10 Team SPL Looking Dead In The Water (Merged re-construction threads)

[offshorehibby]

Radio Scotland news reporting the 10 team idea looking like it's been scuppered. seemingly the 8 'rebel' clubs had a meeting at tynecastle today and the preference is 14.
The only once left preferring 10 are Hibs, huns, celtic & Aberdeen.

[R'Albin]

Good.

[Saorsa]

Well done tae those clubs (apart fae h****s) opposing this :thumbsup:


too bad my own isnae amongst that number :rolleyes:

[Ollie Reed]

Well done tae those clubs (part fae h****s) opposing this :thumbsup:


too bad my own isnae amongst that number :rolleyes:

On the contrary, guv'nor...Hearts should be applauded as well for taking a stand.

Only one small clap for them though.

[Saorsa]

On the contrary, guv'nor...Hearts should be applauded as well for taking a stand.

Only one small clap for them though.that'll be the only stand they are having :greengrin

[cwilliamson85]

Maybe I missed this but why do hibs want a 10 man league?

Also if it goes to 10 teams is there still a split?

Will play offs come into play?

Will the TV / sponsorship money get split equally?

[SneakersO'Toole]

Maybe now all the Hibs fans on here who refused to buy season tickets because of the proposed 10 team league will dip into their pockets and cough up...

[CB_NO3]

Our chairman is a tit. Could not care less about fans. Its all money, money, money for him.

[Horse]

A 14 team league sounds better than 10 but ideally if they go for that it should be with the longer term view of increasing it to 16 then 18 and do away with the daft split. It is ambitious to have 18 top flight teams in Scotland but for as long as I can remember everything about Scottish football has been negative so why not think positive for a change?

[NYHibby]

Maybe I missed this but why do hibs want a 10 man league?


Same amount of TV money spread over 2 fewer teams= more money for Hibs

More games against the old firm=more away fans and potential net gain in home fans=more money for Hibs

[scoopyboy]

Same amount of TV money spread over 2 fewer teams= more money for Hibs

More games against the old firm=more away fans and potential net gain in home fans=more money for Hibs

bigger penalty for finishing tenth though!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[allezsauzee]

I still don't really know why people are so keen on seeing us playing the 11th-14th best teams in Scotland rather than more games against the better teams. A dilution of the quality isnt going to make for better games

[NYHibby]

I still don't really know why people are so keen on seeing us playing the 11th-14th best teams in Scotland rather than more games against the better teams. A dilution of the quality isnt going to make for better games

Going one further, I don't understand why people want us to play the 16th or 18th team. Qos would be the 16th team. They finished 21 pts behind Dunfermline. Their stadium has only 3,500 seats

[ancient hibee]

Great idea 14 teams -spread all the sponsorship and media money over more teams so we'll get less -its got no chance.Fewer home games also.

[col02]

Going one further, I don't understand why people want us to play the 16th or 18th team. Qos would be the 16th team. They finished 21 pts behind Dunfermline. Their stadium has only 3,500 seats

Variety and freshness are the reasons I would give for a 16 team league although I wonder about the depth of quality being strong enough. You only have to look at the cup results to see there are teams out there who can beat SPL teams including our own from the lower leagues on a one off basis.

[Bishop Hibee]

With 14 teams there would still be a split surely? Presuming the split is an even number it will be top 8/bottom 6 or top 6/bottom 8. How can you be expected to buy an ST not knowing how many games you're paying for?

I really can't see how this improves the existing 12 team set up apart from making it virtually certain we won't ever get relegated.

A 16 team league only gives us 30 games a season and there is zero chance ST prices would come down.

Can anyone give me a reason why Hibs, the OF and Aberdeen should accept this as better than the existing format?

[down the slope]

Great idea 14 teams -spread all the sponsorship and media money over more teams so we'll get less -its got no chance.Fewer home games also.

It has every chance , i know you love the idea of seeing the OF more often but many more would like to see things freshened up , as for less money get the winners and runners up to take less(the OF) and distribute the cash equally. Bigger league cup or scottish cup home and away-sorted.

[marinello59]

A 14 team league means we retain the split or play each other three times a season. We would be as well sticking with twelve teams. This has to include a plan to get us to an 18 team league eventually, I will be interested to see if this is even being considered.

[Hibeesb0unc3]

Having a bigger league would freshen the league up and hopefully bring some competitiveness back.

Plus if there was a 10 team this year if you take away the points we got from hamilton and stmirren then the bottom of the table would have look like this

hibs 26 points
aberdeen 25 points
st johnstone 26 points

we would have been in the relgation play off due to us having a worse goal difference than st johnstone and with our form you could well have lost and would have been playing the 13th- 22nd teams in scotland

[NYHibby]

It has every chance , i know you love the idea of seeing the OF more often but many more would like to see things freshened up , as for less money get the winners and runners up to take less(the OF) and distribute the cash equally. Bigger league cup or scottish cup home and away-sorted.

I disagree. People want the Scottish game to improve/be a better quality. That is not the same as fresher.

If you want to "freshen" up the game, you would propose making the SPL amateur. That would result in dramatic different outcomes than a 14 or 16 team league.

[PaulSmith]

Great news, I hope that Celtic, Rangers, Aberdeen and Edinburgh's representative now resign from the SPL and join the English and Welsh counterparts in a newly created UK League sponsored by the SKY millions.

Income will go through the roof, season tickets will rocket, players will flock to play at the East Coast's finest stadium and with East Mains only a stones throw from Newcastle we will attract top notch players that we couldn't before and hit the Championship in no time. Fill in the corners to accommodate the extra thousands when Man Utd, Chelsea, Arsenal come calling as part of the UKPL.

I see Aberdeen also have the same ambition by representing the north of Scotland in their own fully finished stadium which will be sponsored by some oil conglomerate based in Aberdeen when the 4 top Scottish teams eventually leave this footballing backwater.

Hearts meanwhile will play Ayr United for the right to call themselves Scottish Regional Champions and enter the Champions League 1st qualifier before their season actually finishes.

[NYHibby]

Having a bigger league would freshen the league up and hopefully bring some competitiveness back.


Disagree again. A larger league would be less competitive at the top. Celtic and Rangers would still have their European money while the rest of the teams would be worse off. The odds that a Hibs or Hearts could get the quality of players needed to win the league would decrease.

Other than for first and second, is the league really that uncompetitive? Is competition for the middle of the table really a pressing issue right now?

[greenlex]

Our chairman is a tit. Could not care less about fans. Its all money, money, money for him.
WTF does he do with all this money? The man is clueless.

[StevieC]

With 14 teams there would still be a split surely? Presuming the split is an even number it will be top 8/bottom 6 or top 6/bottom 8. How can you be expected to buy an ST not knowing how many games your going to play?

I would think it would be top 6 bottom 8 given the potential for cup games etc for top teams by the time of the split. The season ticket issue would probably be resolved on the basis of of an extra Cat B game due to missing out on a Cat A game.

[Horse]

Going one further, I don't understand why people want us to play the 16th or 18th team. Qos would be the 16th team. They finished 21 pts behind Dunfermline. Their stadium has only 3,500 seats


Lay off the doonhammers! They may only have 3500 seats but they also have a terrace and I'd love to see grounds with terraces in the top league (they play SC games against SPL teams there so I don't see why it should be a problem). The whole idea in theory is that a bigger league with the money spread more evenly would improve the standards of the likes of QOS and in turn this would improve the likes of Hibs, Aberdeen, UTD etc.as there would be a better level of footballer in the SPL meaning we (and the other larger clubs) would be in position to attract some of the better players in the league, thus performing better in Europe and beginning an upward spiral.

The key words there though are "in theory"! Who knows if it would improve the game? One things for sure, the game's being going downhill for a long time now so something has to be done.

[Spike Mandela]

John Yorkston claims a 14 represents the wishes of the fans. Ehhhhhhh when exactly?

Any time a poll was taken a 16 or 18 were always miles in front of other options. What we have with a 14 is change for changes sake and clubs saving their own skin ensuring they still have the chance of 4 games against the top clubs or extra games if they miss out on the top 6.

Scottish football chairmen are pathetic.

[Luna_Asylum]

John Yorkston claims a 14 represents the wishes of the fans. Ehhhhhhh when exactly?

Any time a poll was taken a 16 or 18 were always miles in front of other options. What we have with a 14 is change for changes sake and clubs saving their own skin ensuring they still have the chance of 4 games against the top clubs or extra games if they miss out on the top 6.

Scottish football chairmen are pathetic.

Some of the chairman may be pathetic but the ones who met yesterday would seem to have the fans wishes at heart rather more than the ones who didn't.

You are correct the fans preference as polled was miles in favour of 16/18 team league. The response to that from the SPL was the status quo was not an option. What they told us was we would get a 10 team league. Any other option we were told would cut in half the games income. That was a lie of such staggering proportion it would have made FIFA blush.

The fans who voted for a 16/18 league clearly want a bigger league. If the only choice they are given is 10 or 14 they will pick 14. It looks to me that all but two of the non OF clubs chairman are trying to give their fans what they want. Sadly but predictably we are not one of them. Our chairman knows whats good for us better than we know for ourselves.

[pentlando]

I think this is great news as i'm completely opposed to a ten team spl, after all, it's cause that wasn't working that we moved to the current setup.

However on the topic of Hibs as a club being in favour of a 10 team spl, to me its no wonder Petrie wants a league which provides the most income given the routine abuse he gets for "not investing" in the side. Or as i see it, not burdening the club with more debt it has strived for 20 years to reduce.

[Luna_Asylum]

I think this is great news as i'm completely opposed to a ten team spl, after all, it's cause that wasn't working that we moved to the current setup.

However on the topic of Hibs as a club being in favour of a 10 team spl, to me its no wonder Petrie wants a league which provides the most income given the routine abuse he gets for "not investing" in the side. Or as i see it, not burdening the club with more debt it has strived for 20 years to reduce.

The loss of income (if any) from dividing the pot 14 ways rather than 10 could be compenstated if the pot was shared fairly among the clubs - like it is in most leagues - rather than the lions share going to the huns/tims who need it least.
That would require standing up to the OF which needs unity and Petrie is not willing to do that.

[pentlando]

The loss of income (if any) from dividing the pot 14 ways rather than 10 could be compenstated if the pot was shared fairly among the clubs - like it is in most leagues - rather than the lions share going to the huns/tims who need it least.
That would require standing up to the OF which needs unity and Petrie is not willing to do that.

However with it requiring a 11-1 majority in any voting process, i think we're all being naive if we think either side of the old firm will vote in favour of reducing their share.

[offshorehibby]

With an 11-1 required all Hibs, Aberdeen, the hun & tic need to do is vote against 14/16/18. So it's looking like the status quo of 12 for the foreseeable future.

[GreenPJ]

Some of the chairman may be pathetic but the ones who met yesterday would seem to have the fans wishes at heart rather more than the ones who didn't.

You are correct the fans preference as polled was miles in favour of 16/18 team league. The response to that from the SPL was the status quo was not an option. What they told us was we would get a 10 team league. Any other option we were told would cut in half the games income. That was a lie of such staggering proportion it would have made FIFA blush.
The fans who voted for a 16/18 league clearly want a bigger league. If the only choice they are given is 10 or 14 they will pick 14. It looks to me that all but two of the non OF clubs chairman are trying to give their fans what they want. Sadly but predictably we are not one of them. Our chairman knows whats good for us better than we know for ourselves.

So as you know its a lie what is the financial impact of a 14/16/18 team league?

[Stevie Reid]

Although 14, 16 or 18 would be a nice change, I struggle to see the problem with 10 teams - loads of folk on here are screaming out for Hibs to spend more on the team, yet seem to strongly oppose the set up that will see us get more money.

[Frogga]

I would be quite happy for them to keep the 12 teams and just introduce some of the other sensible ideas they brought up:

- No more split.
- Pyramid system across Scottish football.
- Winter Break.
- Play offs / 2 teams up and down.

Etc.

[down the slope]

Although 14, 16 or 18 would be a nice change, I struggle to see the problem with 10 teams - loads of folk on here are screaming out for Hibs to spend more on the team, yet seem to strongly oppose the set up that will see us get more money.

An even distribution of tv money and most of the problem is solved , the OF get most of the tv revenue from playing games outwith Glasgow and we let them get away with it , remember they are nothing without teams such as ourselves.

[NAE NOOKIE]

It says everything about Scottish football when 2 thirds of a 12 team league who all apparently have one vote each on league policy can be described as "rebels".

Shame on Hibs for taking the short term view and ignoring the wishes of the majority of their own supporters. We should be in there fighting for a fairer share of the pot, not getting into bed with the ugly sisters who would gladly stab us in the back for a few extra bob.

If its to be 14 then have a 6 / 8 split.

The top 6 keep the points they earned and play home & away for the European places & title. That would give them 36 matches, just like a 10 team league.

But, the bottom 8 start off with a more or less clean slate.

Apart from the teams who were 14th, 13th & 12th in the regular season start off with a minus points deduction. Lets say 5 for 14th, 4 for 13th and 3 for 12th.

That would still penalise teams for finishing in the bottom 3 at the end of the regular season, but ensure that nobody is totally out of contention at the start of the 14 game bottom 8 season.

At the end the bottom 2 go down automatically and 5th & 6th play off home and away ( 5th getting 2nd leg at home ) the loser then going in to a winner takes all play off with 3rd in division one at a neutral venue.

Its brutal, but it sure as hell would cut down the chances of having to endure the bore fest that we had to put up with in the bottom 6.

[HibbyDave]

Although 14, 16 or 18 would be a nice change, I struggle to see the problem with 10 teams - loads of folk on here are screaming out for Hibs to spend more on the team, yet seem to strongly oppose the set up that will see us get more money.

If the league is reduced to 10 then the following scenario is likely: Top two places -No Change there, Bottom two places Relegation. Middle six teams so scared of falling into bottom places they will never develop any new/young players through fear of failure. Result=stagnant league that is soooo Boring.
Just my opinion though but I'm still not parting with any more cash for season tickets until I'm certain the 10 team league is dead and buried.

[offshorehibby]

Although 14, 16 or 18 would be a nice change, I struggle to see the problem with 10 teams - loads of folk on here are screaming out for Hibs to spend more on the team, yet seem to strongly oppose the set up that will see us get more money.

I can see exactly where the Hibs board are coming from wanting the most revenue for Hibernian and as you say most on here greeting 'cause we're not spending money.





- No more split.
- Pyramid system across Scottish football.
- Winter Break.
- Play offs / 2 teams up and down.

Etc.

Forget the winter break, with the winters we have you are going to get bogged down with postponed games. Have less midweek fixtures in the fixture list.



It says everything about Scottish football when 2 thirds of a 12 team league who all apparently have one vote each on league policy can be described as "rebels".

Shame on Hibs for taking the short term view and ignoring the wishes of the majority of their own supporters. We should be in there fighting for a fairer share of the pot, not getting into bed with the ugly sisters who would gladly stab us in the back for a few extra bob.

If its to be 14 then have a 6 / 8 split.

The top 6 keep the points they earned and play home & away for the European places & title. That would give them 36 matches, just like a 10 team league.

But, the bottom 8 start off with a more or less clean slate.

Apart from the teams who were 14th, 13th & 12th in the regular season start off with a minus points deduction. Lets say 5 for 14th, 4 for 13th and 3 for 12th.

That would still penalise teams for finishing in the bottom 3 at the end of the regular season, but ensure that nobody is totally out of contention at the start of the 14 game bottom 8 season.

At the end the bottom 2 go down automatically and 5th & 6th play off home and away ( 5th getting 2nd leg at home ) the loser then going in to a winner takes all play off with 3rd in division one at a neutral venue.

Its brutal, but it sure as hell would cut down the chances of having to endure the bore fest that we had to put up with in the bottom 6.

If we went to a 14, how about a split of 8 in the top half 6 in bottom half being joined by the top 2 of Div 1. With bottom 2 going into 1st Div.

[Frogga]

There's such strong arguments for and against expansion and deduction. Surely the best compromise is what we have, but with a few tweaks.

[Stevie Reid]

If the league is reduced to 10 then the following scenario is likely: Top two places -No Change there, Bottom two places Relegation. Middle six teams so scared of falling into bottom places they will never develop any new/young players through fear of failure. Result=stagnant league that is soooo Boring.
Just my opinion though but I'm still not parting with any more cash for season tickets until I'm certain the 10 team league is dead and buried.

There is certainly a lot of value to that argument - you could also argue that there would be hardly any meaningless games, and if there was more money available for more quality on the park, that should produce exciting games. The play offs and the last day of the Premiership are a great example of how great games can occur when big things are at stake.

With regards to the teams being scared of relegation, whilst that will never change, the redistrubution of wealth to teams in the First Division is designed so that teams relegated from the SPL do not face financial meltdown, which is also a very good idea IMO.

[Saorsa]

There is certainly a lot of value to that argument - you could also argue that there would be hardly any meaningless games, and if there was more money available for more quality on the park, that should produce exciting games. The play offs and the last day of the Premiership are a great example of how great games can occur when big things are at stake.

With regards to the teams being scared of relegation, whilst that will never change, the redistrubution of wealth to teams in the First Division is designed so that teams relegated from the SPL do not face financial meltdown, which is also a very good idea IMO.Last time we played ICT at Easter Road I was speaking tae one of their directors, he told me the last time they went down the lost over £1.5 Million, he said the piddling amount they would get from the SPL as a parachute payment would make little difference tae that.

[marinello59]

Last time we played ICT at Easter Road I was speaking tae one of their directors, he told me the last time they went down the lost over £1.5 Million, he said the piddling amount they would get from the SPL as a parachute payment would make little difference tae that.

Does this latest plan address that? I haven't seen any detail yet, does anybody have a link?

[pentlando]

It says everything about Scottish football when 2 thirds of a 12 team league who all apparently have one vote each on league policy can be described as "rebels".

Shame on Hibs for taking the short term view and ignoring the wishes of the majority of their own supporters. We should be in there fighting for a fairer share of the pot, not getting into bed with the ugly sisters who would gladly stab us in the back for a few extra bob.

If its to be 14 then have a 6 / 8 split.

The top 6 keep the points they earned and play home & away for the European places & title. That would give them 36 matches, just like a 10 team league.

But, the bottom 8 start off with a more or less clean slate.

Apart from the teams who were 14th, 13th & 12th in the regular season start off with a minus points deduction. Lets say 5 for 14th, 4 for 13th and 3 for 12th.

That would still penalise teams for finishing in the bottom 3 at the end of the regular season, but ensure that nobody is totally out of contention at the start of the 14 game bottom 8 season.

At the end the bottom 2 go down automatically and 5th & 6th play off home and away ( 5th getting 2nd leg at home ) the loser then going in to a winner takes all play off with 3rd in division one at a neutral venue.

Its brutal, but it sure as hell would cut down the chances of having to endure the bore fest that we had to put up with in the bottom 6.

R.E your plans. Basically your saying that unless you make it into the top 6 there's no point really picking up points until post-split? Therefore the team who finishes 7th could theoretically have 30-40 points more than 14th, for this to be cut to 5 for the last few games. Non starter imo.

[Luna_Asylum]

Although 14, 16 or 18 would be a nice change, I struggle to see the problem with 10 teams - loads of folk on here are screaming out for Hibs to spend more on the team, yet seem to strongly oppose the set up that will see us get more money.

The problem with 10 teams is it's repetivley boring. Fact (end of!)
Most folk who want a bigger league are not the same people screaming for hibs to spend more although it's a myth that is being pushed very hard so I can see where you got the idea from.

[KeithTheHibby]

A ten team league is rubbish.

A 12 team league is rubbish.

14 is marginally better, 16 or 18 would be ideal.

Ok the tv money would be less to the club but why should we have to rely on that every season? should we as a club be doing more to fill 17000 seats for home games as opposed to worrying about how many times the OF come along the M8.
This rule applies to all clubs within the league, not just us.

And who is to say that an 18 team league would not see a marked improvement in the quality on display? That in turn would lead to an increase in media and tv rights surely?

Too many of these chairmen are only interested in their own clubs and short term gain rather than the future, our own club being the prime example.

And before anyone starts going on about how marvellous the board have been over the past 20 years I would like to remind them that we have been extremely lucky in the transfer market with the gains we made on players a few years ago.

Without that we would be sitting with at least a debt of 10m I reckon.

[MyJo]

If its to be 14 then have a 6 / 8 split.

The top 6 keep the points they earned and play home & away for the European places & title. That would give them 36 matches, just like a 10 team league.

But, the bottom 8 start off with a more or less clean slate.

Apart from the teams who were 14th, 13th & 12th in the regular season start off with a minus points deduction. Lets say 5 for 14th, 4 for 13th and 3 for 12th.

That would still penalise teams for finishing in the bottom 3 at the end of the regular season, but ensure that nobody is totally out of contention at the start of the 14 game bottom 8 season.

At the end the bottom 2 go down automatically and 5th & 6th play off home and away ( 5th getting 2nd leg at home ) the loser then going in to a winner takes all play off with 3rd in division one at a neutral venue.

Its brutal, but it sure as hell would cut down the chances of having to endure the bore fest that we had to put up with in the bottom 6.

I've thought of a set up like that before where after the first round of games the league is split into mini leagues SPL1 and SPL2.

Essentially we would have a 26 game season with all 14 teams to decide the league title then a 10/12/14 week season dependent on what split is used to determine who gets what european places in SPL1 and who gets relegated in SPL2

It could be organised to have the 14 team leagues complete in january. schedule in a winter break or have cup games played for a few weeks while the transfer window is open then have the mini leagues played from February to April/May so teams have a chance to recoup and make some signings for the mini leagues.

I think that would be an excellent set up and certainly bring some excitement to the league at both ends right to the end of the season

[Stevie Reid]

The problem with 10 teams is it's repetivley boring. Fact (end of!)
Most folk who want a bigger league are not the same people screaming for hibs to spend more although it's a myth that is being pushed very hard so I can see where you got the idea from.

I stopped reading when I got to the word 'fact' at the end of your stated opinion.

[SneakersO'Toole]

It is obvious there is no perfect solution and certainly not one that will please all.

I do agree with some posts that Petrie, Milne and the cretins from the west are only looking after number one. The game needs to take a step back to move forward and if that means ALL clubs need to cut their cloth so be it. Problem is not all clubs are willing to do this.

If the league does change to 14 teams, what about the following.

Play each other home and away (26 games)

League splits in half, 7 teams each. Play the 6 teams in your split home and away again (12 games).

Introduce play-offs, fairer distribution of money and re-introduce the reserve league.

This way every team plays the same number of games with no one team playing more/less home games. This way the format is completely fair. Yes we still have a split but its a necessary evil in a league with limited teams.

[Luna_Asylum]

I stopped reading when I got to the word 'fact' at the end of your stated opinion.

in that case you can continue to happily spread the myth that eveyone who wants a bigger league is "screaming" for hibs to spend more money

[GreenPJ]

in that case you can continue to happily spread the myth that eveyone who wants a bigger league is "screaming" for hibs to spend more money

You have failed to answer the question. You accused the board and others of lying re the drop in income/cost of a 14/16/18 team league. What are the financial implications?

[Luna_Asylum]

You have failed to answer the question. You accused the board and others of lying re the drop in income/cost of a 14/16/18 team league. What are the financial implications?

I had already answered it to the best of my seriously limited ability in post 19.
For the record it was the spl I accused of lying - and they did.

[Speedway]

Our chairman is a tit. Could not care less about fans. Its all money, money, money for him.

Funny that, the fans could not care less about the chairman. It's all about spending money for them until they'll buy an ST to fund it.


WTF does he do with all this money? The man is clueless.

:agree: Just like the manager, endlessly scrabbling around to find the dressing room that has been lost.

[ancient hibee]

The loss of income (if any) from dividing the pot 14 ways rather than 10 could be compenstated if the pot was shared fairly among the clubs - like it is in most leagues - rather than the lions share going to the huns/tims who need it least.
That would require standing up to the OF which needs unity and Petrie is not willing to do that.
Which leagues are these then.

The OF don't get the lions share.48%is divided equally and then 52%is divided on a sliding scale.So in fact the other 10 clubs get the lions share in total.

Under the 10 club set up the parachute payment to SPL2 was too be much bigger than the present payment.

Are those that expect the Hibs board to make other clubs richer at our expense the same people that object when we sell our players to other SPL clubs to strengthen their teams:greengrin

[Luna_Asylum]

Which leagues are these then.

The OF don't get the lions share.48%is divided equally and then 52%is divided on a sliding scale.So in fact the other 10 clubs get the lions share in total.

Under the 10 club set up the parachute payment to SPL2 was too be much bigger than the present payment.

Are those that expect the Hibs board to make other clubs richer at our expense the same people that object when we sell our players to other SPL clubs to strengthen their teams:greengrin

in the english premier the bottom club gets approx 60% of what the top club gets - in scotland the bottom club gets less than 25%

fresh from brainless and completley unfounded accusations of "screaming" and
"greeting" on this thread we are accused objecting to some future sales of players. Like we have some to sell!!!

Shameless

[HNA12]

in the english premier the bottom club gets approx 60% of what the top club gets - in scotland the bottom club gets less than 25%

fresh from brainless and completley unfounded accusations of "screaming" and
"greeting" on this thread we are accused objecting to some future sales of players. Like we have some to sell!!!

Shameless

No need really is there? It's opinions, that's all.

[Luna_Asylum]

No need really is there? It's opinions, that's all.

sorry

[ancient hibee]

in the english premier the bottom club gets approx 60% of what the top club gets - in scotland the bottom club gets less than 25%

fresh from brainless and completley unfounded accusations of "screaming" and
"greeting" on this thread we are accused objecting to some future sales of players. Like we have some to sell!!!

Shameless
I'm all for people having different opinions but they should be founded on fact.For example you say that in the SPL the bottom club gets less than 25% of what the top club gets-this is totally incorrect-it's around 50%viz(as they used to say in exam papers)

Top club 4%(equal share)plus prize money 8.8%(17% of 52%)=12.8%

Bottom 4%(equal share)plus prize money 2.3%(4.5% of52%)=6.3%

So in percentage terms not much worse than the EPL.

There are a lot of myths regarding finance in the SPL but what is clear is that a bigger league with less home games and the prize money spread more thinly will be a disaster and a few clubs will go to the wall eventually.

[down the slope]

I'm all for people having different opinions but they should be founded on fact.For example you say that in the SPL the bottom club gets less than 25% of what the top club gets-this is totally incorrect-it's around 50%viz(as they used to say in exam papers)

Top club 4%(equal share)plus prize money 8.8%(17% of 52%)=12.8%

Bottom 4%(equal share)plus prize money 2.3%(4.5% of52%)=6.3%

So in percentage terms not much worse than the EPL.

There are a lot of myths regarding finance in the SPL but what is clear is that a bigger league with less home games and the prize money spread more thinly will be a disaster and a few clubs will go to the wall eventually.

For what its worth-http://www.scotprem.com/content/default.asp?page=s2&newsid=7618&back=home
It's to late for me to work this out just now, anyone awake ?.

[Luna_Asylum]

I'm all for people having different opinions but they should be founded on fact.For example you say that in the SPL the bottom club gets less than 25% of what the top club gets-this is totally incorrect-it's around 50%viz(as they used to say in exam papers)

Top club 4%(equal share)plus prize money 8.8%(17% of 52%)=12.8%

Bottom 4%(equal share)plus prize money 2.3%(4.5% of52%)=6.3%

So in percentage terms not much worse than the EPL.

There are a lot of myths regarding finance in the SPL but what is clear is that a bigger league with less home games and the prize money spread more thinly will be a disaster and a few clubs will go to the wall eventually.

1 - 4% + 13% = 17%
2 - 4% + 11% = 15%
3 - 4% + 5.5% = 9.5%
4 - 4% + 4.5% = 8.5%
5 - 4% + 4.0% = 8.0%
6 - 4% + 3.5% = 7.5%
7 - 4% + 3.0% = 7.0%
8 - 4% + 2.5% = 6.5%
9 - 4% + 2.0% = 6.0%
10 - 4% + 1.5% = 5.5%
11 - 4% + 1.0% = 5.0%
12 - 4% + 0.5% = 4.5%

[down the slope]

1 - 4% + 13% = 17%
2 - 4% + 11% = 15%
3 - 4% + 5.5% = 9.5%
4 - 4% + 4.5% = 8.5%
5 - 4% + 4.0% = 8.0%
6 - 4% + 3.5% = 7.5%
7 - 4% + 3.0% = 7.0%
8 - 4% + 2.5% = 6.5%
9 - 4% + 2.0% = 6.0%
10 - 4% + 1.5% = 5.5%
11 - 4% + 1.0% = 5.0%
12 - 4% + 0.5% = 4.5%

Cheers, thats what i was trying to post, told you it was late !.

[marinello59]

1 - 4% + 13% = 17%
2 - 4% + 11% = 15%
3 - 4% + 5.5% = 9.5%
4 - 4% + 4.5% = 8.5%
5 - 4% + 4.0% = 8.0%
6 - 4% + 3.5% = 7.5%
7 - 4% + 3.0% = 7.0%
8 - 4% + 2.5% = 6.5%
9 - 4% + 2.0% = 6.0%
10 - 4% + 1.5% = 5.5%
11 - 4% + 1.0% = 5.0%
12 - 4% + 0.5% = 4.5%

Thems the figures. :greengrin
The difference between the money paid to the top two and third place is brutal. No matter what league size we may prefer I reckon most of us would agree that this situation needs rectified in some way.

[down the slope]

I found this which explains the supplementary bit


Fee payments to Clubs, after making deduction and/or adequate provision in accordance with Rule C4.2.2, shall be made as follows:-
C4.3.1 The remaining amount of the Commercial Revenues (“the Net Commercial Revenues”) referable to any one Season shall be divided into two tranches as described and paid to the Clubs as set out in the table in Rule C4.3.2;
C4.3.2 The tranches referred to in C4.3.1 are:
“The Basic Facility Fee Pool”, 48% of the Net Commercial Revenues, which shall be shared equally amongst the Clubs participating in the League during the Season in question; and
“The Supplementary Facility Fee Pool”, 52% of the Net Commercial Revenues, which shall be paid to the Clubs participating in the League during the Season in question in accordance with their respective league positions at the end of that Season.

League Position vs % Revenue
(Basic + Supplementary = Total)
1 4.0% 13.0% 17.0%
2 4.0% 11.0% 15.0%
3 4.0% 5.5% 9.5%
4 4.0% 4.5% 8.5%
5 4.0% 4.0% 8.0%
6 4.0% 3.5% 7.5%
7 4.0% 3.0% 7.0%
8 4.0% 2.5% 6.5%
9 4.0% 2.0% 6.0%
10 4.0% 1.5% 5.5%
11 4.0% 1.0% 5.0%
12 4.0% 0.5% 4.5%

Seems to me the auld yin has got his figures wrong.

[NAE NOOKIE]

R.E your plans. Basically your saying that unless you make it into the top 6 there's no point really picking up points until post-split? Therefore the team who finishes 7th could theoretically have 30-40 points myore than 14th, for this to be cut to 5 for the last few games. Non starter imo.

Yeh, but the hope was that if you end up in the bottom 8 only a few points from relegation at the start of a 14 game season no matter what you did previously, you will do your best to end up in the top 6 to avoid that scenario.

There may be better ways than my suggestion but whatever happens the stakes have got to be high in order to reduce meaningless games.

[sparky]

I found this which explains the supplementary bit

League Position vs % Revenue
(Basic + Supplementary = Total)
1 4.0% 13.0% 17.0%
2 4.0% 11.0% 15.0%
3 4.0% 5.5% 9.5%
4 4.0% 4.5% 8.5%
5 4.0% 4.0% 8.0%
6 4.0% 3.5% 7.5%
7 4.0% 3.0% 7.0%
8 4.0% 2.5% 6.5%
9 4.0% 2.0% 6.0%
10 4.0% 1.5% 5.5%
11 4.0% 1.0% 5.0%
12 4.0% 0.5% 4.5%



Why such a big drop from 2 to 3? :hmmm:

How about this:
(Total)
1. 10%
2. 8%
3. 8%
4. 8%
5. 8%
6. 8%
7. 8%
8. 8%
9. 8%
10. 8%
11. 8%
12. 10%

Also split gate money 50/50 as well. Then we might see an interesting league.

[Luna_Asylum]

What is required is unity amongst the non OF clubs

some (yams+well) have taken the lead:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/scot_prem/9362835.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/13589219.stm

Here is what I would consider a fairer allocation

http://www.sportingintelligence.com/2010/05/16/the-premier-league-where-the-money-went-in-2009-10/

[Hibs On Tour]

Problem is that to improve the league clubs have to accept their income will likely drop - and none of them are likely to do that.

10 team league [4 games each] = 36 games
16 team league [2 games each] = 30 games [but less Cat A and half the OF games]
18 team league [2 games each] = 34 games [but less Cat A and half the OF games]

The league *needs* to bin this idea that playing each other in the league 4 times is anything other than damaging overall. Sometimes 7 times taking cup games into account. And we wonder why there's no excitement or surprises? With 10 teams you also have an almost perpetual 'fear' in managers which means less liklihood of bringing through young players, which we have to reverse if we're to hope for any kind of improvement in our national team performance longer-term.

You could however bring in play-offs at the top end [for Europa League] and bottom end [for relegation] to add games perhaps. Do away with the split which was never anything else than nonsensical. Fairer spread of the revenues from TV across the league. OF teams still have far larger fanbases to gain revenue from so its not going to bring them 'down to the level of everyone else' but it is going to give them more of a challenge which should ultimately benefit them when they step up and play in Europe [which realistically they're still going to be doing pretty much all the time as Scotland's representatives anyway].

In the end, the turkeys *have* to vote for Xmas to a degree if the game in this country is to have *any* long-term future. Will it happen? I have my doubts. Even if they wanted to from a purely idealistical standpoint, whether their respective banking partners would 'allow' them to is perhaps another discussion altogether...

[sparkiedelpaco7]

Change all the leagues to 16 and drop a league

SPL

1. Champion
2. Champions League Qual
3. Europa League Playoff
4. Europa League Playoff
5. Europa League Playoff
6. Europa League Playoff
7. Mid Table
8. Mid Table
9. Mid Table
10. Mid Table
11. Mid Table
12. Mid Table
13. Mid Table
14. Relegated
15. Relegated
16. Relegated

Div 1 and Div 2

1. Champion
2. Automatic Promotion
3. Playoff Promotion
4. Playoff Promotion
5. Playoff Promotion
6. Playoff Promotion
7. Mid Table
8. Mid Table
9. Mid Table
10. Mid Table
11. Mid Table
12. Mid Table
13. Mid Table
14. Relegated
15. Relegated
16. Relegated

[Hibs On Tour]

Change all the leagues to 16 and drop a league

SPL

1. Champion
2. Champions League Qual
3. Europa League Playoff
4. Europa League Playoff
5. Europa League Playoff
6. Europa League Playoff
7. Mid Table
8. Mid Table
9. Mid Table
10. Mid Table
11. Mid Table
12. Mid Table
13. Mid Table
14. Relegated
15. Relegated
16. Relegated

Div 1 and Div 2

1. Champion
2. Automatic Promotion
3. Playoff Promotion
4. Playoff Promotion
5. Playoff Promotion
6. Playoff Promotion
7. Mid Table
8. Mid Table
9. Mid Table
10. Mid Table
11. Mid Table
12. Mid Table
13. Mid Table
14. Relegated
15. Relegated
16. Relegated

Like the look of that. Top teams would have less games but offset by more prize money for better finish and European football. Midtable teams would be either chasing a Euro playoff place or digging away from relegation dogfight. Bottom teams would have less games but perhaps offset by distribution of money?

[chippy]

My first post, though been a reader of posts for many years. I have always felt the 10 or 12 club premier league has been detrimental to the development of football in Scotland. Sure in the early years of the 10 club league, Aberdeen and United were very successful, but the players from that period were developed and sprang from the old much derided 18 club league. Eddie Turnbull's argument against the 10 club league was it was one with a top and bottom but no middle. I feel that many significant clubs in Scottish Football have had their status undermined by the set ups of the last 30 odd years. Clubs are derided by fans of other clubs because they only get crowds of 2,4,or 5 thousand. I'm thinking of the Pars, Rovers, Dunfermline, Thistle, Dundee, etc. Some talk down other clubs far too much. Think of it in reverse as if we were back in the 19th century when football was just starting. Football fans and clubs were actively supporting clubs to develop. We are Scotland, a small country with a magnificent football heritage that we are in danger of allowing to stagnate and diminish. Why don't we see crowds of 3 or 4 thousand in Paisley, Motherwell, Fife, Dundee as significant in an era where there are so many other choices for people and families. In my view we should be celebrating all our clubs and respecting each other regardless of the size of their crowds, in fact is it not amazing that crowds are still numbered in several thousands for SPL and Div 1 and 2?- it could be a lot worse. An expanded league will ensure many more local friendly rivalries can resume and flourish but at a higher level e.g, Rovers vs Pars, Dundee vs United/ Saint J, Airdrie vs Well. This would mean higher crowds for sure. Let's not forget that along with England we are the home of Football and all our great clubs are filled with such great history dating back to the 1870s. We should be celebrating this cultural gem. Why not take a positive outlook and consider that a relaunched expanded league will help protect and perhaps renew some of our historic clubs. That this will take some time is certain, but reconsider crticising fellow football clubs just because they don't get crowds regularly above 10 thousand.

Renewal
The arguments against a 16/18 club league seems to be less games = reduced income. Reduced old firm and Hibs/Hertz derbies add to loss of income/TV interest. It would be easy to add additional important games for the top 4 ( they simply play against each other twice more, thus ensuring 2 OF derbies and sometimes Edinburgh derbies). Bottom 4 play each other again home and away to decide 2 relegation places. Teams finishing 5 to 8 play each other twice to decide final European place(s). This leaves teams finishing 9th to 12th or 9th to 14th if an 18 club league with arguably nothing to play for, though they would be happy to avoid the relegation additional games- they at least could play development teams in a final set of games home and away. I would say that these additional games are rewards for a successful/unsuccessful season. Points from the 30 game (16 team league) or 34 game ( 18 team league) are carried forwards rather than a pure play off system.
In this system who can complain. Enough home games for revenue and an addition of more meaningful games. No split/ OF derbies if they finish in top 4. Would this not add to excitement as teams trt to avoid bottom 4, get into top 4 or 5th-8th. If this is done in a 16 team league everyone plays 36 games evenly split home/away. If it is an 18 club league the same number of games except teams finishing 9th to 14th play 40 games.
My focus has been on the top league as it i think is the key to transform the game up here. Having a same size 2cd tier and perhaps 3rd tier with perhaps reserve teams of the 'big' clubs woud seem sensible.
Additional benefits of an expanded league
- space for more younger scots players at the top level
- top scots clubs can spot the up and coming players in the top league and sign them. They will know if they can hack it int the top league
- More scots players playing at the top level earlier, giving the National team manager more choice.

Thanks for sticking with this, GGTH

[Luna_Asylum]

My first post, though been a reader of posts for many years. I have always felt the 10 or 12 club premier league has been detrimental to the development of football in Scotland. Sure in the early years of the 10 club league, Aberdeen and United were very successful, but the players from that period were developed and sprang from the old much derided 18 club league. Eddie Turnbull's argument against the 10 club league was it was one with a top and bottom but no middle. I feel that many significant clubs in Scottish Football have had their status undermined by the set ups of the last 30 odd years. Clubs are derided by fans of other clubs because they only get crowds of 2,4,or 5 thousand. I'm thinking of the Pars, Rovers, Dunfermline, Thistle, Dundee, etc. Some talk down other clubs far too much. Think of it in reverse as if we were back in the 19th century when football was just starting. Football fans and clubs were actively supporting clubs to develop. We are Scotland, a small country with a magnificent football heritage that we are in danger of allowing to stagnate and diminish. Why don't we see crowds of 3 or 4 thousand in Paisley, Motherwell, Fife, Dundee as significant in an era where there are so many other choices for people and families. In my view we should be celebrating all our clubs and respecting each other regardless of the size of their crowds, in fact is it not amazing that crowds are still numbered in several thousands for SPL and Div 1 and 2?- it could be a lot worse. An expanded league will ensure many more local friendly rivalries can resume and flourish but at a higher level e.g, Rovers vs Pars, Dundee vs United/ Saint J, Airdrie vs Well. This would mean higher crowds for sure. Let's not forget that along with England we are the home of Football and all our great clubs are filled with such great history dating back to the 1870s. We should be celebrating this cultural gem. Why not take a positive outlook and consider that a relaunched expanded league will help protect and perhaps renew some of our historic clubs. That this will take some time is certain, but reconsider crticising fellow football clubs just because they don't get crowds regularly above 10 thousand.

Renewal
The arguments against a 16/18 club league seems to be less games = reduced income. Reduced old firm and Hibs/Hertz derbies add to loss of income/TV interest. It would be easy to add additional important games for the top 4 ( they simply play against each other twice more, thus ensuring 2 OF derbies and sometimes Edinburgh derbies). Bottom 4 play each other again home and away to decide 2 relegation places. Teams finishing 5 to 8 play each other twice to decide final European place(s). This leaves teams finishing 9th to 12th or 9th to 14th if an 18 club league with arguably nothing to play for, though they would be happy to avoid the relegation additional games- they at least could play development teams in a final set of games home and away. I would say that these additional games are rewards for a successful/unsuccessful season. Points from the 30 game (16 team league) or 34 game ( 18 team league) are carried forwards rather than a pure play off system.
In this system who can complain. Enough home games for revenue and an addition of more meaningful games. No split/ OF derbies if they finish in top 4. Would this not add to excitement as teams trt to avoid bottom 4, get into top 4 or 5th-8th. If this is done in a 16 team league everyone plays 36 games evenly split home/away. If it is an 18 club league the same number of games except teams finishing 9th to 14th play 40 games.
My focus has been on the top league as it i think is the key to transform the game up here. Having a same size 2cd tier and perhaps 3rd tier with perhaps reserve teams of the 'big' clubs woud seem sensible.
Additional benefits of an expanded league
- space for more younger scots players at the top level
- top scots clubs can spot the up and coming players in the top league and sign them. They will know if they can hack it int the top league
- More scots players playing at the top level earlier, giving the National team manager more choice.

Thanks for sticking with this, GGTH

Very classy post. Please consider forwarding it to Hibs as it looks looks like only petrie the sheep and the OF are against a larger league.

[Hibeesb0unc3]

My first post, though been a reader of posts for many years. I have always felt the 10 or 12 club premier league has been detrimental to the development of football in Scotland. Sure in the early years of the 10 club league, Aberdeen and United were very successful, but the players from that period were developed and sprang from the old much derided 18 club league. Eddie Turnbull's argument against the 10 club league was it was one with a top and bottom but no middle. I feel that many significant clubs in Scottish Football have had their status undermined by the set ups of the last 30 odd years. Clubs are derided by fans of other clubs because they only get crowds of 2,4,or 5 thousand. I'm thinking of the Pars, Rovers, Dunfermline, Thistle, Dundee, etc. Some talk down other clubs far too much. Think of it in reverse as if we were back in the 19th century when football was just starting. Football fans and clubs were actively supporting clubs to develop. We are Scotland, a small country with a magnificent football heritage that we are in danger of allowing to stagnate and diminish. Why don't we see crowds of 3 or 4 thousand in Paisley, Motherwell, Fife, Dundee as significant in an era where there are so many other choices for people and families. In my view we should be celebrating all our clubs and respecting each other regardless of the size of their crowds, in fact is it not amazing that crowds are still numbered in several thousands for SPL and Div 1 and 2?- it could be a lot worse. An expanded league will ensure many more local friendly rivalries can resume and flourish but at a higher level e.g, Rovers vs Pars, Dundee vs United/ Saint J, Airdrie vs Well. This would mean higher crowds for sure. Let's not forget that along with England we are the home of Football and all our great clubs are filled with such great history dating back to the 1870s. We should be celebrating this cultural gem. Why not take a positive outlook and consider that a relaunched expanded league will help protect and perhaps renew some of our historic clubs. That this will take some time is certain, but reconsider crticising fellow football clubs just because they don't get crowds regularly above 10 thousand.

Renewal
The arguments against a 16/18 club league seems to be less games = reduced income. Reduced old firm and Hibs/Hertz derbies add to loss of income/TV interest. It would be easy to add additional important games for the top 4 ( they simply play against each other twice more, thus ensuring 2 OF derbies and sometimes Edinburgh derbies). Bottom 4 play each other again home and away to decide 2 relegation places. Teams finishing 5 to 8 play each other twice to decide final European place(s). This leaves teams finishing 9th to 12th or 9th to 14th if an 18 club league with arguably nothing to play for, though they would be happy to avoid the relegation additional games- they at least could play development teams in a final set of games home and away. I would say that these additional games are rewards for a successful/unsuccessful season. Points from the 30 game (16 team league) or 34 game ( 18 team league) are carried forwards rather than a pure play off system.
In this system who can complain. Enough home games for revenue and an addition of more meaningful games. No split/ OF derbies if they finish in top 4. Would this not add to excitement as teams trt to avoid bottom 4, get into top 4 or 5th-8th. If this is done in a 16 team league everyone plays 36 games evenly split home/away. If it is an 18 club league the same number of games except teams finishing 9th to 14th play 40 games.
My focus has been on the top league as it i think is the key to transform the game up here. Having a same size 2cd tier and perhaps 3rd tier with perhaps reserve teams of the 'big' clubs woud seem sensible.
Additional benefits of an expanded league
- space for more younger scots players at the top level
- top scots clubs can spot the up and coming players in the top league and sign them. They will know if they can hack it int the top league
- More scots players playing at the top level earlier, giving the National team manager more choice.

Thanks for sticking with this, GGTH

I agree with this post as with a 10 team league teams will be scared to field youngsters due to the fear of being relegated therefore making the future for scottish football bleak.

I think an 18 team premier division would be most suitable as yes for some clubs they may lose revenues from not playing the OF 3/4 times but think about teams like Raith, Ross county, partick etc who would have their revenue increased due to playing hibs, hearts the OF. Also The loss of revenue as you said could be recouped by these relegation/european play off games.

I also think that with the remaining 24 could make either one big league which would majorly benefit the smaller teams such as east fife berwick or you could have a 2nd division of 18 teams and a 3rd division with the remaining 6 teams and the reserve teams from the OF hibs and hearts etc, this already happens in spain and some other european leagues and they have no problems with it.

[down the slope]

My first post, though been a reader of posts for many years. I have always felt the 10 or 12 club premier league has been detrimental to the development of football in Scotland. Sure in the early years of the 10 club league, Aberdeen and United were very successful, but the players from that period were developed and sprang from the old much derided 18 club league. Eddie Turnbull's argument against the 10 club league was it was one with a top and bottom but no middle. I feel that many significant clubs in Scottish Football have had their status undermined by the set ups of the last 30 odd years. Clubs are derided by fans of other clubs because they only get crowds of 2,4,or 5 thousand. I'm thinking of the Pars, Rovers, Dunfermline, Thistle, Dundee, etc. Some talk down other clubs far too much. Think of it in reverse as if we were back in the 19th century when football was just starting. Football fans and clubs were actively supporting clubs to develop. We are Scotland, a small country with a magnificent football heritage that we are in danger of allowing to stagnate and diminish. Why don't we see crowds of 3 or 4 thousand in Paisley, Motherwell, Fife, Dundee as significant in an era where there are so many other choices for people and families. In my view we should be celebrating all our clubs and respecting each other regardless of the size of their crowds, in fact is it not amazing that crowds are still numbered in several thousands for SPL and Div 1 and 2?- it could be a lot worse. An expanded league will ensure many more local friendly rivalries can resume and flourish but at a higher level e.g, Rovers vs Pars, Dundee vs United/ Saint J, Airdrie vs Well. This would mean higher crowds for sure. Let's not forget that along with England we are the home of Football and all our great clubs are filled with such great history dating back to the 1870s. We should be celebrating this cultural gem. Why not take a positive outlook and consider that a relaunched expanded league will help protect and perhaps renew some of our historic clubs. That this will take some time is certain, but reconsider crticising fellow football clubs just because they don't get crowds regularly above 10 thousand.

Renewal
The arguments against a 16/18 club league seems to be less games = reduced income. Reduced old firm and Hibs/Hertz derbies add to loss of income/TV interest. It would be easy to add additional important games for the top 4 ( they simply play against each other twice more, thus ensuring 2 OF derbies and sometimes Edinburgh derbies). Bottom 4 play each other again home and away to decide 2 relegation places. Teams finishing 5 to 8 play each other twice to decide final European place(s). This leaves teams finishing 9th to 12th or 9th to 14th if an 18 club league with arguably nothing to play for, though they would be happy to avoid the relegation additional games- they at least could play development teams in a final set of games home and away. I would say that these additional games are rewards for a successful/unsuccessful season. Points from the 30 game (16 team league) or 34 game ( 18 team league) are carried forwards rather than a pure play off system.
In this system who can complain. Enough home games for revenue and an addition of more meaningful games. No split/ OF derbies if they finish in top 4. Would this not add to excitement as teams trt to avoid bottom 4, get into top 4 or 5th-8th. If this is done in a 16 team league everyone plays 36 games evenly split home/away. If it is an 18 club league the same number of games except teams finishing 9th to 14th play 40 games.
My focus has been on the top league as it i think is the key to transform the game up here. Having a same size 2cd tier and perhaps 3rd tier with perhaps reserve teams of the 'big' clubs woud seem sensible.
Additional benefits of an expanded league
- space for more younger scots players at the top level
- top scots clubs can spot the up and coming players in the top league and sign them. They will know if they can hack it int the top league
- More scots players playing at the top level earlier, giving the National team manager more choice.

Thanks for sticking with this, GGTH


Well said that man , i have always advocated being inclusive but a few on here cannot see past their noses and want us to screw as much cash from the game as possible with a ten team league.

[Moulin Yarns]

Same amount of TV money spread over 2 fewer teams= more money for Hibs

More games against the old firm=more away fans and potential net gain in home fans=more money for Hibs

Wrong on the first count I'm afraid. The only sensible part of the 10 team SPL proposal was a 'slight' redistribution of funds to the SPL2. In other words, same money divided by 20 clubs

More games against the OF?? true, a gaurantee of 2 home games against each, but wasnt the ginger whinger saying he was bored rigid playing Rangers 7 times last season.

[Luna_Asylum]

In todays papers Doncaster is still quoting that massive lie that the game loses 20 million with a bigger league.

He has got that vile creature H.Potter on board now also telling us 10 is best.

The Sooner scottish fitba gets rid of these 2 imposters the better.

[moredun]

In todays papers Doncaster is still quoting that massive lie that the game loses 20 million with a bigger league.

He has got that vile creature H.Potter on board now also telling us 10 is best.

The Sooner scottish fitba gets rid of these 2 imposters the better.

What chance have you got when you have a complete muppet advocating a league that will cause creativity to cease, thou shall not get beat attitude, no teams working on a basis to entertain, no youngsters getting a chance as the pressure is too much.

The whole set-up will be based on teams going out to not get beat, how the pheck are we supposed to learn how to open teams up, play actual football the way "fans"want to see it, but if you are Harry Potter, this will be great as the teams will be set up for him, ie boring defensive fitba with big huddies playing and skill and talent getting nowhere near the team.
This idiot of a man will, no scrub that, IS taking our game back decades to the fantastic game we had to endure during the eighties with the huge crowds and fabulously entertaining fitba, yeah right, he should be stopped in his tracks immediately.
As an aside Fletchers agent is now sating that Potter has been lying about Fletchers comments about playing for Scotland.
When will the rag trade so-called journos take him to heed and quiz him, what am i talking about, they will never do that as Fletch has not been anywhere near the bigot 2.
And folk wonder why our game is so bad.
FFS Kenny Miller has played just about every single minute of every game under Potter, he couldn't lace SF's boots.
Not one person in the scotland squad apart from his namesake has done anything remotely near as good as what SF has done in the EPL, but no old firm attatchment and no-one in the game cares if he is in the squad or not.
That is the sad indictment of our so-called game by all and sundry in the wets coast bias maedja and sfa

[ScottB]

Frankly if having a bigger league means the teams have to accept a little less TV money or whatever then so be it. It will only increase the use of young Scottish talent anyway.

I'd much rather see a 16 or 18 team league than continuing this 4 times a season nonsense. Even if money goes down I think we'd see more fans coming along. Also it will give clubs like us, Hearts, Aberdeen, Dundee United etc stability. In a 10 team league a bad season, like which we have all had in recent years could see us go down. In a bigger league we'd have the safety to plan long term, as well as the confidence to blood youngsters.

I like the idea mentioned above about end of season play offs to artificially increase the number of derby matches. Also presumably we could lump the League Cup in with the SPL TV rights, have regional group stages or something, thereby giving the TV companies their 4 Old Firm matches etc.

[tony]

I've not been on the forum for a while, and was interested to find out what our fans were thinking about regarding potential change. I was appalled, as always by our national managers comments in the papers today. A weird case of saying one thing will get a certain result when we (the fans) know that the exact opposite will happen. He wants the 'best' to play each other more regularly because that will make them stronger players, for us and for the national team. Are we the fans the only ones that have been watching Scottish football go down the toilet over the past fifteen years or so. Playing each other four times a season leads to boredom (for us) and tactical inertia. Skill, adventure and sheer joy of the game have almost disappeared from view and we are now 'enjoying' perhaps the worst our football has ever been. Any player with a ounce of talent needs to leave here as soon as they can and those with natural skill, can somehow be good enough for the EPL but not quite cut it here -Adam, Dobbie.

Those who can't see past the pound signs don't know that their short term views are killing the game we love in the long term. Hearts four times a year? Celtic four times a year? Rangers four times a year? Where is the 'occassion' there? Where is the excitement knowing that this one game was your chance at home to put one over one of the big teams? The bottom line is the people in charge, and our national manager, know nothing of what makes our game special.

Our game needs a proper economic review, based on a league devoted to providing enertaining, quality football, and allowing our best young talent to thrive and develop. A 10/12/14 team four times a year doesnt do it, and we all know it. And pricing the dreadful product on offer so that young kids cant get in doesnt work. Nothing less than a complete change will save us. A 16/18 team league would do for starters, and we, the fans, know it.

Or shall we just keep on singing as more and more of us walk away?

And does the last supporter left chanting get a special medal?