PDA

View Full Version : 16 team league (Portugal has three teams in Europa League 1/2 finals)



Luna_Asylum
28-04-2011, 08:03 AM
Seems to work OK in one smallish european country - if you consider that getting 3 teams into the semi finals of the Europa Cup is any kind of achievement.
Yes that's a 16 team league which spells financial meltdown, maximum player quality Nish Rankin bla bla bla de bla. For those who think this is irrevelvent keep up your support for Doncaster/Petrie.

millarco
28-04-2011, 08:39 AM
Porto have won 14 of the last 20 league titles, including this season where they are unbeaten and have only dropped 4 points. They are 19 points clear of second place, with another 14 point gap between 2nd and 3rd-hardly competitive.

One of the main differences is the clubs ability to fill their squads with Brazilian and Argentinian players. If you look at the Benfica and Braga squads they are filled with South Americans, due to the difference in work permit regulations. They are then able to sell players on for substantial profits, like Di Maria and David Luiz at Benfica. Revenue streams are also far in excess of anything we could achieve. I don't really know anything about Portuguese sides other than the ones that have played in Europe so I couldn't comment on overall standard of league, but I don't think it's a fair comparison of structures.

I think people are expecting too much from a league re-structuring. Changing to a 10 or 16 team league won't automatically mean that other teams will win the league, the OF will still have far greater resources than anyone else and so should be winning every season. We should aim to close the gap by improving ourselves rather than trying to drag them down. We have the infrastructure in place to develop and really push on, we just need to try get a winning team, focus on consistently bringing through youth players and try to gradually build from there.

marinello59
28-04-2011, 08:48 AM
Seems to work OK in one smallish european country - if you consider that getting 3 teams into the semi finals of the Europa Cup is any kind of achievement.
Yes that's a 16 team league which spells financial meltdown, maximum player quality Nish Rankin bla bla bla de bla. For those who think this is irrevelvent keep up your support for Doncaster/Petrie.

Do you favour a 16 team league over an 18 team league then? That would be only 30 league games. How do you propose making up the shortfall in income from that? Would a split be acceptable?

marinello59
28-04-2011, 08:50 AM
I think people are expecting too much from a league re-structuring. Changing to a 10 or 16 team league won't automatically mean that other teams will win the league, the OF will still have far greater resources than anyone else and so should be winning every season. We should aim to close the gap by improving ourselves rather than trying to drag them down. We have the infrastructure in place to develop and really push on, we just need to try get a winning team, focus on consistently bringing through youth players and try to gradually build from there.
:top marks
Well said.

Luna_Asylum
28-04-2011, 08:53 AM
Do you favour a 16 team league over an 18 team league then? That would be only 30 league games. How do you propose making up the shortfall in income from that? Would a split be acceptable?

I don't have all the answers. Was just highlighting that a smallish county seemed to have some success with a 16 team league. If you don't agree it has an relevence to scotland feel free to ignore.

marinello59
28-04-2011, 08:58 AM
I don't have all the answers. Was just highlighting that a smallish county seemed to have some success with a 16 team league. If you don't agree it has an relevence to scotland feel free to ignore.

Sorry I thought you might want to engage in some constructive debate for a change rather than post your opinions as facts and sneering at anybody who disagrees with you. I can see how an 18 team league would work in terms of number of games, a straight home and away round robin giving 34 games. I still wonder how a 16 team league would function and given that you are advocating such a set up I thought it was a fair question.

Zondervan
28-04-2011, 08:58 AM
Can we not consider something similar to what happens in Holland, what with play-offs at the top & bottom of the league?

Something like this would work in a 16 team top league in Scotland:

1st Place: Champions League

2nd Place: Champions League Qualifier

3rd Place: Europa League

4th - 7th Place: 4th vs 7th and 5th vs 6th; the two winners play each other to qualify for Europa League

14th - 15th Place: Play-off against 2nd & 3rd from the SFL 1st Division

16th Place: Relegation to SFL 1st Division (SFL winners promoted)

On the plus side, it would more or less remove meaningless games for the majority of teams; it also gives teams in the SFL more of an opportunity to make it to the top division thus freshening up the league each year.

On the down side it would remove 2 Old Firm Games & 2 Edinburgh derbies from the fixture list, which would obviously not be good from a TV money & sponsorship perspective. And that is why it will never happen!!

Luna_Asylum
28-04-2011, 09:01 AM
Sorry I thought you might want to engage in some constructive debate for a change rather than post your opinions as facts and sneering at anybody who disagrees with you. I can see how an 18 team league would work in terms of number of games, a straight home and away round robin giving 34 games. I still wonder how a 16 team league would function and given that you are advocating such a set up I thought it was a fair question.

apology accepted

marinello59
28-04-2011, 09:01 AM
Can we not consider something similar to what happens in Holland, what with play-offs at the top & bottom of the league?

Something like this would work in a 16 team top league in Scotland:

1st Place: Champions League

2nd Place: Champions League Qualifier

3rd Place: Europa League

4th - 7th Place: 4th vs 7th and 5th vs 6th; the two winners play each other to qualify for Europa League

14th - 15th Place: Play-off against 2nd & 3rd from the SFL 1st Division

16th Place: Relegation to SFL 1st Division (SFL winners promoted)

On the plus side, it would more or less remove meaningless games for the majority of teams; it also gives teams in the SFL more of an opportunity to make it to the top division thus freshening up the league each year.

On the down side it would remove 2 Old Firm Games & 2 Edinburgh derbies from the fixture list, which would obviously not be good from a TV money & sponsorship perspective. And that is why it will never happen!!

Still not a fan of a 16 team set up but that does seem like a good way of making it work. . :thumbsup:

H18sry
28-04-2011, 09:06 AM
We could also bring back the group stages of the league cup home and away, which would also bring much needed revenue to the lower tiers of Scottish football :agree:

marinello59
28-04-2011, 09:12 AM
I think we did this thread last week. I will back out now, I don't want to spoil the ending for anybody who may have missed it. :greengrin

easty
28-04-2011, 09:13 AM
I think we did this thread last week. I will back out now, I don't want to spoil the ending for anybody who may have missed it. :greengrin

Bruce Willis character is actually dead, and the boy is the only one who can see him?

down the slope
28-04-2011, 09:19 AM
I have posted this before but if you can bear it here is the Norwegian structure a country similar in size and population to us. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tippeligaen
Sixteen teams with the bottom two relegated and the next one up in danger of a play off. Seems to work for them and you only see teams once a season-imagine , better than the system Donkey and Petrie have tried to foist on us. Maybe someone could tell us what the Norwegian national teams ranking is compared to Scotland's ?, i honestly don't know but they will not be much worse than us if any.
Thirty games leaves us short of the number we play just now but we could make the league cup a home and away fixture and same with the Scottish , by the way sixteen teams were in the league when we last won the league so if it was good enough then...

Beefster
28-04-2011, 09:24 AM
Seems to work OK in one smallish european country - if you consider that getting 3 teams into the semi finals of the Europa Cup is any kind of achievement.
Yes that's a 16 team league which spells financial meltdown, maximum player quality Nish Rankin bla bla bla de bla. For those who think this is irrevelvent keep up your support for Doncaster/Petrie.

Is their success down to the league? Is the league competitive or is it the same teams who win it again and again and again? What are the attendences like in Portugal?

Rangers got to the UEFA Cup final a couple of years ago - an endorsement for the 12 team league?

H18sry
28-04-2011, 09:40 AM
Is their success down to the league? Is the league competitive or is it the same teams who win it again and again and again? What are the attendences like in Portugal?

Rangers got to the UEFA Cup final a couple of years ago - an endorsement for the 12 team league?

3 Portuguese teams are battling it out in the semi finals of the Europa league this season, so I don't see your logic. :confused:

StevieC
28-04-2011, 10:43 AM
Is their success down to the league? Is the league competitive or is it the same teams who win it again and again and again?

Lets be honest, whatever the league set-up it will still be won by either Celtic or Rangers. What we have to consider, from both the fans perspective and the clubs, is what the league set-up will bring to the table in respect to the other games.

The fans, for the most part, accept it's not a competitive league and look towards variety. The clubs concentrate on revenue stream.

The bottom line though, for the league to expand you would need the Old Firm to agree to halving the number of times they meet each other in the league. If they don't then it doesn't get passed the discussion stage with the ridiculous 11-1 majority needed to incorporate any changes.


Rangers got to the UEFA Cup final a couple of years ago - an endorsement for the 12 team league?

Not if you actually watched the games and their style of play. :Ummm:

Liberal Hibby
28-04-2011, 11:46 AM
Can we not consider something similar to what happens in Holland, what with play-offs at the top & bottom of the league?

Something like this would work in a 16 team top league in Scotland:

1st Place: Champions League

2nd Place: Champions League Qualifier

3rd Place: Europa League

4th - 7th Place: 4th vs 7th and 5th vs 6th; the two winners play each other to qualify for Europa League

14th - 15th Place: Play-off against 2nd & 3rd from the SFL 1st Division

16th Place: Relegation to SFL 1st Division (SFL winners promoted)

On the plus side, it would more or less remove meaningless games for the majority of teams; it also gives teams in the SFL more of an opportunity to make it to the top division thus freshening up the league each year.

On the down side it would remove 2 Old Firm Games & 2 Edinburgh derbies from the fixture list, which would obviously not be good from a TV money & sponsorship perspective. And that is why it will never happen!!

That would require removing the Euro place from the cup winners. It also means that six teams - nearly 40% - still have nothing to play for.

I'd keep the split, but do it after two rounds of games. You could either then have a 32 game season (and have an extra relegation/playoff place) or if you invited the top four from from the first to join the bottom four - to make two leagues of eight (one playing for the title and Europe, the other for relegation/promotion) - you would have a 36 game season.

Luna_Asylum
28-04-2011, 12:03 PM
I have posted this before but if you can bear it here is the Norwegian structure a country similar in size and population to us. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tippeligaen
Sixteen teams with the bottom two relegated and the next one up in danger of a play off. Seems to work for them and you only see teams once a season-imagine , better than the system Donkey and Petrie have tried to foist on us. Maybe someone could tell us what the Norwegian national teams ranking is compared to Scotland's ?, i honestly don't know but they will not be much worse than us if any.
Thirty games leaves us short of the number we play just now but we could make the league cup a home and away fixture and same with the Scottish , by the way sixteen teams were in the league when we last won the league so if it was good enough then...

Interesting

Norway - league size 16 FIFA ranking 11
Portugal - league size 16 FIFA ranking 8
Scotland - league size 12 FIFA ranking 66

perhaps means nothing

Dinkydoo
28-04-2011, 12:09 PM
I'm undecided on what I think would suit Scottish football best in terms of league reconstruction if I'm to be honest.

I however fail to see how you can try to justify a 16 team league by using Portugal's european success as an example, especially since the quality of players are so much better there than here.

I doubt the number of teams in the league has any significance.

PaulSmith
28-04-2011, 12:13 PM
Interesting

Norway - league size 16 FIFA ranking 11
Portugal - league size 16 FIFA ranking 8
Scotland - league size 12 FIFA ranking 66

perhaps means nothing

Your right it doesn't. What does it is full sized indoor facilities in every large district, coaches who are properly coached to teach kids plus an environment which allows young players to express themselves rather than being verbally abused from their own parent, coaches and other parents.

What league size they end up playing in as an adult is totally irrelivent IMO.

Luna_Asylum
28-04-2011, 12:14 PM
I'm undecided on what I think would suit Scottish football best in terms of league reconstruction if I'm to be honest.

I however fail to see how you can try to justify a 16 team league by using Portugal's european success as an example, especially since the quality of players in are so much better there than ourselves.

I doubt the number of teams in the league has any significance.

Not trying to justify anything. Merely highlighting that 16 team leagues do not all fail miserebly like doncaster/pertie tell us ours would.

down the slope
28-04-2011, 12:33 PM
To be honest you will never get rid of meaningless games whatever the size of league you have but what a chance we have here to be a bit more inclusive instead of being ever more greedy as Donkey/Petrie would have. Expand the league and spread whatever wealth there is towards a few other teams , yes it would mean less money for us but maybe just maybe the freshness a new and bigger set up might actually increase the crowds ? , as it is our football is dying on it's feet and and to insist that a more concentrated and repetitive version of what we have will sort it is bordering on the farcical.

marinello59
28-04-2011, 12:40 PM
Not trying to justify anything. Merely highlighting that 16 team leagues do not all fail miserebly like doncaster/pertie tell us ours would.

I don't think that accurately reflects what they are saying. The longer term aim IS to expand the league but the argument is that we don't have enough strength in depth to go straight to a 16 or 18 team top league at present. You may disagree with that viewpoint but there is a logic in their thinking.

Luna_Asylum
28-04-2011, 01:21 PM
I don't think that accurately reflects what they are saying. The longer term aim IS to expand the league but the argument is that we don't have enough strength in depth to go straight to a 16 or 18 team top league at present. You may disagree with that viewpoint but there is a logic in their thinking.

that's was highlighted by someone already (correctly IMHO) as a smokescreen :smokin

Dashing Bob S
28-04-2011, 01:40 PM
that's was highlighted by someone already (correctly IMHO) as a smokescreen :smokin

Of course it is. The authorities will never lower the number of OF games.

Beefster
28-04-2011, 02:15 PM
3 Portuguese teams are battling it out in the semi finals of the Europa league this season, so I don't see your logic. :confused:

I suppose my point is that the size of the league has nothing to do with how successful the teams are in Europe. It's not like a 16 team league is suddenly going to have any team outwith the OF capable of being successful in Europe.


Lets be honest, whatever the league set-up it will still be won by either Celtic or Rangers. What we have to consider, from both the fans perspective and the clubs, is what the league set-up will bring to the table in respect to the other games.

The fans, for the most part, accept it's not a competitive league and look towards variety. The clubs concentrate on revenue stream.

The bottom line though, for the league to expand you would need the Old Firm to agree to halving the number of times they meet each other in the league. If they don't then it doesn't get passed the discussion stage with the ridiculous 11-1 majority needed to incorporate any changes.



Not if you actually watched the games and their style of play. :Ummm:

If it wasn't for the 11-1 majority, we'd probably have a ten team league by now.

marinello59
28-04-2011, 03:00 PM
that's was highlighted by someone already (correctly IMHO) as a smokescreen :smokin

That's an opinion, not fact. It may be, it may not be.
You don't have any argument against the logic of a delayed progression to an expanded league then?

Luna_Asylum
28-04-2011, 03:11 PM
That's an opinion, not fact. It may be, it may not be.
You don't have any argument against the logic of a delayed progression to an expanded league then?

Correct. Mostly everything I say is an opinion. The clue you may have missed in this opinion was "that's was highlighted by someone already (correctly IMHO) as a smokescreen"

And for your question no I dont.

marinello59
28-04-2011, 03:18 PM
Correct. Mostly everything I say is an opinion. The clue you may have missed in this opinion was "that's was highlighted by someone already (correctly IMHO) as a smokescreen"

And for your question no I dont.

:greengrin Well I can't argue with that. Straight to a 16 team league it is then.

(I know you probably won't answer this but is there any reason why you prefer a 16 team set up to an 18 team set up? Just curious.)

Zondervan
28-04-2011, 03:19 PM
Still not a fan of a 16 team set up but that does seem like a good way of making it work. . :thumbsup:

Must admit, I am not sure what is the best number of teams for the top flight is. But I am getting bored of playing teams 4 times a season and I think it generally needs to be expanded to get rid of the monotony and boredom (as seen at the last 2 home games!). I'd like to think that a top league could succeed with teams like Raith Rovers, Dunfermline, Falkirk, Morton competing on a regular basis. Whether or not 10/14/16 is the answer I am not sure, but the current 12 team set up with the split has run its course.


That would require removing the Euro place from the cup winners. It also means that six teams - nearly 40% - still have nothing to play for.

I'd keep the split, but do it after two rounds of games. You could either then have a 32 game season (and have an extra relegation/playoff place) or if you invited the top four from from the first to join the bottom four - to make two leagues of eight (one playing for the title and Europe, the other for relegation/promotion) - you would have a 36 game season.

Agree that this would be dependant on our co-efficiency and this will vary from season to season, but generally it is known 12 - 18 months in advance how many Euro places a league has. As for the cup, I would get rid of the Euro place but UEFA insist on this for the national cup competitions.

I disagree with the fact that teams would have nothing to play for. You could be in 10th place with a few games to play and you could end up 7th and in a Euro play off; or you could get dragged down to 14th and be in a relegation play-off!

I do like the idea of a split after 2 rounds though, as long as play-off were introduced as you suggest to keep things interesting & meaningful for as many teams as possible.

Luna_Asylum
28-04-2011, 03:22 PM
:greengrin Well I can't argue with that. Straight to a 16 team league it is then.

(I know you probably won't answer this but is there any reason why you prefer a 16 team set up to an 18 team set up? Just curious.)

In fact I have no preference. Either one would be OK for me.

Wakeyhibee
28-04-2011, 04:55 PM
Looking at the various threads on here there seems to be a dislike for both 12 or 10 team leagues. Playing each other 4 times (not including cups) adds a boredom factor + the OF usually streak away from 3rd place.

The only way forward is I can see is to move to playing each other twice in a 16 or 18 team set up, preferably 18 because of the games shortage with 16. An expanded league cup did work but fell away when re-introduced in the 80's and was abandoned. TBH I can't see an interest nowadays if you look at the attendances for this competition at even the quarters and semi stages. I don't think sections would not redress the balance of lost league games.

It has been said before (by me :greengrin) that a country the size of Scotland can ill afford to have it's middle ranking clubs like Dunfy, Dundee etc in lower divisions, it also runs the risk of ruining further top flight clubs with a 10 league set up as seen recently in sticking us in debt.

So an 18 team league how can that be sold to Sky or other prospective TV companies? that to me is the issue that is stopping us moving in this direction. A 10 team league is sellable however how in the long term that can expand is beyond me without retracing where we are now? If Sky do not want it now then 10 years on they still wont unless 10 billionaires decide to take over top clubs in Scotland which also is not going to happen.

There will undoubtedly be a loss of TV income with an 18 team league so I think the distribution of income must change within the top flight even to the point of excluding the bottom 6 (outside of games shown involving them) to start just for the priviledge of extra income playing bigger clubs. A heavier weighting of money to the top 6 which depending on the deal may represent the status quo as it is and again only at first until it has time to bed in/better deals can be struck hopefully through a tighter and more exciting league.

It has to be a trade off to get all parties interested. If this could be acheived then the OF would see little change with a reduced deal unless this is a show stopper and Sky and others pulled the plug entirely.

Middle ranking clubs would have a better chance of getting closer to the OF with only 12 points to play for which may produce larger attendances for them being closer for longer or even to the end and make up for the loss in TV revenue.

It would provide insulation against the financial chasm there is now for the teams currently against the 10 league set up. It would also benefit the larger teams from a distrastous season coming 12th only having to put up with a lesser or no share, rather than a full year in financial obscurity.

More importantly this would provide a platform for Partick, Dundee etc to re-establish themselves financially and provide more opposition depth for the future. I would also limit relegation to 1 or 2 places initially with play-off as well as a drop from here would be even more devestating for the larger clubs if caught up in a 3 down situation.

I also believe that clubs should be restricted to a player budget based on a percentage of the turnover to prevent clubs going into admistration however I think an 18 team league would remove alot of the temptation to do so than it does with a 10/12 set up.

More meaningless games? 6+ leagues in England have 46 games, just as many if not more 'meaningless games' at the end of the season and there system doesn't see drops of 50% in attendance. Why? because there is not the gulf we have created and the chance of relegation carries on until 2-3 games from the end. Even in this instance playing the OF or european chacing teams at the end of the season and still having a chance to spoil the party would help alleviate this.

There would also have to be a sacrifice from the fans in that dropping prices would not be possible even though there are less bigger games however there may be more away games that are cheaper I dunno???

There are plenty of holes above and all rests on the bold type as I do not know what is on offer (or being threatened). In the long term I believe that this is the only way to at least start to inject more enthusiasm into a tired and if it were not for the loyal support of the non OF teams..... defunct league.

My own opinion is an 18 team league is a huge jump and a risky one. I would go for a halfway house first but the games issue without a redundant cup competition & split or rediculous contrived fixtures (ala Rugby League) to make this up would not be the improvement which would be needed to go on from there for further expansion.

I'll draw breath now and get my tin hat on :greengrin

Luna_Asylum
28-04-2011, 08:22 PM
Looking at the various threads on here there seems to be a dislike for both 12 or 10 team leagues. Playing each other 4 times (not including cups) adds a boredom factor + the OF usually streak away from 3rd place.

The only way forward is I can see is to move to playing each other twice in a 16 or 18 team set up, preferably 18 because of the games shortage with 16. An expanded league cup did work but fell away when re-introduced in the 80's and was abandoned. TBH I can't see an interest nowadays if you look at the attendances for this competition at even the quarters and semi stages. I don't think sections would not redress the balance of lost league games.

It has been said before (by me :greengrin) that a country the size of Scotland can ill afford to have it's middle ranking clubs like Dunfy, Dundee etc in lower divisions, it also runs the risk of ruining further top flight clubs with a 10 league set up as seen recently in sticking us in debt.

So an 18 team league how can that be sold to Sky or other prospective TV companies? that to me is the issue that is stopping us moving in this direction. A 10 team league is sellable however how in the long term that can expand is beyond me without retracing where we are now? If Sky do not want it now then 10 years on they still wont unless 10 billionaires decide to take over top clubs in Scotland which also is not going to happen.

There will undoubtedly be a loss of TV income with an 18 team league so I think the distribution of income must change within the top flight even to the point of excluding the bottom 6 (outside of games shown involving them) to start just for the priviledge of extra income playing bigger clubs. A heavier weighting of money to the top 6 which depending on the deal may represent the status quo as it is and again only at first until it has time to bed in/better deals can be struck hopefully through a tighter and more exciting league.

It has to be a trade off to get all parties interested. If this could be acheived then the OF would see little change with a reduced deal unless this is a show stopper and Sky and others pulled the plug entirely.

Middle ranking clubs would have a better chance of getting closer to the OF with only 12 points to play for which may produce larger attendances for them being closer for longer or even to the end and make up for the loss in TV revenue.

It would provide insulation against the financial chasm there is now for the teams currently against the 10 league set up. It would also benefit the larger teams from a distrastous season coming 12th only having to put up with a lesser or no share, rather than a full year in financial obscurity.

More importantly this would provide a platform for Partick, Dundee etc to re-establish themselves financially and provide more opposition depth for the future. I would also limit relegation to 1 or 2 places initially with play-off as well as a drop from here would be even more devestating for the larger clubs if caught up in a 3 down situation.

I also believe that clubs should be restricted to a player budget based on a percentage of the turnover to prevent clubs going into admistration however I think an 18 team league would remove alot of the temptation to do so than it does with a 10/12 set up.

More meaningless games? 6+ leagues in England have 46 games, just as many if not more 'meaningless games' at the end of the season and there system doesn't see drops of 50% in attendance. Why? because there is not the gulf we have created and the chance of relegation carries on until 2-3 games from the end. Even in this instance playing the OF or european chacing teams at the end of the season and still having a chance to spoil the party would help alleviate this.

There would also have to be a sacrifice from the fans in that dropping prices would not be possible even though there are less bigger games however there may be more away games that are cheaper I dunno???

There are plenty of holes above and all rests on the bold type as I do not know what is on offer (or being threatened). In the long term I believe that this is the only way to at least start to inject more enthusiasm into a tired and if it were not for the loyal support of the non OF teams..... defunct league.

My own opinion is an 18 team league is a huge jump and a risky one. I would go for a halfway house first but the games issue without a redundant cup competition & split or rediculous contrived fixtures (ala Rugby League) to make this up would not be the improvement which would be needed to go on from there for further expansion.

I'll draw breath now and get my tin hat on :greengrin

makes some sense
working ok in portugal holland and norway but not suitable for scotland!

StevieC
28-04-2011, 08:58 PM
If it wasn't for the 11-1 majority, we'd probably have a ten team league by now.

Possibly, but by the same token there would actually be a fighting chance of getting a larger league (ie cutting back the number of OF games) if it only took 7 teams to back the idea.

sparky
29-04-2011, 02:51 AM
If you want a competitive league here are three radical changes that could be brought in. None of them have anything to do with the size of the league.

1. Split the gate money evenly between home and away teams, like it used to be. It takes two teams to make a match after all.

2. Split the Net Commercial Revenues of the league evenly amongst all 12 (or however many) teams. At present 1 and 2 positions get 17% and 15%. This is sport after all and teams should not need financial incentives to do better in the league.

3. Wage caps, either for a whole team or for individuals players. Teams would then have to manage their budgets accordingly and smaller teams could potentially offer the same wages as the big two.

All teams would then have a far more level financial situation hopefully resulting in more competition on the pitch.

StevieC
29-04-2011, 11:13 AM
1. Split the gate money evenly between home and away teams, like it used to be. It takes two teams to make a match after all.

Good idea on paper, but the work involved with working out gate money and season ticket ratio's and then deducting stewarding, police costs etc. would make it a logistical nightmare to arrive at a figure. ANd that's not taking into consideration the trust issues (ie Romanov releasing correct figures).


2. Split the Net Commercial Revenues of the league evenly amongst all 12 (or however many) teams.

Agreed.


3. Wage caps, either for a whole team or for individuals players. Teams would then have to manage their budgets accordingly and smaller teams could potentially offer the same wages as the big two.

I suspect that the EU would have something to say about this, and that aside I think players (like any other employee) should be able to try and earn as much as they can. Potentially, the better players may end up leaving the league for the lower divisions of other leagues.

modsquad
30-04-2011, 07:27 AM
It doesn't matter whether its a 10, 12 or 24 team league in Scotland, Scottish football is not going to improve.

Coaches & scouts mainly look for physical size and athletic ability not skill.

Until Scottish coaches concentrate more on the technical side of things and the fans stop the 'get the ball up the park' mentality, Scottish football is never going to improve.

Until the mid to late 80s, it was common to see Scottish players playing for the top clubs in England, and even abroad (Joe Jordan, Dennis Law and even your own Joe Baker). The footballing world has changed since then. No longer are the attributes, that made us a sound footballing nation once, required. Scottish players are now like dinousaurs.

English football is fairly similar. Most of the playing squads in the EPL are not English players. They to look for a similar style of player in their coaching. Look at the EPL, how many young English players are making breakthroughs. The golden generation at Man U were mainly young Englishmen, look at the youngsters making the breakthrough there now, are they British. No. The club that seems to be bucking that trend is Liverpool.

The biggest problem for both Scots & English clubs is that the fans, no matter which club they follow, want success. Its therefore a better option for them to buy a journeyman pro from Germany or Italy or Sweden than bring their own players through the system. In England in particular, the cost of losing their place in the EPL is huge.

Personally, I think the salary cap is a great idea. Yes footballers have a short career. How many mediocre players at both Hibs and Hearts are collecting 2-3k a week, basic wage. Thats 150k a year. Over 10 years is 1.5m. How many working stiffs are going to earn even half of that in their lifetime. Answer is not many.

There was a while that footballers earned comparable wages with some working people, now they earn ridiculous amounts of money, which causes clubs to pay silly money in wages to bring in mediocre players.

Calderwood & Jeffries right now will be getting CVs through for out of contract players. What price some of those free agents end up at either ground on money they are not worth simply because they need to pay those wages to try and challange for 2 trophies

Arch Stanton
30-04-2011, 08:53 AM
Interesting

Norway - league size 16 FIFA ranking 11
Portugal - league size 16 FIFA ranking 8
Scotland - league size 12 FIFA ranking 66

perhaps means nothing

Spain - league size 20 FIFA ranking 1

The numbers would seem to suggest that a league size of 30+ would make Scottish teams unbeatable - or maybe it's not quite so simple.

DH1875
30-04-2011, 08:59 PM
I don't get what all the fuss is about. If you look around Europe most leagues only have one or two teams who can actually win them, even the holy grail of the EPL. When was the last time someone else other than Man U or Chelsea won the league. In fact when was the last time Arsenal even won a trophy. Spain's the same with Barca and Real and by the sounds of things we've got a more competative league than Portugal. Who wants to watch a league dominated by one team for the last 10 years. And lets not forget we are talking about a league that has two of the biggest clubs in the world in Sporting and Benfica.
In an ideal world I'd like to see an 16/18 team league but if anything else the last 3 weeks have shown how bad it could be. It's been like we've been playing pre-season football in front of dwindling crowds. Imagine we had an 18 team league and Hamilton had been gut adrift by Christmas, other than the infirm the 2nd half of the season would be a nonentity for everyone else.
The thing I don't get is Transfer fees. Players from SPL seem to go very cheaply in comparison to the rest of the world.
The thing is I reckon if us, the Yams or Utd had £3-£4 million to spend on players we'd win the league, but that's another argument.