SPL will change

[IWasThere2016]

Or so it seems - http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/mobile/football/17304341

OF GTF

[bingo70]

Any chance of a cut and paste? Can't open link on my phone.

Cheers

[H18sry]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/17304341

[Saorsa]

The 10 non-Old Firm SPL clubs have long been unhappy with the distribution of income as it favours Rangers and Celtic and also dislike an 11-1 majority requirement on major issues that they believe allows those two clubs to dictate change.Realised their years of stupidity eventually then as they're all the ones who agreed tae the bloody set up in the 1st place.

[WindyMiller]

Any chance of a cut and paste? Can't open link on my phone.

Cheers


Fill yer boots.



All clubs in the Scottish Premier League, excluding Rangers and Celtic, will meet next week to discuss radical changes to Scottish football.
With Rangers in administration and facing going out of business, the clubs will discuss the voting structure.
They will also consider the distribution of income and the possibility of a 10-club second tier.
One SPL chairman told BBC Scotland: "This is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to change things."
The 10 non-Old Firm SPL clubs have long been unhappy with the distribution of income as it favours Rangers and Celtic and also dislike an 11-1 majority requirement on major issues that they believe allows those two clubs to dictate change.
An SPL2 has also long been mooted and, in 2007, the 30 Scottish Football League clubs voted 22-8 to reject talks about forming a second tier of the SPL.
The SPL clubs reached agreement in January 2011 for a 10-team top league and a second tier of 12 teams, but that plan failed to materialise following growing opposition from clubs who preferred to expand the present top tier.
"We will be looking at a number of things," said the SPL club chairman. "Changing the voting structure will be part of that.
"We are at a crossroads and need to meet for the future of the game.
"This is the best chance in the last 25 years to stop the Old Firm's domination of the game.
"The distribution of income, a 12-club SPL and a 10-club top league below that, with more income for the clubs below, will all be discussed.
"We don't have a lot of time to plan. But, if we get the right plan in place, we can all go the same route."
It appears that support for changes is gathering pace with Rangers in danger of going into liquidation, which could at least lead to the club leaving the SPL or going out of existence completely.
Another leading chairman said: "With the Old Firm having talked in the past about leaving Scottish football, we have had to think about a future without them.
"Part of that situation could be about to come true, so we have had time to think about how we would get on without them."

[WindyMiller]

I like this bit..



Another leading chairman said: "With the Old Firm having talked in the past about leaving Scottish football, we have had to think about a future without them.
"Part of that situation could be about to come true, so we have had time to think about how we would get on without them."

[stokesmessiah]

Very positive news though as two un-named SPL chairmen talk about the need to break the OF's dominance, which if i am not mistaken would hopefully be held up should it come to a vote re RFC.

I think it was Andy74 that has been saying repeatedly that we would get an SPL2 before the new season and i think he is about to be proved right.

[Onion]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/17304341

Most encouraging thing I've read in ages. If they CAN implement these changes it will be reason for all non-OF fans to celebrate....

Wonder of Vlad will be having a re-think about getting out of Scottish Football :confused:

[Westie1875]

So, who do we think the un-named SPL club chairmen are then? My guess is Petrie and Steven Thompson.

[EuanH78]

Realised their years of stupidity eventually then as they're all the ones who agreed tae the bloody set up in the 1st place.

Though i'm not too keen on a ten team league the rest of the article seems encouraging

[Seveno]

I like this bit..



Another leading chairman said: "With the Old Firm having talked in the past about leaving Scottish football, we have had to think about a future without them.
"Part of that situation could be about to come true, so we have had time to think about how we would get on without them."


I love it.

[bighairyfaeleith]

So, who do we think the un-named SPL club chairmen are then? My guess is Petrie and Steven Thompson.

I reckon and sincerely hope that hibs are leading the way with these discussions. Time for change otherwise it could be another twnety years of nobody outside the OF ever winning anything and to be honest i can't stomach that.

[Saorsa]

Very positive news though as two un-named SPL chairmen talk about the need to break the OF's dominance, which if i am not mistaken would hopefully be held up should it come to a vote re RFC.

I think it was Andy74 that has been saying repeatedly that we would get an SPL2 before the new season and i think he is about to be proved right.Amazing how quickly they'd be able tae restructure the whole of Scottish fitba just tae suit that shower of *****e.

As far as I'm concerned anything that is done tae accommodate any new h** team is unacceptable and the creation of an SPL 2 would be just that if they are allowed in it.

[blindsummit]

Could it truly be the other clubs are about to go through a long awaited puberty and actually grow some balls? I'm almost beginning to believe it could be true!

I would lay bets that Hibs & petrie are leading this.


oh, sweet essence of giraffe, let it be so!

[NAE NOOKIE]

Just for a second lets pretend that rangers are just a big club, without the reasons we all have to hate them attached.

What a pity that it has taken the almost certain demise of one of the two biggest clubs in this country for the owners of the other 10 to finally realise that they have to do what the rest of us have been begging them to do for bloody years... I.E. grow a pair and change the current cartel like voting system !!!

By the way ... Sporting have just scored a brilliant goal :greengrin

Anyway ... I just hope they dont go for this 10 and 12 option or whatever, even 14 and 14 would be better.

But at least they appear to be going to do so something .................. At last !!!

[Togs91]

I for one aint getting any hopes up as of yet, it sounds extremely promising :thumbsup: but as it says, in January 2011 nothing happened, and nothing is set in stone as of yet, but one things for sure another 10+ years of watching the OF rule the league sounds like murder

[Jones28]

Looks promising :agree:

However, I don't get why this opportunity isn't being used to make even bigger changes.

As Rangers are looking less and less likely to even be in existence next season: why not change things further?


A 14 team SPL
A top7/bottom 7 split after 26 games, 6 games after that making a 32 games total.
Winnings would be done in their own wee league tables at the end of the season, with 70% of totals going to the top and 30% to the bottom. Eg, out of £5million in total (just for arguments sake, not sure about totals etc), £3.5 would go to the top, £1.5million to the bottom. Not sure how it would divide up exactly but it would be a lot fairer now than the HUGE discrepancy between the top 2 and the rest. Plus it gives a massive incentive to get in the top half.
Relegations would work a 2 up/2down system. The SPL 2/1st Division would have an automatic promotion and then a play-off between 3rd and 2nd. Bottom 2 in our league would be automatically relegated.

As it stands, with this idea these are the teams that would be in the league next season.

Celtic
Hearts
Hibs
Aberdeen
Dundee UTD
Kilmarnock
St Johnstone


ICT
St Mirren
Dunfermiline
Motherwell
Ross County
Falkirk
Livingston

Just an idea :wink:

[LancsHibs]

This angers me greatly:grr: What's the need of an SPL2? It's nothing but the 1st division with a new name and infant it will cut yet more money off for the clubs left behind!
However the thing that really irks me is its just an excuse to parachute a new Rangers into the second tier of Scottish football instead of the 4th:fuming::fuming:
Just wait and see, anybody who can't see the plan is blind, Scottish football still bending over for the OF! This will be a once only opportunity to shaft them, that won't be taken!

[Eyrie]

Agree that there is no need to rename Division One.

But I just hope that we're not expecting too much from this meeting. Reallistically it's an opportunity to restore some balance in the SPL and the TV deal has to be an early target. Strip 6% from the prize money for first and second, then redistribute that equally to all twelve clubs.

Sadly it's too much to dream that there is a nuclear option of all ten clubs resigning from the SPL and making a mass application to rejoin the SFL should the Ugly Sisters try to resist the needed changes.

[Ozyhibby]

Hopefully a salary cap is on the agenda. It will help clubs adjust to any changes in income and stop Celtic running away with the league every year.

[Saorsa]

This angers me greatly:grr: What's the need of an SPL2? It's nothing but the 1st division with a new name and infant it will cut yet more money off for the clubs left behind!
However the thing that really irks me is its just an excuse to parachute a new Rangers into the second tier of Scottish football instead of the 4th:fuming::fuming:
Just wait and see, anybody who can't see the plan is blind, Scottish football still bending over for the OF! This will be a once only opportunity to shaft them, that won't be taken!That's exactly what it will be if that happens IMO. Any move made tae accommodate them IMO is unacceptable and if it happens I'll be finding something else tae do with my time and money other than waste it on Scottish fitba.

[easty]

Looks promising :agree:

However, I don't get why this opportunity isn't being used to make even bigger changes.

As Rangers are looking less and less likely to even be in existence next season: why not change things further?


A 14 team SPL
A top7/bottom 7 split after 26 games, 6 games after that making a 32 games total.
Winnings would be done in their own wee league tables at the end of the season, with 70% of totals going to the top and 30% to the bottom. Eg, out of £5million in total (just for arguments sake, not sure about totals etc), £3.5 would go to the top, £1.5million to the bottom. Not sure how it would divide up exactly but it would be a lot fairer now than the HUGE discrepancy between the top 2 and the rest. Plus it gives a massive incentive to get in the top half.
Relegations would work a 2 up/2down system. The SPL 2/1st Division would have an automatic promotion and then a play-off between 3rd and 2nd. Bottom 2 in our league would be automatically relegated.

As it stands, with this idea these are the teams that would be in the league next season.

Celtic
Hearts
Hibs
Aberdeen
Dundee UTD
Kilmarnock
St Johnstone


ICT
St Mirren
Dunfermiline
Motherwell
Ross County
Falkirk
Livingston

Just an idea :wink:

Are we that bad just now that Hearts are even ahead of us in your imaginery league??? :wink:

[ScottB]

Is an SPL2 likely when by a number of accounts we are progressing towards merging the SFL and SPL together? Plus the SFL clubs have already rejected SPL2 as a concept. Just because Rangers might quite like it as a get out clause for their situation changes little. Doesn't it need a majority of SFL clubs to back the idea? If so while the first division clubs might go for a season of Rangers gate money, wouldn't the second and third division clubs say no to force them down the leagues to get their own shot at an income boost?

As much as some figures within the game would like, or possibly even imagine, they can't just railroad this one through, there will be significant opposition to anything other than dropping them into SFL3, and rightly so.


Of course at this point it assumes Rangers even make it to the end of the season, if they are unable to fulfil fixtures isn't their SPL licence revoked, so there'd be nothing for a newco club to buy?

[PeterboroHibee]

I for one aint getting any hopes up as of yet, it sounds extremely promising :thumbsup: but as it says, in January 2011 nothing happened, and nothing is set in stone as of yet, but one things for sure another 10+ years of watching the OF rule the league sounds like murder

Thats exactly the problem. We all know the likes of Petrie, Romanov and Thomson can see past the OF, but too many of them are short sighted and fear life without the unfair and insignificant cash we get from the TV money.

Id rather these things didnt get out because it gets the hopes of the fans up before anythings been discussed and inevitably leads to disappointment. I hope Im wrong however.

[easty]

We all know the likes of Petrie, Romanov and Thomson can see past the OF, but too many of them are short sighted and fear life without the unfair and insignificant cash we get from the TV money.


Im not at all positive that Petrie would pick what the fans want over the £ signs to be honest.

[stokesmessiah]

Wonder if Vlad will be there?

Mafia assassin?

I actually hope he is, no one hates the OF quite like Vlad and will be all up for trying to kill off the Huns.

[PeterboroHibee]

Im not at all positive that Petrie would pick what the fans want over the £ signs to be honest.

No? I was always under the impression that he was fairly unhappy with the way things were going with the Scottish game. Sure he is one of the chairmen who is against Rangers coming back in straight away if they go bust.

[El Gubbz]

Would rather see a 16 team SPL with a top/bottom 8 split with 37 games a season

[easty]

No? I was always under the impression that he was fairly unhappy with the way things were going with the Scottish game. Sure he is one of the chairmen who is against Rangers coming back in straight away if they go bust.

I hope he is, and he probably does want change. But will he vote for it if it has a clear and drastic effect on the balance sheet?

[Blaster]

Looks promising :agree:

However, I don't get why this opportunity isn't being used to make even bigger changes.

As Rangers are looking less and less likely to even be in existence next season: why not change things further?


A 14 team SPL
A top7/bottom 7 split after 26 games, 6 games after that making a 32 games total.
Winnings would be done in their own wee league tables at the end of the season, with 70% of totals going to the top and 30% to the bottom. Eg, out of £5million in total (just for arguments sake, not sure about totals etc), £3.5 would go to the top, £1.5million to the bottom. Not sure how it would divide up exactly but it would be a lot fairer now than the HUGE discrepancy between the top 2 and the rest. Plus it gives a massive incentive to get in the top half.
Relegations would work a 2 up/2down system. The SPL 2/1st Division would have an automatic promotion and then a play-off between 3rd and 2nd. Bottom 2 in our league would be automatically relegated.

As it stands, with this idea these are the teams that would be in the league next season.

Celtic
Hearts
Hibs
Aberdeen
Dundee UTD
Kilmarnock
St Johnstone


ICT
St Mirren
Dunfermiline
Motherwell
Ross County
Falkirk
Livingston

Just an idea :wink:




I agree with this idea, but I would split 8/6. The top 8 would then play home & away giving 40 games in total.

The bottom 6 also play home/away giving them 36 games. Bottom 2 automatically relegated and 3rd bottom in play off with 3rd place in lower division. Or bottom team relegated and 2nd bottom in play off, something along those lines.

[The_Sauz]

I think some are jumping the gun a bit regarding a SPL2 for next season! Try looking at 2012/13 season at the earliest for that to happen :agree:
The voting structure is the first thing they need too look at, then the evenly distribution of cash for all the members.

[smurf]

I wasn't aware of this before I started the other thread calling for this. Great news!

[The_Sauz]

Looks promising :agree:

However, I don't get why this opportunity isn't being used to make even bigger changes.

As Rangers are looking less and less likely to even be in existence next season: why not change things further?


A 14 team SPL
A top7/bottom 7 split after 26 games, 6 games after that making a 32 games total.
Winnings would be done in their own wee league tables at the end of the season, with 70% of totals going to the top and 30% to the bottom. Eg, out of £5million in total (just for arguments sake, not sure about totals etc), £3.5 would go to the top, £1.5million to the bottom. Not sure how it would divide up exactly but it would be a lot fairer now than the HUGE discrepancy between the top 2 and the rest. Plus it gives a massive incentive to get in the top half.
Relegations would work a 2 up/2down system. The SPL 2/1st Division would have an automatic promotion and then a play-off between 3rd and 2nd. Bottom 2 in our league would be automatically relegated.

As it stands, with this idea these are the teams that would be in the league next season.

Celtic
Hearts :grr:
Hibs
Aberdeen
Dundee UTD
Kilmarnock
St Johnstone


ICT
St Mirren
Dunfermiline
Motherwell
Ross County
Falkirk
Livingston

Just an idea :wink:

Admin I think Jones28 needs a new colour for his name name....pink would be nice :wink:

[down-the-slope]

GOOD - they are meeting openly without OF involved / they want to discuss ludicrous 11-1 voting / talking about being big chance for change & breal OF dominance

BAD - wanting 10 / 12 SPL 1 & 2 structure......this fell because the fans and Div1 clubs did not want it...why would we want it now...

14/14/14 leagues with more relegation / promotion / play offs... or something more like that than the current almost 'franchise' system where there is little to play for for 2/3 of the league

[Mikey]

I wasn't aware of this before I started the other thread calling for this. Great news!

I agree that it's great news but unfortunately some will still find fault in whatever outcome we get and "won't be back".

[Sylar]

Getting rid of Rangers would be one thing.

Getting shot of the Timmy's in the same swing of the knife would be utterly wonderful!

[smurf]

I agree that it's great news but unfortunately some will still find fault in whatever outcome we get and "won't be back".

I think even if we were doing well in the SPL there would be a feeling of disulussionment with the structure of the SPL. It's that we are struggling within it that's compounded things.

Scottish Football needs radical reform. Ending the 11-1 voting structure would make that process much more easily progressive.

[bighairyfaeleith]

I hope he is, and he probably does want change. But will he vote for it if it has a clear and drastic effect on the balance sheet?

If Sir Tom gives it the nod then yes I reckon he will.

[Jones28]

Are we that bad just now that Hearts are even ahead of us in your imaginery league??? :wink:

Never noticed that till jist now...:worried:

[Jones28]

Admin I think Jones28 needs a new colour for his name name....pink would be nice :wink:

I deserved to be Yamificated :boo hoo:

[erskine-hibby]

The clubs had a chance years ago to change everything, but cr@pped out at the last minute and put their "perceived" self interests ahead of what would be better for the future of the game in general.
They must now seize the chance now or forever be under the rule of the OF.

[Viva_Palmeiras]

So, who do we think the un-named SPL club chairmen are then? My guess is Petrie and Steven Thompson.

Don't think it's rodders style. I suspect Thompson and the Dunfor chairman one nothing to lose the other something to gain.

[Ozyhibby]

A rule saying that 70% of all champs league earnings are shared among all clubs in the league might bring a not more parity as well.

[SMAXXA]

Don't think it's rodders style. I suspect Thompson and the Dunfor chairman one nothing to lose the other something to gain.

I agree I recon Thompson and Yorkston would be one of the 2 if not both

[LancsHibs]

A rule saying that 70% of all champs league earnings are shared among all clubs in the league might bring a not more parity as well.

Not having a go but why should a team that qualifies for Europe share its revenue from those games with all the other teams in the league?
Does this happen anywhere else in Europe?

[IWasThere2016]

As things stand it would and should be Dundee before Livi

[Ozyhibby]

Not having a go but why should a team that qualifies for Europe share its revenue from those games with all the other teams in the league?
Does this happen anywhere else in Europe?

It is just an idea to bring a bit of sporting parity to the league. The £10m the old firm get when the enter the champs league distorts the SPL even more than it already is. We need to spread the money around the SPL more evenly if we are to improve the game for the better.

[Ozyhibby]

Not having a go but why should a team that qualifies for Europe share its revenue from those games with all the other teams in the league?
Does this happen anywhere else in Europe?

Don't know if anyone else does it but there's nothing wrong with being pioneers.

[erin go bragh]

Would rather see a 16 team SPL with a top/bottom 8 split with 37 games a season
:agree: This ,as we only win the league with 16 or more teams :wink:
ggtth

[jonty]

Would rather not have a split. It's a farce.

[WindyMiller]

Would rather not have a split. It's a farce.

I see your point but the standard of an 18 or 20 team league would drive punters away even more.

[LancsHibs]

Don't know if anyone else does it but there's nothing wrong with being pioneers.

Sounds like a very noble idea but would never catch on, that's the problem with an elitist set up like the champions league I'm afraid, it was designed so that the 'big' clubs could gain and keep more of the stupid $$ in modern football. Couldn't see the likes of Man united & Chelsea sharing their lolly with Wigan & Fulham. It's the same in just about every league the same teams qualify for the CL year after year and get richer and richer!!
There was a great concept called communism that was supposed to work along similar lines of sharing the wealth but ultimately failed due to corruption and human greed:cb

[Ozyhibby]

Sounds like a very noble idea but would never catch on, that's the problem with an elitist set up like the champions league I'm afraid, it was designed so that the 'big' clubs could gain and keep more of the stupid $$ in modern football. Couldn't see the likes of Man united & Chelsea sharing their lolly with Wigan & Fulham. It's the same in just about every league the same teams qualify for the CL year after year and get richer and richer!!
There was a great concept called communism that was supposed to work along similar lines of sharing the wealth but ultimately failed due to corruption and human greed:cb

Don't care if anyone else does it.
It is the league who sends teams to represent us. There is nothing wrong with setting a fee for the privilege.

[Big Frank]

Would rather not have a split. It's a farce.


Total sense jonty!

Any split is a total nonsense. Makes our league guff and mickey mouse!


14 or 16 league. Twice a season. No live TV unless occassional cup, 3pm kick offs, bottom club relegated winner of div 1 promoted, 2nd and 3rd bottom of spl play runners up and 3rd in division 1 in playoffs for the right for 2 of them to play in the spl the following season..... for starters.

[Danderhall Hibs]

Don't think it's rodders style. I suspect Thompson and the Dunfor chairman one nothing to lose the other something to gain.

:agree: No danger are any of those quotes from Petrie - he doesn't talk to the press about anything.

[StevieC]

Total sense jonty!

Any split is a total nonsense. Makes our league guff and mickey mouse!


14 or 16 league. Twice a season. No live TV unless occassional cup, 3pm kick offs, bottom club relegated winner of div 1 promoted, 2nd and 3rd bottom of spl play runners up and 3rd in division 1 in playoffs for the right for 2 of them to play in the spl the following season..... for starters.

16 team league and a group stage (or two) in the League Cup.

[Eyrie]

Said it before and I'll say it again.

Two leagues of twelve, playing home and away with the final round of fixtures being the New Year derbies.

Next weekend is the Scottish Cup, then a two week winter break before the next round of the Cup.

League action then resumes as follows :-

Eight best teams in the top league play for the title and European places.
Bottom four and the top four from the lower league play for promotion/relegation.
Bottom eight play to avoid relegation to a national league, or even direct to regional leagues.

Almost every fixture would be meaningful to at least one, if not both teams. And every team plays 38 games with 19 at home.

[NAE NOOKIE]

Cant be bothered to quote, but saying this is a chance to shaft Rangers ( page one ) is not the point. They need punished for their indiscretions, but keeping them around isnt the end of the world and in the end having a poorer but hopefully wiser current buns will hopefully give us somebody we love to hate apart fron the Yams to shaft ON THE PARK in years to come.

The hope is that this will happen on a much more level playing field and with any luck that is what this meeting is all about. We are also forgetting about celtic .... this is as much about spiking their guns as bringing the current buns to heel.

As I said .... Making the huns kick their heels in an SPL2 for a couple of seasons is good enough for me.

There are too many people on this board ( IN MY OPINION ) looking for an excuse to justify kicking the SPL and Scottish football in to touch and making it look like they are taking the moral high ground by saying if the huns arent blown out of existance they will give up on Scottish football coz its all so unfair. I agree, loads of things need sorting and should have been way before now.

But if you are just looking to justify giving up, then dont bother, just go and stop posting on this site, which as far as I can remember is for folk who are still intersted in Hibs and Scottish football in general and not to use to tell everybody why the game is a lost cause.

It seems to me that instead of being a chance for football to change, for some this has become a heaven sent chance to kick the game in the baws.

[WindyMiller]

Said it before and I'll say it again.

Two leagues of twelve, playing home and away with the final round of fixtures being the New Year derbies.

Next weekend is the Scottish Cup, then a two week winter break before the next round of the Cup.

League action then resumes as follows :-

Eight best teams in the top league play for the title and European places.
Bottom four and the top four from the lower league play for promotion/relegation.
Bottom eight play to avoid relegation to a national league, or even direct to regional leagues.

Almost every fixture would be meaningful to at least one, if not both teams. And every team plays 38 games with 19 at home.

Sounds like a PLAN!

[stokesmessiah]

Sounds like a PLAN!

:agree: Yeah, pretty good suggestion if you ask me.

[gramskiwood]

Let's chuck the PARASITES out.

[sparky]

A rule saying that 70% of all champs league earnings are shared among all clubs in the league might bring a not more parity as well.

Excellent idea. Scottish football is suffering a long drawn out death. Huge gaps in all the stadiums for every game. We need radical ideas like this to jump start it back to life.

First thing would be to share ALL gate and TV money equally. It is sport NOT business. The league only works if there is competition.

Second would be the team salary caps which would either be a % of the revenues or a set figure for all teams. Clubs would have to compromise between larger squads of lower paid players vs smaller squads of higher earners.

Imagine if all teams in the league were on similar financial footing and had roughly the same chance of winning the league. No other country operates like this, we would be pioneers and I firmly believe that in such a set up the fans would start coming back. The product would be more and more attractive and hopefully would garner more and more outside interest and investment.

And while I'm at it: safe standing, 3pm kickoffs, and players only allowed to wear black boots.:aok:

[IWasThere2016]

Said it before and I'll say it again.

Two leagues of twelve, playing home and away with the final round of fixtures being the New Year derbies.

Next weekend is the Scottish Cup, then a two week winter break before the next round of the Cup.

League action then resumes as follows :-

Eight best teams in the top league play for the title and European places.
Bottom four and the top four from the lower league play for promotion/relegation.
Bottom eight play to avoid relegation to a national league, or even direct to regional leagues.

Almost every fixture would be meaningful to at least one, if not both teams. And every team plays 38 games with 19 at home.

You have my vote!

[Septimus]

I see your point but the standard of an 18 or 20 team league would drive punters away even more.

But surely the lower teams would raise their game to meet the challenge. There was a time when the Partick Thistles (Hubbard), Clydes (Ring and Haddock) and Dundees (Steel, Boyd, Zeizing, Brown) of this world were really competitive teams with a good following of supporters. Teams like that have been frozen out in the interests of two large clubs. It is time for the pendulum to swing again and the possible fan base to broaden.

The OF continually rabbit on about the lack of competitiveness in Scotland working against them in Europe. A similar arguement could be made for the teams mentioned above.

[Viva_Palmeiras]

Excellent idea. Scottish football is suffering a long drawn out death. Huge gaps in all the stadiums for every game. We need radical ideas like this to jump start it back to life.

First thing would be to share ALL gate and TV money equally. It is sport NOT business. The league only works if there is competition.

Second would be the team salary caps which would either be a % of the revenues or a set figure for all teams. Clubs would have to compromise between larger squads of lower paid players vs smaller squads of higher earners.

Imagine if all teams in the league were on similar financial footing and had roughly the same chance of winning the league. No other country operates like this, we would be pioneers and I firmly believe that in such a set up the fans would start coming back. The product would be more and more attractive and hopefully would garner more and more outside interest and investment.

And while I'm at it: safe standing, 3pm kickoffs, and players only allowed to wear black boots.:aok:

Sharing the lions share of the revenues - the gate receipts?
Novel but I hardly think the hordes would vote for that ? Where would the encouragement be for smaller clubs to increase attendances? Would that not skew things?

[CFC]

Sharing the lions share of the revenues - the gate receipts?
Novel but I hardly think the hordes would vote for that ? Where would the encouragement be for smaller clubs to increase attendances? Would that not skew things?
Its exactly what the NFL do and thats the most lucrative sports league in the world. Its time for the game to be progressive and not stick with traditions that are strangling the life out if the game.

[Kojock]

Its exactly what the NFL do and thats the most lucrative sports league in the world. Its time for the game to be progressive and not stick with traditions that are strangling the life out if the game.

Splitting gate receipts is not a new idea. It used to happen a few years back. It was changed when two greedy teams wanted to keep all the money. Since the change these two teams have dominated Scottish football with little or no competition.

An even share of all gate and tv monies will result in a more competative league. It is then upto the individual clubs to generste additional income through sponsorhip, advertising, hospitality and a host of other revenue streams.

[CropleyWasGod]

Its exactly what the NFL do and thats the most lucrative sports league in the world. Its time for the game to be progressive and not stick with traditions that are strangling the life out if the game.

So, in that scenario, we would give away half of our gate-money to ICT, St.Mirren and Ross County. In return, we would get half of the gate-money from Celtic and Rangers. I am not sure that that would increase our turnover by any substantial amount, if at all.

[CropleyWasGod]

Let's chuck the PARSITES out.

Is that the Celtc parsites or the Rngers parsites... or just the Pars? :greengrin

[Keith_M]

Its exactly what the NFL do and thats the most lucrative sports league in the world. .


TBF, the NFL doesn't have some teams that get gates 10 times as big as the rest.

[CFC]

TBF, the NFL doesn't have some teams that get gates 10 times as big as the rest.

Only reason the bigot bros get gates 10 x bigger is because they have dominated the league for 25 + years. The reason they have dominated the league for 25 + years cos they get bigger gates than everyone else.

Its a vicious cycle mate.

Ultimately you have to ask the question: do you want to watch a genuine sporting competition or a turkey shoot? If the latter keep things EXACTLY as they are.

[CFC]

So, in that scenario, we would give away half of our gate-money to ICT, St.Mirren and Ross County. In return, we would get half of the gate-money from Celtic and Rangers. I am not sure that that would increase our turnover by any substantial amount, if at all.
Id favour the way the NFL does it is home teams keep 60% of their home gate, the other 40% in a central pot which is then divided equally between all clubs.

[WindyMiller]

But surely the lower teams would raise their game to meet the challenge. There was a time when the Partick Thistles (Hubbard), Clydes (Ring and Haddock) and Dundees (Steel, Boyd, Zeizing, Brown) of this world were really competitive teams with a good following of supporters. Teams like that have been frozen out in the interests of two large clubs. It is time for the pendulum to swing again and the possible fan base to broaden.

The OF continually rabbit on about the lack of competitiveness in Scotland working against them in Europe. A similar arguement could be made for the teams mentioned above.


I'm sure we both remember the poor fare we had to put up with in the late 60's/early 70's from some of the meaningless tail-end of season games.
Fans nowadays wouldn't put up with that.

I much prefer Eyrie's suggesting, above, that keeps most teams involved for most of the season, whilst allowing some 1st Division players the opportunity to test themselves against the 'better' players.

[CropleyWasGod]

Id favour the way the NFL does it is home teams keep 60% of their home gate, the other 40% in a central pot which is then divided equally between all clubs.

Fair shout.

Without looking at everybody's individual circumstances, I'd reckon there would be winners and losers... a couple of obvious big losers, of course.

I'm not pouring cold water on the idea, but of course people tend to vote in terms of their own self-interest in these type of situations.

[Saorsa]

Fair shout.

Without looking at everybody's individual circumstances, I'd reckon there would be winners and losers... a couple of obvious big losers, of course.

I'm not pouring cold water on the idea, but of course people tend to vote in terms of their own self-interest in these type of situations.and that is exactly what is wrong with the game in this country, it's run by the self-interested and myopic who have nae vision for the future or interest in what is good for the long term prospects of the game.

[CropleyWasGod]

and that is exactly what is wrong with the game in this country, it's run by the self-interested and myopic who have nae interest in what is good for the long term interests of the game.

Oh I agree with that, absolutely. But it's a cultural change, and those type of changes are very difficult to legislate.

[Moulin Yarns]

A Celtc fan tells me that the 10 non-OF clubs are bringing the game into disrepute by not inviting Celtc to the talks. You couldn't make it up.

I suggested to him the tv money should be paid direct to the home clubs for compensation of lost revenue, but he was having none of it.

[gramskiwood]

Is that the Celtc parsites or the Rngers parsites... or just the Pars? :greengrin

Oops :doh:

[GloryGlory]

So, in that scenario, we would give away half of our gate-money to ICT, St.Mirren and Ross County. In return, we would get half of the gate-money from Celtic and Rangers. I am not sure that that would increase our turnover by any substantial amount, if at all.

:agree: We'd shoot ourselves in the foot if we shared gate money, IMO, 'cos our income would fall. I for one don't want half my season ticket money to go to all the other clubs in the league. I'm not here to support St Mirren, Dunfermline, etc (no disrespect) - I support Hibs and that includes financially.

[superfurryhibby]

Only reason the bigot bros get gates 10 x bigger is because they have dominated the league for 25 + years. The reason they have dominated the league for 25 + years cos they get bigger gates than everyone else.
Its a vicious cycle mate.

Ultimately you have to ask the question: do you want to watch a genuine sporting competition or a turkey shoot? If the latter keep things EXACTLY as they are.


They have dominated the League for most of the past 100 years, although maybe the last quarter century or so is the same pattern in extremis. Rangers in particular have always had bigger crowds than anyone else.

NOt sure about this but part of the change has come about because the OF started to pay wages that were considerably beyond the scope of other Scottish teams, from the mid 80's. The Bosman ruling and rise of TV money, particularly in the English lower divisions has also had a big impact.

[Kojock]

So, in that scenario, we would give away half of our gate-money to ICT, St.Mirren and Ross County. In return, we would get half of the gate-money from Celtic and Rangers. I am not sure that that would increase our turnover by any substantial amount, if at all.

Back of a fag packet calculations.

Assuming tickets for Cat A games cost £28 and the rest £22 (average £24 per ticket) After the first half of the season having played all teams home and away once our attendance figures are Home - 108,508 Away - 154,955

Assuming gates were split 50/50 that would mean us handing out £1,302,096 but raking in £1,859,940. As I said that is for only half a season. Along with an even split of the TV money would see every club apart from Rantic much better off.

[stokesmessiah]

Back of a fag packet calculations.

Assuming tickets for Cat A games cost £28 and the rest £22 (average £24 per ticket) After the first half of the season having played all teams home and away once our attendance figures are Home - 108,508 Away - 154,955

Assuming gates were split 50/50 that would mean us handing out £1,302,096 but raking in £1,859,940. As I said that is for only half a season. Along with an even split of the TV money would see every club apart from Rantic much better off.


Only problem is if Rangerd are going to wriggle out of this (which i am growing increasingly worried that they are) then we are back at the status quo as we have lost our bargaining power ?

[Moulin Yarns]

Back of a fag packet calculations.

Assuming tickets for Cat A games cost £28 and the rest £22 (average £24 per ticket) After the first half of the season having played all teams home and away once our attendance figures are Home - 108,508 Away - 154,955

Assuming gates were split 50/50 that would mean us handing out £1,302,096 but raking in £1,859,940. As I said that is for only half a season. Along with an even split of the TV money would see every club apart from Rantic much better off.

I suggested to my Celtc minded colleague that the gate money could easily be split according to attendance, as every ground is now able to count those that attend for each club, this would encourage (hopefully) more fans to attend games as their club would get the gate money (after expenses) that they spent - surely not rocket science.

As an example the 100 St Mirren fans that turned up recently would have paid £2200 less the proportion of expenses to police etc and St Mirren get, for arguments sake, £1800. On the other hand if they had brought 1000 fans they would have paid £22000 and would get a similar proportion of say £18000.

Just a thought, it would mean the better supported clubs benefit. (Sorry St Johnstone :na na:)

[Joe Baker II]

:agree: We'd shoot ourselves in the foot if we shared gate money, IMO, 'cos our income would fall. I for one don't want half my season ticket money to go to all the other clubs in the league. I'm not here to support St Mirren, Dunfermline, etc (no disrespect) - I support Hibs and that includes financially.

And all clubs suffer through the myopic attitude encouraged by all clubs (although I accept the Old Firm probably the worst offenders given thier charging of clubs for selling away tickets in 2009) that they should focus mainly on their home supporters. However Hibs are hardly innocent - we were main pushers in sharing gate receipts, and agreeing to ludicrous kick off times without any price reductions then encouraging fans to watch away games in the bar at Easter Road as was happening increasingly 2-3 years ago was a disgrace.

This was another reason why I stopped my season ticket in recent years though and generally started going to more away games - I want to support the good of Scottish football not just Hibs although both are obviously interlinked. We have all come across fans who refuse to go to certain grounds because they do not want to give Club x money on principle or way they treat away fans (in some cases with justification) - anything that challenges the prevailing mentality has to be welcome.

Btw weven a 90-10 split of gate monies would make a big difference and would have advantage of being more palatable to bigger clubs.

[Eyrie]

team salary caps which would either be a % of the revenues or a set figure for all teams. Clubs would have to compromise between larger squads of lower paid players vs smaller squads of higher earners.


the tv money should be paid direct to the home clubs for compensation of lost revenue


Btw even a 90-10 split of gate monies would make a big difference and would have advantage of being more palatable to bigger clubs.

All three sound great to me, assuming the salary cap is a percentage of turnover.

[sparky]

Obviously I would not expect any of these proposals to get voted through as the people running the game, the Doncasters etc, are too short sighted and keep looking at the immediate impact such changes would make. Rantic (if this entity still exists) would be the biggest losers so would veto any attempt to redistribute wealth. Smaller teams with poor attendance figures would benefit greatly. We would be somewhere in between; probably slightly better off. Right now there is a window of opportunity to vote through significant change and the rest of the clubs should be fighting for this.

I would hope that interest in our league from within the country at first (I'm tired of hearing about outside interest being all about the old firm, quite frankly nobody really cares) would gradually be rekindled. When every team has a good chance of success the sport would be more appealing. We might then have an exciting league, with unpredictable winners, maybe full stadia, good atmosphere etc. Down the line it may even become an attractive proposition for outsiders to watch. In the same way college sports in the US are popular even though they aren't the pinnacle of the sport.

Your youngsters growing up in places like Kilmarnock, Dunfermline, Perth, Falkirk (and Leith) might actually start supporting their local team and actually going to games.

It is a sport after all and should be run in a sporting way. It's not free market capitalism and if we continue to run it like that we will end up with no game at all.

[Ozyhibby]

Why not have the first 15,000 fans, the money goes to the home team and any fans on top of that is split 50/50 between both teams.

[Eyrie]

Why not have the first 15,000 fans, the money goes to the home team and any fans on top of that is split 50/50 between both teams.

It would only affect the Ugly Sisters, who would have to hand over one-third of the receipts from a 45k crowd. Normally I'm in favour of putting the boot into them, but this is a non-starter for me.

[Phil MaGlass]

I actually hope he is, no one hates the OF quite like Vlad and will be all up for trying to kill off the Huns.

i think Vlad will try to put the boot in, then once he sees how easy/well the huns have been treated will then go down the same route themselves to get the same deals as the huns when they go into administration??

[Phil MaGlass]

It is just an idea to bring a bit of sporting parity to the league. The £10m the old firm get when the enter the champs league distorts the SPL even more than it already is. We need to spread the money around the SPL more evenly if we are to improve the game for the better.

Sorry i dont see why sellik should be punished for working within a budget and paying alot of money for players, the 10 million is needed to reinvest and hopefully come up with a stronger team the following year, I would be severely peeved if Hibs had to hand over their share of anypot to the othe r clubs in the league.
As much as it would make my day for the both of them to GTF this is not right.

[Ozyhibby]

Sorry i dont see why sellik should be punished for working within a budget and paying alot of money for players, the 10 million is needed to reinvest and hopefully come up with a stronger team the following year, I would be severely peeved if Hibs had to hand over their share of anypot to the othe r clubs in the league.
As much as it would make my day for the both of them to GTF this is not right.

I disagree. To run a sporting competition all sorts of restrictions are put in place to create a spectacle. Financial restrictions are used by leagues the world over to increase the value of the whole competition.
In America every team in the MLS has to chip in money towards Beckham and Henry's salaries. They do this to promote the league even though it seems a little unfair on the Minnesota allstars(I made that name up).
If it help make our league a more even competition then I think we should do it.
Or we could always do what you suggest and stick with the way things are just now because it's working so well?

[s.a.m]

Sorry i dont see why sellik should be punished for working within a budget and paying alot of money for players, the 10 million is needed to reinvest and hopefully come up with a stronger team the following year, I would be severely peeved if Hibs had to hand over their share of anypot to the othe r clubs in the league.
As much as it would make my day for the both of them to GTF this is not right.

I don't have an opinion on gate-money splitting but, on your general point, if teams are allowed to grow to an extent - whether through success, prudence or cheating, as seems to be the case with Rangers - where there is no longer a realistic chance of any other team competing with them, then we no longer have a sporting competition. If one club is hoarding all the counters, there's no game worth any other team's supporters watching.

Even in business, there are rules and systems in place to try to ensure that the consumer experience is not damaged by one company or organisation monopolising the market.

[Phil MaGlass]

The only finacial restrictions I think there should be would be you can only spend by what you earn, TV revenue equally shared and make sure more money gets down to lower leagues, to say that Champions league money should be split between other clubs is a non starter, if that money is distributed how are clubs like sellik supposed to compete(even though they dont do at the moment) in europe, if their funds are taken from them, it might work in America at the moment where they are still trying to push the sport to the public, but IF football becomes a major sport in the US then you can be guaranteed the goalposts will be moved. To be honest I dont know many countries that have financial restrictions in place for football. FIFA/UEFA are coming out with something but that still will only safeguard the big euro clubs will keep the big bucks.
For clubs to survive though there has to be a level playing field, but in Scotland there will never be a level playing field due to the pulling power of the OF.

[sparky]

Sorry i dont see why sellik should be punished for working within a budget and paying alot of money for players, the 10 million is needed to reinvest and hopefully come up with a stronger team the following year, I would be severely peeved if Hibs had to hand over their share of anypot to the other clubs in the league.
As much as it would make my day for the both of them to GTF this is not right.

Hence why the idea is a non-starter. It would clearly be unfair for Celtc and I am not suggesting it is. However, forget club loyalties or whether it is unfair for the richest teams for a moment.

Is the SPL an interesting spectacle?

Would forcing financial equality through make it more competitive and thus an interesting spectacle?

My answers to the former is no and the latter yes.

I'm sure even a diehard Celtc fan would agree that if they were to dominate the league from now on with no competition from Rangers it would quickly get very boring. And even with the current financial structure skewed in their favour they have been rank in Europe anyway. One the the complaints they used to trot out was that it as because they got no competition in the league.

This debate is bigger than any one club, the self-serving view of "only what is best for my club" taken by too many people in the game is a major factor in why our league is so poor. I'll say it again this is SPORT we are discussing. We put rules in place to ensure there is a fair game and an interesting spectacle on the pitch why can't we do the same off it?

[Ozyhibby]

Hence why the idea is a non-starter. It would clearly be unfair for Celtc and I am not suggesting it is. However, forget club loyalties or whether it is unfair for the richest teams for a moment.

Is the SPL an interesting spectacle?

Would forcing financial equality through make it more competitive and thus an interesting spectacle?

My answers to the former is no and the latter yes.

I'm sure even a diehard Celtc fan would agree that if they were to dominate the league from now on with no competition from Rangers it would quickly get very boring. And even with the current financial structure skewed in their favour they have been rank in Europe anyway. One the the complaints they used to trot out was that it as because they got no competition in the league.

This debate is bigger than any one club, the self-serving view of "only what is best for my club" taken by too many people in the game is a major factor in why our league is so poor. I'll say it again this is SPORT we are discussing. We put rules in place to ensure there is a fair game and an interesting spectacle on the pitch why can't we do the same off it?

Exactly.