10 team SPL not a goer as it stands

[hibs0666]

Three teams have come out against the ten team proposal, and it only takes two to stop it happening...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/13190016.stm

Goan the Killie, Inverness and Arabs! :thumbsup:

[soupy]

Good news......

[mickki40]

Fan-tastic

[joebakerforever]

GIRUY Petrie :devil:

[MacBean]

I think we'll stick with the current 12-team set-up - probably for a couple of years, see how that goes, introduce everything else in the SPL's strategic plan and then move on from there."

I agree with what he says there. I think the changes to the season should be implemented before the change in the league itself

[BroxburnHibee]

Is it too cynical to suggest that these 3 (cash strapped) clubs may be holding out for a bigger pay off. :hmmm:

[ScottB]

Is it too cynical to suggest that these 3 (cash strapped) clubs may be holding out for a bigger pay off. :hmmm:

More likely the fear of being relegated, which would be much more likely in a 10 team league, is the driver.

[Thecat23]

Well done to them for going against it. At least they are hearing that the fans just don't won't it and it won't work. Shame our club can't do the same. All about money as always!!!!!

[hibee1994]

More likely the fear of being relegated, which would be much more likely in a 10 team league, is the driver.


I can sort of see where your coming from with Inverness and Kilmarnock but why would Dundee United fear the drop with the way they have been playing over the past seasons? :confused:

I really don't like the idea of a ten team league though. We play each other three times a season as it is and every team rarely beats Celtic or Rangers in any three of their fixtures. Atleast with fourteen or sixteen, maybe bigger leagues, you don't get tired of playing the same teams and there is more competition for places etc. With a bigger league, there comes more relegation spots which would mean teams would be less safe and for the ones who survived, they would face a couple more teams than just one which may be a little more exciting for everyone.

[Gatecrasher]

i am for a bigger league but with the crowds over the last couple of weeks being shocking because of the "meaningless games" etc, it plays right into the hands of the clubs wanting a smaller league. or will the meaningless games in a bigger league somehow mean more :confused:

[Sylar]

SPL Chiefs in false promise shocker :rolleyes:

Only difference this time, is that it's not necessarily a bad thing.

[ancient hibee]

10 club league will come in season 2013/14 or the following one.

[BEEJ]

i am for a bigger league but with the crowds over the last couple of weeks being shocking because of the "meaningless games" etc, it plays right into the hands of the clubs wanting a smaller league. or will the meaningless games in a bigger league somehow mean more :confused:
There are meaningless season-end games in every league, regardless of its size and composition.

The art is for your football club to make each match somehow meaningful and to inspire the players and the support accordingly.

[down the slope]

10 club league will come in season 2013/14 or the following one.

No it won't .

[Gatecrasher]

There are meaningless season-end games in every league, regardless of its size and composition.

The art is for your football club to make each match somehow meaningful and to inspire the players and the support accordingly.

i think one of the main points the SPL is trying to make is that reducing the size of the league will reduce the amount of "meaningless games" for example instead of us playing St Mirren, Hamilton etc for the rest of the season we would have at least in proportion more games against the OF and Hearts and there would also be a relegation play-off so in the end there would be less of the types of games we have to end this season

[Luna_Asylum]

GIRUY Petrie :devil:

correct

[BEEJ]

i think one of the main points the SPL is trying to make is that reducing the size of the league will reduce the amount of "meaningless games" for example instead of us playing St Mirren, Hamilton etc for the rest of the season we would have at least in proportion more games against the OF and Hearts and there would also be a relegation play-off so in the end there would be less of the types of games we have to end this season
Yes, I understand that.

But those who go on and on about meaningless games leave the impression that these will magically disappear altogether once we achieve the 'ultimate goal' of a ten team league. :rolleyes:

And they seem to ignore completely that players in the SPL already find a 12 team league tedious in terms of the repetition of fixtures. A 10 team league would be even worse.

What chance will non-OF sides have of attracting good calibre players to the league once we're all playing just nine other teams no fewer than four times to decide the league placings.

[Mixu62]

i think one of the main points the SPL is trying to make is that reducing the size of the league will reduce the amount of "meaningless games" for example instead of us playing St Mirren, Hamilton etc for the rest of the season we would have at least in proportion more games against the OF and Hearts and there would also be a relegation play-off so in the end there would be less of the types of games we have to end this season

It may well reduce the amount of meaningless games, but it would mean more of the frantic "boot it up the park" type of football as teams don't have any breathing space. Where is the incentive for teams to even try to play a bit of football when every point could be the difference between relegation and survivial. Not having a go at anyone as I know you were just trying to fathom the SPL's thinking (that way madness lies). Less competition = higher quality imo.

[Gatecrasher]

Yes, I understand that.

But those who go on and on about meaningless games leave the impression that these will magically disappear altogether once we achieve the 'ultimate goal' of a ten team league. :rolleyes:

And they seem to ignore completely that players in the SPL already find a 12 team league tedious in terms of the repetition of fixtures. A 10 team league would be even worse.

What chance will non-OF sides have of attracting good calibre players to the league once we're all playing just nine other teams no fewer than four times to decide the league placings.


It may well reduce the amount of meaningless games, but it would mean more of the frantic "boot it up the park" type of football as teams don't have any breathing space. Where is the incentive for teams to even try to play a bit of football when every point could be the difference between relegation and survivial. Not having a go at anyone as I know you were just trying to fathom the SPL's thinking (that way madness lies). Less competition = higher quality imo.


i understand that and basicly highlight the reasons why im against this, i was just really playing devils advocate, with the poor crowds etc, one thing RP said at the fans forum is that Hibs v Hearts will attract more than Hibs V St Mirren, theres no doubt thats true but as you both point out there are wider implications if the 10 team league were to go ahead.

[down the slope]

If you were to take this season for an example and lose the bottom two to make the ten then five teams would still be in the relegation mix , we would be right in the thick of it along with ICT, aberdeen, St johnstone and Motherwell. With the possibility of two going down due to the play offs there is a real chance that Hibs and Aberdeen could be relegated to be replaced by maybe Hamilton and St mirren !. Now i know the idea for the ten is to make games more exciting and to have less meaningless games but surely this would just make teams shut up shop and make sure they did not lose ?, by the way there was a hugely meaningfull game on Monday between Hamilton and Aberdeen that attracted just over two thousand of a crowd !, Doncaster and Petrie havnae a clue.

[Hibernian Verse]

We need a bigger league if clubs such as ourselves are going to challenge the Old Firm. We often lose to 24 points in a season against them and with a larger league it's likely 12 of those points will be freed up to play against other opposition. Add 12 points onto Hearts' total (hypothetically of course as it's unlikely they would have taken all 12) and they're on 74 just six behind Celtic.

[Part/Time Supporter]

If you were to take this season for an example and lose the bottom two to make the ten then five teams would still be in the relegation mix , we would be right in the thick of it along with ICT, aberdeen, St johnstone and Motherwell. With the possibility of two going down due to the play offs there is a real chance that Hibs and Aberdeen could be relegated to be replaced by maybe Hamilton and St mirren !. Now i know the idea for the ten is to make games more exciting and to have less meaningless games but surely this would just make teams shut up shop and make sure they did not lose ?, by the way there was a hugely meaningfull game on Monday between Hamilton and Aberdeen that attracted just over two thousand of a crowd !, Doncaster and Petrie havnae a clue.

Well, it was and it wasn't. Going into the game, Aberdeen were 12 points ahead of any possible relegation with 15 to play - ie almost as good as safe. Accies, despite winning the previous week, were still 10 points adrift with 15 to play (now 9 with 12). There are already two games this weekend (Aberdeen v ICT and Hibs v St J) that are practically meaningless.

If, however, there was even just a playoff involving the 11th place team, then the game would have been a lot more significant for Aberdeen in terms of the gap between them and St. Mirren. The same goes for just about every other game in the bottom six, unless Hamilton go on some incredible run (which they probably won't). The two games mentioned above would have a lot of meaning for everyone except ICT.

I think this is the point the objectors are making - freshen it up a bit so you prevent this scenario of dead games in the bottom six, but there's no real need to move straight to 10 teams.

[StevieC]

More likely the fear of being relegated, which would be much more likely in a 10 team league, is the driver.


Or maybe it's just the boards and chairmen of these clubs are more in touch with the supporters and what they want?

[Part/Time Supporter]

We need a bigger league if clubs such as ourselves are going to challenge the Old Firm. We often lose to 24 points in a season against them and with a larger league it's likely 12 of those points will be freed up to play against other opposition. Add 12 points onto Hearts' total (hypothetically of course as it's unlikely they would have taken all 12) and they're on 74 just six behind Celtic.

That's a bit silly given that Hertz have won two out of their six games so far v the OF. They're a distance behind the OF because they got off to a dodgy start (they were midtable after 10-11 games) and their more recent patchy form (four consecutive draws).