League De-construction (merged)

[Andy74]

We're already operating at a £2 million loss, how are we supposed to cope with a £1 million loss in revenue? And we're one of the more financially robust sides, a lot of clubs would be struggling to survive with a similar loss of income.

And what at the moment is preventing us from introducing young players?

Costs would come down from fewer matches and you would adjust wage costs accordingly as well.

We need to accept a bit of a loss in quality initially if we really want to see anything different long term.

What exactly is the point of our current level of costs and loss just to try and win 3rd place?

We currently couldn't play too many kids out of fear of relegation and fans who were already unhappy with performances when we finished 4th.

A ten team league would see us in an even worse predicament.

[millarco]

Fear of relegation?

I don't see why that should be the case. If our kids aren't any better than the players playing at the moment then we are in a poor state. The likes of Kilmarnock, Inverness and Hearts have found success in bringing on younger players this season. We should be doing the same. Our record of bringing through youth has been poor since Collins left, with only Hanlon and Wotherspoon making any sort of impact. I guess the B side idea is supposed to help this, but clubs have to be more willing to give youth a chance.

[millarco]

Costs would come down from fewer matches and you would adjust wage costs accordingly as well.

We need to accept a bit of a loss in quality initially if we really want to see anything different long term.

What exactly is the point of our current level of costs and loss just to try and win 3rd place?

We currently couldn't play too many kids out of fear of relegation and fans who were already unhappy with performances when we finished 4th.

A ten team league would see us in an even worse predicament.

I can't see fans being overly happy at a drop in quality, it's bad enough as it is.

We were nowhere near relegation last season, yet Wotherspoon was the only kid to make an impact on the team, from a double-winning batch of youngsters. If fans wouldn't have accepted it then when would they?

I'm not convinced that if we were playing more youngsters at the moment that crowds would be any better, or at least not significantly increased to cover the loss of revenue.

The proposed 10 team structure is supposedly designed to increase the number of youngsters playing (B teams, reduce cost of relegation) but I doubt they'll work either.

Clubs need to take responsibility themselves for not producing young players instead of blaming it on the structure.

[down the slope]

maybe there will be a rise in quality if we play young players instead of some of the junk that we have to watch !, i just checked out Doncasters reasoning for the switch on the BBC website and i think he needs to sort his maths out before he starts spouting off and i quote ,




"That would take a lot of money out of the game, because clubs would play each other just twice.
"So if you take away half of the big games, you're talking about half of the value being lost - around £7m."
"We have to acknowledge that the popular vote is for a larger league but you can't just ask the question in isolation," he explained.
"If you put it to them that your club will lose at least £1m [calculations based on loss of TV revenue and fewer fixtures] then it doesn't look very attractive.
"It's imperative that we bring more money in, we get the best players that we can afford and that fans see more exciting football."

Is it seven million or twelve million, he should get back to the fag packet he used to count on to check his figures.

[blackpoolhibs]

I don't see why that should be the case. If our kids aren't any better than the players playing at the moment then we are in a poor state. The likes of Kilmarnock, Inverness and Hearts have found success in bringing on younger players this season. We should be doing the same. Our record of bringing through youth has been poor since Collins left, with only Hanlon and Wotherspoon making any sort of impact. I guess the B side idea is supposed to help this, but clubs have to be more willing to give youth a chance.

We play in a 12 team league at the moment, with 1 team relegated each season. A 10 team league will have 2 teams relegated apparently. The fear factor was apparent the last time we had it, why would this time be different?:confused:

[s.a.m]

The working-group's response to a decreasing pot of money is to plan to reduce the number of clubs that can access it. Surely the right response would be to recognise that a) Scottish football is living beyond its means, and b) the product is of decreasing popularity, and to aim to address these problems.

Or looking at it another way, some clubs (like Rangers), have over-committed themselves financially, and the structure of Scottish football is to be changed to make sure they get a bigger proportion of what's available, to cover their ineptitude / greed / lack of foresight, or whatever you want to call it.

[ancient hibee]

Prediction.

10 man league will definitely go ahead.What is happening now is that clubs are positionig theselves to be bribed into agreement.This will be achieved by the OF agreeing to reduce the percentage of prize money paid for finishing first and seconnd and spreading this over the other finishing positions.

As an aside-why is it that so many posters who are perfectly happy at a drop in income "it shouldn't all be about money"are the same ones always wanting us to buy everyone and his dog and for us to "loosen the purse strings and pay decent wages"?

[down the slope]

[QUOTE=ancient hibee;2680222]Prediction.

10 man league will definitely go ahead.What is happening now is that clubs are positionig theselves to be bribed into agreement.This will be achieved by the OF agreeing to reduce the percentage of prize money paid for finishing first and seconnd and spreading this over the other finishing positions.

As an aside-why is it that so many posters who are perfectly happy at a drop in income "it shouldn't all be about money"are the same ones always wanting us to buy everyone and his dog and for us to "loosen the purse strings and pay decent wages"?[/QUOTE

No chance of it happening now, four club chairman against it , what about if we were relegated every three or four years as there is a one in five chance of us going down each season ?, that is the reality of it and where would we be as regards income then ?.

[ancient hibee]

They're not against it-they just want something extra to agree.

[MrSmith]

We all know this is just o suit the OF! My plan would be: 18 team league, 2 points for a win and one for a draw! The OF would hate this because they would not run away with the league. If you do rough calculations:

w d Pts

1. Celtic 14 3 31
2. Rangers 13 2 28
3. Hearts 12 3 27
4. Kilmarnock 9 3 21
5. ICT 7 6 20

You can see that the top is much closer and there is a 11 point gap between 1st and 5th not 18.

Rangers and Celtic would not get their expected 12 points from all the less fortunate clubs.

[Beefster]

We all know this is just o suit the OF! My plan would be: 18 team league, 2 points for a win and one for a draw! The OF would hate this because they would not run away with the league. If you do rough calculations:

w d Pts

1. Celtic 14 3 31
2. Rangers 13 2 28
3. Hearts 12 3 27
4. Kilmarnock 9 3 21
5. ICT 7 6 20

You can see that the top is much closer and their is a 10 point gap between 1st and 5th not 18.

Rangers and Celtic would not get their expected 12 points from all the less fortunate clubs.

Just make Rangers and Celtic play with 8 men. That would probably have a similar effect.

We shouldn't be changing the game to bring Rangers and Celtic down to our level. It should be changed to bring the rest of the teams further towards their level.

[blackpoolhibs]

Just make Rangers and Celtic play with 8 men. That would probably have a similar effect.

We shouldn't be changing the game to bring Rangers and Celtic down to our level. It should be changed to bring the rest of the teams further towards their level.

How do we do that?

[Beefster]

How do we do that?

I don't know - probably most likely with split gate receipts as a starter.

Not with play-offs for the title and 2 points for a win though.

[smurf]

Smurf, were you not at the AGM where Rod took great pleasure in ridiculing someone who suggested that he was 'not a football man'?
Of course Hibs have backed this, I even get the impression that they are one of the prime movers

I'm not a shareholder so no i wasn't in attendance.

I'm sure that in the short term on paper Rod and the rest are correct in arriving at the conclusion that a top ten will generate more cash.

However, the SPL is dire. Boring and entirely predictable. This season ticket holder no longer sees the point in buying two season tickets every year.

Especially as my club struggles within the mediocrity of it all.

Others at all clubs feel the same. And i suspect that they will all quite quickly see that the on paper short term advantage isn't the reality.

I'm too predictable in having a go at Rod etc but they really ought to wake up and listen to what the paying public actually want.

[MrSmith]

Don't want any of their money! You would just become owe to them and...they would let you know it!

[blackpoolhibs]

I don't know - probably most likely with split gate receipts as a starter.

Not with play-offs for the title and 2 points for a win though.

We wont get split gate money ever again imo. I cant see whats wrong with 2 points for a win, and 1 for a draw. Play offs are a non starter i'd agree.

[GreenCastle]

The split gate receipts won't happen - only will carry on in the cup games.

Would you except Hibs to give Hamilton a share of their money ?

Although I would want Rangers and Celtic money I wouldn't expect it as they have spent money on their stadium / hospitality which brings in lots of money.

The idea for 2 points for a win isn't the worst one - but teams would still be very cautious - like the 10 team league - fear of losing.

[millarco]

We play in a 12 team league at the moment, with 1 team relegated each season. A 10 team league will have 2 teams relegated apparently. The fear factor was apparent the last time we had it, why would this time be different?:confused:

The theory is that with less of a drop in income between the SPL and SPL2 teams would not fear relegation as much, the financial implications would not be as severe.

[blackpoolhibs]

The league should be set up to make it as competitive as it possibly can be, top and bottom. 2 points for a win, 1 for a draw would be a start. 3 points for a win only helps Rangers and Celtic, the richest clubs by far. If they wanted a competitive league, why would they object?

[Saorsa]

The league should be set up to make it as competitive as it possibly can be, top and bottom. 2 points for a win, 1 for a draw would be a start. 3 points for a win only helps Rangers and Celtic, the richest clubs by far. If they wanted a competitive league, why would they object?I think the answer is in that bit.

[Beefster]

We wont get split gate money ever again imo. I cant see whats wrong with 2 points for a win, and 1 for a draw. Play offs are a non starter i'd agree.

I agree that split gates won't happen but the OF would never vote for 2 points for a win either. Quite right too - 3 points was introduced and is prevalent everywhere for a reason.


The split gate receipts won't happen - only will carry on in the cup games.

Would you except Hibs to give Hamilton a share of their money ?

Although I would want Rangers and Celtic money I wouldn't expect it as they have spent money on their stadium / hospitality which brings in lots of money.

The idea for 2 points for a win isn't the worst one - but teams would still be very cautious - like the 10 team league - fear of losing.

I thought everyone was all about the good of Scottish football, increasing competition etc etc? Split gates would do more than any pishy league change. I could be wrong but the differences in resources between clubs were much less when gates were split.

If the SPL was serious about revolutionising the standard of football and making the league more competitive, split gates would be the first thing on their agenda.

2 points doesn't introduce a fear of losing as far as I know, it dampens the desire or necessity of winning.

[blackpoolhibs]

The theory is that with less of a drop in income between the SPL and SPL2 teams would not fear relegation as much, the financial implications would not be as severe.

How on earth would there not be a dramatic drop in income if you are relegated?:confused:

[millarco]

How on earth would there not be a dramatic drop in income if you are relegated?:confused:

The money is being shared more evenly between the two divisions, e.g. the money that the 11th and 12th teams get at the moment would be shared amongst the second tier. Thus the drop wouldn't be as severe.

[blackpoolhibs]

I agree that split gates won't happen but the OF would never vote for 2 points for a win either. Quite right too - 3 points was introduced and is prevalent everywhere for a reason.



I thought everyone was all about the good of Scottish football, increasing competition etc etc? Split gates would do more than any pishy league change. I could be wrong but the differences in resources between clubs were much less when gates were split.

If the SPL was serious about revolutionising the standard of football and making the league more competitive, split gates would be the first thing on their agenda.

2 points doesn't introduce a fear of losing as far as I know, it dampens the desire or necessity of winning.

Of course the old firm wouldn't vote for 2 points for a win, why would they? 2 points for a win, and 1 for a draw makes the league more competitive. Not the whole solution, but a start imo.

[jgl07]

The money is being shared more evenly between the two divisions, e.g. the money that the 11th and 12th teams get at the moment would be shared amongst the second tier. Thus the drop wouldn't be as severe.
Rubbish. It is a bit of spin to con the smaller teams to buy into the plan.

The argument presented is that a 16 team league would involve the cash being split 16-ways rather than 10-ways. If the money were spread this would result in a 20-way split.

Apart from anything else, most of the TV cash goes to Rangers and Celtic.

Anyway the proposal is now dead in the water. The spin that all 12 clubs were in favour has been blown out of the water by Dundee United. Killie, Inverness and Hearts also appear to be opposed.

[blackpoolhibs]

The money is being shared more evenly between the two divisions, e.g. the money that the 11th and 12th teams get at the moment would be shared amongst the second tier. Thus the drop wouldn't be as severe.

I dont know the figures, but i think its very naive to think there would not be a dramatic drop in money playing in the SPL 2. Not to mention the players we would lose. I dont want a 10 team league, but 2 home games against celtic rangers hearts and aberdeen, replaced with airdrie and the likes, is a huge loss.

[Beefster]

Of course the old firm wouldn't vote for 2 points for a win, why would they? 2 points for a win, and 1 for a draw makes the league more competitive. Not the whole solution, but a start imo.

Competitive how? Someone else challenging or even winning the league?


I dont know the figures, but i think its very naive to think there would not be a dramatic drop in money playing in the SPL 2. Not to mention the players we would lose. I dont want a 10 team league, but 2 home games against celtic rangers hearts and aberdeen, replaced with airdrie and the likes, is a huge loss.

I think the point is that the drop in income would be less severe than at present. No-one has claimed it wouldn't still be dramatic.

[blackpoolhibs]

Competitive how? Someone else challenging or even winning the league?

Perhaps, who knows? I think the league would definitely be tighter at the top, adding a little bit of pressure on those 2 can only be good imo.

I think the point is that the drop in income would be less severe than at present. No-one has claimed it wouldn't still be dramatic.

I think relegation would be terrible, and cant see what difference a couple of hundred grand would make? Its not like they will be handing out millions, and we will be in the 2nd division. 10 teams is not enough, was not enough before, whats changed?

[greenlex]

We all know this is just o suit the OF! My plan would be: 18 team league, 2 points for a win and one for a draw! The OF would hate this because they would not run away with the league. If you do rough calculations:

w d Pts

1. Celtic 14 3 31
2. Rangers 13 2 28
3. Hearts 12 3 27
4. Kilmarnock 9 3 21
5. ICT 7 6 20

You can see that the top is much closer and there is a 11 point gap between 1st and 5th not 18.

Rangers and Celtic would not get their expected 12 points from all the less fortunate clubs.
It only looks closer. For the team in fifth to catch the top team would need to win just over 5 games to catch them with 2 point and 6 games to catch them with 3 points assuming the top club lost all theirs.
The points system aint the problem. I am sure someopne did a comparison over a few seasons a wee while ago and it made no difference.

[greenlex]

Therefore, losing 3 category A matches and 1 category B match would cost the club well in excess of £1 million per season in gate receipts.

Topping etc of course are playing the doomsday scenario because they spent years & who knows how much dosh coming up with a crappy old plan that failed before. The above assumes a 16 team league, there's plenty different scenarios that could happen. Here's one.

A 14 team league splitting top 7/bottom 7 after 2 games each. ( 26 games )You then only need to make top 7 to keep 4 OF games. No Revenue lost!Surely we can achieve this!!
A further 2 games against your 6 opponents giving 38 games in all, same as present. No Revenue lost! This also gets rid of all the H/A imbalances in current split system.
Introduce relegation play offs. 72 English clubs play 46 league games a season so it's easily achievable. 7 teams trying to avoid relegation for 2 or even 3 teams would provide excitement. Also a great incentive to make top 7 & be safe!

I for one think adding any 2 from say Falkirk/Partick/Dundee/Raith/Dunfermline would increase the entertainment value in our turgid league.[/QUOTE]

I like this scenario of 14 teams and relegation play offs. I reckon 1 automatically relagated after 38 games and the next 4 bottom play off (2 semis and a final, thats 2 chances to save your bacon) for the other place. Would give them a bit of revenue after missing out on the old firm for a second time.

[tony]

My thought through all of this is what is it we actually want? My feeling is that supporters, bizarrely, actually want to watch something that is good and exciting, two things that Scottish Football are not. We are in danger of forgetting the lessons of history and so dooming our game. The Premier League brought novelty all those years back: all the top teams playing each other loads of times and every game 'meaningful'. But reality kicked in quickly and disasterously. Everyone went safety first, relegation was a reality for over half the league, athleticism and power took over from skill, and journeymen who could 'do a job' from anywhere in the world took over from young players still learning. In the past mid table mediocrity could actually mean forging a stronger team for the next season. Once the 10/12 team league came in all that went. While most of the top leagues moved on we have steadily moved backwards and the basic standard, and quality, of the football, gets worse and worse. The short term 10 team solution is being made purely on economic terms and they make no sense in the long term, as the drift away from the game will continue as the basic problems pile up on themselves. Again I'll ask the question. What do we want? It seems the supporters already, in various ways, have the right answer. A league free of fear and negativety, allowing the best in young talent to play football the way we used to when we were amongst the best in the world.

And its our game, not the turkeys who are voting for Christmas. We need to get together, across Scotland, to reclaim it before its too late.

One last thing, my dad was up from London asked my 12 year old how his team was doing. He talked about Barcelona and Spurs. My dad asked him about the Hibees and he said he didn't really support them that much any more as it, and they, were boring.

Unless we take charge our game is doomed.

[BEEJ]

I like this scenario of 14 teams and relegation play offs. I reckon 1 automatically relagated after 38 games and the next 4 bottom play off (2 semis and a final, thats 2 chances to save your bacon) for the other place. Would give them a bit of revenue after missing out on the old firm for a second time.
:agree: I like the 14 team scenario as well and thought it was well summarised by Brog in the post you quoted.

In the article on the subject in today's Scotsman / EEN I thought this quote from Fraser of Caley Thistle was the most telling:


"Our initial impression was that the SPL Strategy Group was looking to choose between 12 and 14 clubs and it was a big surprise to us and others that they have come forward with a proposal to actually reduce the SPL to 10 clubs. That is much less attractive to a club like ours and we need to carefully consider the financial implications and what has now been placed on the table in that regard following this week's SPL meeting."

This 10 team league proposal has come right out of the blue and doesn't appear to have been seriously considered by the SPL Strategy Group until very late in the day.

[MrSmith]

The 14 team league still incorporates playing the OF and all others 4 times a season - I for one do not want this anymore! It is so wrong!

[greenlex]

The 14 team league still incorporates playing the OF and all others 4 times a season - I for one do not want this anymore! It is so wrong!
The only other way is to split the gate money and that quite rightly IMO is not going to happen.It is a financial necessity Im afraid and Clubs will not vote to reduce the number of times they can play the old firm at home.
I suggest that if fans dont want to watch these games at home more than once the club introduce two half season tickets for them and let the others get on with it. Another two clubs might just reduce folks boredom.
ps We are playing someone different on Saturday and I dont expect a crowd of over 8k so something doesnt make sense.

[BEEJ]

The 14 team league still incorporates playing the OF and all others 4 times a season - I for one do not want this anymore! It is so wrong!
You play six teams 4 times and another 7 teams twice = 38 matches.

For the successful teams over the 26 matches pre-split, they get the 'reward' of another two OF home gates.

Such is the skewed nature of finance in the Scottish game that to be realistic we need to have a split in the league. At least this way we'll have an even number of encounters home and away with each other league side, rather than the unsatisfactory lottery of home and away matches we currently have with a 12 team league.

[Beefster]

You play six teams 4 times and another 7 teams twice = 38 matches.

For the successful teams over the 26 matches pre-split, they get the 'reward' of another two OF home gates.

Such is the skewed nature of finance in the Scottish game that to be realistic we need to have a split in the league. At least this way we'll have an even number of encounters home and away with each other league side, rather than the unsatisfactory lottery of home and away matches we currently have with a 12 team league.

Splitting it 7/7 would leave two teams twiddling their thumbs every weekend.

[greenlex]

Splitting it 7/7 would leave two teams twiddling their thumbs every weekend.
They could play a bounce game. :greengrin

[jgl07]

The only other way is to split the gate money and that quite rightly IMO is not going to happen.It is a financial necessity Im afraid and Clubs will not vote to reduce the number of times they can play the old firm at home.

Well they voted to expand from 10 to 12 which leaves six teams losing one home OF match.


I suggest that if fans dont want to watch these games at home more than once the club introduce two half season tickets for them and let the others get on with it. Another two clubs might just reduce folks boredom.

You can split it whichever way you want, I will not be attending if the League is reduced to 10 teams.


ps We are playing someone different on Saturday and I dont expect a crowd of over 8k so something doesnt make sense.

It is not included in the season ticket matches so not a fair comparison.

[MrSmith]

Simply doesn't do anything for me at all! Only one way to fix the game and we all know what it is! RP bangs on about being sustainable and stable; we cannot achieve either of these if we remain dependent on the old firm for money! It needs to stop and the sooner clubs realise this and make the necessary financial adjustments the better it will be in the long term for clubs, players, fans and financial stability.

Well done to Hearts, Killie, ICT and Dundee Utd for sticking the fingers up to this plan! The sooner we as fans back them the better.

[greenlex]

Well they voted to expand from 10 to 12 which leaves six teams losing one home OF match.

They still have the chance to play them twice at home if they make top six. Expanding it so that its impossible wont be voted for IMO.



You can split it whichever way you want, I will not be attending if the League is reduced to 10 teams. If it stays at 12 will you go?



It is not included in the season ticket matches so not a fair comparison.
Yes it is. The argument is playing the same sides is boring and we are playing somone different (and at a cheaper price I may add) and we wont get as big a crowd as an average SPL match. The boredom argument doesnt stack up as far as I can see..

[BEEJ]

Splitting it 7/7 would leave two teams twiddling their thumbs every weekend.
Surely not a problem? Did we not end up missing three weekends in December due to the weather? :wink:

And teams finishing mid-table (7th and 8th) pre-split could sit out the very last round of league fixtures as they are less likely to feature in the prizes / pitfalls. Their reward for the height of mediocrity would be a slightly extended summer break. :greengrin

[PolmontHibby]

I don't know - probably most likely with split gate receipts as a starter.

Split the television money equally.
They do that in Sweden and have had six different league champions in a row.

Only one flaw.....it takes and 11-1 vote and the OF will veto it as they did with the plans to set up SPL TV.
Its about time the non OF teams grew a pair.

[ancient hibee]

Of course the old firm wouldn't vote for 2 points for a win, why would they? 2 points for a win, and 1 for a draw makes the league more competitive. Not the whole solution, but a start imo.


SPL has no power to change points awarded only FIFA can do that.

[ancient hibee]

Split the television money equally.
They do that in Sweden and have had six different league champions in a row.

Only one flaw.....it takes and 11-1 vote and the OF will veto it as they did with the plans to set up SPL TV.
Its about time the non OF teams grew a pair.


Don't think it requires 11/1 to change TV decisions-Setanta was forced through against OF wishes-that was a wonderful success wasn't it?

[PolmontHibby]

Don't think it requires 11/1 to change TV decisions-Setanta was forced through against OF wishes-that was a wonderful success wasn't it?

Forced through after all 10 teams lodged resignation requests.
Why cant they do it again.

[PolmontHibby]

Don't think it requires 11/1 to change TV decisions-Setanta was forced through against OF wishes-that was a wonderful success wasn't it?

I think I might be wrong - the threats of resignation might have been over a different TV topic.

Still wish they would do something to level out the TV money though wont happen........OF wont miss it (still do just a crap in Europe) and bridge the gap in other lost revenue for other teams in a larger league.
Fantasy stuff though.

[ancient hibee]

I think I might be wrong - the threats of resignation might have been over a different TV topic.

Still wish they would do something to level out the TV money though wont happen........OF wont miss it (still do just a crap in Europe) and bridge the gap in other lost revenue for other teams in a larger league.
Fantasy stuff though.

I'm quite sure they will though.Some of the prize money for finishing 1st and 2nd will be spread over the other finishing places.

[clerriehibs]

:top marksto Killie, United & Inverness! (and even maybe the yams! :jamboak:)

just wish our chairman put the interests of the fans first a change!

NO TO 10 TEAM SPL!! :flag:

Don't hold the :jamboclow up as some kind of knight in shining armour.

They are only playing a blocker in an attempt to get a concession of a play-off for the championship, FFS!

They don't want a 16 team league anymore than the clubs who have voted for a 10 team lague.

As soon as it becomes apparent that they're not going to get their way (or if someone called their bluff and asked them outright if they are in favour of a 16 team league), then they'll fall into line with the majority (of clubs - not fans!)

[MrSmith]

Don't hold the :jamboclow up as some kind of knight in shining armour.

They are only playing a blocker in an attempt to get a concession of a play-off for the championship, FFS!

They don't want a 16 team league anymore than the clubs who have voted for a 10 team lague.

As soon as it becomes apparent that they're not going to get their way (or if someone called their bluff and asked them outright if they are in favour of a 16 team league), then they'll fall into line with the majority (of clubs - not fans!)

I'm not so sure about that! They have a general who is as off the wall as I've ever seen coupled with the fact that he hates the OF,SPL and the SFA with a vengeance would make me think he would enjoy screwing with it!!

[Moulin Yarns]

A thought about 10/12 v 16/18 team leagues.

One of the arguments for the 10/12 is the crowds that are presumed to be required to be financially viable, in other words the possible 4 home games against the OF and the 2 derby games, but they don't usually sell out.

Now, playing each team once at home gives these games a 'novelty' value and so MAY actually be healthy crowds, and I will use the away support coming from Ayr this weekend to back that up, they have the chance of an awayday at a bigger club.

I'm not sure where to find statistics to back up either side of the argument, but surely someone at the SPL or SFA has access to attendance figures over the 23 seasons before and after the formation of the Premier division/league that could be used to form the basis of a financial analysis of each and every option, not just their 10+10 that is all the SPL are looking at.

Once someone has concrete figures that show once and for all that the 10+10 is so much better than the 16 or 18 team league then the case is made. And while they are at it, isn't it about time they produced figures which say "to match the fantastic money that will come into your coffers by accepting the proposal you will all have to increase turnover by X or reduce overheads by Y, or charge the customers Z"

Right, I'm no accountant, but I know a few of you are, so tell me I'm being simplistic, bot nobody has proof that the proposal will be more profitable, it is all conjecture, assumptions, or if you prefer smoke and mirrors.

[MrSmith]

A thought about 10/12 v 16/18 team leagues.

One of the arguments for the 10/12 is the crowds that are presumed to be required to be financially viable, in other words the possible 4 home games against the OF and the 2 derby games, but they don't usually sell out.

Now, playing each team once at home gives these games a 'novelty' value and so MAY actually be healthy crowds, and I will use the away support coming from Ayr this weekend to back that up, they have the chance of an awayday at a bigger club.

I'm not sure where to find statistics to back up either side of the argument, but surely someone at the SPL or SFA has access to attendance figures over the 23 seasons before and after the formation of the Premier division/league that could be used to form the basis of a financial analysis of each and every option, not just their 10+10 that is all the SPL are looking at.

Once someone has concrete figures that show once and for all that the 10+10 is so much better than the 16 or 18 team league then the case is made. And while they are at it, isn't it about time they produced figures which say "to match the fantastic money that will come into your coffers by accepting the proposal you will all have to increase turnover by X or reduce overheads by Y, or charge the customers Z"

Right, I'm no accountant, but I know a few of you are, so tell me I'm being simplistic, bot nobody has proof that the proposal will be more profitable, it is all conjecture, assumptions, or if you prefer smoke and mirrors.

Absobloodylutely! OF/SPL/SFA at that too! ****s!!!!!

[hfc rd]

The new league setup is once again going to make Scottish football a much more bigger laughing stock than it currently is. Once again us fans have been ignored by the SPL. Playing teams 4-5 times a season is going to be absolutely nonsense. A 16 team league would be very exciting as we all know that some 1st divsion sides like Dunfermline, Raith, Dundee, Partick, Ross County, Falkirk, Queen of the South, Morton etc are all capable of competing against the SPL sides. Two leagues of 10 is just stupid!

[GreenCastle]

A thought about 10/12 v 16/18 team leagues.

One of the arguments for the 10/12 is the crowds that are presumed to be required to be financially viable, in other words the possible 4 home games against the OF and the 2 derby games, but they don't usually sell out.

Now, playing each team once at home gives these games a 'novelty' value and so MAY actually be healthy crowds, and I will use the away support coming from Ayr this weekend to back that up, they have the chance of an awayday at a bigger club.

I'm not sure where to find statistics to back up either side of the argument, but surely someone at the SPL or SFA has access to attendance figures over the 23 seasons before and after the formation of the Premier division/league that could be used to form the basis of a financial analysis of each and every option, not just their 10+10 that is all the SPL are looking at.

Once someone has concrete figures that show once and for all that the 10+10 is so much better than the 16 or 18 team league then the case is made. And while they are at it, isn't it about time they produced figures which say "to match the fantastic money that will come into your coffers by accepting the proposal you will all have to increase turnover by X or reduce overheads by Y, or charge the customers Z"

Right, I'm no accountant, but I know a few of you are, so tell me I'm being simplistic, bot nobody has proof that the proposal will be more profitable, it is all conjecture, assumptions, or if you prefer smoke and mirrors.

I think your right the novelty value will surely improve crowds - think about only seeing teams at ER once a season - if you miss it you have to wait another year for a game against your rivals - unless you go away = bigger away supports.

Seems that the poll in the Scotsman backs up what everyone says on here about not wanting the 10 team league.

http://www.scotsman.com/football/SPL-structure-Fans-back-expanded.6683180.jp

[MacBean]

SPL (bottom Three go down)
Rangers, Celtic, Hearts, D Utd, Aberdeen, Hibs, Motherwell, Hamilton
ICT, Killie, St Mirren, Falkirk, St Johnstone, Partick, dunfermline
Dundee, QOS, Morton, Livi, R-County

SPL2 (top two up - next four play-off - same as championship)
Airdrie, Clyde, Raith, Ayr, Brechin, Peterhead, Stirling, E Fife, Arbroath, Alloa, Queens Park, Stranraer, Dumbarton, Cowdenbeath, East Stirling, Stenhousemuir, Montrose, Forfar, Annan, Albion, Berwick, Elgin,

Scottish Conference (played in a North/South or East/West split)
Whitehill Welfare, Edinburgh City, Cove Rangers, Keith, Edinburgh Uni, Linlithgow Rose, Spartans, Selkirk, Dalbeattie Star, Burntisland, Vale of Leithen, Girvan, Huntly, Pollok, Forres Mechanics, Gala Fairydean, Coldstream, Civil Service Strollers, Glasgow Uni, Keith, Deveronvale, and others.

[brog]

Topping etc of course are playing the doomsday scenario because they spent years & who knows how much dosh coming up with a crappy old plan that failed before. The above assumes a 16 team league, there's plenty different scenarios that could happen. Here's one.
A 14 team league splitting top 7/bottom 7 after 2 games each. ( 26 games )You then only need to make top 7 to keep 4 OF games. No Revenue lost!Surely we can achieve this!!
A further 2 games against your 6 opponents giving 38 games in all, same as present. No Revenue lost! This also gets rid of all the H/A imbalances in current split system.
Introduce relegation play offs. 72 English clubs play 46 league games a season so it's easily achievable. 7 teams trying to avoid relegation for 2 or even 3 teams would provide excitement. Also a great incentive to make top 7 & be safe!
I for one think adding any 2 from say Falkirk/Partick/Dundee/Raith/Dunfermline would increase the entertainment value in our turgid league.[/QUOTE]


I can't claim to be the initiator of this proposal, I read a similar letter on subject some months ago. I did however send these details a few weeks ago to the DR & they are now actively supporting this option. According to the DR today, 5 clubs are now going this way, including St M, one of the original 6 who proposed a 10 team league. If you don't want a 10 team league & think the above is a feasible option I suggest you write to RP expressing your views.