PDA

View Full Version : League Reconstruction Poll



StevieC
29-11-2011, 11:53 AM
Did a search and couldn't see any sign of a poll on league reconstruction, apologies if there has been one.

With all the talk of strike action this week I was wondering if supporters would be willing to carry out a one day strike regarding league reconstruction.

If the poll were to show a clear majority in favour of change would a strike send a clear message to the powers that be?

My thinking would be that supporters associations would co-ordinate to gauge the support of its members and if in favour a date would be chosen for strike action.

In order to be fair, each team would pick their own home game to ensure they weren't missing out on a derby game or hitting the club too hard financially. This would also keep the action in the headlines for a much longer period than a one-day-forgotten-about-next-week action.

Hibbyradge
29-11-2011, 12:14 PM
I'm already on strike! :wink:

A 16 team league would cripple us in my opinion.

Too many meaningless games, to few visiting supporters, too little money shared amongst too many clubs.

A 14 team league with a top 6/bottom 8 split would be interesting.

Everyone would play each other twice - 26 games, then the top 6 would have another 10 games to sort out the league and the European places.

The bottom 8 teams would have 14 more games which would make up for not playing the bigger teams.

I'd like it if there was a way to involve the top teams in the 1st division at the end of the season in a sort of play-off scenario, but I can't think how that could be done.

StevieC
29-11-2011, 12:26 PM
A 16 team league would cripple us in my opinion.
Too many meaningless games, to few visiting supporters, too little money shared amongst too many clubs.
A 14 team league with a top 6/bottom 8 split would be interesting.
Everyone would play each other twice - 26 games, then the top 6 would have another 10 games to sort out the league and the European places.

Too few visiting supporters? You dont think that more supporters would be likely to travel to an away fixture knowing that it would be their only trip there that season? And more so if it were a team that may only be in the league for one season?

40 games for bottom 8 clubs? That's a huge ask.

Agree that it would undoubtedly mean less money from the TV/"League" Sponsorship pot, but in the big scheme of things is it really about the money? Could a bigger league attract more supporters to off-set this?

Shaggy
29-11-2011, 12:29 PM
SPL 1--- Rangers, Celtic(let them play 36 times a year, see how they get on, seeing they dont need anyone)

Spl 2--- Us and 15 other teams with the biggest stadia and a 4 figure support. Share out the reduced prize funds more fairly... but who would win every year??

Rest of the teams will have to go Junior

.......Forget the comparing the quality of english leagues, I just want to see competitive football... I get so much more enjoyment following the wee boys under 15's.

Extreme, but something radical has to happen:duck::duck:

PatHead
29-11-2011, 12:35 PM
Voted for a 16 team league but know it is a non starter as Sky/ESPN insist on an Old Firm derby 4 times a season. At time of posting notice there has been no votes for status quo so I am sure I know what the SPL board will go for!

Musselbound
29-11-2011, 12:45 PM
The question is what size of league do you want so I voted for 16. As I see it that would make for a more intereresting league that is more competitive at the top end. It's not going to happen though so a more realistic move to 14 would also get my backing as a step in the right direction. But the current nonsensical voting 11-1 voting system, which is in place to suit the Old Firm, makes any change very complicated and I don't foresee the number of teams in the top league changing any time soon. In what other walk of life would you need such a large number in favour of any change? It would be all talk and nothing would get done and so it is with the SPL.

I think the powers that be are already well aware of what the fans' favourite option is. I'm sure Neil Donkeycaster has already acknowledged this but we are viewed as plebs who know nothing about generating money. If change does eventually come about at some point, it will either be to 10 or 14. It will not be anything as radical as 16 or 18 unless the Old Firm go somewhere else which looks unlikely.

StevieC
29-11-2011, 12:45 PM
Voted for a 16 team league but know it is a non starter as Sky/ESPN insist on an Old Firm derby 4 times a season.

Is it a non-starter though?

Doncaster stated that it would cost the league £20m in TV money if the OF only played twice a season, so there must be some sort of clause in there to cover this.

And if there's a clause there's a way. :wink:

PatHead
29-11-2011, 12:51 PM
Spoke to a Director of another SPL club on Friday night who said that if any of the Old Firm left SPL there is an automatic review of contract with a view to re-negotiating. Doesn't think there is anything about re-negotiating through re-construction.

Beefster
29-11-2011, 12:57 PM
Can someone explain to me how removing home games against the likes of Celtic, Rangers, Hearts and Aberdeen and replacing them with the likes of Ross County, Falkirk, Dundee and Queen of the South is going to get Hibs' attendances up?

About half of the away teams already only play at ER once a season already and still bring a crap support and is someone really going to give a Hearts game a miss but be champing at the bit to go to a QotS game?

Hibbyradge
29-11-2011, 12:58 PM
A 16 team league would mean only 30 games a season, 8 less than we struggle to survive on now.

Of course there would be less away fans. A single game against each of the top 4. in the first division could never be expected to compensate for 2 home games against the likes of Celtic, Rangers, Hearts and Aberdeen.

Mary Hinge
29-11-2011, 01:10 PM
Is it a non-starter though?

Doncaster stated that it would cost the league £20m in TV money if the OF only played twice a season, so there must be some sort of clause in there to cover this.

And if there's a clause there's a way. :wink:

They don't have to play 4 league games surely !!!

The infirm could play as many friendlies as they want to boost the TV coffers ....... it would also keep both sides of the knuckledragging bigots happy too :agree:

StevieC
29-11-2011, 01:12 PM
Spoke to a Director of another SPL club on Friday night who said that if any of the Old Firm left SPL there is an automatic review of contract with a view to re-negotiating. Doesn't think there is anything about re-negotiating through re-construction.

Four OF games a season is a requirement for the TV deal. If a larger league were voted in (and it could be if enough teams voted for it) then there would be no option but to renegotiate the deal.

The 11-1 voting situation is obviously a major hurdle but I dont think it's 11-1 for ALL decisions. It may be possible for a majority vote to change the 11-1 at one AGM and then a majority vote to expand the league at the next? :dunno:

StevieC
29-11-2011, 01:30 PM
I think the powers that be are already well aware of what the fans' favourite option is.

Exactly, and they chose to ignore it. Would more drastic action (such as a strike) show them we mean business?

:hmmm:

MyJo
29-11-2011, 01:39 PM
The most sensible and workable option would probably be a 14 team league with a split.

1st round of games play each team in the league twice, once home and once away - 26 games

2nd round of games with top 7 / bottom 7 split playing twice again - 12 games

Would be good if they shook things up a bit as well and maybe after the first round of games they labeled the top 7 as SPL1 and bottom 7 SPL2 and wiped all the points from the first round of games and started again with SPL1 teams playing for the title and european places and SPL2 teams playing for relegation places.

TheBall'sRound
29-11-2011, 01:48 PM
The most sensible and workable option would probably be a 14 team league with a split.

1st round of games play each team in the league twice, once home and once away - 26 games

2nd round of games with top 7 / bottom 7 split playing twice again - 12 games

Would be good if they shook things up a bit as well and maybe after the first round of games they labeled the top 7 as SPL1 and bottom 7 SPL2 and wiped all the points from the first round of games and started again with SPL1 teams playing for the title and european places and SPL2 teams playing for relegation places.

Problem with 7 and 7 is that one team in each half sits out each week. There would be grief about who got the break where and the games proceeding the break and blah blah. Can of worms.

patlowe
29-11-2011, 01:51 PM
The most sensible and workable option would probably be a 14 team league with a split.

1st round of games play each team in the league twice, once home and once away - 26 games

2nd round of games with top 7 / bottom 7 split playing twice again - 12 games

Would be good if they shook things up a bit as well and maybe after the first round of games they labeled the top 7 as SPL1 and bottom 7 SPL2 and wiped all the points from the first round of games and started again with SPL1 teams playing for the title and european places and SPL2 teams playing for relegation places.

Excellent suggestions.

WindyMiller
29-11-2011, 02:00 PM
I'm already on strike! :wink:

A 16 team league would cripple us in my opinion.

Too many meaningless games, to few visiting supporters, too little money shared amongst too many clubs.

A 14 team league with a top 6/bottom 8 split would be interesting.

Everyone would play each other twice - 26 games, then the top 6 would have another 10 games to sort out the league and the European places.

The bottom 8 teams would have 14 more games which would make up for not playing the bigger teams.

I'd like it if there was a way to involve the top teams in the 1st division at the end of the season in a sort of play-off scenario, but I can't think how that could be done.


I like 14 team set-up you've proposed but specially the highlighted.
You can see the excitement the play-offs create in England.

patlowe
29-11-2011, 02:05 PM
I like 14 team set-up you've proposed but specially the highlighted.
You can see the excitement the play-offs create in England.

Why did they get rid of the play-offs in the first place? Why has it taken so long for them to be reinstated given the universal support for them? SPL clubs really need to get their finger out and start listening to what the fans want before it's too late.

SlickShoes
29-11-2011, 02:09 PM
I was at the real radio thing a few weeks ago and everyone asked Neil Doncaster about reconstruction and he said that there is no way they can reconstruct to a larger league without teams losing out on money, also that the TV companies basically require the OF play 4 times a season. He is fully aware fans all want a larger league but financially it is not possible at all.

patlowe
29-11-2011, 02:10 PM
I was at the real radio thing a few weeks ago and everyone asked Neil Doncaster about reconstruction and he said that there is no way they can reconstruct to a larger league without teams losing out on money, also that the TV companies basically require the OF play 4 times a season. He is fully aware fans all want a larger league but financially it is not possible at all.

Everything he says is based on the assumption that our game is completely at the mercy of television companies. A sad state of affairs.

SlickShoes
29-11-2011, 02:13 PM
Everything he says is based on the assumption that our game is completely at the mercy of television companies. A sad state of affairs.

Aye and it pretty much is with regards to income, it is very sad.

Someone suggested to him summer football, starting in april and running to october or so, thus giving SKY and other channels something to show over the summer, which seemed to make sense until he mentioned that every two years you would be going up against the World Cup or Euros for coverage and it would just be a non starter.

No team is going to vote for losing money because they are all that skint and on the verge of collapse as it is, any drop in revenue even to make a more exciting league most teams won't buy into it sadly, so the fans suffer.

MyJo
29-11-2011, 02:13 PM
Everything he says is based on the assumption that our game is completely at the mercy of television companies. A sad state of affairs.

It is though. Maybe not for the bigger teams like the OF and us, Hearts, Dundee United etc who would manage to muddle through but even in the SPL probably half the teams would not be able to carry on or even exist if it wasnt for the money from the TV deal

patlowe
29-11-2011, 02:20 PM
It is though. Maybe not for the bigger teams like the OF and us, Hearts, Dundee United etc who would manage to muddle through but even in the SPL probably half the teams would not be able to carry on or even exist if it wasnt for the money from the TV deal

Exactly and that is what's sad. However, if we had the balls to play our own game and concentrate solely on what entertains the fans and encourages real competition within our game then maybe at some stage we'd be in a position to negotiate a much better deal. Of course we'd have to take a financial hit initially but at the moment all we're doing is grasping on for dear life to this shoddy deal from SKY/ESPN that only serves to slow down the inevitable decline of our game.

Purehibee_MYB
29-11-2011, 03:27 PM
16 is ideal...in no way is shortening the league a good idea...

Hibbyradge
29-11-2011, 03:35 PM
16 is ideal...in no way is shortening the league a good idea...

A 16 team league only gives us 30 games.

That's far from ideal.

Sir David Gray
29-11-2011, 03:38 PM
I was at the real radio thing a few weeks ago and everyone asked Neil Doncaster about reconstruction and he said that there is no way they can reconstruct to a larger league without teams losing out on money, also that the TV companies basically require the OF play 4 times a season. He is fully aware fans all want a larger league but financially it is not possible at all.

Neil Doncaster also said recently that things such as Hearts failing to pay their players on time and Celtic being in trouble over their fans singing IRA songs could be good news for the league in terms of drumming up commercial interest in Scottish football.

I will therefore hold off in terms of listening to anything that Mr Doncaster has to say on issues relating to financial matters.

I understand that going for an 18 team league would be difficult at first because teams would be going from playing 19 home games per season to 17 and they would be going from playing at least one half of the Old Firm at home twice a season to just once each, however sometimes you need to think of the bigger picture.

Scottish football is a mess, the SPL structure is awful, very few people like the split and playing half of the league four times per season is extremely monotonous.

I can think of a number of First Division clubs who could bring something to the SPL. Clubs like Dundee, Falkirk, Partick Thistle, Raith Rovers and Livingston all have decent infrastructure and respectable attendances and I think they could hold their own in an enlarged SPL.

They're certainly no worse off than three or four of the teams who are in the current SPL.

NorthNorfolkHFC
29-11-2011, 03:45 PM
14 team super league! Top 4 playoff at end of season for additional cup. bottom 4 playoff to assess who will go down. Great excitement at end of season!!!!!!! None of this split nonsense!!!

Make the lower leagues regional, say upper, east and west. Then have top two from each region playing off to reach Super League!!!

One 'Scottish Cup' for all teams.

I think that is a setup that would generate a bit interest throughout the season, especially at the end when traditionally nobody is interested!!!

Regardless of standard it would be good to watch cause there would be alot on the line for most!!!

SlickShoes
29-11-2011, 03:58 PM
Neil Doncaster also said recently that things such as Hearts failing to pay their players on time and Celtic being in trouble over their fans singing IRA songs could be good news for the league in terms of drumming up commercial interest in Scottish football.

I will therefore hold off in terms of listening to anything that Mr Doncaster has to say on issues relating to financial matters.

I understand that going for an 18 team league would be difficult at first because teams would be going from playing 19 home games per season to 17 and they would be going from playing at least one half of the Old Firm at home twice a season to just once each, however sometimes you need to think of the bigger picture.

Scottish football is a mess, the SPL structure is awful, very few people like the split and playing half of the league four times per season is extremely monotonous.

I can think of a number of First Division clubs who could bring something to the SPL. Clubs like Dundee, Falkirk, Partick Thistle, Raith Rovers and Livingston all have decent infrastructure and respectable attendances and I think they could hold their own in an enlarged SPL.

They're certainly no worse off than three or four of the teams who are in the current SPL.

I'm not in any way agreeing with him, but he is the guy in charge so think whatever you want but whilst he is there and money is the key you can forget your 18 team league.

Couldn't agree more with the bold bit though, from the top all the way down its rotten, no relegation from div3 is as bad as the old firm winning the league every year.

Beefster
29-11-2011, 04:05 PM
No TV equals poorer quality equals lower crowds equals poorer quality equals no TV.

The folk that think supporters are going to flood back to the games because they are 'closer', even although the quality of football is even more woeful than now, are kidding themselves IMHO.

There's a reason why the League of Ireland, which is competitive, has an average attendance of about 1,500, despite Ireland's population not being much less than Scotland.

Not that I'm saying that Scottish football is great, it's not. Just that an expanded league isn't the automatic solution that lots seem to think it is.

Big Frank
29-11-2011, 04:45 PM
Its the whole package. Everything seems to be debated in isolation when dealing with Scottish Football.

Just ONE reason for the state we are in in this country is the boredom factor. With the current set up we are playing each other far too much. For such as small country, a minimum of 4 times a season is x2 too much. We should play home and away in the league and no more. A 16 or 18 league is a must.

For starters.

When the cost is debated, its (correctly) mooted that there is no benefit for clubs when reducing the pricing for a particular match. But the point is Scottish football is ridiculously priced and there should be a reduction season long. Get it back into the minds of those who used to go religiously in the 80s and 90s that, actually it isn't too expensive to go to the game. I'm sure over time crowds WOULD come back. :agree:

Football fans in general are treated disgracefully, from over zealous agressive stewards frothing at the mouth because a supporter has dared to stand up to Grampian policy in your face with a camera (been up to pittodrie lately). Fans need to be treated like humans. Its a disgrace what we put up with and what we have been putting up with for years. Easy, easy cash for the police and private security firms.

Wont bother boring you with crazy kickoff times and football matches on mondays, sundays and (now) fridays. :greengrin


I would honestly love scottish football fans to do a strike. I agree wholeheartedly with the OP :agree:

PeeJay
29-11-2011, 04:56 PM
No TV equals poorer quality equals lower crowds equals poorer quality equals no TV.

Too much TV equals poorer quality equals lower crowds equals cxxx kick-off time equals low crowds equals poorer quality 4 times playing the same team equals no interest - maybe it's time to take football back off the tv companies?:greengrin

StevieC
29-11-2011, 04:59 PM
Lots of people using the TV money, affordability, reduced income as an argument for the status quo, surely football teams will always manage regardless of what the income is .. they just cut their cloth accordingly. Kilmarnock survive on a lot less than we get, Dundee survive on less than that, Arbroath survive on less still. If we all take a hit right across the board then surely whatever is decided will be "affordable"?

As a matter of interest, who thinks that the current Hibs playing squad actually deserve the level of pay that they are on?

Hibbyradge
29-11-2011, 05:01 PM
Lots of people using the TV money, affordability, reduced income as an argument for the status quo, surely football teams will always manage regardless of what the income is .. they just cut their cloth accordingly. Kilmarnock survive on a lot less than we get, Dundee survive on less than that, Arbroath survive on less still. If we all take a hit right across the board then surely whatever is decided will be "affordable"?

As a matter of interest, who thinks that the current Hibs playing squad actually deserve the level of pay that they are on?

Jeezo, Stevie, can't you recall all the posts complaining that RP is too stingy with the wages? :wink:

Eyrie
29-11-2011, 08:39 PM
I'd like it if there was a way to involve the top teams in the 1st division at the end of the season in a sort of play-off scenario, but I can't think how that could be done.
It's do-able in a roundabout way. Here's something I've been in favour of for a number of years

Have a 12 team SPL and 12 team Division 1. In each division teams play home and away, for 22 games finishing with the New Year derbies. The remaining 18 teams are in Division 2. Have the fourth round of the Scottish Cup (when the big guns enter) on the first weekend in January, followed by a two week winter break. The leagues resume as follows

- Top 8 in the SPL play for the title and Europe.
- Bottom 4 SPL and top 4 Div 1 teams play in a Championship group, with the winner getting the title and the top 4 going into next season's SPL.
- Bottom 8 in Div 1 play for the Div 1 title, with the bottom club being relegated and 2nd bottom facing a playoff with the Div 2 runner up.

Championship teams would all start on nil points, but this could be extended to all three divisions for extra interest, or SPL and Div 1 teams could bring forward 1 point for each win in the first half of the season to encourage attacking football.

Means everyone has 36 games, with no risk of more away fixtures than home as can happen under the current SPL split. It also creates a more fluid middle ground, so that being "relegated" to the Championship group is easier to recover from than relegation to the current First Division.

NAE NOOKIE
30-11-2011, 10:41 AM
16 Teams for me. 8/8 split with 3 relegation places. Bottom automatic relegation and next 2 play off for relegation with 2nd and 3rd in 1st division. .. 44 league games, 2 less than the English Championship. The OF are both always in Europe so there would be no real advantage one against the other vis a vis extra games. Also gives the TV folk their 4 OF games.

We are missing a trick not playing in the summer. No competition from the EPL / Championship / La Ligua for TV space for most of the season, with a side benefit being possibly getting away from these insane kick off times for televised SPL games. Clubs saving money on floodlights, undersoil heating and cancelled games etc etc. Easier for fans to travel.

The downside of Euro Championships and World cups can be got round surely, they are only on for a month of the season FFS.

Oops ! ..... Damn it. I forgot the big argument against all of this and thats the age old Scottish tradition of freezing your nads off in the middle of winter for 2 hours after an hour long drive through 3 inch deep snow, with the prospect of an even worse drive home through even deeper snow in the dark. I'm speaking from experience I assure you.

Yes it does rain in the summer ( well for most of the summer, ha ha ) but cant the clubs come up with a way to cover pitches, which can then be removed half an hour before kick off.

It just doesnt make sense that we dont at least try this to see if it will work, perhaps between World cup and Euros.

StevieC
30-11-2011, 01:03 PM
So with 97% wanting a bigger league .. how do we get the SPL/SFA to sit up and take notice?

Strike action?

:hmmm:

Phil MaGlass
30-11-2011, 03:59 PM
I voted for 14 because I think for TV it would be unacceptable and we could lose alot of money if we went for a 16(which would be my preferance but I dont think we would generate enough revenue and i would think there would be alot of meaningless games, mind you if we were to win the majority of our games the fans may well come back?? all guess work and bad spelling on my part.

chippy
01-12-2011, 01:19 PM
It is perfectly possible to retain the 4 OF games and possibly the 4 Edinburgh Derbies in a 16 ,18 or even 20 team league. True if we take the 16 team league as an example by playing each other home and away once we only get 30 games. But if the top 4 then play each other home and way again, ditto for 5,6,7,8 and 9,10,11,12 and 13,14,15,16. Points are carried forward , these are not strictly play offs as this would not be acceptable in many peoples eyes, just mini leagues. All clubs retain the points for the 30 games and the mini leagues just add to that. The top team at the end of the 30 games would have to be over 18 points ahead for the league to be won,but there will always be interest in the final 2 OF derbies and likely games against the other top 2 teams. It will be the same down the league as clubs battle for euro spots or fight relegation with the likeliehood fo more local derbies in an expanded league. The top 4 have to endure another 6 games against the best to win the title and euro places, the second group of 4 are trying to get the rest of the euro places and the bottom 4 are battling relegation. The teams finishing in the 3rd group have nowt to play for except money,etc but could be made to play development teams- great for building for the following season. I could forsee big crowds and strong interest from the TV people for an even more exciting end to the season. It's almost certain the OF finish in the top 4, likely Hibs and Hearts in 1st or 2cd group. I can't really see a flaw in this, what do you think? Why do the powers that be not try this? Maybe they just don't want to share TV rights with another 4-8 clubs? It could be adapted to an 18 or 20 team leauge easily though that means a few more games. For the 16 team league - 36 game season for everyone, no uneven splits, perhaps 2 down and 2 up from a smilarly operated 1st division.

GreenCastle
01-12-2011, 01:52 PM
This is a subject which should be taken very seriously as at the moment the game at league level is on a downward spiral and if change doesn't happen soon it's going to be too late.

A few things -

Majority of fans are bored of playing x4 times each team - whether it be ICT or Rangers - x2 a season would bring more demand to each time a visiting team plays = bigger home and away crowds. The league needs increased in size with 1st division teams coming in and a pyramid like structure in England put in place so smaller teams have the incentive to grow.


Summer football is possible - it happens in other leagues around the world - MLS for example and works pretty well - International games would sometimes get in the way but with proper management International call ups/fixture clashes could be avoided for a month. With the weather being so unpredictable in the winter the experience would be so much better for all. Add in the Edinburgh festival and you may even see Edinburgh crowds rise again.


The cost of the product isn't value for money - this needs to be addressed as people understand the SPL isn't the Premiership but would pay to watch it if the costs were lower - BUT playing Premiership prices for poor quality isn't on. Are the Hibs players right now worth the entrance fee? Are there many players in other teams you get excited about seeing come to ER ? Rangers and Celtic have been responsible for the increase trying to stay with Premiership teams and have fallen way behind and the rest of Scotland suffer.


The league needs to be more competitive - Rangers and Celtic winning the league since 1984 is a disgrace and that needs be changed - with or without them otherwise your always buying an overpriced season ticket to finish maximum 3rd.


The league may have to take a hit short term for T.V money but longer term the product will be more competitive and exciting both for a local and a neutral. The problem is the new T.V has just been agreed - which makes the change to league size very doubtful.
The game is in a mess right now.......change is needed....all the signs show that from SPL to National Level - what they need is some brains to sort it out and common sense while also being bold that something has to be done sooner rather than later before it's killed off.

Beefster
01-12-2011, 02:09 PM
Majority of fans are bored of playing x4 times each team - whether it be ICT or Rangers - x2 a season would bring more demand to each time a visiting team plays = bigger home and away crowds. The league needs increased in size with 1st division teams coming in and a pyramid like structure in England put in place so smaller teams have the incentive to grow.


The league may have to take a hit short term for T.V money but longer term the product will be more competitive and exciting both for a local and a neutral. The problem is the new T.V has just been agreed - which makes the change to league size very doubtful.


I agree something needs done but most of the suggestions tend to just lead to more questions than answers. The two points above....

- We play the majority of teams 3 times a season, not 4. Have attendances increased in those games seeing as we're playing them less?

- The League of Ireland PD is competitive. Their average attendance is less than 2000.

Supporters won't flood back if the games are close but the quality is pants. There is a reason why crowds were, in general, higher under Mowbray than under Hughes and people were more excited about Hibs, despite the teams both doing well - the quality of football. As I've said before, no TV would mean less quality, which would lead to lower crowds and on and on.

alfie
01-12-2011, 03:04 PM
I know its a non-starter but I would have the 16 team league and move it to a summer season. It might offset the potential loss in revenue from a TV deal by giving them some footie to show in the summer. As for clashing with Euro/World cups - they already dictate kick off times so they could be moved around to suit. Also if you are playing summer football then sitting outside on a Friday or Saturday evening might actually be enjoyable. Seriously, who wants to sit outside in the wind, rain and cold for two hours in Motherwell in December? Times have changed and people wont be coming back to watch football in droves, there are too many other options for entertainment. In the days of ten of thousands of people turning up in flat caps there was precious little other things to do, no telly, no radio coverage and certainly no Sky EPL coverage in the local boozer. It has to be more fun, or crowds are going to keep dropping until there is no-one there except the cameras. It's hard to compare like for like, and I'm purely guessing now, but for instance american baseball plays in the summer, with evening matches and gets good crowds despite TV coverage. Admittedly you also have to put up with drinking Miller Lite but it beats winter SPL matches hands down. I'm not saying that it would drastically improve the fortunes of scottish football, but by not doing anything it isnt going to improve, that's for sure!

Just my tuppence worth! :greengrin:

Sergeant Hibs
01-12-2011, 03:14 PM
I'd love an 18 team league but with Doncaster in charge there is absolutely no chance of that and we will probably end up with a 10 team league or 12 still with a different system like no split and adding in play offs so the best we can realistically hope for is 14

GreenCastle
01-12-2011, 10:43 PM
I agree something needs done but most of the suggestions tend to just lead to more questions than answers. The two points above....

- We play the majority of teams 3 times a season, not 4. Have attendances increased in those games seeing as we're playing them less?

- The League of Ireland PD is competitive. Their average attendance is less than 2000.

Supporters won't flood back if the games are close but the quality is pants. There is a reason why crowds were, in general, higher under Mowbray than under Hughes and people were more excited about Hibs, despite the teams both doing well - the quality of football. As I've said before, no TV would mean less quality, which would lead to lower crowds and on and on.

3 or 4 times a season plus possible cup games - that's not including replays - did we not play Rangers about 6 times a few years ago in the same season?

Imagine only seeing Aberdeen or Hearts once a season at ER - stadiums would be packed and that is home and travelling supports - plus you could even justify the more expensive prices as the demand to see the derby at home until possibly another 12 months away (assuming we don't get drawn in the cup).

Ireland is a bad example to use - think about leagues such as the German or MLS and how competitive they are and how they keep growing -where as we are going the opposite way. There are other leagues in the world also getting too predictable and sooner rather than later it will be like the SPL - Spain or even England for example with the gulf in cash. Rangers and Celtic fans aren't even filling the stadiums as much as they are used to - but they created the huge gap with their greed - buying other teams talent and prize money / tv money unfair split.


We all know something needs to be done - but doesn't seem like it's being urgently discussed like it should be - a strike or fans march would maybe make people take more notice.

Liberal Hibby
02-12-2011, 12:20 AM
I'm already on strike! :wink:

A 16 team league would cripple us in my opinion.

Too many meaningless games, to few visiting supporters, too little money shared amongst too many clubs.

A 14 team league with a top 6/bottom 8 split would be interesting.

Everyone would play each other twice - 26 games, then the top 6 would have another 10 games to sort out the league and the European places.

The bottom 8 teams would have 14 more games which would make up for not playing the bigger teams.

I'd like it if there was a way to involve the top teams in the 1st division at the end of the season in a sort of play-off scenario, but I can't think how that could be done.

I agree. I've argued for a while of doing something similar to Switzerland (I think) - they have a 12 team top division, but split after two rounds (22 games) with the top eight playing for the title and europe (14 further games).

The bottom four then go into a new league with the top four of the division below and play home and away for relegation (their previous points wiped out).

Can't imagine it would happen as it quadruples the chance (potentially) of an existing SPL side being relegated (but obviously makes it easier to bounce back).