKat. The shopkeeper gave the kid a five finger bar and and the kid said "I only wanted a wee one." Clearly annoyed, the old guy shouted back "How was I to know you wanted a wee one?" In a flash the kid asked "How did you know I wanted a big one?" :greengrin

[brog]

I'm Hibs Net illiterate. Could someone please start a poll on league reconstruction? That way we may have a more accurate representation of Hibs fans' feelings which we could then ask RP to represent!

Personally I loathe the idea of 10 teams & I believe chairmen, including RP, are over influenced by the thought of 3 home games against OF & yams.

[blackpoolhibs]

How do you know that McLeish hasn't spoken to fans?

I'm only guessing, so i don't know if this is correct or not, but my hunch is most non old firm fans want a league with more clubs. I also wonder what fans he will have talked to?

[Beefster]

How do you know he has? Going off topic for a minute, this reminds me of a great example of kid's logic. I was in a queue in a Pakistani corner shop when a kid of about seven asked the old guy for a KitKat. The shopkeeper gave the kid a five finger bar and and the kid said "I only wanted a wee one." Clearly annoyed, the old guy shouted back "How was I to know you wanted a wee one?" In a flash the kid asked "How did you know I wanted a big one?" :greengrin

I didn't say he had. I'm questioning the dismissal of his lengthy review because there's one thing in that that someone doesn't like. I'm not defending the review either because I don't know what's in it.

But saying that Scottish Football should be set up exactly how the fans want it is a bit like saying that governments should always bow to public pressure, which is patently nonsense.

[talking_wiss]

Eh, we are the paying public, without us there is no league to reconstruct, to ignore the vast majority of fans views on this is utter contempt.

The proposals to me seem reasonable, I'm not sure how you can accuse this report of holding utter contempt for the fans???

A winter break = Good idea especially for the fans who will get to see more football when the days are longer and potentially warmer.

Regionalisation of the lower leagues = Surely makes great sense for the lower league clubs financially and more importantly for fans who wish to travel to games.

Reduction in Football Authorities = Can only be a good thing for the game with a reduction in bureaucracy and blazers running the game.

Playoffs and Relegation = The one up one down has often brought about a tedious end to the season for many fans if one club is cast adrift.

The crowds in Scottish football have been falling steadily for years and no doubt this is in correlation to what is IMO a product on the park that is getting worse by the season.

I don't understand why these suggestions would be the reason for fans turning their back on Scottish Football. And I can't believe for a minute that fans would be turning up in greater numbers watching a scottish league with 18/20 teams and where the bulk of teams find themselves in mid-table with little to play for by xmas.

[--------]

Personally, I think an SPL of two ten-team divisions without a late 'split' would be a major improvement, provided they have the guts to implement proper relegation/promotion rules.

I'd like to see play-offs involving at least 4 teams - top 2 of Div 2 and bottom 2 of Div 1, for example - so that there's a real possibility of movement up and down between divisions rather than just a cosmetic exercise of cutting the numbers in the SPL and calling everything by another name.

Two up, two down would be my choice, with financial protection for relegated teams and assistance for promoted teams. Same for those coming into SPL2 from the SFL. And spread the SPL TV money (such as it is) around a lot more fairly than at present.

IMO the problem in Scottish football is rooted in vested interests. The OF work away like stink to protect their hold on the trophies and the Champions' League. The mid-range SPL clubs (Hibs included) work away to make sure that their chances of relegation form the SPL are minimal. With only one up, one down relegation/promotion, this is relatively easy. But it also leaves a lot of well-run smaller clubs in the SFL with nowhere to go, so THEY work away to protect their 'senior' League status by keeping even better-run clubs in the Juniors out of the SFL...

Football's business, but it's also supposed to be a sport. It needs to open up the competition so that success on the field brings dividends, while at the same time introducing financial structures to prevent clubs running up huge debts and liabilities. IMO clubs who default on their financial obligations or fail to live within their means should face sanctions, and those sanctions should be applied in an even-handed, transparent manner. Not a case of one rule for the big teams and another for the wee ones.

Accounts should be in the League's hands at the end of the season. Failure to produce should mean relegation; repeated failure to produce should put the club's League place in serious question.

[Saorsa]

I'm Hibs Net illiterate. Could someone please start a poll on league reconstruction? That way we may have a more accurate representation of Hibs fans' feelings which we could then ask RP to represent!

Personally I loathe the idea of 10 teams & I believe chairmen, including RP, are over influenced by the thought of 3 home games against OF & yams.Here's one done not long ago, vast majority in favour of extending the league, not a single vote for a ten team league

http://www.hibs.net/showthread.php?195432-Spl-Reconstruction&highlight=league+reconstruction

[bingo70]

I'm Hibs Net illiterate. Could someone please start a poll on league reconstruction? That way we may have a more accurate representation of Hibs fans' feelings which we could then ask RP to represent!

Personally I loathe the idea of 10 teams & I believe chairmen, including RP, are over influenced by the thought of 3 home games against OF & yams.

Why do you think that is though? As much as we can turn our noses up at being influenced by money unfortuntely we need it, most clubs are losing money as it is so to lose ticket and TV revenue isn't going to improve the product, it's only going to have a negative effect on the quality that teams can afford and the spl is already pish.

As i said earlier in an ideal world i'd prefer to only play teams twice, however i just don't think it's an easy as a solution as some would believe.

[Beefster]

Why do you think that is though? As much as we can turn our noses up at being influenced by money unfortuntely we need it, most clubs are losing money as it is so to lose ticket and TV revenue isn't going to improve the product, it's only going to have a negative effect on the quality that teams can afford and the spl is already pish.

As i said earlier in an ideal world i'd prefer to only play teams twice, however i just don't think it's an easy as a solution as some would believe.

You're spot on. The difference between 2 homes games against each of Celtic, Rangers, Hearts, Aberdeen and Dundee United to one home game against them and one each against the likes of Dundee, Dunfermline, Partick Thistle, Raith Rovers and Falkirk could reastically be 30,000 paying customers - probably the equivalent of over £500k per annum.

[Ronaldo9]

At the end of the day the whole set up is geared up to favour the Old Firm. 11-1 majority is needed to implement any change. If the OF dont like the plans they wont happen. Since when was a 7-5 split not a majority?? Until this changes the cluns outside the OF with get royally shafted.

[truehibernian]

Have to say I think the report is reasonable and pretty much spot on.

Ten team league means games which are more meaningful, better gate revenue and income, better TV and sponsorship deals and also means an easier reintroduction of reserve league.

Second tier have something worth aiming for too.

Winter shutdown is good in theory, but unless luck is on our side, Scottish winters can be anywhere from November to February as we have seen and witnessed over the years. Summer football, which I think is mentioned (or starting the season earlier) is a must.

Never usually agree with him, but Jim Traynor came out with a very good idea/proposal that teams in both leagues should have a minimum commitment to youth development and youth football. Without that commitment they don't participate.

The lower leagues being constructed geographically is also an excellent move, and means that our smaller clubs can survive a bit better and maybe means the inclusion of clubs like Spartans and Edinburgh City.

All in all I think McLeish puts some common sense into the report IMHO. Scottish football whether we like it or not, needs the Old Firm to survive. Harsh but very true at this present time (unless they form a Euro League)

[degenerated]

Scottish football whether we like it or not, needs the Old Firm to survive. Harsh but very true at this present time (unless they form a Euro League)

and as no-one else will take them, the old firm need the rest of us in order to survive. it's about time that the rest of the clubs took note of that!

[Keith_M]

Currently, Hibs have six category A games per season. The board aren't going to vote for anything that reduces that to three, thereby missing out on roughly 20,000 people through the gates per year.

The other clubs have four category A games, and so have the same motivation. It's easy to blame it all on the OF but I'm sure this is an across the board decision of chairmen.

So far, I've only read one manager's comment that he's happy with a 10 team league, but the football aspect won't affect a financial decision.

[Mikey]

Are people genuinely going to turn their back on Hibs because of the make up of the league?

[StevieC]

Ten team league means games which are more meaningful

How? :dunno:

Why is it more meaningful to play Dundee United 4 times than Dundee United twice and St Mirren twice?

IMO, the latter is more meaningful because you only get one shot at beating each team at each others grounds.

There's no doubt that there would be less money available from advertising and sponsorship, but if this was shared more equally then it wouldn't really affect the teams that would be more likely to find it an issue. Every team had to cut their cloth accordingly when we lost the last big TV deal so whats to stop every team doing the same for any new set up?

The original 10 team league was set up so that the big teams could get more money and it seems to me that the idea to revert back to this is once again based on money!

[StevieC]

Are people genuinely going to turn their back on Hibs because of the make up of the league?

I honestly think they would Mikey.


I can't because I'm roped into a 3 year deal! :grr:

[down the slope]

We have tried a ten team league and it did not work, why should it work now ?. The league has been tinkered with since the seventies and can anyone honestly say that the standard of football on offer has improved ?, it may have been gash when we had the old eighteen team league but there was less pressure in some games and you could afford to play your youngsters as the threat of relegation was obviously a lot lower. One of the reasons the league was changed was that the standard of some teams was pretty low but with the advent of modern coaching there is no such thing any more as we have witnessed with the likes of Ross County need i say more. Can you honestly say that we would feel confident on beating the likes of Dundee Dunfermline Partick ?, voting for this might ensure we are playing them in a couple of seasons anyway !.

[degenerated]

Are people genuinely going to turn their back on Hibs because of the make up of the league?

i probably woudn't but can understand why people might. the format of playing teams a minimum of 4 times a season is hardly inspiring especially when you are being asked to fork out near enough £400 for the priveledge and when you consider that this very format has already been tried, tested and cosigned to the dustbin of other nonsense ideas brought to us by the old firm sycophants ruining scottish football. with ten in the league and the prospect of perhaps 2 being relegated this is only going to lead to more negative football in what is possibly one of the dullest leagues i can think of in europe.
As long as clubs think more of the tv money than they do they do of the paying customer then there isnt really much hope. The idiots in charge of the game in this country and the greed of the clubs is killing the game, and it's not even a slow death anymore.
a 16 team league would allow clubs being promoted to flourish and theoretically for the teams that now covet 3rd place the fact they only have to play the old firm twice should help narrow that gap.
lets get back to playing games at 3pm on a saturday afternoon, playing teams a sensible amount times per season, cut our cloth to suit and tell the old firm and the tv companies to blow it oot their @rse, and i bet the number of punters coming through the gates increases dramatically.

[BEEJ]

We have tried a ten team league and it did not work, why should it work now ?.
Have to agree with this. It was completely tedious playing the same teams again and again (and again if you drew them in a cup match). Even the players were bored beyond belief.

As for the financial advantages, whatever happened to the 14 team proposal with the top eight / bottom six split after two rounds of matches. That had all the means of preserving the benefits of an additional home OF fixture for the teams who finished in the top eight after 26 games.

Much prefer that concept. A league split is not ideal but the finances of the game in Scotland dictate that we need to have one.

The ten team league option will bore the pants of the paying punters, just as it did before. I detest the idea. :grr:

[Gatecrasher]

he recommends the merging of the SPL and Scottish Football League as a governing body
:agree:

his other suggestions are an earlier start to the season and the regionalisation of the lower leagues.
:agree:


A two-tier top flight with divisions of 10 would introduce a play-off system and spell the end for the current split, which sees the 12-team SPL divide in two for the final five fixtures.


OH Come on! Is that really the best you people can think off?
Fans are bored, the crowds are dropping off and the only thing that they are saying for scotlands top league is more of the same please!

We are about to play Kilmarnock for the 3rd time this season and its no even Christmas yet :rolleyes:



A Premier League of 14 teams which would be more in tune with what the fans and spectators have been asking for but which would run the risk of some serious financial difficulties and a reduction in the current financial distribution going to the clubs,"


TBH the 14 team league sounded worse than the 10 team league IMO


100 pages long
.net has come up with better in a few posts :faf:



We are committed to change and we believe now is the time to act for the sake of the game at all levels, from grassroots to elite performance.


Prove it then ! all i see is the same pish over and over


that sums up my feelings, not impressed :bitchy:

[blackpoolhibs]

Have to agree with this. It was completely tedious playing the same teams again and again (and again if you drew them in a cup match). Even the players were bored beyond belief.

As for the financial advantages, whatever happened to the 14 team proposal with the top eight / bottom six split after two rounds of matches. That had all the means of preserving the benefits of an additional home OF fixture for the teams who finished in the top eight after 26 games.

Much prefer that concept. A league split is not ideal but the finances of the game in Scotland dictate that we need to have one.

The ten team league option will bore the pants of the paying punters, just as it did before. I detest the idea. :grr:

Thats my opinion too, I'd love a 16 team league playing everyone twice, with the league cup played in sections. It seems thats not going to happen, and a 10 team league is on the way. As you say it bored the pants of us before, it did not work when we tried it the last time, whats changed now?:confused:

[hibs0666]

There are two ways you can think about change - customer-driven (which works) or process-driven (which normally fails).

I predict failure both to implement and to make any noticeable difference.

[500miles]

I wonder what is more tedious.

A ten team league with all 10 teams with something to play for for 3/4s of the season, or a 18 team league with 8 or 10 teams seasons being regularly over by Christmas?

Maybe the grass is not always greener.

[truehibernian]

I wonder what is more tedious.

A ten team league with all 10 teams with something to play for for 3/4s of the season, or a 18 team league with 8 or 10 teams seasons being regularly over by Christmas?

Maybe the grass is not always greener.

:agree: That's my take on it.

They could of course also have looked at ticket pricing and making football a far more affordable day out for all walks of life. A season ticket in Germany is a third sometimes of what we pay here, same in La Liga. Yes they have TV revenue streams way above ours, but their stadiums are packed to the rafters week in week out. Has to be something for looking at reducing ticket prices all across Scotland. Chicken and egg I suppose :boo hoo:

[Keith_M]

:agree: That's my take on it.

They could of course also have looked at ticket pricing and making football a far more affordable day out for all walks of life. A season ticket in Germany is a third sometimes of what we pay here, same in La Liga. Yes they have TV revenue streams way above ours, but their stadiums are packed to the rafters week in week out. Has to be something for looking at reducing ticket prices all across Scotland. Chicken and egg I suppose :boo hoo:

But surely that's the problem. Scotland doesn't have that TV revenue, so there's no way to replace the reduction in income.

Don't get me wrong, I've argued before that football in Scotland is too expensive but I can't see a way around this currently that makes financial sense. I'm actually all in favour of introducing reduced prices in part of the stadium to make it more affordable for those on lower incomes, and would go with the German model of limited terrace areas (e.g. front of FF).

FWIW, Germany does have cheap tickets for part of the stadium but that's combined with incredibly expensive tickets to help pay for it. How many people on here would agree to pay more for a ticket on the half way line to subsidise those sitting behind the goals? The equivelant of my current seat (section 40), by location, in the Bundesliga would cost me from 40-60 Euros.
e.g. Werder Bremen (http://www.werder.de/tickets/tk-preise_rueck.php)

[truehibernian]

But surely that's the problem. Scotland doesn't have that TV revenue, so there's no way to replace the reduction in income.

Don't get me wrong, I've argued before that football in Scotland is too expensive but I can't see a way around this currently that makes financial sense. I'm actually all in favour of introducing reduced prices in part of the stadium to make it more affordable for those on lower incomes, and would go with the German model of limited terrace areas (e.g. front of FF).

FWIW, Germany does have cheap tickets for part of the stadium but that's combined with incredibly expensive tickets to help pay for it. How many people on here would agree to pay more for a ticket on the half way line to subsidise those sitting behind the goals? The equivelant of my current seat (section 40), by location, in the Bundesliga would cost me from 40-60 Euros.
e.g. Werder Bremen (http://www.werder.de/tickets/tk-preise_rueck.php)

Can't disagree with that at all.........like I said it is a horrible dilemna we have here in Scotland.

I know we have Hibs Kids etc, but really, are Hibernian pulling out all the stops to make a family day out at the football more affordable. Not just Hibs too........I am fortunate I can afford to go to home and away games. Very lucky indeed. But your wallet takes a hammering for really what can be regarded as poor product at the end of the day.

I think there is scope to make it far more affordable in these economic times, and if we had fuller stadiums, better atmospheres and better support, hopefully (fingers crossed) TV and other companies would take a punt on our league.

However you are right with what you say too.

[jdships]

What makes you think that the fans know what the best thing for Scottish Football, the clubs, the national team, youth development etc is?

McLeish has done an extensive review into the game so to write his findings off because of a headline seems fairly short-sighted.


I can understand/appreciate what you are trying to put forward but you are forgetting one very important point.
Football/soccer is entertainment and by that it is part of a multimillion pound industry ..
People buy records, go to the cinema or theatre to listen to /watch something they enjoy
Lose your support whoever you are , for whatever reason, and you are out of business
We have seen it with stage shows closing after days , films failing at the box office and records not selling .
Sport is no different.
Football in Scotland for the past few years has become stale - fact.
Partly due to the OF dominance , I admit, but for me playing the same team four times and possibly six with cups does nothing for my overall interest
This has brought me to a stage where I only go to ER when a match really attracts me rather than week in week out plus travelling to a few away matches.

To answer a couple of posters . Yes if this 10 league goes through I am 90% sure I will not be even a "part time supporter" and I know of around nine/ten of my mates who will do likewise
I have to watch my money these days and will spend it on things I really want to buy/or see

I have no problem with anyone who is happy to go along to watch the same tired old format week after week that is entirely their business , just as the rest of us have the right to an opinion and vote with our feet and not turn up
Question is - will anybody take note of what we are saying ?

:devil:

[Sir David Gray]

Personally I am in favour of a larger league, either with 16 or 18 teams in it, but they are not financially viable options if you look at things rationally.

With a 16 team league, we would only have 15 home league games per season, so we would be losing out on 4 home games, compared with what we have just now, and that would mean three fewer category A games per season and 1 fewer category B game.

I would guess that would mean Hibs would lose well over £1 million in gate receipt revenue every year, if we went to a 16 team league.

On the other hand, with a 10 team league, we would have 1 less home game per season and that would be a category B game, thereby ensuring that we retain our six home games against Hearts, Rangers and Celtic. Our annual loss in gate receipts under this structure would be more in the region of £300,000, which would be much more palatable to the money men. In fact, it actually works out better for us because, since there would be no split, the chance of you possibly being in the "bottom six", and therefore missing out on extra home games against Rangers, Celtic and Hearts, would be eliminated and instead we would be absolutely guaranteed to have our six home fixtures every season against Hearts and the Old Firm, regardless of where we finished in the league.

An 18 team league would mean two fewer home matches per season but we would gain 1 category B home game, whilst losing 3 category A matches. Whilst it would be less costly to our bank balance than a 16 team league, clubs like Hibs are just not going to agree to anything that leads to them losing three category A matches per season, which would cost them something like £1.5 million every year.

16 or 18 team formats would be unworkable as well from the point of view of TV revenue. Let's not kid ourselves, the level of investment that Sky has put into our game is primarily on the basis that they can broadcast 4 Old Firm games per season. If two of those Old Firm games are replaced with Celtic v Hamilton or Rangers v Inverness, they are going to want to renegotiate the terms of their contract and that will result in every single club receiving far less money.

It's a bit depressing because I agree that playing teams 4 times a season (with the potential to play them up to 7 times in one season, if you get them in the cups) is extremely tedious, but that is not likely to change any time soon I'm afraid.

[jgl07]

Are people genuinely going to turn their back on Hibs because of the make up of the league?
Quite likely in my case. It would be turning my back on Scottish Football rather than Hibs.

I hate games against Hearts and the OF. At the moment there will be a maximum of six and a minimum of four out of eighteen to twenty home matches. With the new proposals it will be six out eighteen.

My season ticket would definately go. I might attend a few matches but will probably boycott.

[aberhibsfc]

This is where I meant to post rather than dumping on another thread:

I think the authorities are right to be looking to restructure, but 10 teams, but it's disheartning what they are proposing. If they go with SPL1 & SPL 2, it's to maximise revenue at the top and steal revenue from the SFL. It's a joke, not to mention extremely boring. I am all for a top 16 then whatever structure fits below as a pyramid. Fearful to open the trap door as in England as their is not a wealth of teams that can come in eg Blue Square etc and the teams leaving would be erradicated. I'd go for a top 16 and progress the play off situation, this would allow the SPL to court the TV companies with a less monotonous schedule and the added opportunity to sell play-off games which make entertaining games.


Problem for me with a top 10 is not just the over famliarity of teams, it gets back to the scenario where youngsters are even less likely to feature as the league would be too tight, especially if two teams can be relegated. This would be a nightmare as clubs have already hammered youth development by killing off the reserve league. I think the lower leagues could benefit from the bigger clubs having B teams. This would allow youngsters to develop in competitive matches reducing the risk of blooding them in the first team. It would also help generate revenue for the teams in the lower divisions facing the B teams.

Another factor is the old firm, they would be able to bully 8 teams easier than another 10 or 14. Also 3 points a win in a ten team league means you haven't the luxury of playing so called lesser teams to rack up some points. You would be playing '7' other teams roughly the same strength. Take for example you lose all your Old Firm games which most teams in the SPL do. In this scenario you would lose 18 points as opposed to 12 points playing them twice, in a top ten it's more like six pointers a game than 3.

Does anyone speak to the fans? Read a report today saying that only 50% of clubs revenue come from the gate, so TV money that's the other big contributor, who do they think's paying for that, non-football fans? One last point, it annoys me that in this day and age where the Governement tries to prevent customers from dealing with monopolies that Sky and ESPN got away with colluding, thus removing the bidding process and losing the SPL money, our clubs. When they can take supermarkets to court during the milk price fixing how do TV companies get away with this, it's not exactly a big secret. It annoys me that the amount of money picked up by Sky in Scotland is used to support the vast sums of money pumped into the EPL. I don't expect that we should be getting us much as them, however they have created our footballing wilderness. You get what you pays for, while they are pumping millions into the EPL they are giving us peanuts which means we cant improve the product and they can control the price. In the full knowledge the people will pick this up as part of their sports package. They are not interested in supporting the development of our product, more likely they just like lumping it on as cheap filler to their main event. The bums!!!

[Woody1985]

I thought the point of this reconstruction was to help the Scottish game grow, not make sure that teams don't lose money.

The standard is ***** with the money that is there. A bigger league means more youngsters coming through and perhaps a lot more exports to other leagues bringing financial gain.

[Woody1985]

Does anyone else thinks that all this came about when the of knew the codeficient was going to die on It's arse?

They play friendlies replacing some of the lost cash from the champions league to keep them ahead of the rest and a chance to make the groups still.

[Judas Iscariot]

Are people genuinely going to turn their back on Hibs because of the make up of the league?

If not renewing my ST is classed as "turning my back" then yes..

I'd rather play football on a Saturday than watch the same dross teams every few weeks..

It's bad now, but it'll be much worse if the reconstruction goes ahead..

I'll still go to ER if I didn't have a game at the weekend but i'd rather play football myself than be bored shïtless..

[Iain G]

As has been said on numerous replies, this is a money driven exercise to make sure those in the top division keep their big pay days against the old firm, and nothing to do with actually trying to improve the game in Scotland, upping standards of Scottish players and getting fans back through the door, FWIW I'd be looking at...

SPL - 16 teams, 2 up and 2 down.
Division 1 - 12 teams, 2 up and 2 go down.
Division 2 - Split Regionally, with a finals series between the winners and runners up to see who gets promoted to Division 1.

So for top teams this means 30 league games, 15 home and 15 away.

Rejib the League Cup into the old "league" format before QF/SF/Finals - with less SPL games they have the chance to make this currently pointless competition interesting again!

Scottish Cup stays as is.

[Gatecrasher]

As has been said on numerous replies, this is a money driven exercise to make sure those in the top division keep their big pay days against the old firm, and nothing to do with actually trying to improve the game in Scotland, upping standards of Scottish players and getting fans back through the door, FWIW I'd be looking at...

SPL - 16 teams, 2 up and 2 down.
Division 1 - 12 teams, 2 up and 2 go down.
Division 2 - Split Regionally, with a finals series between the winners and runners up to see who gets promoted to Division 1.

So for top teams this means 30 league games, 15 home and 15 away.

Rejib the League Cup into the old "league" format before QF/SF/Finals - with less SPL games they have the chance to make this currently pointless competition interesting again!

Scottish Cup stays as is.

you did better in 1 post than Mcleish did in one year :greengrin

[bingo70]

As has been said on numerous replies, this is a money driven exercise to make sure those in the top division keep their big pay days against the old firm, and nothing to do with actually trying to improve the game in Scotland, upping standards of Scottish players and getting fans back through the door, FWIW I'd be looking at...

SPL - 16 teams, 2 up and 2 down.
Division 1 - 12 teams, 2 up and 2 go down.
Division 2 - Split Regionally, with a finals series between the winners and runners up to see who gets promoted to Division 1.

So for top teams this means 30 league games, 15 home and 15 away.

Rejib the League Cup into the old "league" format before QF/SF/Finals - with less SPL games they have the chance to make this currently pointless competition interesting again!

Scottish Cup stays as is.

It's all very well turning your nose up at money but clubs need it, if we lost it clubs could go to the wall, players would end up unemployed, the quality of the league would diminish further short term and teams could even cut back on there youth policies as they need the money short term.

Plus i think your undersestimating just how boring a league it'd be with games against the likes of Hamilton, Partick, Dunfermline etc every week, i don't believe hibs against Dunfermline would be more entertaining than hibs v hearts, regardless of how many times we played them, IMO the novelty of that would soon wear off.

I'm sure if Mcleish lived in an ideealistic world where money isn't an issue then he could come up with a completely different set of proposals, however unfortunately this is the real world where money, TV deals, Sponsorships and keeping clubs in business are real considerations he has to make.

[Saorsa]

I t looks like Henry is going down the route of the rest of the muppets ,

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/scotland/9291848.stm

Do they never ever listen to what the fans want ?, if this goes ahead then that's it for me.Aye, if this goes ahead it'll be the end of the road for me, I'll be finding something else tae do with my money and my Saturdays. Nae doubt by the time this goes through they'll be wanting even more in ticket money for what IMO is an even less desirable product. This has nothing tae do with improving Scottish fitba (far too many shortsighted and self serving people involved for that tae happen) and everything tae do with preserving the status quo.


This is a crock of *****e and I'll not be signing up for it :bye:

[bingo70]

Aye, if this goes ahead it'll be the end of the road for me, I'll be finding something else tae do with my money and my Saturdays. Nae doubt by the time this goes through they'll be wanting even more in ticket money for what IMO is an even less desirable product. This has nothing tae do with improving Scottish fitba (far too many shortsighted and self serving people involved for that tae happen) and everything tae do with preserving the status quo.


This is a crock of *****e and I'll not be signing up for it :bye:

Well the alternative is to go with more teams in the league play each other fewer times but generate less money and i can guarantee you prices will go up, for poorer entertainment as well as the quality of teams will drop, you'll have fewer category a games and we'll have to find the defecit from somewhere, the only place that would be is from ticket prices.

If ticket prices is a serious concern of yours then IMO you should be a bit more open minded about this possible restructure.

[jdships]

As has been said on numerous replies, this is a money driven exercise to make sure those in the top division keep their big pay days against the old firm, and nothing to do with actually trying to improve the game in Scotland, upping standards of Scottish players and getting fans back through the door, FWIW I'd be looking at...

SPL - 16 teams, 2 up and 2 down.
Division 1 - 12 teams, 2 up and 2 go down.
Division 2 - Split Regionally, with a finals series between the winners and runners up to see who gets promoted to Division 1.

So for top teams this means 30 league games, 15 home and 15 away.

Rejib the League Cup into the old "league" format before QF/SF/Finals - with less SPL games they have the chance to make this currently pointless competition interesting again!

Scottish Cup stays as is.



Well done the "Kilted Kiwi"
Can see nothing wrong in anything you propose - but can just imagine it will be too simplistic for some :rolleyes:

bingo70
" Plus i think your undersestimating just how boring a league it'd be with games against the likes of Hamilton, Partick, Dunfermline etc every week "

Come on you are not telling us the present set up is entertaining ? :yawn::hilarious
A 10 club league would just be a case of " same ship different funnel " which will probably lead to another " overhaul" in a few years time :bitchy:

Remember what I said in an earlier post
" I can understand/appreciate what you are trying to put forward but you are forgetting one very important point.
Football/soccer is entertainment and by that it is part of a multimillion pound industry "
Lose/ignore your customers snd you str " donald ducked " big time ..

[Gatecrasher]

Aye, if this goes ahead it'll be the end of the road for me, I'll be finding something else tae do with my money and my Saturdays. Nae doubt by the time this goes through they'll be wanting even more in ticket money for what IMO is an even less desirable product. This has nothing tae do with improving Scottish fitba (far too many shortsighted and self serving people involved for that tae happen) and everything tae do with preserving the status quo.


This is a crock of *****e and I'll not be signing up for it :bye:


spot on with the bit in bold, i still dont think i could give up the Hibs though

[bingo70]

Well done the "Kilted Kiwi"
Can see nothing wrong in anything you propose - but can just imagine it will be too simplistic for some :rolleyes:

bingo70
" Plus i think your undersestimating just how boring a league it'd be with games against the likes of Hamilton, Partick, Dunfermline etc every week "

Come on you are not telling us the present set up is entertaining ? :yawn::hilarious
A 10 club league would just be a case of " same ship different funnel " which will probably lead to another " overhaul" in a few years time :bitchy:

No i don't but i do find category A games more entertaining than games against st Johnstone and Hamilton.

If you think the games are dull now try replacing the few games you do enjoy with games against first division teams and bottom half SPL teams, i can't see how that would make it more entertaining :confused:

[Saorsa]

Well the alternative is to go with more teams in the league play each other fewer times but generate less money and i can guarantee you prices will go up, for poorer entertainment as well as the quality of teams will drop, you'll have fewer category a games and we'll have to find the defecit from somewhere, the only place that would be is from ticket prices.

If ticket prices is a serious concern of yours then IMO you should be a bit more open minded about this possible restructure.Ticket prices dinnae concern me that much when I'm paying for something I want tae buy, they do when I'll likely be asked for more for something I think is a load of *****

[Removed]

No i don't but i do find category A games more entertaining than games against st Johnstone and Hamilton.

If you think the games are dull now try replacing the few games you do enjoy with games against first division teams and bottom half SPL teams, i can't see how that would make it more entertaining :confused:

It's about more than the game for me though.

I'd rather go to St Johnstone at 3 on a Sat than old firm at 12:15 on a Sunday.

And you never know, if we were up the top end of a bigger league then crowds might actually increase.

[Gatecrasher]

No i don't but i do find category A games more entertaining than games against st Johnstone and Hamilton.

If you think the games are dull now try replacing the few games you do enjoy with games against first division teams and bottom half SPL teams, i can't see how that would make it more entertaining :confused:

So what your saying is go with this proposal and it will be the same pish as the last 20 years where crowds are on a downward spiral (including OF) because people are bored of watching the same teams over and over, its too expensive, the quality's poor and a lot of fans starting to turn their backs on the Scottish game because those in power don't listen to them and are only interested in lining their pockets for as long as they can - because that's what its coming down to!

Whats frustrating about this is that this a good chance to do something for the good of the game and all folk are worried about is, we wont get the OF at home 2 times a year!

[bingo70]

It's about more than the game for me though.

I'd rather go to St Johnstone at 3 on a Sat than old firm at 12:15 on a Sunday.

And you never know, if we were up the top end of a bigger league then crowds might actually increase.

:hilarious

Now your just being ridiculous :wink:

Seriously though, fair enough if thats what you'd prefer, i personally think the novelty would wear off pretty quickly. I'm just thinking back to the Calley, Hamilton and St Johnstone games at easter road this season, i was bored out my mind, i think if all i had to look forward to in a season was the majority games like that i don't think i'd bother.

Basically i think its a pish enough league as it is without letting even more pish teams come in which would probably mean we'd have to get rid of the few good players we've got cos we can't afford them and replace them with pish we can afford.

[Feed McGraw]

As has been said on numerous replies, this is a money driven exercise to make sure those in the top division keep their big pay days against the old firm, and nothing to do with actually trying to improve the game in Scotland, upping standards of Scottish players and getting fans back through the door, FWIW I'd be looking at...

SPL - 16 teams, 2 up and 2 down.
Division 1 - 12 teams, 2 up and 2 go down.
Division 2 - Split Regionally, with a finals series between the winners and runners up to see who gets promoted to Division 1.

So for top teams this means 30 league games, 15 home and 15 away.

Rejib the League Cup into the old "league" format before QF/SF/Finals - with less SPL games they have the chance to make this currently pointless competition interesting again!

Scottish Cup stays as is.



What about Division 1 though ? Do they play 44 league games AND take part in the "rejigged" league cup ?

[bingo70]

So what your saying is go with this proposal and it will be the same pish as the last 20 years where crowds are on a downward spiral (including OF) because people are bored of watching the same teams over and over, its too expensive, the quality's poor and a lot of fans starting to turn their backs on the Scottish game because those in power don't listen to them and are only interested in lining their pockets for as long as they can - because that's what its coming down to!

Whats frustrating about this is that this a good chance to do something for the good of the game and all folk are worried about is, we wont get the OF at home 2 times a year!

No, what i'm saying is people that think increasing the league so we only play each other twice is somehow going to magically improve our league is living in a dream world.

I think it's an unbelievably difficuilt decision when we're so reliant on two teams, i think the idea of play offs between the 2 leagues is a good idea, i think allowing SPL teams to have reserve sides in the lower leagues makes sense, i think possible play offs for a european spot is something that could be looked into, i think opening up the bottom of the leagues so it's not a closed shop is essential, i think something creative could be done with the league cup to give it a bit more interest and we could have stricter guidelines to ensure young players are given a chance.

fewer big games doesnt seem the answer to me though, which is actually differnt from what i was saying at the start of the thread so if you hang about long enough i'll probably be agreeing with you :greengrin

[Iain G]

:hilarious

Now your just being ridiculous :wink:

Seriously though, fair enough if thats what you'd prefer, i personally think the novelty would wear off pretty quickly. I'm just thinking back to the Calley, Hamilton and St Johnstone games at easter road this season, i was bored out my mind, i think if all i had to look forward to in a season was the majority games like that i don't think i'd bother.

Basically i think its a pish enough league as it is without letting even more pish teams come in which would probably mean we'd have to get rid of the few good players we've got cos we can't afford them and replace them with pish we can afford.

Variety is the issue here, new teams, different teams, not just the same old same old every bleeding week!

10 teams is going to make that even worse, and nobody is going to start blooding young players if there is a threat of relegation, which there will be to 80% of those competing in the division.

Scottish Football is at death's door, it's a big house of cards that could come falling down amongst our ears, those power that be should be looking at ways to restore and cherish and grow our game again at all level and get the fans interested, alas their main goal in all of this is to keep the Old Firm playing each otehr as often as possible to keep the TV deal...

From the bits I've read, Henry McLeish has some good ideas in there on how to drag the game in Scotland into this century, but they will get lost in amongst this whole SPL1/SPL2 10 team rubbish.... :bitchy:

[Iain G]

What about Division 1 though ? Do they play 44 league games AND take part in the "rejigged" league cup ?

Why would they play each other 4 times?? Play each other twice, plus they go into the Scottish Cup at an earlier round + add in a decent winter break.

Actually I just didn't think there were probably another 16 full time teams in Scotland to fill it up :wink:

[Beefster]

As has been said on numerous replies, this is a money driven exercise to make sure those in the top division keep their big pay days against the old firm, and nothing to do with actually trying to improve the game in Scotland, upping standards of Scottish players and getting fans back through the door, FWIW I'd be looking at...

SPL - 16 teams, 2 up and 2 down.
Division 1 - 12 teams, 2 up and 2 go down.
Division 2 - Split Regionally, with a finals series between the winners and runners up to see who gets promoted to Division 1.

So for top teams this means 30 league games, 15 home and 15 away.

Rejib the League Cup into the old "league" format before QF/SF/Finals - with less SPL games they have the chance to make this currently pointless competition interesting again!

Scottish Cup stays as is.

We'd lose 20% of our home games including 3 category A games so Hibs would need to increase ticket prices by in excess of 20% or the player budget would need to be cut by a comparable amount. If folk are willing to accept one or the other then fair enough but I can't see it somehow.

It's easy to propose changes if you don't have to worry about finances.

[bingo70]

We'd lose 20% of our home games including 3 category A games so Hibs would need to increase ticket prices by in excess of 20% or the player budget would need to be cut by a comparable amount. If folk are willing to accept one or the other then fair enough but I can't see it somehow.

It's easy to propose changes if you don't have to worry about finances.

Thats not taking into account the reduction in TV and sponsorship money that'd come from there being less old firm games so it'd be a lot worse than 20%. The idea that extra games against dundee, partick, dunfermline and Queen of the south would make up for that is a complete non starter IMO.

[Gatecrasher]

No, what i'm saying is people that think increasing the league so we only play each other twice is somehow going to magically improve our league is living in a dream world.

I think it's an unbelievably difficuilt decision when we're so reliant on two teams, i think the idea of play offs between the 2 leagues is a good idea, i think allowing SPL teams to have reserve sides in the lower leagues makes sense, i think possible play offs for a european spot is something that could be looked into, i think opening up the bottom of the leagues so it's not a closed shop is essential, i think something creative could be done with the league cup to give it a bit more interest and we could have stricter guidelines to ensure young players are given a chance.

fewer big games doesnt seem the answer to me though, which is actually differnt from what i was saying at the start of the thread so if you hang about long enough i'll probably be agreeing with you :greengrin

i don't think people are under any impression that a larger league will magically improve things, but more of an chance to try something different from the format that hasn't worked in the top league for over 2 decades.

I agree with the bits in bold (see i have an open mind on this :greengrin)

as someone said in another post he was doing well until he got caught up in all the SPL1&2 idea, saying that all of these (out-with the 10 team one) ideas have been mentioned on here and other forums for years

[bingo70]

i don't think people are under any impression that a larger league will magically improve things, but more of an chance to try something different from the format that hasn't worked in the top league for over 2 decades.

I agree with the bits in bold (see i have an open mind on this :greengrin)

Thats where i think we disagree, people are talking about calling an end to going to the games if they go ahead with a 10 team league so just what are they expecting to come of a larger league other than just trying something different?

Ultimately the problem comes down to the quality of the players in the league not being good enough which is whats driving people away, we can dress it up with a 10 team, 12 team or 16 team league but until we're producing better players on a regular basis nothing will ever change.

The league reconstruction should be the least significant part of this report anyway, i'm more interested in how he recomends we stop being pish at producing good players and i just hope to god he doesn't say something along the lines of "need to go back to grass roots" and pass the buck to the next generation.

[Part/Time Supporter]

Thats where i think we disagree, people are talking about calling an end to going to the games if they go ahead with a 10 team league so just what are they expecting to come of a larger league other than just trying something different?

Ultimately the problem comes down to the quality of the players in the league not being good enough which is whats driving people away, we can dress it up with a 10 team, 12 team or 16 team league but until we're producing better players on a regular basis nothing will ever change.

The league reconstruction should be the least significant part of this report anyway, i'm more interested in how he recomends we stop being pish at producing good players and i just hope to god he doesn't say something along the lines of "need to go back to grass roots" and pass the buck to the next generation.

Which is precisely the reason why 10 teams is a crock of ****.

Every team outside the OF (even super duper big clubs like Hearts) will start each season thinking of how many points they will need to avoid relegation. That means more "percentage" football and less youngsters getting a chance. That's what happened in the 1980s.

The definition of insanity is to repeat the same exercise and to expect a different result.

[Gatecrasher]

Thats where i think we disagree, people are talking about calling an end to going to the games if they go ahead with a 10 team league so just what are they expecting to come of a larger league other than just trying something different?

Ultimately the problem comes down to the quality of the players in the league not being good enough which is whats driving people away, we can dress it up with a 10 team, 12 team or 16 team league but until we're producing better players on a regular basis nothing will ever change.

The league reconstruction should be the least significant part of this report anyway, i'm more interested in how he recomends we stop being pish at producing good players and i just hope to god he doesn't say something along the lines of "need to go back to grass roots" and pass the buck to the next generation.

My impression is that the "Ultimatum" regarding attending games if the 10 team league goes ahead has a little more depth than "oh man, i wanted a bigger league :-(" I think its more to do with people protecting themselves over the greater good of Scottish football, Making sure the pay cheques are as big as they can get them while ignoring what appears to be a large section of what's left of the footballing attendees in this country. Paying £400 for a ST every year and be completely ignored by the powers that be time after time. Of course i may just be talking bollocks and putting my view across, but i dont intent to give my ST up any time soon - i have a good seat :wink:

[BEEJ]

No i don't but i do find category A games more entertaining than games against st Johnstone and Hamilton.

If you think the games are dull now try replacing the few games you do enjoy with games against first division teams and bottom half SPL teams, i can't see how that would make it more entertaining :confused:
Can't attach much weight to that argument, to be honest.

As long as the team that you support is producing entertaining football and getting results, it doesn't really matter whether the opponents turn on the style very week.

There is no reason why a Hibs team would necessarily be any less entertaining or perform any worse in a 16 or 18 team league than in an 10 team league.

[bingo70]

Can't attach much weight to that argument, to be honest.

As long as the team that you support is producing entertaining football and getting results, it doesn't really matter whether the opponents turn on the style very week.

There is no reason why a Hibs team would necessarily be any less entertaining or perform any worse in a 16 or 18 team league than in an 10 team league.

Yes there is, as has been mentioned previously there would be a huge amount of money lost so if you think we're pish now, try replacing that with even poorer quality and i think the chances of us becoming more entertaining are pretty slim, we're only likely to get worse IMO and it'd still be more expensive for the privelage.

Of course it's not impossible that we could produce another 'golden generation' and the fact we're skint could allow them to flurish in a bigger league with less pressure, however what Mcleish is got to decide in this report isn't if one team could do this, it's if all teams would do this and looking at how few good players we as a nation produce i think he's probably right in saying that's unlikely to happen.

[bingo70]

Which is precisely the reason why 10 teams is a crock of ****.

Every team outside the OF (even super duper big clubs like Hearts) will start each season thinking of how many points they will need to avoid relegation. That means more "percentage" football and less youngsters getting a chance. That's what happened in the 1980s.

The definition of insanity is to repeat the same exercise and to expect a different result.

I actually agree with you that the problem with a 10 team league is exactly that, clubs are too scared to play youngsters, however for reasons mentioned plenty of times IMO there is no other viable alternative than a 10 or 12 team league.

Something that could be considered then to stop teams being too scared to play youngsters could be something like every team having a 25 man pool they can use for SPL games and five of them have to be home grown under a certain age then clubs would have no choice but to play them at some stage, this could also help provide some balance and stop the old firm buying the league every year and help ease the financial burden on smaller clubs that are struggling. Thats just one idea though, i'm sure there are plenty flaws in it, i just think we've got to look at other ways of making sure youngsters get a chance as i can't see a 16-18 team league working.

[chorley_fm]

Are people genuinely going to turn their back on Hibs because of the make up of the league?

no, but they will do if things don't progress on the park.

[Beefster]

I actually agree with you that the problem with a 10 team league is exactly that, clubs are too scared to play youngsters, however for reasons mentioned plenty of times IMO there is no other viable alternative than a 10 or 12 team league.

Something that could be considered then to stop teams being too scared to play youngsters could be something like every team having a 25 man pool they can use for SPL games and five of them have to be home grown under a certain age then clubs would have no choice but to play them at some stage, this could also help provide some balance and stop the old firm buying the league every year and help ease the financial burden on smaller clubs that are struggling. Thats just one idea though, i'm sure there are plenty flaws in it, i just think we've got to look at other ways of making sure youngsters get a chance as i can't see a 16-18 team league working.

Isn't this where the OF, Hibs, Hearts etc having second teams in the lower leagues comes in? Our youngsters/reserves would play games there.

[sambajustice]

This would be a sickening change!!

And why is it exactly, a few days before McLeish's report that one of the favoured proposals by the SPL was this 10 team nonsense. Then lo and behold, McLeish comes out and recommends the same thing! Its all pish!!

If this was to happen I think i would lose all interest in top level football in Scotland, its a complete nonsense and i feel depressed just reading about it in the paper every day.

More and more I feel myself attracted to other sports, bowls being one although that doesnt clash with football really, although it would under these latest proposals! I've even taking an interest in the cricket which is totally unheard of for me!

[bingo70]

Isn't this where the OF, Hibs, Hearts etc having second teams in the lower leagues comes in? Our youngsters/reserves would play games there.

I think it is and it'd be a lot better than the current set up but clubs could play reserves in lower leagues forever but it wouldn't really benefit anyone if clubs were still too scared to play them in the first team so i think it would be something worth considering to take the option out of the clubs hands.

[Beefster]

I think it is and it'd be a lot better than the current set up but clubs could play reserves in lower leagues forever but it wouldn't really benefit anyone if clubs were still too scared to play them in the first team so i think it would be something worth considering to take the option out of the clubs hands.

Absolutely - it gives the young ones a chance to show what they can do though (ala O'Connor, Riordan and their loans to lower division teams).

Thinking about it though, I'm not too sure whether a player would need to be 'attached' to a club for the entire period between windows so it wouldn't simply be a case of "we need a defender for Saturday, let's pluck one out of the second team".

[Thigh ar la]

It does not come as any surprise to me that McLeish has come up with this proposal. I'm sure the timing is not exactly coincidental with the previous announcement of SPL change. This merely adds weight to the ridicilous concept of the two ten team leagues.
I think that the people in the game and some fans are completely overlooking the fact that you need to get the 'product' right before you attract any increased financial backing from the likes of T.V companies. With a 16 team top league I believe that its benefits are tenfold. With games against the likes of Aberdeen and Dundee Utd then Hibs gates (for example) could significantly increase as there would be a further sense of occasion if we only had them once at home per season. Away supports could also increase for fixtures like these as well.
So I reckon that over a few seasons any alleged losses in gate receipts would no longer be a concern and that the league would quickly become more attractive to sponsorship and T.V revenue. If you have a decent product then it naturally provides you with a much more level playing ground to negotiate better deals.
Cup competitions (and attendances) would also benefit hugely from that added sense of occasion where the old firm or Hibs and Hearts maybe get a further chance to meet.
Also, imagine Morton v Rangers twice a season. I would put far more money on Morton getting a bigger share of the spoils than if they played each other 4 times.
Surely most clubs are being run on a shoestring anyway at the moment. Perhaps its time to potentially take one last hit in order to get the product right and give the game the shot in the arm that it needs?

[brog]

You're spot on. The difference between 2 homes games against each of Celtic, Rangers, Hearts, Aberdeen and Dundee United to one home game against them and one each against the likes of Dundee, Dunfermline, Partick Thistle, Raith Rovers and Falkirk could reastically be 30,000 paying customers - probably the equivalent of over £500k per annum.

I think the financial difference is way overstated. We've had 2 home games against Huns & Yams so far this season & difference between our other gates, say Killie, has been 6,000, that = 18,000 per year. However I know many Hibs fans who refuse to go to OF games & the result is we'll just have more of the great unwashed permeating our stadium.
We should remember the Great Adventure season where our average crowds exceeded our previous Premier season. Why? Because we were winning & we were scoring goals. We have much more chance of winning more games with a 16 or even 18 team set up & I honestly believe we could see season sales rise. We could also see the rebirth of local derbies with Dunfermline, Raith & Falkirk. If these games are scheduled imaginatively, say at New Year, we could easily get 15,000 + for those games.

[BEEJ]

Yes there is, as has been mentioned previously there would be a huge amount of money lost so if you think we're pish now, try replacing that with even poorer quality and i think the chances of us becoming more entertaining are pretty slim, we're only likely to get worse IMO and it'd still be more expensive for the privelage.

Of course it's not impossible that we could produce another 'golden generation' and the fact we're skint could allow them to flurish in a bigger league with less pressure, however what Mcleish is got to decide in this report isn't if one team could do this, it's if all teams would do this and looking at how few good players we as a nation produce i think he's probably right in saying that's unlikely to happen.
It's not just Hibs. All the clubs would be in the same boat and would have to cut their cloth accordingly. We would see all teams using more youngsters as a result.

Your last point is chicken and egg - Scotland doesn't produce many good players currently because our league system acts as a barrier to player development rather than a vehicle for it. The 10 team league will only worsen that situation.

[Isaac_Refvik]

You're spot on. The difference between 2 homes games against each of Celtic, Rangers, Hearts, Aberdeen and Dundee United to one home game against them and one each against the likes of Dundee, Dunfermline, Partick Thistle, Raith Rovers and Falkirk could reastically be 30,000 paying customers - probably the equivalent of over £500k per annum.

I disagree. The difference between travelling support from Aberdeen/Dundee Utd and Dundee/Dunfermline would, IMO, be negligible leaving the lost 3 home games v Celtic/Rangers/Hearts (50,000 fans) against games v Partick/Raith/Falkirk (min 10000 season tickets per game, possibly higher crowd if we're doing well) leaves a maximum of 20,000 shortfall, and in likelihood, much less. Novelty value, more wins, less pressure, more goals would surely make the game a more attractive prospect thus attracting bigger crowds.

[LauderHibby]

I t looks like Henry is going down the route of the rest of the muppets ,

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/scotland/9291848.stm

Do they never ever listen to what the fans want ?, if this goes ahead then that's it for me.

Why does anybody care what a disgraced former politician , former East Fife player has to say about Scottish Football - any cross section of fans could supply you with the right answers.

Fiddle your expenses elsewhere Mr McLeish - Jog On !

[GreenCastle]

Why does anybody care what a disgraced former politician , former East Fife player has to say about Scottish Football - any cross section of fans could supply you with the right answers.

Fiddle your expenses elsewhere Mr McLeish - Jog On !

It's madness....

Does McLeish have vast coaching/managing/club experience from around the world to understand the game in Scotland - let alone the world ?

I am sticking by the decision that if they go to 10 teams I will follow Hibs as always but won't give anymore money to the game in Scotland - that means going to games etc.

I would find it far more interesting to play smaller and bigger teams just the twice a season.

3 times is too much...:grr:

4 times is a joke :bitchy::yawn:

5 or 6 times with cup ties / replays is a farce! :grr::yawn:

[brog]

Why does anybody care what a disgraced former politician , former East Fife player has to say about Scottish Football - any cross section of fans could supply you with the right answers.

Fiddle your expenses elsewhere Mr McLeish - Jog On !

I see in DR today that he's having a mutual love in with Harry Potter!! That just about sums it up! He also canvassed the thoughts of the man in the street by talking to people on the Glasgow Metro!! Right, so 95% of them would be OF fans so as we thought it's the old boys & weegie mafia act!

[Renfrew_Hibby]

Did knowone catch the bit in the paper the other day by Stewart Gilmour, the St. Mirren chairman?

He was on the working group that came up with these proposals for two leagues of 10. I just thought that he was supporting this as it gets the Buddies 4 home games against the old firm but although that would've been a major factor for a club of that size he did come up with another very valid reason for having 10.
Gilmour says that in an ideal world he would have a league of 16, in fact that would be his dream option but sadly it was a non starter. Having only 15 home games instead of 18-19 means a 20% drop in income resulting in a basic wage for a first team player would be £400. The end result of this is he would lose his whole first team squad to the lower leagues in England and the overall quality of the SPL would drop much further (if possible) than it is already.

I am personally in favour of a larger league but the size of or country and the economics dictate otherwise. The more I think about these proposals, the more i'm in favour of them.
SPL 2 is a good idea because it closes the gap with the SPL meaning the drop wouldn't be the finacial disaster that it is currently and is will hopfully give us a solid core of around 20 full time clubs which is all we can realistically have in a country of our population.
Regionalised leagues make sence but they are not essential and most of the lower league side have come out against this idea, but what i think is important is to have a pyrimid system as it would improve football and football clubs no end from the bottom up. Forward thinking and abitious clubs like Spartans or Pollock Juniors would be rewarded and poorly run unambitious side like East Sirling or Albion Rovers would find a level where they should be.

[jdships]

Did knowone catch the bit in the paper the other day by Stewart Gilmour, the St. Mirren chairman?

He was on the working group that came up with these proposals for two leagues of 10. I just thought that he was supporting this as it gets the Buddies 4 home games against the old firm but although that would've been a major factor for a club of that size he did come up with another very valid reason for having 10.
Gilmour says that in an ideal world he would have a league of 16, in fact that would be his dream option but sadly it was a non starter. Having only 15 home games instead of 18-19 means a 20% drop in income resulting in a basic wage for a first team player would be £400. The end result of this is he would lose his whole first team squad to the lower leagues in England and the overall quality of the SPL would drop much further (if possible) than it is already.

I am personally in favour of a larger league but the size of or country and the economics dictate otherwise. The more I think about these proposals, the more i'm in favour of them.
SPL 2 is a good idea because it closes the gap with the SPL meaning the drop wouldn't be the finacial disaster that it is currently and is will hopfully give us a solid core of around 20 full time clubs which is all we can realistically have in a country of our population.
Regionalised leagues make sence but they are not essential and most of the lower league side have come out against this idea, but what i think is important is to have a pyrimid system as it would improve football and football clubs no end from the bottom up. Forward thinking and abitious clubs like Spartans or Pollock Juniors would be rewarded and poorly run unambitious side like East Sirling or Albion Rovers would find a level where they should be.



Again I can see the arguments for and against the 10 League but the fact remains the money paying public will also vote with their feet if the same format/10 team is continued with .
It will mean the same boring set up for another X years
One of my neighbours took a "straw poll" at his local bowling club ( supporters from four clubs)
31 were asked the questions
1 Are you for ten team league ?
22 No , 8 Yes , 1 Don't Know
2 If the 10 team goes through would it affect yout visits to your teams home matches ?
18 Yes 2 No , 11 Don't Know.
3. Would you then consider stopping going altogether
15 Yes, 12 No, 4 Don't know.

Realise it is a very small sample but makes interesting reading nonetheless

:confused:

[HibsMax]

There have been discussions on here lately about the proposed new setup for Scottish Football.

How do people think about a RADICAL change and adopt something totally different than what we have now?

First I'll tell you what I think is wrong with the current setup:
1. too many teams (in all 4 divisions)
2. too much repetition within each division - we see other teams too many times.
3. too many competitions - the actual league, The Scottish Cup and The League Cup. Really? We need that much to fight for every season (not even including Europe)?

My proposal would be to adopt something similar to the NFL where we have more divisions consisting of fewer teams. Teams can play for their own Division title, their Conference title (if we take it that far) and, of course, the ultimate end prize - the Champions. Teams schedules are based upon their own performance so you're not playing the same teams year in and year out (except for those teams that are in your own Division). Everyone has a better fighting chance because better teams will have tougher schedules than weaker teams. When it gets to the "playoffs" everyone still has a chance because any team has the potential to win in a one-off game.

Anyway, I could go on and on about how the NFL works, etc. but I won't bore you all. ;) I like the idea because there's really only ONE prize to focus on rather than THREE. You would see different teams on a yearly basis and you would see most of them only once. I'm not saying we copy and paste the NFL system but I think that we can cherry pick the best pieces to make our game better. I know that people love their Saturday football but perhaps we can make the season a little shorter as well? Fewer games should make each one more of an event as well as make it easier to afford. I would not follow the NFL exactly in this regard i.e., we need more than 16 games per season.

[jdships]

Did knowone catch the bit in the paper the other day by Stewart Gilmour, the St. Mirren chairman?

He was on the working group that came up with these proposals for two leagues of 10. I just thought that he was supporting this as it gets the Buddies 4 home games against the old firm but although that would've been a major factor for a club of that size he did come up with another very valid reason for having 10.
Gilmour says that in an ideal world he would have a league of 16, in fact that would be his dream option but sadly it was a non starter. Having only 15 home games instead of 18-19 means a 20% drop in income resulting in a basic wage for a first team player would be £400. The end result of this is he would lose his whole first team squad to the lower leagues in England and the overall quality of the SPL would drop much further (if possible) than it is already.

I am personally in favour of a larger league but the size of or country and the economics dictate otherwise. The more I think about these proposals, the more i'm in favour of them.
SPL 2 is a good idea because it closes the gap with the SPL meaning the drop wouldn't be the finacial disaster that it is currently and is will hopfully give us a solid core of around 20 full time clubs which is all we can realistically have in a country of our population.
Regionalised leagues make sence but they are not essential and most of the lower league side have come out against this idea, but what i think is important is to have a pyrimid system as it would improve football and football clubs no end from the bottom up. Forward thinking and abitious clubs like Spartans or Pollock Juniors would be rewarded and poorly run unambitious side like East Sirling or Albion Rovers would find a level where they should be.

Just to correct your incorrect :statement
Re East Stirlingshire
When owner Spencer Fearn srood down earlier this year he is quoted as saying
".......the club is still in good financial health and will still have a competitive budget for the 2010-11 season."
and
"Shire will be left largely debt-free and there will be no need to return to the £10 a week days just to survive,"

His shares were bought by the present Chairman Les Thompson ( ex Falkirk) who has offered them to a trust to be set up in May 2011

As to "unambitious" you could say that about most Scottish clubs - Hibs included if you want to be picky
Albion Rovers I can't say more than I believe they are almost debt free


:Ummm

[BEEJ]

I see in DR today that he's having a mutual love in with Harry Potter!! That just about sums it up! He also canvassed the thoughts of the man in the street by talking to people on the Glasgow Metro!! Right, so 95% of them would be OF fans so as we thought it's the old boys & weegie mafia act!
You can barely hear yourself think on the Glasgow Underground, never mind hold a sensible conversation.

How appropriate.

[cad]

Bit confused about all of this ,so what option gets you
Bigger crowds ,
Entertaining football , young players coming through given a chance .
And a Saturday 3 o`clock kick off if its no to much bother
For my £400 per season ,dinnae see that option or anything close to it .
I would settle for entertaining football and giving the youth a chance likes .

[down the slope]

Henry Mcleish is a balloon !, if his canvasing of supporters was to talk to punters on Glasgow underground then that just sums for me what a load of bollocks the part about the ten team league is. If the SFA/SPL had spent a fraction of the money they spend on jaunts to attend "business" on a proper survey of the only people that matter in this ie the paying public then i could have no argument about it but even that will not have me going back. Interestingly enough i see that our Rod was one of the six who have been discussing the new proposals and what has guided him to the path of a ten team league , could it be that the sound of the cash register as promised by the OF has unsettled him so much that he is unable to make rational decisions ?, he may be deluded in his thinking there as i think we will be back to crowds of five and six thousand when teams revert back to how they played in the last ten team league-he has a short memory.
Even worse, what happens if we are first to be relegated which is about evens in my opinion and Rod proposed the changes ?, what an erse. You couldnae make it up if you tried.

[Feed McGraw]

Why would they play each other 4 times?? Play each other twice, plus they go into the Scottish Cup at an earlier round + add in a decent winter break.

Actually I just didn't think there were probably another 16 full time teams in Scotland to fill it up :wink:


No, sorry, but you just can`t have a 12 team league at that level playing each other twice. No matter what you do with cups or winter breaks.

[jdships]

Henry Mcleish is a balloon !, if his canvasing of supporters was to talk to punters on Glasgow underground then that just sums for me what a load of bollocks the part about the ten team league is. If the SFA/SPL had spent a fraction of the money they spend on jaunts to attend "business" on a proper survey of the only people that matter in this ie the paying public then i could have no argument about it but even that will not have me going back. Interestingly enough i see that our Rod was one of the six who have been discussing the new proposals and what has guided him to the path of a ten team league , could it be that the sound of the cash register as promised by the OF has unsettled him so much that he is unable to make rational decisions ?, he may be deluded in his thinking there as i think we will be back to crowds of five and six thousand when teams revert back to how they played in the last ten team league-he has a short memory.
Even worse, what happens if we are first to be relegated which is about evens in my opinion and Rod proposed the changes ?, what an erse. You couldnae make it up if you tried.


Boy you have struck a chord there :rolleyes:
Unfortunately you are right on the money with the scenario you put up . I am very suspicious now with the part RP is taking in all this
The future aint green any more it's BLACK I'm afraid

[mim]

Lots of great points made on this thread.
The solution certainly isn't easy.

Clubs will not agree to lose income, which would be the result of a 16 team league.

Fans don't want the repetitive fixtures a 10 team league produces.

The answer?

Let's think again about the 14 team SPL, which was mooted some time ago and derided by most fans on here.

I support the 14 team league for the following reasons:

Expansion is what most fans want to provide a bit of variety.

By retaining a split, but not the ridculous one we have now, the OF would get their 4 games against each other (as would the other top 7 clubs using my suggestion)

The league would split into top 7 and bottom 7 after 26 games - one home and one away game against everyone else.

The top 7 would play each other home and away after the split, giving another 12 games, with European places up for grabs.

The bottom 7 would play a further 12 games to avoid 3 relegation spots.

Total games 38, as now (so no lost revenue).
Guaranteed 19 home and 19 away games (so fair, unlike the current fiasco).

For me, this is the best of both worlds - expanding the number of teams in the top flight, while protecting revenue.

Below the SPL, I would have a totally regional set up, with 3 regions and the winners promoted to the SPL.

You might feel that relegating 3 teams from the SPL is excessive, but at the moment 11 teams retain their SPL status at the end of the season - this would not change.

My suggestion does not allow for a winter break, unless we ditch the League Cup, but a winter break does not make sense to me - there is no right time to have a two week break, as we would most surely have just found out this season.

We could certainly still start two weeks earlier and have a break, but God knows when that should be.

My suggestion is genuinely radical, with all league teams being able to win promotion to the SPL in a single season - what a great incentive for the lower leagues, which would, as now, consist of 10 teams and 36 games. Two new teams would be voted into the regional leagues to make up the numbers.

There might be a need to reshuffle the regions each season, depending on which regions the relegated teams are nominally from, but this can be done without too much trouble.

So, it's no relegation next season and two teams promoted from Div1, then onwards and upwards to my brave new world.

[mim]

A rough idea of what the regional leagues might look like just now:

North Section:

Arbroath
Montrose
Brechin
Forfar
Elgin
Peterhead
Ross County
Dundee
Stirling Albion
Alloa

South/West Section

Stranraer
Annan
Ayr
QOS
Berwick
Albion
Dumbarton
Queens Park
Partick
Morton

Central/East section

Dunfermline
Raith Rovers
East Fife
Cowdenbeath
Clyde
Airdrie
Livingston
Stenhousemuir
Falkirk
East Stirling


In each league a fight for pomotion to the SPL, lots and lots of local derbies and huge savings in travelling costs.

[green is good]

Putting aside gate and TV revenue for a moment, what is going to happen about end of season prize money? Where is the prize money going to be coming from for SPL 2? Surely the money will be coming from the SPL which means the prize money will be spread between more clubs therefore meaning a drop in income anyway.

[brog]

Tony Higgins cut to the chase last night on BBC. He said he had met McLeish a couple of times & essentially TV are dictating a 10 team league. They want 4 OF & Edinburgh derbies each year. However the 14 team scenario with a 7/7 split after 2 games, then another 2 games each would still allow for that scenario ( providing of course both Edinburgh teams make top 7 ).
It would also be much more entertaining than 10!
There's some fairly obvious commonsense in the report, including regional leagues, play offs etc so we shouldn't totally disregard it but the thought of reverting to a 10 team league really does fill me with dismay.

[snooky]

As has been said on numerous replies, this is a money driven exercise to make sure those in the top division keep their big pay days against the old firm, and nothing to do with actually trying to improve the game in Scotland, upping standards of Scottish players and getting fans back through the door, FWIW I'd be looking at...

SPL - 16 teams, 2 up and 2 down.
Division 1 - 12 teams, 2 up and 2 go down.
Division 2 - Split Regionally, with a finals series between the winners and runners up to see who gets promoted to Division 1.

So for top teams this means 30 league games, 15 home and 15 away.

Rejib the League Cup into the old "league" format before QF/SF/Finals - with less SPL games they have the chance to make this currently pointless competition interesting again!

Scottish Cup stays as is.

:bitchy: No good. Far too sensible. :wink:

[Mikey]

If I'm reading this right, Hibs are involved in proposing the plan for the 10 team league.......


A strategic review group - comprising Doncaster, SPL chairman Ralph Topping and representatives from Hibernian, St Mirren, Motherwell, Celtic, Rangers and Aberdeen - set up by the organisation concluded their eight-month schedule of meetings last Sunday.

Their proposal for a two-tier SPL, with 10 teams in each division, and changes to the calendar mirrored the views of former First Minister Henry McLeish, who published a couple of days later the findings of his year-long review on behalf of the Scottish Football Association.




http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/scot_prem/9302982.stm

[Iain G]

Tony Higgins cut to the chase last night on BBC. He said he had met McLeish a couple of times & essentially TV are dictating a 10 team league. They want 4 OF & Edinburgh derbies each year. However the 14 team scenario with a 7/7 split after 2 games, then another 2 games each would still allow for that scenario ( providing of course both Edinburgh teams make top 7 ).
It would also be much more entertaining than 10!
There's some fairly obvious commonsense in the report, including regional leagues, play offs etc so we shouldn't totally disregard it but the thought of reverting to a 10 team league really does fill me with dismay.

So here lies the problem, it is being driven by the TV money and not by someone actually stepping back out of all of this mess and seeing the big pictire of what is best for the game long term.

10 teams and playing each other 4 times a year, well, I'm glad I'm on this side of the globe in a country where nobody actually broadcasts the SPL anymore for that one...

[brog]

For the first time ever I believe James Traynor in DR today has spoken sense. He's saying what many of us on this thread are complaining about & that's the failure to consult the fans, oh other than those on the Glasgow Metro!
I loathe the DR & I think Traynor's a buffoon but in this case I support his thoughts & they're looking for comments on
sport@dailyrecord.co.uk
If you don't want a 10 team league this may be an opportunity to influence it. We should of course also be talking to our own club!

[Bad Martini]

If you don't want a 10 team league this may be an opportunity to influence it. We should of course also be talking to our own club!

Unfortunately, that's no gonny happen mate.

What's gonna be is what the majority and biggest stakeholders in the CASH want namely, what the old firm demand, as it always is. Until those getts piss off and/or the playing field is somehow levelled, this will never change.

As it stands, a huge majority is needed to change to 10 teams...some teams have to vote for this AND face relegation. This will happen??? Nope.

Most of our problems comes from teh dominance of two teams......who decide everything and a national fitba association who pander to their agenda and demands. Simples...

[alexedwards]

This:

http://www.dunfermlinepress.com/sport/thepars/articles/2010/12/16/408296-pars-chairmans-anger-at-10team-spl-plan/

[brog]

Unfortunately, that's no gonny happen mate.

What's gonna be is what the majority and biggest stakeholders in the CASH want namely, what the old firm demand, as it always is. Until those getts piss off and/or the playing field is somehow levelled, this will never change.

As it stands, a huge majority is needed to change to 10 teams...some teams have to vote for this AND face relegation. This will happen??? Nope.

Most of our problems comes from teh dominance of two teams......who decide everything and a national fitba association who pander to their agenda and demands. Simples...

You're probably correct ( sadly) re the overall scheme of things but I think we can influence RP's thinking. Estimates of our lost revenue from ( possibly ) losing 3 extra games against OF & Yams vary but IMO is about £300,000. That equates to about 1,000 season tickets & I believe if we revert to a 10 team league that loss of revenue is a very real possibility. RP remains an accountant first & foremost & if he understands those numbers he may not align himself so closely with the Ugly sisters.
Of course a 14 team league with a split after 26 games played to 7/7 & then a further 12 fixtures still provides for extra OF games providing we make the top 7. Perhaps RP is concerned re our future ability to make 7th?

[Gatecrasher]

This:

http://www.dunfermlinepress.com/sport/thepars/articles/2010/12/16/408296-pars-chairmans-anger-at-10team-spl-plan/



His organisation has put forward their own scheme to the SPL and the Old Firm to improve the game north of the border.
In it the SPL would change from 12 teams playing 38 matches to 16 sides playing 30 matches.
At the end of each season two teams would be relegated from the SPL and two teams promoted from Scottish Football League Division One.
This would mean a loss of eight matches per team per season. The lost matches would be replaced by a new competition – The Scottish Premier Cup, which would involve the 16 teams in four groups of four and then going on to a knock-out phase which would give a minimum of six extra games.
Added Bonnar, "This 10-team plan unveiled in the papers will not help clubs like Dunfermline.
"The teams coming down from SPL One will have parachute payments which will give them a clear advantage over the other SPL Two sides and make it so hard for the other sides to compete on a level playing field.
"In effect these plans will marginalise the four senior Fife clubs even further.
"I get the impression that Celtic and Rangers are behind these weekend plans as they want to play each other four times to maximise their income but the fact remains that the game in Scotland cannot be run simply for the benefit of two clubs."


:top marks

[Hibercelona]

12 Team League :yawn:

10 Team League :yawn: :yawn: :yawn:

[Hibstrooper]

I can't claim this as my own however what's people's thoughts on this setup:

• One single 20 team SPL (or 18)
• With each team playing home and away
• 38 games in regular season (or 36)
• The league is split notionally into an Eastern Conference (Hibs, Hearts, Dundee Utd, Aberdeen, St J, etc) and Western Conference (Rantic, Killie, Motherwell, St M, etc)
• At the end of the regular season, there will be a Easter Conference winner and Western Conference winner
• These winners will automatically gain an inital entry into the Europa league
• The top four sides then from each conference will go into the end of season plays
• Winner of east plays 4th place in west; Runner up in east plays 3rd, 3rd in east plays 2nd west, 4th in east plays winner in west
• Games are home and away ties in knockout format
• Losing sem-finalists get Europa League place
• SPL Cup Final then hosted at Hamdpen - one off game - winner gets Champions League Qualifying place, runner up Europa League

The remaining 32 teams are then set up into leagues of 16.

The SPL would also hold around 50 contracts of top talented players released by SPL clubs, but who can't be afforded by the SFL clubs and they would be drafted out to these sides.

This is very much the MLS model, with USL underneath. The crowds at these games are immense now, with most of the clubs also in soccer specific stadia now.

As a product, the playoffs retain interest pretty much all the way through to the end.

[Hainan Hibs]

I really don't understand why it is so hard for the men who are supposed to run Scottish football to understand that a

Top league of 16,
a further league of 16,
followed by regional leagues

with a promotion/relegation system of 2 up and 2 down throughout is what's needed.

They can through out any excuse they want but the idea of a ten team league is down to one idea only - 4 Old Firm games a season.

It's been tried before and was changed for a reason.

The vast majority of people want a bigger league, hardly anyone wants a smaller one. Time for the clubs outside the Old Firm to grow a pair and demand truly "radical" change.

[matty_f]

Apologies as I haven't read all of the posts on this thread, so this may already have been covered.

I don't favour a ten team league, and I actually think that taking the step of increasing the league side and dealing with smaller budgets could potentially be the making of Scottish football.

We over-pay players, and we over-charge fans to do it. The TV money doesn't give us enough money to buy good players, but gives us enough to not have to rely on promoting youth development.

A 16 team league and the drop in income would impact on all the clubs, so it would be reasonable to suggest that a uniform downsizing in budget would happen across the board. The OF would still be able to out-pay the rest of the SPL, however if you take away the options for the rest of the teams to be able to afford (at best) Championship level players, the clubs would be forced to produce their own talent at a sufficient level to sell on (or retain and compete).

We would probably not see a huge drop in standards initially either, as I firmly believe that we pay players more than their value as things stand.

I would not be afraid of the loss of income that having only one visit from each of the OF, and one derby would bring - so long as that drop was across the board, which it would be.

Maybe an idealist way of looking at it, but football in Scotland needs to return to being about football, and not about how much money can be bled from whoever is funding it, be it TV or paying punters.

A long term view to the overall development of Scottish players competing in a competitive league would actually do infinitely more good to the monetary value of the SPL than simply relying on the OF doing everyone a turn in the annual bore-fest that is the championship race.

[down the slope]

Some while ago there was much discussion on this subject of reconstruction and someone came up with the fact that a larger league actually makes it more difficult for the OF to win the league , i forgot how the permutation was worked out so if anyone out there has a clue what it is please let us all know as it must be a another nail in the coffin of a ten team league.

[matty_f]

Some while ago there was much discussion on this subject of reconstruction and someone came up with the fact that a larger league actually makes it more difficult for the OF to win the league , i forgot how the permutation was worked out so if anyone out there has a clue what it is please let us all know as it must be a another nail in the coffin of a ten team league.

I'm guessing that it's on the assumption that the OF generally beat everyone more often than not.

So, assuming that some teams will not take a point of the OF, before the split the OF will have 9 points on these teams (example, say Motherwell were in third, and they had matched the OF's results in all the games apart from against the OF, they would go into the split 9 points behind them. If that form went into the fourth game against the OF, then the gap goes to 12 points).

If you only played the OF twice, that drops to 6 points. If you can win one of those games you're head to head is equal so if you can match their form you've a chance of winning the league.