Fans forum re league reconstruction 15 Feb 2010

[Twiglet]

Was at the fans forum tonight at ER which was about the league changes. There was only about 20 of us there but there was some good discussion. Some of the below you'll know already, but I've added just for information.
I'll try and get the main points down from memory, but if anyone else was there additions would be great as I have a memory like a seive.

Fyfe Hyland opened at we had a time of open discussion before Rod Petrie gave a presentation about the proposed changes to Scottish football (which we could butt in and ask questions/make comments on as he went along).

* There is a meeting tomorrow of the SFL clubs to discuss the changes.

* The next SPL meeting is next Monday, 21st Feb. There will be no vote on this day.

* 3 teams are in favour of a 14 team SPL.
- with a 14 team league teams would play each other twice (26 games) then there would be a split of 6/8. The top 6 play for promotion, bottom 8 for relegation.

* A 16 team league has been discounted as has an 18 team league.
- The main reason given for beeing against the 18 team league was money. The pot from TV would be the same and would now need to be split 18 ways instead of 12.

* The money from Sky is split 48% to the clubs for TV rights which is split evenly between the 12 teams (4%). The remaining money is split between the clubs at the end of the season depending on league position.

* If an agreement is made about the changes this season then for the 2011/12 season all teams would be playing for the new league structure which would come into effect from the 2012/13 season.

* There are various different "pyramids of football" that the SPL are looking at. Each involves "colt" teams which would have an upper age limit of 23. The number of them could range from 5-10 (I think). They would go in at the bottom national league and could be promoted, but not to the SPL. Teams wouldn't play their 2nd team. If an SPL team with a colt team got relegated to the 1st division (or championship as it would be called) and the colt team won division 2 (or new division 1) the colt team wouldn't be promoted, the next eligble team would be.

* There was also mention of them having looked at colt teams plaing in the 2nd tier of football and playing for the first part of the season then leaving the teams eligible for promotion to fight it out. I think this is one of the possibilities that they have decided against though.

* Rod Perie is a big fan of colt teams, but there was a feeling that this was not a good thing among some who were there. Imagine Hibs are relegated, we not only play Raith, QoS, Dunfermline, etc, we play Rangers Colts and Hearts Colts.

* Players couldn't change between the 1st team and Colt team each week, they's have to stick to one or other.

* We brought up summer football, it's something that would be looked at under the McLeish report, though the world cup and Europe was a potential problem.

* A winter break was also discussed, but there is the problem of when it would happen. The last time there was a winter break the teams went off abroad and played friendlies. The first match back was the Scottish Cup in which 5 SPL teams were put out.

* Rod Petrie brough up extending the season. It's something he is for. He believes it would help clubs in Europe to have played a competitive match before playing in Europe. Next season all Scottish clubs will play in July to qualify for Europe.

* For this season Scottish teams are ranked 16th so get 1 CL and 3 EL place. For the 2011/12 season we're ranked 26th currently! Never asked if this could change with Rangers continuing in Europe though. To get back to waht we were before we would need to get up to 12th I think. (There were far too many numbers tonight, someone please correct me on this one!).

There was more and will add to it when it comes to me. Please add anything I've missed so far.

[BroxburnHibee]

I've just posted this on the PM board :greengrin


Here's my take on it - if others feel I've missed anything please feel free to rip the pish :greengrin

Meeting started with a quick introduction from Fyfe Hyland. Jamie Marwick & Rod Petrie were also in the room.

We were told that there would be a quick 10 minute feedback session on what our thoughts were on the proposals that had been reported so far. After that there was to be a "lenghty slide show" presented by RP.

Fyfe took notes on a flipchart and Rod stuck them all round the room whilst this was going on. Many points were being made - especially about the OF and there dominance of all things Scottish football. Other points were made like summer football, abolishing of reserve leagues, TV influence affecting crowds.

I noticed Rod writing his own notes against certain points which had been made - probably for his own benefit.

Near the end of this part I made the point that my suspicions were the driving force behind the reconstruction was to do with a potential sponsor or TV deal pushing for the 10 team idea - it was hinted that the slide presentation may answer that.

I think it went on for longer than 10 minutes but eventually Fyfe handed over to Rod for the slides which RP hinted that comments were welcome during the presentation rather than waiting till the end. I got the impression he might have regretted saying that as there was plenty interruptions :greengrin

Started of by making the point that the need for change was partly because the clubs either feel or realise that they cant expect the fans to fork out any more money - this was repeated later and I made the point of saying to Rod afterwards that I would expect my ST price to stay the same. :greengrin

So they had to look at reconstruction as a means of improving the product. The point was made that this was not just about the SPL though - the whole setup of the Scottish Leagues is being looked at (discussions going on about merging the SPL & SFL). There has been various proposals looked at and discussed and we were shown all of them. Eventually we were shown the proposal as it now stands.

10 team Premiership, 12 team Championship, 10 team 1st Division, 16 team 2nd division (including 6 Colt teams).

There would be playoffs in all divisions AND relegation from the bottom division with promotion from the lower leagues around Scotland.

Colt teams could either as I understand it be allowed to play the whole season AND be promoted/relegated except to the top division OR they may only play up to January then these squads could return to the full team they belong to. For obvious reasons they would not be allowed to play in the same league as their parent team. This has not been finalised and still under discussion.

Henry McLeish's report was discussed and many points were made about the various recommendations - don't think the winter break will be happening for instance. Making the season longer seems to be on the agenda though so clubs can prepare better for Europe and so there is a bit more room in the fixture list.

There was a strong argument from 1 guy about summer football - personally felt he was getting ignored a bit as I just don't think its going to happen.

16 & 18 team leagues were discounted early on.

14 team leagues are being discussed (3 SPL teams had supported this) but it would still mean a split with either a bottom 6 or 8. RP said something about meaningless games which upset a few people and he did apologise.

10 team SPL is looking the most likely IMO.

18 team league is a no-goer for financial reasons mostly - more teams eating out the same size financial cake was the analogy used I think.

Another thing that was brought up was it looks like the clubs are looking at setting up their own TV channel again. I questioned the wisdom of that after what happened the last time. Rod felt that times had changed and the idea was a better one now.

The meeting was well into its 3rd hour by this point and eventually Rod handed back to Fyfe and after a brief thank you it was ended.

There's probably loads I've missed so apologies - I'll remember more later no doubt :greengrin I'll try and answer questions if anyone has them.

Personally I felt it was a good exercise - I do think these guys have the clubs best at heart. I'm not convinced a 10 team SPL is the way to go but I've got a much greater understanding of the thought processes involved.

There's to be more forums in the near future and I would encourage people to take part if possible instead of moaning about it on messageboards:greengrin

Might not make a blind bit of difference but at least they are talking to us.

[monktonharp]

it's fine to tell folk to voice their views,turn up for forums etc, were all those attendees at the last batch of forums? do you apply, or special invites?:rolleyes:

[BroxburnHibee]

it's fine to tell folk to voice their views,turn up for forums etc, were all those attendees at the last batch of forums? do you apply, or special invites?:rolleyes:

I filled in a form on the website.

I've done one before - few years ago.

[Twiglet]

I missed a bit, but got some of the basic points.

Forgot about your season ticket comment. Fyfe did say yes, but couldn't say Petrie would. Brought a few laughs.


My feeling after is i'm still against a 10 team league. There may be a need for change but there shouldn't be for the sake of it.


Both Petrie and Hyland said that they would collate the findings and take them to the board to discuss.

How they go forward is anyones guess. It is nice to be listened to though.

[Wakeyhibee]

I really hope the clubs are listening to fans but I fear that if the TV companies or a new sponsor wants a 10 team SPL that's what we'll get.

Sod the good of the game, the fans who are paying for it and will be against it, money in the bank now will win over the long term well being of the game at large sad but I fear true.

[Purple & Green]

I missed a bit, but got some of the basic points.

Forgot about your season ticket comment. Fyfe did say yes, but couldn't say Petrie would. Brought a few laughs.


My feeling after is i'm still against a 10 team league. There may be a need for change but there shouldn't be for the sake of it.


Both Petrie and Hyland said that they would collate the findings and take them to the board to discuss.

How they go forward is anyones guess. It is nice to be listened to though.

The major point about summer football was that if it was a genuine strategic review then you couldn't not consider summer football with the major benefit being your television would no longer be competing with the English Premiership for three months in the summer - I thought the guy who made the point was right.

Other than that, it was an interesting night which well over-ran but I suspect the reason for 10 is that there is a will to get rid of the split but there is no great will amongst the clubs to expand because this would mean a bigger spread of TV money. I think it's going to be hard to get the clubs to agree to change.

[Keith_M]

And if anyone was wondering why so FEW people turned up, perhaps this explains it:


"A 16 team league has been discounted as has an 18 team league."


What's the point of going to give your point of view when the clubs have already made up their mind? This is nothing more than a PR excercise so that the clubs can CLAIM they consulted the fans first.

As Henry Ford might have said, "you can choose any colour as long as it's black".

[mim]

Did anyone ask why the 14 team league format would split into 6/8 rather than 7/7???

7/7 gives 38 league games, just as we have now, and is a better way of going imho, despite all teams having two free weeks after the split.

[Saorsa]

And if anyone was wondering why so FEW people turned up, perhaps this explains it:


"A 16 team league has been discounted as has an 18 team league."


What's the point of going to give your point of view when the clubs have already made up their mind? This is nothing more than a PR excercise so that the clubs can CLAIM they consulted the fans first.

As Henry Ford might have said, "you can choose any colour as long as it's black".:agree:

If they had any intention of paying heed tae what the fans want they wouldnae even now be discussing a 10 team league because they know already the majority are against it. Nothing more than lip service IMO and then the "you'll take what we tell you and like it" attitude will prevail.

[MacBean]

Only taken a year to get the notes up :greengrin:wink:

[IanM]

be interesting to also hear what Barry Hearn thinks!

[Andy74]

Did they say why less money is a problem?

We'd all be in the same boat and there could actually be some upside if people wanted to go back and watch football again or if there were only going to be potentially one home game against teams.

[Mikey]

Did anyone who went in there thinking that a 10 team league is an absolute non starter actually listen to what the club had to say?

[Mikey]

Did they say why less money is a problem?

We'd all be in the same boat and there could actually be some upside if people wanted to go back and watch football again or if there were only going to be potentially one home game against teams.

It's hard enough to attract players to Scotland because of the earning power of lower league teams in England. Less money here would just give them a greater advantage.

Like it or not it's all about money. That's what pays the players.

Less money = Lower quality players.

[Andy74]

It's hard enough to attract players to Scotland because of the earning power of lower league teams in England. Less money here would just give them a greater advantage.

Like it or not it's all about money. That's what pays the players.

Less money = Lower quality players.

We don't play in the same league as those teams though, do we?

Less money would mean possibly a dip in quality, but also more opportunity for home grown players or lower league players to come in and try and build that quality back up itself.

I don't know what it is that is driving the desire for us to have more quality players if its not to compete in our own league? The league and the game here should be the main thing but like you have pointed out the driver just seems to tery and maintain whatever current spending they all atre used to regardless of what that means for producing players, having decent competition or any fan interest.

[hibs0666]

Did anyone ask why the 14 team league format would split into 6/8 rather than 7/7???

7/7 gives 38 league games, just as we have now, and is a better way of going imho, despite all teams having two free weeks after the split.

To be honest, the whole 14 team scenario appeared to have received limited if any consideration by the SPL. Petrie argued that an earlier split in a 14 team league (after 26 games instead of 33 currently) provided less certainty of opposition (reducing season tickets and sponsors money apparently) and less chance to turn things round if you were crap.

I don't buy either argument.

Overall though the 10 team option is a done deal and the tone of the feedback was of an opportunity missed.

[Purple & Green]

Did anyone who went in there thinking that a 10 team league is an absolute non starter actually listen to what the club had to say?

Yes of course, and I was expecting a watertight argument as to why the 10 team league was the only financially viable model - but I didn't hear it.

[Keith_M]

Did anyone who went in there thinking that a 10 team league is an absolute non starter actually listen to what the club had to say?


Did the club listen to what the fans have to say?

[Paisley Hibby]

Thanks to Twiglet and Broxburn Hibee for the info - really interesting.

My feeling has always been that a 10 team league would make a stale product even worse.

Sorry if posted before but curiosity got the better of me. Had a look at other European countries and was surprised to see that there at least 4 who already have a 10 team top league - Switzerland, Slovenia, Austria and Eire. In all 4 cases teams play each other 4 times per season. However, most other countries that might (sort of) compare with Scotland in terms of population and potential status seem to manage with bigger leagues - with 16 being the most common

Belgium - 16
Bulgaria - 16
Croatia - 16
Czech - 16
Denmark - 12
Finland - 14
Hungary - 16
Norway - 16
Portugal - 16
Sweden - 16

If they can do it why can't we?

[BroxburnHibee]

Did anyone ask why the 14 team league format would split into 6/8 rather than 7/7???

7/7 gives 38 league games, just as we have now, and is a better way of going imho, despite all teams having two free weeks after the split.

Not sure if it was explained to be honest but for me, any league format that involves a split makes us look ridiculous. There is no credibility in the format.


Did they say why less money is a problem?

We'd all be in the same boat and there could actually be some upside if people wanted to go back and watch football again or if there were only going to be potentially one home game against teams.

Our bills won't go down, players won't take a wage cut, fans will expect season ticket prices to drop.


Did anyone who went in there thinking that a 10 team league is an absolute non starter actually listen to what the club had to say?

I am still skeptical about it providing a league format that will give us something decent to watch - its easy to get sucked into this 10 team SPL thing though.

At least now I have a greater understanding of what the thought process is. Everyone is entitled to an opinion and it may well be a PR exercise. They didn't have to do it though - I'm sure Rod & Fyfe have much better things to do regarding the running of our club than attending a meeting with 20/30 fans.

What encouraged me was that they are looking at re-organising the whole league structure AND providing an enviroment for some teams to play Colts/B Teams. The reserve league won't come back - some teams just can't afford it.

Personally I left the meeting with a more positive outlook.

[Keith_M]

Austria only has a ten team league because of a shortage of reasonably sized clubs.

To put it in perspective, the best supported team in the league get average gates somewhere between those of Hibs & Hearts and one of the teams currently in the top flight is from a town the size of Armadale.

[cwilliamson85]

Belgium - 16 FIFA RANKING = 58
Bulgaria - 16 FIFA RANKING = 51
Croatia - 16 FIFA RANKING = 9
Czech - 16 FIFA RANKING = 30
Denmark - 12 FIFA RANKING = 28
Finland - 14 FIFA RANKING = 78
Hungary - 16 FIFA RANKING = 37
Norway - 16 FIFA RANKING = 11
Portugal - 16 FIFA RANKING = 8
Sweden - 16 FIFA RANKING = 29

Scotland FIFA RANKING = 53

Why not look to the couintries above and see how they structure there league as it can only improve our national squad also?

[BroxburnHibee]

Something else I just remembered :greengrin

There was a slide that showed us that percentage wise by population that Scottish football is surprisingly the most well attended league in Europe.

Might mean nothing just thought I'd post it while I remembered :greengrin

[Paisley Hibby]

Thanks for that Keekaboo. I'm against a top ten - I meant if other countries can manage with 16 team leagues why can't we?

[Saorsa]

Something else I just remembered :greengrin

There was a slide that showed us that percentage wise by population that Scottish football is surprisingly the most well attended league in Europe.

Might mean nothing just thought I'd post it while I remembered :greengrinIt's just unfortunate though, that most of them are glory hunters and bigots following one of two ****my clubs.

[BroxburnHibee]

It's just unfortunate though, that most of them are glory hunters and bigots following one of two ****my clubs.

That thought did occur to me :greengrin

[hibeez1875]

What would people on here opt for?
I'd go for an 18-team league, meaning a 34-game league season, running from the start of March to the end of November. Throw in the Scottish Cup and Lg Cup and that's plenty of football IMO.
Summer footy could increase TV revenue and might boost attendances too (I'd rather go middle of summer than middle of winter). Better footballing sides should be rewarded too, as pitches would be better.
Never happen, of course!

[GreenCastle]

It's hard enough to attract players to Scotland because of the earning power of lower league teams in England. Less money here would just give them a greater advantage.

Like it or not it's all about money. That's what pays the players.

Less money = Lower quality players.


There is short term thinking here over long term thinking.

Do we want the SPL to be competitive in 20 years - do we want a quick fix of money now or improve the WHOLE product.

It's not value for money right now - fans aren't going to give money to a worse product.

The T.V money is important but to several clubs in the league their fan bases are becoming dismantled - looking at attendances from Aberdeen last night to Celtic this season.

We have seen good players come through the youth systems compared to flops like AOB and others at the yams for more money.

The Old Firm are the ones driving this as they want to stay close to English football and the Champions League but unfortunately the gap is widening every year and they haven't come to terms with it.

[hibs0666]

What would people on here opt for?
I'd go for an 18-team league, meaning a 34-game league season, running from the start of March to the end of November. Throw in the Scottish Cup and Lg Cup and that's plenty of football IMO.
Summer footy could increase TV revenue and might boost attendances too (I'd rather go middle of summer than middle of winter). Better footballing sides should be rewarded too, as pitches would be better.
Never happen, of course!

I'd go:

- March to mid-December season
- 14 team league that splits 7/7
- with fewer restrictions on TV slots, a TV deal that sees games played at a decent time
- replace the league cup with a Northern European Leagues Cup played from March with a final somewhere spectacular in June to get the season going with a bang
- a blocked-off Albion Road becoming one big Hibs celebration party for every home game
- Scottish Cup kicking in from August with the league and Scottish Cup reaching a crescendo just before Christmas.

[Andy74]

There is short term thinking here over long term thinking.

Do we want the SPL to be competitive in 20 years - do we want a quick fix of money now or improve the WHOLE product.

It's not value for money right now - fans aren't going to give money to a worse product.

The T.V money is important but to several clubs in the league their fan bases are becoming dismantled - looking at attendances from Aberdeen last night to Celtic this season.

We have seen good players come through the youth systems compared to flops like AOB and others at the yams for more money.

The Old Firm are the ones driving this as they want to stay close to English football and the Champions League but unfortunately the gap is widening every year and they haven't come to terms with it.

Yep, they asre chasing that, we are chasing them, it's bonkers.

We need to readjust to a sustainable level where players can be produced.

This 10 team idea is all about money, I've never heard anyone say anyhting else about it. That shouldn't be what drives it, let's look at what we need the money for.

[ancient hibee]

Yep, they asre chasing that, we are chasing them, it's bonkers.

We need to readjust to a sustainable level where players can be produced.

This 10 team idea is all about money, I've never heard anyone say anyhting else about it. That shouldn't be what drives it, let's look at what we need the money for.

So do you suggest we opt for less money and tear up all the existing contracts?

[GreenCastle]

So do you suggest we opt for less money and tear up all the existing contracts?

I don't think that's what people want.

You have to think about it - are we going to get more money from a 10 team league?

Is the money difference between a 10 team league and the current 12 team league worth changing ?

I would like to see a huge change throughout the structure in Scotland but if it just isn't possible then lets make more steps to improve what we have with the 12 team league - more reasonable tickets for fans - 3pm kick offs etc.

10 teams didn't work before and it won't work again - the only thing that will get the fans back is a making it more exciting to attend games and reasonable prices.

The 10 team is all about the Old Firm and money - no long term plan about where the game is going.

We (well The Old Firm) are living outwith what they can afford - just look how it's affected Rangers the last couple of years - the bank owns them!

The league has to become competitive for a start as the same 2 teams winning for the last 26 years just isn't healthy.

[Paisley Hibby]

I don't think that's what people want.

You have to think about it - are we going to get more money from a 10 team league?

Is the money difference between a 10 team league and the current 12 team league worth changing ?

I would like to see a huge change throughout the structure in Scotland but if it just isn't possible then lets make more steps to improve what we have with the 12 team league - more reasonable tickets for fans - 3pm kick offs etc.

10 teams didn't work before and it won't work again - the only thing that will get the fans back is a making it more exciting to attend games and reasonable prices.

The 10 team is all about the Old Firm and money - no long term plan about where the game is going.

We (well The Old Firm) are living outwith what they can afford - just look how it's affected Rangers the last couple of years - the bank owns them!

The league has to become competitive for a start as the same 2 teams winning for the last 26 years just isn't healthy.

Spot on NJ. For many clubs the income from one extra guaranteed home game against each of the Old Firm is probably the attraction of a 10 team league. If so that shows just how desperate things are financially. But increasingly fans ain't going to these games either so the clubs will end up even more screwed (and relegated).

We need things freshened up and I think increasing the size of the league would help with that. 16 team leagues seems to work in many other similar(ish) European countries so why not Scotland?

You're right about competitiveness but the cups are best bet for a non OF winner. So maybe link less league games with more cup ties - eg have all clubs enter the Scottish Cup in earlier rounds with the SPL clubs seeded to avoid each other - could lead to more interesting ties and benefit smaller clubs. Maybe go back to sections stage with the League Cup - and start early (ie Summer football).

[Wakeyhibee]

These fans forums whilst commendable I suspect are just a way to sell the idea to fans who they know are against it. The only option (to those in charge I add) outside what we have now will be a 10 team league:-

Sky are only interested in the OF on TV and maybe the Derbies outside that, the rest is a package they have to accept to get that.

The OF don't want to lose 2 derbies, neither will sky

Most SPL if not all SPL clubs don't want to lose 2 visits of the OF each

Hibs/Hearts/Arbas & Sheep probably don't want to lose 2 derbies either.

end of we'll get what they want,

The only way they will be influenced is if there is a significant movement with fans of the clubs (not sure where the unwashed fans stand on the proposals) witholding ST money/refusing to buy ST's and go cash on the gate or abstaining altogether. The clubs know and rely on most fans not wanting to hurt there own club. So this is unlikely also.

So which do we prefer 10 or 12 teams? because that will be the only outcome a change to what we don't want or the status quo.

We've spent nearly 40 years killing off the competition of many middle ranking teams that have fallen out of the SPL another 40 will kill/nullify most others.

[Twiglet]

Only taken a year to get the notes up :greengrin:wink:

It was a very long meeting. :wink:

[StevieC]

The only way they will be influenced is if there is a significant movement with fans of the clubs (not sure where the unwashed fans stand on the proposals) witholding ST money/refusing to buy ST's and go cash on the gate or abstaining altogether. The clubs know and rely on most fans not wanting to hurt there own club. So this is unlikely.

I am not so sure that it is unlikely. I would not renew for a 10 team league.

If they seriously want to shake things up and improve the league then money should not even come into the equation!
First and foremost you should look at what the league needs and how to achieve it. If that means less money then that's what has to happen and teams have to cut their cloth accordingly. The current discussions are purely and simply a case of what changes can we make that does not involve losing any money!

I'd like to see a poll up to see how many supporters would renew their season tickets for a 10 team league.

[lucky]

I am not so sure that it is unlikely. I would not renew for a 10 team league.

If they seriously want to shake things up and improve the league then money should not even come into the equation!
First and foremost you should look at what the league needs and how to achieve it. If that means less money then that's what has to happen and teams have to cut their cloth accordingly. The current discussions are purely and simply a case of what changes can we make that does not involve losing any money!

I'd like to see a poll up to see how many supporters would renew their season tickets for a 10 team league.

Stevie--Most on here will claim they will not renew but as always what people say and do are different things. I dont want a 10 team league but if thats the league Hibs are in then ill be going to watch. I suspect that thousands will also do so.

[matty_f]

Stevie--Most on here will claim they will not renew but as always what people say and do are different things. I dont want a 10 team league but if thats the league Hibs are in then ill be going to watch. I suspect that thousands will also do so.

:agree:

I'll want Hibs to be as competitive as possible in that league as well, and my (and everyone else's) season ticket money goes towards that.

We never know, a 10 team league might work out alright...

[Removed]

I am not so sure that it is unlikely. I would not renew for a 10 team league.

If they seriously want to shake things up and improve the league then money should not even come into the equation!
First and foremost you should look at what the league needs and how to achieve it. If that means less money then that's what has to happen and teams have to cut their cloth accordingly. The current discussions are purely and simply a case of what changes can we make that does not involve losing any money!

I'd like to see a poll up to see how many supporters would renew their season tickets for a 10 team league.

Fife Hyland said at one point that he reckons we can fill the ground. The next forum about increasing the fan base should be interesting then :greengrin

In terms of your point, we all know it's all about money & tv which is why we will end up getting ten teams. I'd prefer a bigger league but thinking from RP's position and relating that to my work context if I was asked to take a pay and benefits cut for the good of the wider community I'd tell them no chance.

18 teams sharing the same money as 12 is what that would mean, cut in player budget would affect the type of player we could get and we would really have to cut our cloth big style. And even if the other 9 clubs and ourselves grew some and went for it the old firm wouldn't so it would never happen. At the end of the day they have to agree something which will be a comprimise all round.

In terms of renewing my ST,for me the biggest factor will be how the team are performing at renewal time and cost, not the size of the league. Problem is that external economic factors may play an even bigger part and the question will be irrelevant anyway. That's the depressing part for me.

[matty_f]

Fife Hyland said at one point that he reckons we can fill the ground. The next forum about increasing the fan base should be interesting then :greengrin

In terms of your point, we all know it's all about money & tv which is why we will end up getting ten teams. I'd prefer a bigger league but thinking from RP's position and relating that to my work context if I was asked to take a pay and benefits cut for the good of the wider community I'd tell them no chance.

18 teams sharing the same money as 12 is what that would mean, cut in player budget would affect the type of player we could get and we would really have to cut our cloth big style. And even if the other 9 clubs grew some and went for it the old firm wouldn't so it would never happen. At the end of the day they have to agree something which will be a comprimise all round.

In terms of renewing my ST,for me the biggest factor will be how the team are performing at renewal time and cost, not the size of the league. Problem is that external economic factors may play an even bigger part and the question will be irrelevant anyway. That's the depressing part for me.
:agree:
And I've read time and time again on here that if the product on the park's not good enough, folk won't come to the games. Damned if they do, damned if they don't.
This season, there have been people on here talking about how they refuse to give money towards the players' wages because of the poor performances.

Imagine being in a position where we couldn't afford a player at the level of Colin Nish or John Rankin! Aye, the ground would be packed for that Hibs side's game against Partick Thistle, right enough.:rolleyes:

[Purple & Green]

Fife Hyland said at one point that he reckons we can fill the ground. The next forum about increasing the fan base should be interesting then :green grin

Prior to Celtic building the 60k park head under wee squinty, they had never in their history averaged above 37k a season. Yet, he managed to convince 53k that the only way they could get to see Celtic was to buy a season ticket - and this was during 9 in a row for rangers.




18 teams sharing the same money as 12 is what that would mean, cut in player budget would affect the type of player we could get and we would really have to cut our cloth big style. And even if the other 9 clubs and ourselves grew some and went for it the old firm wouldn't so it would never happen. At the end of the day they have to agree something which will be a comprimise all round.


What figures do you think it would mean? I think splitting 18 ways instead of 12 could be as little as 300k to Hibs.

[Removed]

Prior to Celtic building the 60k park head under wee squinty, they had never in their history averaged above 37k a season. Yet, he managed to convince 53k that the only way they could get to see Celtic was to buy a season ticket - and this was during 9 in a row for rangers.

Should be a piece of piss for Fife and his team then :greengrin


What figures do you think it would mean? I think splitting 18 ways instead of 12 could be as little as 300k to Hibs.

Depends on what the overall pot would be, The total cake depends on a tv deal and I can't see an 18 team league being attractive to the satellite companies so we'd end up with a smaller share of a smaller cake. Think that reduction would be a lot more than £300k.

[Wakeyhibee]

Should be a piece of piss for Fife and his team then :greengrin

Depends on what the overall pot would be, The total cake depends on a tv deal and I can't see an 18 team league being attractive to the satellite companies so we'd end up with a smaller share of a smaller cake. Think that reduction would be a lot more than £300k.

I believe the TV pot is around £13m per year, 48% split evenly, 52% split on League placings. Based on the same deal Hibs would be lose around £85K straight away (£266k for 12 teams vs £166k for 18 teams), plus risk a lower share on placings.

Where the argument comes in that Sky would not pay as much, if anything, for an 18 team league with reduced OF games. So worst case it would be a loss of the £266k share + the league placing share. Depending on how that is apportioned, I would guess on average middle would be slightly more... £400k???

Can anyone shed any light on this?

[StevieC]

In terms of your point, we all know it's all about money & tv which is why we will end up getting ten teams. I'd prefer a bigger league but thinking from RP's position and relating that to my work context if I was asked to take a pay and benefits cut for the good of the wider community I'd tell them no chance.

Would you still say "no chance" if the alternative was compulsory redundancy? That's the nature of football contracts, these days they are usually quite short.


18 teams sharing the same money as 12 is what that would mean, cut in player budget would affect the type of player we could get and we would really have to cut our cloth big style. And even if the other 9 clubs and ourselves grew some and went for it the old firm wouldn't so it would never happen. At the end of the day they have to agree something which will be a comprimise all round.

They only have to agree if there is pressure for them to do so.
As for affecting the type of player we could get, where do you think all the players in Scotland would go to? There certainly wouldn't be a mass exodus down South and a cut in wages might be preferential to uprooting your family and moving elsewhere .. just look at the situation with Deek. Cutting our cloth might have a small affect on the quality of players but the Lewis Stevensons, David Wotherspoons, Mark Browns and even Lee Wallaces of the game will still be on the park on a Saturday.

And as for the argument put forward by Rod about sharing with 18 teams, isn't the proposal to have a two tier system of two top leagues of 10 with a better share of the money for the 2nd tier? Isn't that effectively spreading the money across 20 teams? That in itself should have been prompting questions about their figures!


In terms of renewing my ST,for me the biggest factor will be how the team are performing at renewal time and cost, not the size of the league. Problem is that external economic factors may play an even bigger part and the question will be irrelevant anyway. That's the depressing part for me.

Most will renew, lots won't and some will be lost forever. The reasons for this will be mixed, but the bottom line is that the season ticket money WILL decrease.
I also suspect that through time, in a 10 team league, it will continue to decrease as supporters get tired of playing the same teams over and over again. If you watched a poor homne game against Hamilton or St Mirren would you really be that keen to go through it all again 3 months later?

It seems that the majority of fans, most of whom will have already been through years of it, do not want a 10 team league. The clubs are showing a total disregard for what the fans want and trying (and failing IMO) to gloss it over as the best route.
The underlying factor is money, but I suspect that 4 Old Firm games a season is just as big an issue in all of this. It's once again turning out to be a pampering to the needs of the Old Firm and I, for one, will not be entertaining it.

[MacBean]

Ive said from day one that the SPL should look at making the smaller adjustments as opposed to the downsizing.
what I mean is, summer football. Why not take it one step at a time, then downsize/upgrade if necessary. Summer football alone would have a massive impact on our game

[marinello59]

Ive said from day one that the SPL should look at making the smaller adjustments as opposed to the downsizing.
what I mean is, summer football. Why not take it one step at a time, then downsize/upgrade if necessary. Summer football alone would have a massive impact on our game

I would love to see us change to summer football. Unfortunately I can't see it ever happening. Scottish football fans have to be one of the most conservative groups to be found anywhere. Pushing through Summer football would require bold, strong leadership from the high heid yins. Not many signs of us having leaders like that just now is there?

[GreenCastle]

:agree:

I'll want Hibs to be as competitive as possible in that league as well, and my (and everyone else's) season ticket money goes towards that.

We never know, a 10 team league might work out alright...

We all agree we want Hibs to be competitive.

Are we being competitive right now ?

We have had a bad season but in previous years have we been competitive in the league - 3rd is the best we have achieved.

Part of the problem - playing the Celtic x4 and Rangers x4 = 8 times some seasons.

We have beaten them during some seasons but the stats show they have won far the majority.

Imagine playing Rangers / Celtic at home once - then at Ibrox once - think of the chances we would have to narrow the gap.

The same applies for the yams / Aberdeen / Dundee United v the Old Firm.

Competitive means different teams having the chance to win the league.

10 team league would mean the weaker teams becoming even more dull as they would be scared to get relegated.

[Gatecrasher]

I went to the forum and while im not pleased that we are moving to a 10 team set up, I can see where the clubs are coming from, there is some good changes to Scottish football if this goes through.

More money for the 1st division, a Pyramid system. Colt teams are some of the ideas i liked.m I said in the first instance i wouldnt renew if it went through, i am happier to continue supporting Hibs and scottish football if it went through.

One thing i would like is some sort of price protection on ticket prices though, if we arent going to get the product we would ideally like then the SPL should come up with something to entice the fans to games

[bawheid]

Imagine being in a position where we couldn't afford a player at the level of Colin Nish or John Rankin! Aye, the ground would be packed for that Hibs side's game against Partick Thistle, right enough.:rolleyes:

Some might say that would be a blessing! :greengrin

The Colin Nishs and John Rankins of this world would just have to cut their cloth accordingly. If they can get a better deal than that offered by Hibs (or any other SPL club) down south, so be it.

It wouldn't bother me too much if we couldn't afford players from the lower leagues in England. Scottish football would then become about producing good young Scottish players, and/or sourcing them from lower division Scottish clubs. If they then impressed, the option of moving to England to earn the money is still there.

I think a young, vibrant Hibs team full of Scottish players on a good run, chasing the Old Firm at the top of the table, would provide a decent enough attendance vs Partick Thistle.

[ancient hibee]

Can't believe these posts about settling for less income-we are already losing money every year and are protected by player sales.

And I can't believe that fans would turn out to see Hibs versus Morton instead of Hibs versus Hearts.

Some of the TV/Sponsorship money will be diverted to the new SPL 2 to cushion relegation losses and the establishing of an under23 Colts team is a great idea.

[brog]

Can't believe these posts about settling for less income-we are already losing money every year and are protected by player sales.

And I can't believe that fans would turn out to see Hibs versus Morton instead of Hibs versus Hearts.

Some of the TV/Sponsorship money will be diverted to the new SPL 2 to cushion relegation losses and the establishing of an under23 Colts team is a great idea.

With a 14 team league & a split we wouldn't need to make that choice, providing ( as now ) we, Hibs/Yams both make the top 6 or 7. There are many good, commonsense ideas in the package but they're fluff compared to the major decision re the size of the SPL. I really do think we'll see a drop in season tickets. I've lived in London for 30 years but keep my season at ER. I won't be doing this if we revert to a 10 team league & I'll be writing to Rod to this effect. If we lose 1,000 seasons that's in region of £1/4 million plus & that wipes out any supposed financial advantage of a 10 team league.

[down the slope]

Can't believe these posts about settling for less income-we are already losing money every year and are protected by player sales.

And I can't believe that fans would turn out to see Hibs versus Morton instead of Hibs versus Hearts.

Some of the TV/Sponsorship money will be diverted to the new SPL 2 to cushion relegation losses and the establishing of an under23 Colts team is a great idea.

Maybe when we lose the dross in the close season and replace them with fewer but better players we will not make a loss , as for turning out to see Hibs versus Morton then yes the crowd would be smaller than the Hearts fixture but i don't get your rational with this as we will still be playing Hearts at least once a season or are they just going to disappear ?. I see you picked out Morton as your example but why not chose Dundee or Dunfermline , are they smaller clubs than ICT or St Mirren ?, the ten team league has been tried and dumped as it was so bad and in my view was the death knell for Scottish football as we used to know it. Just say for arguments sake that Morton were promoted in the future and in succeeding seasons both Hibs and Hearts or Aberdeen or any other team outwith the OF were relegated then you would be forced to watch Morton and any other four times a season !, pure class that would be. The whole idea is nonsense and there is one thing for sure Rod and his pals will not get a penny from me until they see sense.

[GreenCastle]

If we played teams only once a season at Home / Away - surely attendances would go up ?

Only one chance a season to see us beat the yams at home or yams away etc.

Morton games wouldn't sell out but surely bigger attendances at other games will balance the attendances up.

Playing the smaller teams may also even increase attendances - as we have more chance to win the game being favourites - like some games in Div 1 when we got relegated ?

[StevieC]

Playing each other only twice would, without doubt, close the gap on the Old Firm.

If you discounted the results this season between Hearts and Rangers then Hearts would only be 2 points behind them at the moment. If you also took into consideration 2 loses against Celtic it might even be argued that they may well be sitting above them.

Yes, it is clearly better to be playing Hearts than Morton, but if Morton managed to make it to the SPL through a more lucrative 2nd tier then you'd also be forced to play them 4 times as well.

Has everyone forgotten the Gretna shambles already? :confused:

[blackpoolhibs]

Playing each other only twice would, without doubt, close the gap on the Old Firm.

If you discounted the results this season between Hearts and Rangers then Hearts would only be 2 points behind them at the moment. If you also took into consideration 2 loses against Celtic it might even be argued that they may well be sitting above them.

Yes, it is clearly better to be playing Hearts than Morton, but if Morton managed to make it to the SPL through a more lucrative 2nd tier then you'd also be forced to play them 4 times as well.

Has everyone forgotten the Gretna shambles already? :confused:

:agree: The 10 team league has nothing to do with dragging our game out the gutter, just making more money for the old firm, and in doing so making it harder for anyone to challenge them.

[Saorsa]

:agree: The 10 team league has nothing to do with dragging our game out the gutter, just making more money for the old firm, and in doing so making it harder for anyone to challenge them.:agree:

[StevieC]

The 10 team league has nothing to do with dragging our game out the gutter, just making more money for the old firm, and in doing so making it harder for anyone to challenge them.

:agree:

League reconstruction will be based around the Old Firm having at least 4 games against each other over the course of a season.
As this is not possible by expanding the league the only other option is to make it smaller.
Anything else being banded around about league improvements is nothing more than "spin".

We all know that things are stale and that changes need to be made, the problem is that it's the Old Firm and the money men that are making the changes .. so dont expect any change from the norm any time soon.

[Danderhall Hibs]

Did anyone ask why the 14 team league format would split into 6/8 rather than 7/7???

7/7 gives 38 league games, just as we have now, and is a better way of going imho, despite all teams having two free weeks after the split.

If it was a 7/7 split there'd be 2 teams (one from each half of the league) without a game each weekend. I reckon that's the most likely reason.

[blackpoolhibs]

:agree:

League reconstruction will be based around the Old Firm having at least 4 games against each other over the course of a season.
As this is not possible by expanding the league the only other option is to make it smaller.
Anything else being banded around about league improvements is nothing more than "spin".

We all know that things are stale and that changes need to be made, the problem is that it's the Old Firm and the money men that are making the changes .. so dont expect any change from the norm any time soon.

:agree: Yet we seem to be being bullied into this, without any real fight against it. I dont know the percentages, but i'd hazard a guess most are against a 10 team league. Mostly due to the 4 games a season, the boredom that brings and the real chance of relegation for everyone apart from the bigots.

Add the clubs being frightened to blood kids, and i only see it losing more and more fans. This is a short term fix, with a long term decline almost certain imo.

[Removed]

:agree: Yet we seem to be being bullied into this, without any real fight against it. I dont know the percentages, but i'd hazard a guess most are against a 10 team league. Mostly due to the 4 games a season, the boredom that brings and the real chance of relegation for everyone apart from the bigots.

Add the clubs being frightened to blood kids, and i only see it losing more and more fans. This is a short term fix, with a long term decline almost certain imo.

I don't know about being bullied, the OF don't have to because real issue imo is the way the voting works. Where you need 11 votes to agree change the OF will always have the trump card as they will always vote with each other. The other ten have zero chance of doing anything they don't want and will always have to compromise. I just wish one of the other MD's had the guts to stand up and say it in public.

[BEEJ]

It's hard enough to attract players to Scotland because of the earning power of lower league teams in England. Less money here would just give them a greater advantage.

Like it or not it's all about money. That's what pays the players.

Less money = Lower quality players.
So be it. It's about time that players' contracts in Scotland were priced appropriately. That process has already started.


As for affecting the type of player we could get, where do you think all the players in Scotland would go to? There certainly wouldn't be a mass exodus down South and a cut in wages might be preferential to uprooting your family and moving elsewhere ...

And as for the argument put forward by Rod about sharing with 18 teams, isn't the proposal to have a two tier system of two top leagues of 10 with a better share of the money for the 2nd tier? Isn't that effectively spreading the money across 20 teams? That in itself should have been prompting questions about their figures!
:top marks :agree:


If it was a 7/7 split there'd be 2 teams (one from each half of the league) without a game each weekend. I reckon that's the most likely reason.
I honestly cannot see what the problem is with this.

We had a free weekend two weeks ago. We seemed to have a few on the trot during that bad spell of weather in December.

[Danderhall Hibs]

We had a free weekend two weeks ago. We seemed to have a few on the trot during that bad spell of weather in December.

True - I was just trying to give a reason and having 2 teams not playing when there's no reason doesn't make much sense.

[blackpoolhibs]

I don't know about being bullied, the OF don't have to because real issue imo is the way the voting works. Where you need 11 votes to agree change the OF will always have the trump card as they will always vote with each other. The other ten have zero chance of doing anything they don't want and will always have to compromise. I just wish one of the other MD's had the guts to stand up and say it in public.

Bullied might be the wrong word, but there is no other option being given any chance. They are virtually dismissing every other permutation and bulldozing this through so they can make the most money. That money is small fry anyway, and wont make any real difference in the grand scheme of things regarding Europe.

If they had the good of all Scottish football at heart, a 10 team league would never be an option.

[Removed]

Bullied might be the wrong word, but there is no other option being given any chance. They are virtually dismissing every other permutation and bulldozing this through so they can make the most money. That money is small fry anyway, and wont make any real difference in the grand scheme of things regarding Europe.

If they had the good of all Scottish football at heart, a 10 team league would never be an option.

:agree:

[Wakeyhibee]

I see the SFL have dumped the idea of regional leagues also. Who in their right mind thinks Stranraer v Elgin and Peterhead v Berwick Rangers are sustainable for clubs with a small income especially with the winter we've just had. And it will be these same people moaning the their loast coach hire/hotal fares when games are called off, re-arranged on a wednesday night.

I can understand they are scared of losing League status with relegation to the lower reaches (another pulling up of the ladder) and I suspect the 10 - 12 SPL proposed set up has hightened fears that 20 out of the 42 clubs will become 'regionalised' and the SFL disbanded/weakend as such.

Scotland is too small to have 3 disparate and incompetent organisations running senior football. Better to have one incompetent body to screw things up for everybody equally.

I wonder if this does go ahead and Div 1 teams resign from the SFL to the new SPL2 decide to do the same and 'pull up the ladder' of the rest of the SFL, and invite promotion relegation from