PDA

View Full Version : League Reconstruction for 2013/14 (merged)



Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5

Jim44
27-12-2012, 05:11 PM
I wasn't really paying attention but I'm sure I heard on the news that the SPL, SFL and SFA had very sccessful talks today in their attempt to rush through a two leagues of twelve teams for the start of next season. Somebody please tell me I misheard something as I thought that any reconstruction required one full season's warning in advance.

Gatecrasher
27-12-2012, 05:15 PM
I wasn't really paying attention but I'm sure I heard on the news that the SPL, SFL and SFA had very sccessful talks today in their attempt to rush through a two leagues of twelve teams for the start of next season. Somebody please tell me I misheard something as I thought that any reconstruction required one full season's warning in advance.
The SFA,SFL and SPL just make it up as they go so its all good

Houchy
27-12-2012, 05:39 PM
It's their way of getting "the rangers" back into the top league ASAP. The other part that I heard is that there will be a third tier, into which each of the OF have been invited to enter a reserve team. That was the last I'd heard.

CropleyWasGod
27-12-2012, 05:42 PM
It's their way of getting "the rangers" back into the top league ASAP. The other part that I heard is that there will be a third tier, into which each of the OF have been invited to enter a reserve team. That was the last I'd heard.

The proposed new set-up doesn't allow RFC into the top league any quicker than in the current set-up. Do the sums.:greengrin

(Disclaimer, unless of course they are invited in.)

(Double disclaimer. Rod did say at the AGM that the new proposals were not designed to get RFC back any more quickly.)

lobster
27-12-2012, 07:15 PM
Two leagues of twenty would be the way forward for me with Rangers in the top league next season. We are seriously missing the panto villians from Greyskull IMO and I am fairly sure Fiorentina were catapulted up a league in Italy not so long ago so the precedent is there. Two leagues of twenty would give us some scope to start playing good football in general.

Craig_in_Prague
27-12-2012, 07:21 PM
Folks argue a bigger league = more meaningless games, I see it as a good way to bring more youngsters into 1st team without stressing about relegation too much (and we have no reserve league to play them in), whilst less games against old firm generally makes the league a tad tighter. I appreciate less games overall = less money, but the lack of young Scots getting top league game time is a little concerning and I'd personally like us to focus our game on bringing thru more Scots than paying wages to the likes of Kuqi and many other huddies we've had.

GoldenEagle
27-12-2012, 07:27 PM
Folks argue a bigger league = more meaningless games, I see it as a good way to bring more youngsters into 1st team without stressing about relegation too much (and we have no reserve league to play them in), whilst less games against old firm generally makes the league a tad tighter. I appreciate less games overall = less money, but the lack of young Scots getting top league game time is a little concerning and I'd personally like us to focus our game on bringing thru more Scots than paying wages to the likes of Kuqi and many other huddies we've had.

If I wanted to watch a youth league then I'd follow the spl 20's.
The league needs cash to keep existing talent and being in better standard of players=more punters through doors and cycle continues.

Craig_in_Prague
27-12-2012, 07:31 PM
If I wanted to watch a youth league then I'd follow the spl 20's.
The league needs cash to keep existing talent and being in better standard of players=more punters through doors and cycle continues.

Keep existing talent? Lol

perhaps getting more young talent through into teams (I'm not saying a full team of young players) will improve quality in the longer term.
Many countries round the world have good young talent in top leagues. We live in the dark ages of "experience" and big lumps. Slow crap football.
And its our main sport!

lobster
27-12-2012, 07:31 PM
Folks argue a bigger league = more meaningless games, I see it as a good way to bring more youngsters into 1st team without stressing about relegation too much (and we have no reserve league to play them in), whilst less games against old firm generally makes the league a tad tighter. I appreciate less games overall = less money, but the lack of young Scots getting top league game time is a little concerning and I'd personally like us to focus our game on bringing thru more Scots than paying wages to the likes of Kuqi and many other huddies we've had.

Absolutely. The meaningless games argument completely falls down when each team play each other once home and once away. The game itself would be an event instead of the turgid overkill we currently experience. There are enough good teams in the first division to make up the 20 easily and as you say more young Scottish players would get top league experience. Unfortunately the game is being debased by television money.

CropleyWasGod
27-12-2012, 07:35 PM
I wasn't really paying attention but I'm sure I heard on the news that the SPL, SFL and SFA had very sccessful talks today in their attempt to rush through a two leagues of twelve teams for the start of next season. Somebody please tell me I misheard something as I thought that any reconstruction required one full season's warning in advance.

To clarify, there has been no agreement. There are two different plans being discussed.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/20851604

Northernhibee
27-12-2012, 07:35 PM
Folks argue a bigger league = more meaningless games, I see it as a good way to bring more youngsters into 1st team without stressing about relegation too much (and we have no reserve league to play them in), whilst less games against old firm generally makes the league a tad tighter. I appreciate less games overall = less money, but the lack of young Scots getting top league game time is a little concerning and I'd personally like us to focus our game on bringing thru more Scots than paying wages to the likes of Kuqi and many other huddies we've had.

Bang on the money. :top marks

Alfred E Newman
27-12-2012, 07:43 PM
Absolutely. The meaningless games argument completely falls down when each team play each other once home and once away. The game itself would be an event instead of the turgid overkill we currently experience. There are enough good teams in the first division to make up the 20 easily and as you say more young Scottish players would get top league experience. Unfortunately the game is being debased by television money.

The league is meaningless as it is now. Outwith Celtic we are all playing for the minor places and a possible shot at UEFA cup or in our case trying to stay in a 10 team league. A bigger league which meant playing each other once would be an improvement but the chances of the Bigot Bros agreeing to that is slim.

lobster
27-12-2012, 07:50 PM
The league is meaningless as it is now. Outwith Celtic we are all playing for the minor places and a possible shot at UEFA cup or in our case trying to stay in a 10 team league. A bigger league which meant playing each other once would be an improvement but the chances of the Bigot Bros agreeing to that is slim.

Agreed. The set up at present is tedious and most particularly so because teams play each other too often. However I dont think it would be just the OF who would resist but others who benefit from four games against them and sadly I think that means us too. Its very sad that football has become another entertainment commodity instead of something more central to our cultural identities as it should be.

jdships
27-12-2012, 08:08 PM
Folks argue a bigger league = more meaningless games, I see it as a good way to bring more youngsters into 1st team without stressing about relegation too much (and we have no reserve league to play them in), whilst less games against old firm generally makes the league a tad tighter. I appreciate less games overall = less money, but the lack of young Scots getting top league game time is a little concerning and I'd personally like us to focus our game on bringing thru more Scots than paying wages to the likes of Kuqi and many other huddies we've had.

:thumbsup::top marks

jdships
27-12-2012, 08:15 PM
Agreed. The set up at present is tedious and most particularly so because teams play each other too often. However I dont think it would be just the OF who would resist but others who benefit from four games against them and sadly I think that means us too. Its very sad that football has become another entertainment commodity instead of something more central to our cultural identities as it should be.


Agree with what you write !!
However , fortunately or not depending on your opinion , football is now part of the ENTERTAINMENT BUSINESS
Sponsorship and Games shown on TV have brought that about .
We must just learn to live with that

For my part as it stands ,and over the past few years , I am NOT being entertained by HFC therefore I have been attending fewer and fewer matched
Something has to be done to make the game in Scotland less boring .

Jim44
27-12-2012, 10:27 PM
The proposed new set-up doesn't allow RFC into the top league any quicker than in the current set-up. Do the sums.:greengrin

(Disclaimer, unless of course they are invited in.)

(Double disclaimer. Rod did say at the AGM that the new proposals were not designed to get RFC back any more quickly.)


Disclaimer - stranger things have happened.

Double Disclaimer - yes, he said not actually designed to get them back more quickly but he didn't say that new proposals would not get them back more quickly..............nothing like a bit of subtle ambiguity.

But if your maths are correct, it will be very interesting to see how Green can wangle his way out of his promise that Sevco would never again play in the SPL or presumably in a league made up from SPL teams.

Mikey
05-01-2013, 05:02 PM
I can't see a story on the BBC yet but Jim Spence has Tweeted to say that it looks like we'll have 2 leagues of 12 that split into 3x8 next season.

Spike Mandela
05-01-2013, 05:05 PM
Reconstruction talk won't go away until Rangers are accelarated up the leagues.

Mikey
05-01-2013, 05:08 PM
Story up now......

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/20920482

bingo70
05-01-2013, 05:13 PM
Reconstruction talk won't go away until Rangers are accelarated up the leagues.

We need reconstruction and we shouldn't delay just because it'll benefit The Rangers, the fact it will benefit them is unfortunate but we've been discussing the need for it long before they folded so i think it's unfair to say it's only being done to get them up the leagues quicker.

Part/Time Supporter
05-01-2013, 05:15 PM
We need reconstruction and we shouldn't delay just because it'll benefit The Rangers, the fact it will benefit them is unfortunate but we've been discussing the need for it long before they folded so i think it's unfair to say it's only being done to get them up the leagues quicker.

The suggestion is that it won't benefit them at all, because they would stay in the bottom (third) tier of the new setup. It would take the same number of years for them to get back to playing the top teams.

Sylar
05-01-2013, 05:16 PM
Good to see that the idea of change is gathering speed but I'm more eager to see the current voting structure being abolished first!

Mikey
05-01-2013, 05:19 PM
Good to see that the idea of change is gathering speed but I'm more eager to see the current voting structure being abolished first!

Presumably the new set up would come with new voting rights.

Spike Mandela
05-01-2013, 05:19 PM
We need reconstruction and we shouldn't delay just because it'll benefit The Rangers, the fact it will benefit them is unfortunate but we've been discussing the need for it long before they folded so i think it's unfair to say it's only being done to get them up the leagues quicker.

In what way do we 'need' a split to 3 leagues of 8?

You are entitled to your opinion reconstruction is on the table for the good of the game but this follows neither Henry McLeish's masterplan or the SPLs preferred wish for a league of 10 or indeed the fans wish for league of 18.

At best it is change for changes sake but in truth I believe all talk of reconstruction would disappear if Rangers were put in the SPL tomorrow.

lord bunberry
05-01-2013, 05:20 PM
Reconstruction talk won't go away until Rangers are accelarated up the leagues.

will this allow rangers to be in the top league any quicker. as it stands it will be another 2 seasons in the lower leagues for them and if this proposal is accepted they will start in the bottom league next season then the spl2 the following season. so it will still take the same amount of time to be in the top division

bingo70
05-01-2013, 05:22 PM
Story up now......

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/20920482

Don't think that explains the 3 x 8 split, how exactly does it work again?

Didn't really get it when i read about it before

danhibees1875
05-01-2013, 05:22 PM
The suggestion is that it won't benefit them at all, because they would stay in the bottom (third) tier of the new setup. It would take the same number of years for them to get back to playing the top teams.

That's the way it looks to me.

If anything a change for next year (which I didn't think was meant to happen, I thought they had to give a full seasons notice?) would basically just be turning to The Rangers and saying their promotion counts for nothing and they shall still be playing in the bottow tier of Scottish football next year.

Sylar
05-01-2013, 05:23 PM
Presumably the new set up would come with new voting rights.

Therein lies the problem for me.

It's been deadly quiet on the matter since it was first raised all those months ago.

Would be nice if the "powers" that be could articulate what precisely is happening with them.

Baldy Foghorn
05-01-2013, 05:23 PM
My personal view is that I can't believe there will be three mini leagues of 3, after a certain amount of initial fixtures have been completed.

RP mentioned this at the AGM, that the middle 8, would all go back to zero points and start a new "league"....It just sounds like madness to me....

Spike Mandela
05-01-2013, 05:24 PM
will this allow rangers to be in the top league any quicker. as it stands it will be another 2 seasons in the lower leagues for them and if this proposal is accepted they will start in the bottom league next season then the spl2 the following season. so it will still take the same amount of time to be in the top division

They would be playing SPL clubs if they are in top 4 of SPL 2 at split wouldn't they?

Wouldn't rule out some other method of getting them there quicker as well. Annything is possible with our authorities imo.

bingo70
05-01-2013, 05:26 PM
In what way do we 'need' a split to 3 leagues of 8?

You are entitled to your opinion reconstruction is on the table for the good of the game but this follows neither Henry McLeish's masterplan or the SPLs preferred wish for a league of 10 or indeed the fans wish for league of 18.

At best it is change for changes sake but in truth I believe all talk of reconstruction would disappear if Rangers were put in the SPL tomorrow.

I don't fully understand the split but i think we need to do something a bit different to make it a competitive league for as long as possible and to try and get benefit from a play off system.

We can't just do what other countries do as we've got two clubs that are so dominant and if we had say just one big league of 18 then the season would be over for the majority of the league by christmas.

Mikey
05-01-2013, 05:28 PM
I don't fully understand the split but i think we need to do something a bit different to make it a competitive league for as long as possible and to try and get benefit from a play off system.

We can't just do what other countries do as we've got two clubs that are so dominant and if we had say just one big league then the season would be over for the majority of the league by christmas.

The slight problem with that is "a competitive league" is something that fans have said they want for some time. We've got one just now and they've moved the goalposts and still won't go to games.

Keith_M
05-01-2013, 05:30 PM
This is just tinkering at the edges of what is really wrong with Scottish Football.


We have a country that no longer produces a decent enough standard of player and where perhaps 70-80% of people 'support' one of two clubs, both of whom have been vocal in their desire to play elsewhere. We have not qualified as a nation for a major tournament finals for 15 years and it's likely that will continue unless their is a serious change in Scottish Football.


As an aside, I for one am completely disinterested in a league that splits in this manner anyway. It just sounds completely stupid.

bingo70
05-01-2013, 05:34 PM
The slight problem with that is "a competitive league" is something that fans have said they want for some time. We've got one just now and they've moved the goalposts and still won't go to games.

I don't know, i think crowds for most teams are up this season are they not?

It'll help if pundits, media, managers from other countries and fans don't keep putting down our game at every opportunity despite the fact the SPL just now is competitive, lots of young scottish players coming through, loads of goals being scored and some teams genuinely trying to play good football.

Gatecrasher
05-01-2013, 05:34 PM
My personal view is that I can't believe there will be three mini leagues of 3, after a certain amount of initial fixtures have been completed.

RP mentioned this at the AGM, that the middle 8, would all go back to zero points and start a new "league"....It just sounds like madness to me....
:agree: Sounds *****

GreenCastle
05-01-2013, 05:52 PM
From the BBC Website - "The 30 SFL clubs had voted unanimously on 14 November for a three-league structure of 16-10-16 for season 2014-15, the SPL providing the additional 12 clubs in a new league structure. But SFL chief executive Longmuir says the SPL's preferred format featuring 12 sides in the top two divisions is now winning support."

A few things we need more info on - the current SPL voting structure - after sevco were sent down there was talk at the time about changing this to make it more fair - I've heard nothing since then about this - it has to be changed.

When are they planning to restructure the leagues - I was under the impression you have to let teams know before a season starts before you make any changes?

What is happening about the pyramid structure ? There are teams out there who have made no effort to improve the game / club structure / youth pathway / facilities - while there are other clubs out there who are progressing and improving the game who currently aren't professional but can't gain promotion.

This season has been more exciting than ever with the top competitive league - if they sort ticket prices out / value for money at games (on food etc) and league structure the game can improve - but I agree change for the sake of change isn't clever - especially if you are making things even more complicated than the current split.

The game needs some leadership from the top - Regan / Doncaster etc and that includes appointing a national coach!

Big Frank
05-01-2013, 06:09 PM
Teams reverting to 0 points and wee mini leagues created half way through the season ?:faf::faf::faf:

Utter, utter guff.

Saorsa
05-01-2013, 06:12 PM
From the BBC Website - "The 30 SFL clubs had voted unanimously on 14 November for a three-league structure of 16-10-16 for season 2014-15, the SPL providing the additional 12 clubs in a new league structure. But SFL chief executive Longmuir says the SPL's preferred format featuring 12 sides in the top two divisions is now winning support."

A few things we need more info on - the current SPL voting structure - after sevco were sent down there was talk at the time about changing this to make it more fair - I've heard nothing since then about this - it has to be changed.

When are they planning to restructure the leagues - I was under the impression you have to let teams know before a season starts before you make any changes?

What is happening about the pyramid structure ? There are teams out there who have made no effort to improve the game / club structure / youth pathway / facilities - while there are other clubs out there who are progressing and improving the game who currently aren't professional but can't gain promotion.

This season has been more exciting than ever with the top competitive league - if they sort ticket prices out / value for money at games (on food etc) and league structure the game can improve - but I agree change for the sake of change isn't clever - especially if you are making things even more complicated than the current split.

The game needs some leadership from the top - Regan / Doncaster etc and that includes appointing a national coach! Leadership from those two ****in' clowns?The game would be better without those two ****wits for a start, nothing but a pair of OF lackys, that they are still involved efter the fiasco in the summer tells you all you need tae ken about the people who run the game in this country. ****in' disgrace they way they tried tae talk down Scottish fitba without the huns. I'd trust that pair of scheming *******s tae dae the right thing about as far as I could throw a grand piano.

bingo70
05-01-2013, 06:18 PM
Teams reverting to 0 points and wee mini leagues created half way through the season ?:faf::faf::faf:

Utter, utter guff.

I think it's the best chance we've got of getting someone else to win the league other than Rangers or Celtic.

Edit:- just thinking if it was being called a play off system rather than a split and it might not seem so ludicrous, but maybe that's just me and my understanding of it.

GreenCastle
05-01-2013, 06:28 PM
Leadership from those two ****in' clows?The game would be better without those two ****wits for a start, nothing but a pair of OF lackys, that they are still involved efter the fiasco in the summer tells you all you need tae ken about the people who run the game in this country. ****in' disgrace they way they tried tae talk down Scottish fitba without the huns. I'd trust that pair of scheming *******s tae dae the right thing about as far as I could throw a grand piano.

Guess they didn't send you a xmas card :wink:

Never said I was a fan of them! Far from it - especially Doncaster!

But leadership is needed - we have many projects going on in Scotland from grassroots upwards and our national team / national leagues are needing sorted ASAP.

marinello59
05-01-2013, 06:37 PM
Reconstruction talk won't go away until Rangers are accelarated up the leagues.

Ignore Rangers. If they benefit from proper league reconstruction then it will be a price worth paying, we can't cut off our noses to spite our face. The schemes I have seen so far though have done nowt to aid their inevitable return to the top division.
What worries me most is our ''leaders'' talk about league reconstruction without mentioning pricing structure or summer fitba. Tinkering rather than the much needed revolution.

marinello59
05-01-2013, 06:41 PM
Leadership from those two ****in' clowns?The game would be better without those two ****wits for a start, nothing but a pair of OF lackys, that they are still involved efter the fiasco in the summer tells you all you need tae ken about the people who run the game in this country. ****in' disgrace they way they tried tae talk down Scottish fitba without the huns. I'd trust that pair of scheming *******s tae dae the right thing about as far as I could throw a grand piano.

:agree:

Sir David Gray
05-01-2013, 06:54 PM
Any plan I've seen on this just sounds stupid and unnecessarily complicated.

Why not open up the league system to include the clubs who are currently part of the East of Scotland, South of Scotland and Highland leagues?

There's 12 teams in the South of Scotland premier league, 12 teams in the East of Scotland premier league and 18 teams in the Highland league. How about the top 3 divisions including the present SPL/1/2/3 clubs plus the top 4 sides from the EoS, SoS and HL divisions, which makes 54 teams and gives you 3 leagues of 18 teams, which would allow you to have two rounds of fixtures for every side and playing one at home and one away every year to give 34 games a season.

You would then have 30 teams remaining from the EoS, SoS and HL and you could have another 3 leagues, each with 10 teams in them and they would follow a similar model to the current SFL, where you play each other 4 times a season (twice at home and twice away) to play 36 games.

No silly splits, no going back to zero points half way through the season and an even and fair split of home and away games against every single side in the league.

How difficult can it be to implement something like this? :confused:

bingo70
05-01-2013, 07:14 PM
Any plan I've seen on this just sounds stupid and unnecessarily complicated.

Why not open up the league system to include the clubs who are currently part of the East of Scotland, South of Scotland and Highland leagues?

There's 12 teams in the South of Scotland premier league, 12 teams in the East of Scotland premier league and 18 teams in the Highland league. How about the top 3 divisions including the present SPL/1/2/3 clubs plus the top 4 sides from the EoS, SoS and HL divisions, which makes 54 teams and gives you 3 leagues of 18 teams, which would allow you to have two rounds of fixtures for every side and playing one at home and one away every year to give 34 games a season.

You would then have 30 teams remaining from the EoS, SoS and HL and you could have another 3 leagues, each with 10 teams in them and they would follow a similar model to the current SFL, where you play each other 4 times a season (twice at home and twice away) to play 36 games.

No silly splits, no going back to zero points half way through the season and an even and fair split of home and away games against every single side in the league.

How difficult can it be to implement something like this? :confused:

Implementing it would be easy, the problem with it is that IMO the novelty of playing the poorer sides in the league would wear off quickly and it'd be boring which would drive down crowds as well as having fewer big games which would mean less income and drive down the standard further.

Eyrie
05-01-2013, 07:14 PM
Any plan I've seen on this just sounds stupid and unnecessarily complicated.

Why not open up the league system to include the clubs who are currently part of the East of Scotland, South of Scotland and Highland leagues?

There's 12 teams in the South of Scotland premier league, 12 teams in the East of Scotland premier league and 18 teams in the Highland league. How about the top 3 divisions including the present SPL/1/2/3 clubs plus the top 4 sides from the EoS, SoS and HL divisions, which makes 54 teams and gives you 3 leagues of 18 teams, which would allow you to have two rounds of fixtures for every side and playing one at home and one away every year to give 34 games a season.

You would then have 30 teams remaining from the EoS, SoS and HL and you could have another 3 leagues, each with 10 teams in them and they would follow a similar model to the current SFL, where you play each other 4 times a season (twice at home and twice away) to play 36 games.

No silly splits, no going back to zero points half way through the season and an even and fair split of home and away games against every single side in the league.

How difficult can it be to implement something like this? :confused:
Can we sustain 54 SFL clubs? Maybe if you cut it back to two leagues of 18, with the other 6 clubs dropping to the East of Scotland or Highland Leagues which would form the lower part of a pyramid structure. The next step is to go a step further and merge the Juniors with the senior leagues as feeders for the lower league.

I've been in favour of a 12-12-18 set up for many years, so am glad to see it being given serious consideration.

Big_Franck
05-01-2013, 07:36 PM
The proposal to split the top two leagues in to 3 mini leagues of 8 just sounds stupid. Even more so if teams resort to 0 points after playing each other twice? :confused:

I would say that I can't believe this would even be given consideration, but with the the two gimps mentioned above running our game nothing surprises me.

Waxy
05-01-2013, 07:43 PM
We have an incongruent number lol.(he's blinding us with big words).
Heres an idea.Why not promote 6 teams from the non leagues and have 3 leagues of 16.
And once youve agreed to that u can right off

Sir David Gray
05-01-2013, 07:44 PM
Implementing it would be easy, the problem with it is that IMO the novelty of playing the poorer sides in the league would wear off quickly and it'd be boring which would drive down crowds as well as having fewer big games which would mean less income and drive down the standard further.

I'm not sure it would really affect things as far as that's concerned to be honest.

If you did it the way I'm suggesting, we would presumably always be in the top league and this league would include the present SPL clubs plus 6 teams from the present first division. There's been talk for some time for the top clubs in the first division to be given a chance in a premier league because clubs like Morton, Dunfermline and Partick Thistle etc are deemed to be good enough by many to compete with many of the sides in the SPL. I'm not sure that playing the likes of Morton would be so much different to playing against Dundee or St Mirren.

A bigger league would also reduce the chances of relegation and therefore may encourage teams to play more youngsters, helping the chances of the national side. At the moment, since the leagues are so small, there is so much pressure on sides to pick up points in order to avoid relegation and they choose to play experienced players and the youth players are overlooked, stifling their development.


Can we sustain 54 SFL clubs? Maybe if you cut it back to two leagues of 18, with the other 6 clubs dropping to the East of Scotland or Highland Leagues which would form the lower part of a pyramid structure. The next step is to go a step further and merge the Juniors with the senior leagues as feeders for the lower league.

I've been in favour of a 12-12-18 set up for many years, so am glad to see it being given serious consideration.

I wouldn't be against that idea at all. I think the bottom few divisions should be regionalised, I should have mentioned that in my previous post.

I'm not saying my suggestion is the way that it must be and I'm certainly open to other suggestions. I just think that all this talk about splits and mini-leagues and going back to zero points midway through a season are just a nonsense when there's a much simpler and, in my opinion, much better option that could be explored.

IWasThere2016
05-01-2013, 07:52 PM
I don't fully understand the split but i think we need to do something a bit different to make it a competitive league for as long as possible and to try and get benefit from a play off system.

We can't just do what other countries do as we've got two clubs that are so dominant and if we had say just one big league of 18 then the season would be over for the majority of the league by christmas.

It's about the big trying to get bigger - competitiveness, entertainment are secondary after thoughts.

Waxy
05-01-2013, 07:55 PM
What i'd like to see is play offs for the league championship every year.
This would do wonders for the scottish league.
No matter if a team finishes top they'd have to play the 4th place team in a semi final
3rd v 4th
Both winners in a league championship final every year.

But noooooooooo.
We cant have that can we Glasgow?

IWasThere2016
05-01-2013, 07:57 PM
I can't see a story on the BBC yet but Jim Spence has Tweeted to say that it looks like we'll have 2 leagues of 12 that split into 3x8 next season.

I did tell you (and others) months ago that the Dees were confident they'd be safe this season :wink:

Bishop Hibee
05-01-2013, 08:07 PM
One thing is for sure in all this, the top teams which includes Hibs will never vote for anything that would mean they would usually play each other less than 4 times a season. They simply can't afford the loss of revenue.

CropleyWasGod
05-01-2013, 08:14 PM
One thing is for sure in all this, the top teams which includes Hibs will never vote for anything that would mean they would usually play each other less than 4 times a season. They simply can't afford the loss of revenue.

The top teams (ie the SPL) have already provisionally agreed this. The plan gives everybody 36 games, with 18 at home; a game or 2 different from the present system.

It will be the "top teams" (ie the best 8) that will be in the top league, and get the benefits.

down-the-slope
05-01-2013, 08:40 PM
I did tell you (and others) months ago that the Dees were confident they'd be safe this season :wink:Well you would be wrong then :wink:

As they will (in most likely scenario) be relegated and in 2nd tier of 12

Big_Franck
05-01-2013, 08:44 PM
This is very different from anything I have seen suggested so far, so bear with me a minute while I try to explain it.

How about a top league that is similar to the Argentine top division? We could have a top league of 18 teams but play two separate leagues per calendar year, with a summer break to separate the leagues. Each league would consist of 17 games, each team playing each other once. The fixtures would be reversed for the second league that year, so no home-away advantages are gained as with the current set-up.

At the end of the year either the two league winners, or the two teams with the highest total points, would play a title decider (possibly home & away) that would be attractive to TV companies. Realistically that is likely to be Celtic v Rangers most years so we should be able to negotiate a good TV deal.

Teams with the 3rd, 4th etc. total highest points would qualify for the Europa League.

You could also introduce relegation play-offs between the teams with the lowest and second lowest total points from the top league, and the top two teams in division two. Again, that would be more exciting than the current set-up and would no doubt be shown on TV.

Divisions Two and Three would consist of 12 teams so would be achievable with the current 42 teams that are in the SPL and SFL.

Positives:

- It would accommodate the 18 team league that from memory finished top in fans' polls.
- It would keep things very competitive and make it more likely that smaller teams could challenge for a league title with only having to keep pace with The Rangers and Celtic for 17 games.
- It would be attractive to TV companies because of the competitive nature of the shorter leagues, and because of the end of season title and relegation play-offs.


Am I totally mad or is something like this a viable option?

down-the-slope
05-01-2013, 08:55 PM
The top teams (ie the SPL) have already provisionally agreed this. The plan gives everybody 36 games, with 18 at home; a game or 2 different from the present system.

It will be the "top teams" (ie the best 8) that will be in the top league, and get the benefits.

While you are not wrong - its not the whole story. Yes top 8 will get top billing and cash (better than top 6 :dunno:) the main benefit will be better distribution to 16 teams below,

We get cack TV money and may well see Setanta bite the dust soon...we need a new product to sell to TV and bring more excitement to supporters.

the mega middle 8 play off will have a lot more excitement to offer fans and TV - it also does away with the inequal 1/4 split of home and away games (in effect its a top 16 without the meaningless games for those in 6th-10th spots late in the season)

I have thought long and hard about this but it seems better than any other option I have seen (without flaws? - no of course not)

And a major side benefit is getting back to one less administrative body

IWasThere2016
05-01-2013, 10:05 PM
Well you would be wrong then :wink:

As they will (in most likely scenario) be relegated and in 2nd tier of 12

We'll see :wink: The change might be conditional on no relegation..

stoneyburn hibs
05-01-2013, 10:28 PM
Shoot me down if im wrong but what other country adopts our current league split set up ? We have a laughable system right now and the new proposals will make scottish fitba an ever bigger joke , what happened to listening to the fans ?

down-the-slope
05-01-2013, 10:33 PM
We'll see :wink: The change might be conditional on no relegation..

Would be very surprised at that, given they got a 'free' pass this year...getting a second when it would disadvantage Top 1st team is going against the 'sporting integrity' platform of most chairmen

HH81
05-01-2013, 10:34 PM
This is very different from anything I have seen suggested so far, so bear with me a minute while I try to explain it.

How about a top league that is similar to the Argentine top division? We could have a top league of 18 teams but play two separate leagues per calendar year, with a summer break to separate the leagues. Each league would consist of 17 games, each team playing each other once. The fixtures would be reversed for the second league that year, so no home-away advantages are gained as with the current set-up.

At the end of the year either the two league winners, or the two teams with the highest total points, would play a title decider (possibly home & away) that would be attractive to TV companies. Realistically that is likely to be Celtic v Rangers most years so we should be able to negotiate a good TV deal.

Teams with the 3rd, 4th etc. total highest points would qualify for the Europa League.

You could also introduce relegation play-offs between the teams with the lowest and second lowest total points from the top league, and the top two teams in division two. Again, that would be more exciting than the current set-up and would no doubt be shown on TV.

Divisions Two and Three would consist of 12 teams so would be achievable with the current 42 teams that are in the SPL and SFL.

Positives:

- It would accommodate the 18 team league that from memory finished top in fans' polls.
- It would keep things very competitive and make it more likely that smaller teams could challenge for a league title with only having to keep pace with The Rangers and Celtic for 17 games.
- It would be attractive to TV companies because of the competitive nature of the shorter leagues, and because of the end of season title and relegation play-offs.


Am I totally mad or is something like this a viable option?

I think this sounds a good idea.

Part/Time Supporter
05-01-2013, 10:37 PM
This is very different from anything I have seen suggested so far, so bear with me a minute while I try to explain it.

How about a top league that is similar to the Argentine top division? We could have a top league of 18 teams but play two separate leagues per calendar year, with a summer break to separate the leagues. Each league would consist of 17 games, each team playing each other once. The fixtures would be reversed for the second league that year, so no home-away advantages are gained as with the current set-up.

At the end of the year either the two league winners, or the two teams with the highest total points, would play a title decider (possibly home & away) that would be attractive to TV companies. Realistically that is likely to be Celtic v Rangers most years so we should be able to negotiate a good TV deal.

Teams with the 3rd, 4th etc. total highest points would qualify for the Europa League.

You could also introduce relegation play-offs between the teams with the lowest and second lowest total points from the top league, and the top two teams in division two. Again, that would be more exciting than the current set-up and would no doubt be shown on TV.

Divisions Two and Three would consist of 12 teams so would be achievable with the current 42 teams that are in the SPL and SFL.

Positives:

- It would accommodate the 18 team league that from memory finished top in fans' polls.
- It would keep things very competitive and make it more likely that smaller teams could challenge for a league title with only having to keep pace with The Rangers and Celtic for 17 games.
- It would be attractive to TV companies because of the competitive nature of the shorter leagues, and because of the end of season title and relegation play-offs.


Am I totally mad or is something like this a viable option?

What advantage is there in finishing 1st rather than 2nd, if the league championship is determined by two playoff games? It would render a "normal" Scottish season irrelevant to the OF. They would just clock up enough points to ensure that they finish in at least second place and then treat the rest of the league games like friendlies.

jgl07
05-01-2013, 11:01 PM
Teams reverting to 0 points and wee mini leagues created half way through the season ?


Only for the middle eight. It would be an extended promotion relegation playoff. The top eight and bottom eight would work similar to the current SPL split with points being retained.

Big_Franck
05-01-2013, 11:20 PM
What advantage is there in finishing 1st rather than 2nd, if the league championship is determined by two playoff games? It would render a "normal" Scottish season irrelevant to the OF. They would just clock up enough points to ensure that they finish in at least second place and then treat the rest of the league games like friendlies.

Prize money? Or the fact that the ugly sisters would always want to beat each other and finish ahead of one another. Or you could say whoever finishes the season with the highest total points plays at home in a one-off title/champions league qualifcation decider.

Also, with only 17 games being played in each 'league' it would be unlikely they would be that far ahead to be able to treat any games as friendlies. How many years have we seen teams up there challenging Rangers and Celtic until November or December, and then fall away? With the Argentine system many more small teams compete for league titles.

The system in Argentina doesn't currently have an end of season title play-off as I suggested, there are simply two league champions per year. But for deciding Champions League qualification we may need some kind of play-off.


Edit: They started having a play-off game for this season which runs Aug 2012 - May 2013:
http://www.insideworldfootball.biz/worldfootball/southamerica/10793-argentina-reverts-to-single-champion-league-system-

IWasThere2016
06-01-2013, 12:14 AM
Would be very surprised at that, given they got a 'free' pass this year...getting a second when it would disadvantage Top 1st team is going against the 'sporting integrity' platform of most chairmen

Will integrity no be oot the windae if (I am assuming) New HunCo are in SPL2 (or whatever its to be known as)?

gringojoe
06-01-2013, 12:21 AM
Splits are a pain in the archie. When I buy a season ticket I want to know who we are playing and that we will have a even number of home and away games against the same teams. Get it sorted Petrie!

Gerard
06-01-2013, 12:25 AM
I do not see anything that is good about this proposal. If it happens it will not make Scottish football a better product to watch and players better professionals. Scottish football needs a better plan. In an ideal World a top division of 18 or 20 teams and and two divisions made up of the remnant of the clubs. We need to encourage the fans to return to watch football. Perhaps, we need to return to a time when football was only televised on special occasions?

Gatecrasher
06-01-2013, 12:32 AM
It almost feels like that the people running OUR game are really clueless or don't care IMO. As long as they be paid eh:rolleyes: last summer they showed their true colours.

lord bunberry
06-01-2013, 09:05 AM
Only for the middle eight. It would be an extended promotion relegation playoff. The top eight and bottom eight would work similar to the current SPL split with points being retained.

If they zeroed the points in all 3 divisions then i would be in favour but if it means the same old two horse race then its a waste of time

StevieC
06-01-2013, 09:15 AM
If they zeroed the points in all 3 divisions then i would be in favour

.. but that would mean there would be more of a chance of a team splitting the OF and potentially "stealing" a Champions League place .. that's not what Scottish Football is about.

McD
06-01-2013, 09:33 AM
The whole SPL proposal stinks of a fancy/complicated way of providing change (for changes sake almost) to satisfy the public desire for a new league layout, whilst still maintaining 4 old firm games (once sevco reach the top tier again).

lord bunberry
06-01-2013, 09:34 AM
.. but that would mean there would be more of a chance of a team splitting the OF and potentially "stealing" a Champions League place .. that's not what Scottish Football is about.

I know and thats why i doubt it will happen

Mr White
06-01-2013, 09:43 AM
Its a better split arrangement than the uneven one we have just now but I don't think it'll make any real difference to changing the fundamental problems in the Scottish game.

McD
06-01-2013, 09:44 AM
I'm not saying we should do something like this, but if the powers that be are so determined to do something "radical" or "different", then they could try incorporating something similar to what they do in some of the rugby union leagues:

- score 3or4 goals in a game and get a bonus point
- win a game by say, 3 clear goals and get a bonus point

adding in others such as:

- a score draw sharing 4 or more goals gets a bonus point.


if the powers that be are really driven to create a more exciting product, the above would encourage attacking football at least.



not sure if it could work, of whether FIFA would be happy with it, but could this work? :dunno:

BroxburnHibee
06-01-2013, 10:24 AM
Don't think that explains the 3 x 8 split, how exactly does it work again?

Didn't really get it when i read about it before

I'm not even going to bother - as far as I'm concerned any league setup with these ridiculous split ideas is designed purely for the benefit of greed rather than whats good for the game.

BroxburnHibee
06-01-2013, 10:35 AM
One thing is for sure in all this, the top teams which includes Hibs will never vote for anything that would mean they would usually play each other less than 4 times a season. They simply can't afford the loss of revenue.

Not buying that - more likely that they don't want to give it up.

We were told we couldn't afford the loss of Rangers - what happened there?

Eyrie
06-01-2013, 10:37 AM
Any league reconstruction has to answer the following needs

Competitive - as many games as possible should be competitive with as few mismatches as possible.
Meaningful - as many games as possible should be meaningful with as few games as possible having little at stake.
Financial - teams need as many home games as possible to maximise their income.
Fairness - teams should have an equal number of home and away games against each opponent.

Issues such as revenue allocation or a pyramid system can be addressed under the current 12/10/10/10 system, the proposed 12/12/18 set up or an 18/18/(18?) idea.

A 12 team league has either too many games (44) or a ridiculous split (the current 38).
A 16 team league has too few home games to be viable and will have meaningless midtable games by mid-season. I'd rather have a second visit by Hearts or Smeltic than games against Raith and Morton to see who finishes 9th or 10th.
An 18 team league too many mismatches and even more meaningless games.

The 12/12/18 set up means that the games are competitive (we're always playing teams of a similar standard), meaningful (we're going for Europe or avoiding relegation), generate income (18 home games, and the TV money will be there because the leagues are competitive) and fair (we play every team home and away either once or twice).

The two concerns are playing the same teams four times and season tickets. Playing the same teams four times is less of a concern if the teams are well matched and the games have something at stake. Season tickets could be sold separately for the pre- and post-split sections, or for the full season on the presumption that we make the top 8 with a discount for the renewal next season if we don't.

Other benefits? With effectively 24 teams involved the income split for TV and prize money will have to be fairer rather than 12 teams taking the lot. Given the current split by the SPL much of the pain will be felt by the first and second placed teams with a much lower impact on the other 10 sides in the current SPL. The 18 team league can be used as a bridge between the regional leagues and the 12/12 SPL. There would only be one organisation for all 42 teams rather than two.

BarneyK
06-01-2013, 10:59 AM
Will integrity no be oot the windae if (I am assuming) New HunCo are in SPL2 (or whatever its to be known as)?

Why would Sevco be in SPL2? Even if they win the third division by a million points they'll still not be in Scotland's top 24.

superfurryhibby
06-01-2013, 01:43 PM
Not sure about how to reconstruct at the top end of the League but feel strongly that the lower tiers needs a regionalised and a pyramid structure. There must be teams in the juniors and East-South and Highland leagues with better support and facilities than the teams that drift around the third division. At least restructuring would give them the opportunity to prove the actually merit a league position and should prove more economical in terms of travel for clubs and supporters.

danhibees1875
06-01-2013, 02:28 PM
Not sure about how to reconstruct at the top end of the League but feel strongly that the lower tiers needs a regionalised and a pyramid structure. There must be teams in the juniors and East-South and Highland leagues with better support and facilities than the teams that drift around the third division. At least restructuring would give them the opportunity to prove the actually merit a league position and should prove more economical in terms of travel for clubs and supporters.

:agree:

I'd also suggest that we have too many teams in the top end for the size of our country.

2 leagues of 16, then everything else regionalised. Play each other twice and change the league cup into a group stage competition with 8 groups of 4. Seeded so the 'little teams' are guarenteed to play one of the top 8 home and away every season for extra income.

superfurryhibby
06-01-2013, 02:54 PM
:agree:

I'd also suggest that we have too many teams in the top end for the size of our country.

2 leagues of 16, then everything else regionalised. Play each other twice and change the league cup into a group stage competition with 8 groups of 4. Seeded so the 'little teams' are guarenteed to play one of the top 8 home and away every season for extra income.

Pretty much go with that, although the stumbling blocks would be the finances in respect of playing OF and Hearts twice at home and TV revenues. A big part of me feels we need to look at what´s best for the game more inclusively and not just what suits SPL teams. Maybe we all need to take the hit in respect of Tv money and cur our cloth accordingly?

Sylar
06-01-2013, 03:38 PM
Will integrity no be oot the windae if (I am assuming) New HunCo are in SPL2 (or whatever its to be known as)?

No more so than Dundee being saved (yet AGAIN) by the authorities from an adverse fate.

It's about time this club got what it deserved.

jgl07
06-01-2013, 04:35 PM
I did tell you (and others) months ago that the Dees were confident they'd be safe this season :wink:

And why would Dundee be safe in a 12+12 structure?

There have always been promotions in past restructurings even whern dropping from 12 to 10. That was accomplished by 3 down 1 up.

NAE NOOKIE
06-01-2013, 05:57 PM
I cant remember an SPL season like this one. There is no rhyme or reason to it, anybody from 2nd bottom to 2nd top can beat each other on any given day and even now there is barely 9 points between most of the clubs. Even celtic are nowhere near the amount of points in front everybody predicted prior to the season starting.

What with that and the fact that "Fan Power" won the day to ensure that the cheating Rangers FC were not allowed to bully their way back into the SPL you would think that we have what we wanted. And now the clubs are even talking about reconstruction with a plan put forward which is at least an attemp to make the football more exciting ... if perhaps not of better quality .... something we ( the fans ) have been demanding for years.

But what is the result of all of this. Crowds of 3 and 4 thousand at most SPL matches and a load of griping at what looks like at least a genuine attempt to shake things up, with folk even going on about it being an attempt to fast track Sevco into the top flight, which is highly doubtful.

It would appear that after getting what we wanted a lot of the folk on message boards and other media who were so good at talking the talk forgot that they were supposed to walk the walk.

Diclonius
06-01-2013, 06:46 PM
Am I right in thinking that there will be ZERO reconstruction of the SPL itself with this new layout?

The SPL1 and SPL2 aren't splitting into 3 leagues of 8 as originally proposed - it just looks like a flat 12 with long overdue playoffs. That's it.

Mikey
06-01-2013, 06:54 PM
It would appear that after getting what we wanted a lot of the folk on message boards and other media who were so good at talking the talk forgot that they were supposed to walk the walk.

:agree:

down-the-slope
06-01-2013, 07:14 PM
Will integrity no be oot the windae if (I am assuming) New HunCo are in SPL2 (or whatever its to be known as)?

It would but it won't....if you know what I mean...as they are still bottom 18 no matter where they end this season...

That is I think one of the clever things in the proposal..they get no priority in it and fairer distribution can be settled before they get near any of it

Part/Time Supporter
06-01-2013, 07:20 PM
This is a reasonable critique of this 8-8-8 proposal...

http://splstats.wordpress.com/2013/01/06/a-split-decision/

Both first half leagues of 12 would need to get all of their 22 games played by about now. If you had a situation like Ross County calling off two games in a week near the end of the section, it would cause a serious problem if those games were decisive in terms of who finishes in what part of the league. This would be more of a problem in the second group of 12 teams, most of whom don't have good pitch protection.

Mr White
06-01-2013, 07:23 PM
2 fewer games in the season creates some leeway in that regard though.

PatHead
08-01-2013, 04:13 PM
Looks like the SPL will be no more. Looks like clubs will vote 12 12 18 with one league structure

According to Sky Sports News.

Suppose it would explain why no vote has been taken on 11-1 requirement for change and re-distribution of wealth. They are hoping for next season as well with no special treatment for The Rangers. Not sure if anyone wanted this though. I would still prefer 18 team league.

muirhousehibby
08-01-2013, 04:26 PM
Yeah seems Scottish football will have one govern body once again. I would have preferred a league of 14-14-14 and another couple of leagues from the east of Scotland / junior leagues top sides who meet the criteria. At the moment the third 3 division teams never get relegated so a team could finish bottom for 10 years but still play sfl which I've never understood. Question is does the fans agree with the new set really! Oh wait we don't get a say on it.

Green&White
08-01-2013, 04:29 PM
Looks like the SPL will be no more. Looks like clubs will vote 12 12 18 with one league structure

According to Sky Sports News.

Suppose it would explain why no vote has been taken on 11-1 requirement for change and re-distribution of wealth. They are hoping for next season as well with no special treatment for The Rangers. Not sure if anyone wanted this though. I would still prefer 18 team league.

Smacks of making a "change" with no actual change at all. whats the point?

PatHead
08-01-2013, 04:31 PM
Yeah seems Scottish football will have one govern body once again. I would have preferred a league of 14-14-14 and another couple of leagues from the east of Scotland / junior leagues top sides who meet the criteria. At the moment the third 3 division teams never get relegated so a team could finish bottom for 10 years but still play sfl which I've never understood. Question is does the fans agree with the new set really! Oh wait we don't get a say on it.

We did get a survey. They just ignored the results. Also no mention of a pyramid structure

jonty
08-01-2013, 04:32 PM
change for the lower leagues more like.

I just wish they'd ditch the stupid split, and playing each other 4 times a season. :brickwall

Familiarity breeds contempt.

Gerard
08-01-2013, 04:33 PM
you have a survey and get the survey results. You then ignore the findings of the survey. Why bother having a survey?:wink:

muirhousehibby
08-01-2013, 04:57 PM
you have a survey and get the survey results. You then ignore the findings of the survey. Why bother having a survey?:wink:

Spot on m8 why bothering asking fans of Scottish football then ignore the survey results. The split some terrible and could end up making the set up boring.

GoldenEagle
08-01-2013, 05:09 PM
change for the lower leagues more like.

I just wish they'd ditch the stupid split, and playing each other 4 times a season. :brickwall

Familiarity breeds contempt.


It also breeds the vast majority of the income though.

Pretty Boy
08-01-2013, 05:14 PM
So are we getting that league splitting into 3 groups of 8 thing then?

muzzhfc
08-01-2013, 05:16 PM
scottish football is a disgrace. nothing else.

they should (in my opinion) of went for a 16 - 10 - 16. 2 games home and away, then split into a top 8 and bottom 8 (thats purely for the money grabbing chairmen). wasnt the hole point of the spl splitting from the sfl and league increase to STOP playing teams 4 times a season?!

Hainan Hibs
08-01-2013, 05:18 PM
Unfortunately they have to maintain a league system that will guarantee the future of 4 "Auld Firm" games a season to maintain one of the ****test TV deals in Europe.

GoldenEagle
08-01-2013, 05:18 PM
So are we getting that league splitting into 3 groups of 8 thing then?


If the clubs vote for it then yes.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/20941213

I think we get too hung up about league structures anyways, once the season starts you tend to look no further ahead than the next 3-4 games. This new structure will certainly make every game count IMO right to the end of the season.

How it effects ST sales I'm not sure as do you sell the first 11 games and then a 'half ST ticket' or sell them all up front?

Beefster
08-01-2013, 05:21 PM
Scottish football really is beyond parody.

GoldenEagle
08-01-2013, 05:23 PM
Unfortunately they have to maintain a league system that will guarantee the future of 4 "Auld Firm" games a season to maintain one of the ****test TV deals in Europe.

How much would it cost Hibs not to have those additional home games and a worse TV deal. Would we be able to attract an additional 7-8000 onto our gate each week to keep the current turnover or would we need to run with a part time squad or other drastic measures.

I'd want a 16 team as much as anyone but I've yet to see any science behind how the figures would add up

Gatecrasher
08-01-2013, 05:24 PM
I just want to boke every time i see Regan, Doncaster and the rest of their cronies with Dollar signs in their eyes saying they are doing this in the best interests of the game :yw:

GoldenEagle
08-01-2013, 05:29 PM
I just want to boke every time i see Regan, Doncaster and the rest of their cronies with Dollar signs in their eyes saying they are doing this in the best interests of the game :yw:


Who is it in the best interests of, I presume you mean Rangers 2012, but perhaps its what the chairmen of all the other big clubs in Scotland want as well just to survive a the current level never mind prosper.

lucky
08-01-2013, 05:40 PM
Hibs can't afford a bigger league with less home games. The 3*8 split will be interesting and hopefully competitive

Gatecrasher
08-01-2013, 05:53 PM
Who is it in the best interests of, I presume you mean Rangers 2012, but perhaps its what the chairmen of all the other big clubs in Scotland want as well just to survive a the current level never mind prosper.
The Rangers wont benefit from the new set up, it's just the same pish under a different guise IMO

GoldenEagle
08-01-2013, 05:56 PM
Hibs can't afford a bigger league with less home games. The 3*8 split will be interesting and hopefully competitive

For Hibs read every other SPL club and those at the top of the 1st division.

"disgrace", "boycott", "boring", "Only for OF", "I'm no going back" will be the social media watch words other the next few weeks until keyboard are bashed and throats are hoarse through phone-ins.

If you want to support Hibs and Scottish football go to games, alternatively just leave us that want to do exactly that alone rather than trying to tell us how bad it is and organising others not to either spend money on fitba or putting others off by the constant "its shi'ite" mantra

Mikey
08-01-2013, 05:57 PM
For Hibs read every other SPL club and those at the top of the 1st division.

"disgrace", "boycott", "boring", "Only for OF", "I'm no going back" will be the social media watch words other the next few weeks until keyboard are bashed and throats are hoarse through phone-ins.

If you want to support Hibs and Scottish football go to games, alternatively just leave us that want to do exactly that alone rather than trying to tell us how bad it is and organising others not to either spend money on fitba or putting others off by the constant "its shi'ite" mantra

:agree:

bingo70
08-01-2013, 06:00 PM
Looking at the league's positively it'll mean we still get the money from the tv deal, bigger variety of teams we play against, still get the bigger gates against Celtic and rangers if we do well, gives teams something to play for all season and probably the best chance we've got of getting a system that could help teams compete with the old firm for the top two places.

The downside is that's its complicated and it doesn't solve the problem of clubs not being able to play youngsters due to fear of relegation.

Imo its not without fault but nowhere near as bad as some are making out.

The_Exile
08-01-2013, 06:07 PM
Am I the only one who thinks this looks quite good then? :greengrin Better than the ***** we've got just now, the bottom 4 SPL and top 4 of championship split looks brilliant!

bingo70
08-01-2013, 06:12 PM
Am I the only one who thinks this looks quite good then? :greengrin Better than the ***** we've got just now, the bottom 4 SPL and top 4 of championship split looks brilliant!

No, I agree with you. Im not sure of some things though, that section you speak about, what are they playing for after the split?

The_Exile
08-01-2013, 06:15 PM
No, I agree with you. Im not sure of some things though, that section you speak about, what are they playing for after the split?

Top 4 of that mini league play SPL football the next year I'd imagine. Amazing, giving 4 1st division team get a crack.

CropleyWasGod
08-01-2013, 06:20 PM
scottish football is a disgrace. nothing else.

they should (in my opinion) of went for a 16 - 10 - 16. 2 games home and away, then split into a top 8 and bottom 8 (thats purely for the money grabbing chairmen). wasnt the hole point of the spl splitting from the sfl and league increase to STOP playing teams 4 times a season?!

How would you fit 44 league games into a season?

Mikey
08-01-2013, 06:22 PM
How would you fit 44 league games into a season?

I can guarantee you he didn't think of that.

bingo70
08-01-2013, 06:26 PM
How would you fit 44 league games into a season?

Livi director has just tweeted that English clubs play 42 plus play offs so its not impossible.

ronaldo7
08-01-2013, 06:26 PM
I'm willing to give it a go, as long as we're in the top 8 after the first 22 games:greengrin

Will the Hearts make it into the top 8 next season:cb

CropleyWasGod
08-01-2013, 06:28 PM
Livi director has just tweeted that English clubs play 42 plus play offs so its not impossible.

IIRC, we tried it once, a few years ago, and it was bounced because it was too long a season.

Hibeesforever
08-01-2013, 06:32 PM
Listening to Alan Preston, what a clown. (though agree ST holders should be canvassed)
I actually think it is a good idea.
Only downside is the amount of pressure placed on players & managers. I would make sure that there were rules that a set number of under 23 players should be listed on teamsheet.

JollyGreenGiant
08-01-2013, 06:35 PM
So if it get the go ahead we get a split of 3 groups of 8.

Did I read somewhere that the 3 groups of 8 all start the last round of games on Nil points?

bingo70
08-01-2013, 06:35 PM
Listening to Alan Preston, what a clown. (though agree ST holders should be canvassed)
I actually think it is a good idea.
Only downside is the amount of pressure placed on players & managers. I would make sure that there were rules that a set number of under 23 players should be listed on teamsheet.

Tbf we can't have it all ways though, we can't ask for a more competitive league and then when we get it complain it'll mean we can't play youngsters.

CropleyWasGod
08-01-2013, 06:36 PM
So if it get the go ahead we get a split of 3 groups of 8.

Did I read somewhere that the 3 groups of 8 all start the last round of games on Nil points?

I think it's only in the middle league.

Spike Mandela
08-01-2013, 06:38 PM
Am I the only one who thinks this looks quite good then? :greengrin Better than the ***** we've got just now, the bottom 4 SPL and top 4 of championship split looks brilliant!

Look at the current league at the moment with some teams on 22 games and some on 21. If Some of the clubs on 21 games win their game in hand they would be in the bottom 4 clubs but 3 points off a European place.

Are you really suggesting it is better to be cut off from qualifying for Europe by New Year and instad condemned to an extended relegation battle for the rest of the season?

To my mind it's pish.

Hainan Hibs
08-01-2013, 06:39 PM
http://www.theawayend.net/articles/opinion/1405-new-league-split-may-finally-spell-armageddon

Sums up how ridiculous it is.

Part/Time Supporter
08-01-2013, 06:48 PM
Livi director has just tweeted that English clubs play 42 plus play offs so its not impossible.

Can't do that in the top flight because you have to leave European and international dates spare.

HibeeN
08-01-2013, 06:50 PM
Breakdown on SFA website

http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/scottish_fa_news.cfm?page=1961&newsCategoryID=3&newsID=11185

Scottish football’s two league bodies have agreed a set of principles, to be voted on by their respective member clubs, designed to deliver radical restructuring of the senior game.

If the plan is approved by the members, a new league structure, incorporating a pyramid system, will be implemented as soon as practicably possible. Consensus was also reached on a proposal to constitute a new single league body.

All 42 senior clubs will now discuss the proposals at the end of the month, plans which are based on the principles laid down in the Henry McLeish Review of Scottish Football:

· Single league body
· Fairer financial distribution model
· Promotion and relegation play-offs
· Pyramid system

The new structure proposed incorporates a revised league system with two leagues of 12 and an 18-team league. The two leagues of 12 will then separate into three mini-leagues of eight after 22 rounds of fixtures: the top eight will contest the championship and European spots; the middle eight will contest four relegation/promotion places; and the bottom eight will be involved in a survival series and promotion/relegation play-off matches with the teams at the top of the 18-team league.

bingo70
08-01-2013, 06:53 PM
Look at the current league at the moment with some teams on 22 games and some on 21. If Some of the clubs on 21 games win their game in hand they would be in the bottom 4 clubs but 3 points off a European place.

Are you really suggesting it is better to be cut off from qualifying for Europe by New Year and instad condemned to an extended relegation battle for the rest of the season?

To my mind it's pish.

I think its unusually tight this season. More often than not the teams that'll be dragged into the relegation league will be miles away from a European place.

blackpoolhibs
08-01-2013, 06:57 PM
For Hibs read every other SPL club and those at the top of the 1st division.

"disgrace", "boycott", "boring", "Only for OF", "I'm no going back" will be the social media watch words other the next few weeks until keyboard are bashed and throats are hoarse through phone-ins.

If you want to support Hibs and Scottish football go to games, alternatively just leave us that want to do exactly that alone rather than trying to tell us how bad it is and organising others not to either spend money on fitba or putting others off by the constant "its shi'ite" mantra

:top marks

basehibby
08-01-2013, 07:09 PM
The shape of our league structure has always been a conundrum. We struggle to field enough clubs of sufficient stature to support a top teir of 18 with enough teams pushing for promotion.

Proposed set ups of 16 or 14 teams will not work without also exercising some kind of split.

My instinct has generally been for a larger league but the 12-12-18 proposal has some very attractive qualities - particularly the split into three groups of 8 for a run in of 14 games - this will really put the cat amongst the pigeons in terms of promotion to the top tier with the potential of 4 up/4 down a total departure from the current almost-closed shop SPL.

If as seems to be the case, the top 8 would start from scratch as opposed to adding to existing points tallies then the title is arguably a more achievable prospect for many clubs as well.

It's not perfect, but perhaps no system will ever be for our particular nation of 5 million souls and on the whole I can see more positives than negatives - particularly the potential to create some genuinelly exciting ties at all levels. As a fan - count me in!

Hibeesforever
08-01-2013, 07:14 PM
Tbf we can't have it all ways though, we can't ask for a more competitive league and then when we get it complain it'll mean we can't play youngsters.

Yes, but if the end game is to allow for the creation of more skilful and competitive teams, that can then perform better in Europe, this perennial playoff format is not going to allow managers time to build and experiment with their formations. Young players may not be blooded ?

My view is that a 16 or 18 team league is the best model to provide a stable platform for player development. As teams set up less defensively and played with less pressure, more goals would probably also result.

If you only play the OF or Hearts at home once a season, then the crowd should also be bigger offsetting the lower number of games ?

Does anyone have the financial numbers that sit alongside the different proposals ?

ronaldo7
08-01-2013, 07:27 PM
The shape of our league structure has always been a conundrum. We struggle to field enough clubs of sufficient stature to support a top teir of 18 with enough teams pushing for promotion.

Proposed set ups of 16 or 14 teams will not work without also exercising some kind of split.

My instinct has generally been for a larger league but the 12-12-18 proposal has some very attractive qualities - particularly the split into three groups of 8 for a run in of 14 games - this will really put the cat amongst the pigeons in terms of promotion to the top tier with the potential of 4 up/4 down a total departure from the current almost-closed shop SPL.

If as seems to be the case, the top 8 would start from scratch as opposed to adding to existing points tallies then the title is arguably a more achievable prospect for many clubs as well.

It's not perfect, but perhaps no system will ever be for our particular nation of 5 million souls and on the whole I can see more positives than negatives - particularly the potential to create some genuinelly exciting ties at all levels. As a fan - count me in!

That's not the case Mike.

The top 8 keep the points gained from the 22 games played. The middle 8 revert to zero, and the bottom 8 keep the points.

BarneyK
08-01-2013, 07:41 PM
Listening to Alan Preston, what a clown. (though agree ST holders should be canvassed)
I actually think it is a good idea.
Only downside is the amount of pressure placed on players & managers. I would make sure that there were rules that a set number of under 23 players should be listed on teamsheet.

:agree: This is the real worry. I can't see how realistically the youth players are going to be fed into the first team with such pressure around.

ScottB
08-01-2013, 07:51 PM
This strikes me as just reorganising the deck chairs on the Titanic, what is it doing to solve the real problems?

For me, the key issues are; there are too many clubs in the 'national' leagues, the standard of player is dropping, fan apathy and the big one, effectively sharing a broadcast market with the English Premiership.

We need a league structure that provides an element of security for the bigger non Old Firm sides, or for the next few years at least, the non Celtic sides. If anything this Christmas Split puts even more pressure on clubs like us, Dundee United, Aberdeen etc. Will we risk blooding youngsters when we face a potentially meaningless half season in the middle 8? I'd expect the enjoyment factor of watching games to go down as clubs become obsessed with winning at all costs to avoid that situation; so more journeymen and long ball tactics abound?

What happens to season ticket sales? Would we switch to two half season efforts? What about the first division sides then finding themselves in the middle league, would they put their prices up? Surely attendances will suffer for those sides in the middle 8 but safe from the drop?


In any case, I doubt this will excite broadcasters, in fact it creates a whole load more meaningless games and will probably further alienate anyone daft enough to still be watching down south with the complicated set up. We would still be effectively sharing the market with the EPL, which means Monday nights, Sunday mornings and any other daft kick off time to fill the schedule of whoever wants to show it. There's only really 2 possible solutions to this, either a move to summer football and hope there proves to be a better market in the rest of the UK eager to watch football when the other leagues are shut down, or to hope for a combined British league set up, which in the long term may be the only sustainable option given the state many clubs are getting / have gotten themselves in.

ballengeich
08-01-2013, 08:10 PM
I don't think this structure will make a great deal of difference to Hibs. If we're in the top 8 we'll get 4 games against the other top teams as at present with the minor improvement that the new structure guarantees 2 home and 2 away which the current set up doesn't.

If we're in the bottom 4 we'll have 14 games to save the season. I think the middle 8 could be quite exciting.

I'd like to read a bit more about the efforts to get a fairer distribution of money. Part of the motivation seems to be to help clubs in the second level retain full-time football. At present the low amount of money trickling down combined with the low chance of promotion to the premier is putting a number on the brink of going part-time.

Overall I think the system will be slightly better than the existing setup. It's not going to make a dramatic difference, but I doubt that any restructuring will.

bingo70
08-01-2013, 08:11 PM
This strikes me as just reorganising the deck chairs on the Titanic, what is it doing to solve the real problems?

For me, the key issues are; there are too many clubs in the 'national' leagues, the standard of player is dropping, fan apathy and the big one, effectively sharing a broadcast market with the English Premiership.

We need a league structure that provides an element of security for the bigger non Old Firm sides, or for the next few years at least, the non Celtic sides. If anything this Christmas Split puts even more pressure on clubs like us, Dundee United, Aberdeen etc. Will we risk blooding youngsters when we face a potentially meaningless half season in the middle 8? I'd expect the enjoyment factor of watching games to go down as clubs become obsessed with winning at all costs to avoid that situation; so more journeymen and long ball tactics abound?

What happens to season ticket sales? Would we switch to two half season efforts? What about the first division sides then finding themselves in the middle league, would they put their prices up? Surely attendances will suffer for those sides in the middle 8 but safe from the drop?


In any case, I doubt this will excite broadcasters, in fact it creates a whole load more meaningless games and will probably further alienate anyone daft enough to still be watching down south with the complicated set up. We would still be effectively sharing the market with the EPL, which means Monday nights, Sunday mornings and any other daft kick off time to fill the schedule of whoever wants to show it. There's only really 2 possible solutions to this, either a move to summer football and hope there proves to be a better market in the rest of the UK eager to watch football when the other leagues are shut down, or to hope for a combined British league set up, which in the long term may be the only sustainable option given the state many clubs are getting / have gotten themselves in.

Tbh as much as I've defended the proposed set up its difficuilt to argue with any of that, I think a move to summer football would be a good idea as well.

Maybe including a rule about playing so many under 21 players is the way forward but not sure how manageable that would be.

Diclonius
08-01-2013, 08:17 PM
Simple poll. Do you support it or not as it stands?

ScottB
08-01-2013, 08:23 PM
Tbh as much as I've defended the proposed set up its difficuilt to argue with any of that, I think a move to summer football would be a good idea as well.

Maybe including a rule about playing so many under 21 players is the way forward but not sure how manageable that would be.

Possibly, but then you risk burning them out as we've seen happen to Wotherspoon, but probably even worse if other players viewed them as being forced to be picked regardless of form just because of their age.


While it may not be the best, an 18 team league would mean the likes of us, Dundee United, Aberdeen et all would be pretty much safe from the threat of ever being relegated even in a bad year, giving us the breathing room to plan ahead, blood youngsters etc.

It strikes me that there is no obvious solution, a 10 or 12 team league is probably better for revenue, but it's boring. 16 would work in terms of having enough good clubs, but the number of games is too low, 18 fixes that, but would it leave the division below too weak? Maybe 2 divisions of 18 with a pyramid below would be the easiest way to go...

bingo70
08-01-2013, 08:24 PM
I don't think its fair to have a simple yes/no poll.

There are some aspects of it that are really good and better than we've currently got but some of it needs tinkered with but imo It's heading in the right direction.

marinello59
08-01-2013, 08:28 PM
I don't think its fair to have a simple yes/no poll.

There are some aspects of it that are really good and better than we've currently got but some of it needs tinkered with but imo It's heading in the right direction.

I would agree with that. My initial reaction was very negative but after looking at it a bit more it does actually have some things going for it.

Baldy Foghorn
08-01-2013, 08:29 PM
Nope, I think the 3 leagues of 8, with the middle league teams, all reverting back to zero points in a shambles of an idea......

Sadly our Custodians of the Scottish game seem to think it will work.......Sums up everything that is wrong in our game.....

ballengeich
08-01-2013, 08:29 PM
Maybe 2 divisions of 18 with a pyramid below would be the easiest way to go...

We had that until 1975. It was abandoned because it was felt there were too many games between mid-table teams who weren't in contention for the title of Europe and weren't in danger of relegation. I'm old enough to remember some very small crowds at ER near the end of the season.

It was felt that smaller divisions would give teams more to play for and lead to more exciting games. For a few years it seemed to work. I think the big problem now is the increased financial inequality between countries and between clubs in countries. I don't see a solution.

Saorsa
08-01-2013, 08:31 PM
No!

IWasThere2016
08-01-2013, 08:37 PM
This strikes me as just reorganising the deck chairs on the Titanic, what is it doing to solve the real problems?

For me, the key issues are; there are too many clubs in the 'national' leagues, the standard of player is dropping, fan apathy and the big one, effectively sharing a broadcast market with the English Premiership.

We need a league structure that provides an element of security for the bigger non Old Firm sides, or for the next few years at least, the non Celtic sides. If anything this Christmas Split puts even more pressure on clubs like us, Dundee United, Aberdeen etc. Will we risk blooding youngsters when we face a potentially meaningless half season in the middle 8? I'd expect the enjoyment factor of watching games to go down as clubs become obsessed with winning at all costs to avoid that situation; so more journeymen and long ball tactics abound?

What happens to season ticket sales? Would we switch to two half season efforts? What about the first division sides then finding themselves in the middle league, would they put their prices up? Surely attendances will suffer for those sides in the middle 8 but safe from the drop?


In any case, I doubt this will excite broadcasters, in fact it creates a whole load more meaningless games and will probably further alienate anyone daft enough to still be watching down south with the complicated set up. We would still be effectively sharing the market with the EPL, which means Monday nights, Sunday mornings and any other daft kick off time to fill the schedule of whoever wants to show it. There's only really 2 possible solutions to this, either a move to summer football and hope there proves to be a better market in the rest of the UK eager to watch football when the other leagues are shut down, or to hope for a combined British league set up, which in the long term may be the only sustainable option given the state many clubs are getting / have gotten themselves in.

This.

However, our game is so goosed I reckon it has got to the point we have little more to lose in trying it.

bingo70
08-01-2013, 08:38 PM
Nope, I think the 3 leagues of 8, with the middle league teams, all reverting back to zero points in a shambles of an idea......

Sadly our Custodians of the Scottish game seem to think it will work.......Sums up everything that is wrong in our game.....

They must have one of the most difficuilt jobs in world football trying to find a solution that pleases everyone considering the size of the old firm, compared to the rest of the league and the fact we have to compete with English leagues so I've got some sympathy with them on this one.

.Sean.
08-01-2013, 08:42 PM
I'm fed up of the split as it is. Get rid of it completely. If it's broke, don't break it further.



All for some sort of pyramid though, Scottish Football should be built from the bottom up. Too many lairy teams in the 3rd Division knowing there are no real repucussions should they finish bottom. Plent bigger sides in the Juniors far more deserving of a chance.

Mr White
08-01-2013, 08:50 PM
haven't seen any mention of it but presumably they'll have to relax the rules on having a 6000 all seater stadium to play in the top 2 leagues of 12? Likes of Morton, Alloa, Cowdenbeath and Ayr have pretty run down grounds but this system could realistically see them make the middle 8 section and then conceivably the top 12. I'd be all for that TBH but it would require a fair bit of backtracking from the current policy of forcing promoted clubs to upgrade or stay out; few if any of the clubs that currently dont meet the required standard would be able to afford to upgrade and refusing them entry on that basis would surely defeat the purpose of these changes.

Waxy
08-01-2013, 08:54 PM
I think we should give this system a try.
I see it needs an 11-1 vote,i thought the 11-1 voting structure was going to get changed now that sevco are out the SPL?
Anyway,it does seem a lot more exciting than the current set up.
And i see there'll be a pyrimid system.A way for non league teams to enter the league is a must.
The bottom teams cant rest on their stagnant laurels anymore and the standard will be raised throughout the league.
The season ticket sales and pricing seems confusing just now.
I guess they've thought it all through.

Baldy Foghorn
08-01-2013, 08:54 PM
They must have one of the most difficuilt jobs in world football trying to find a solution that pleases everyone considering the size of the old firm, compared to the rest of the league and the fact we have to compete with English leagues so I've got some sympathy with them on this one.

Armageddon was trotted out in the Summer.....IMO this ridiculous split that they have conjured up, might actually turn more supporter's away from our National game for good? I mean going back to zero points after two rounds of games, REALLY?? Armageddon might not be so far away after all:confused:

Stevie Reid
08-01-2013, 09:01 PM
For Hibs read every other SPL club and those at the top of the 1st division.

"disgrace", "boycott", "boring", "Only for OF", "I'm no going back" will be the social media watch words other the next few weeks until keyboard are bashed and throats are hoarse through phone-ins.

If you want to support Hibs and Scottish football go to games, alternatively just leave us that want to do exactly that alone rather than trying to tell us how bad it is and organising others not to either spend money on fitba or putting others off by the constant "its shi'ite" mantra

Well said that man!

Supporting Hibs is all that matters to me, but FWIW, I like the sound of the changes, and can see a lot of it leading to a more interesting league. Someone mentioned that they thought it was ridiculous that a point could mean the difference between battling for a European place and battling against relegation - but isn't that level of competition and excitement exactly what we would be hoping for?!

Stevie Reid
08-01-2013, 09:06 PM
Incidentally, doesn't resetting the points in the middle 8 have to be done as the top 4 teams in SPL2 will most likely have gained way more points than the bottom 4 teams in SPL1 whilst playing against weaker opposition - therefore reverting back to zero is both fair and competitive.

Hanny
08-01-2013, 09:08 PM
http://www.rangers.co.uk/news/opinion/item/3085-remember-sporting-integrity?

Has anyone else read Jim Traynor's piece on reconstruction? Just when I thought he couldn't come across as any more of a clown!

Beefster
09-01-2013, 06:58 AM
Nope, I think the 3 leagues of 8, with the middle league teams, all reverting back to zero points in a shambles of an idea......

Sadly our Custodians of the Scottish game seem to think it will work.......Sums up everything that is wrong in our game.....

The SFA just reckon we need educated. We'll all be on board and realise the folk 'running' the game know best once they explain it to us properly apparently.

lucky
09-01-2013, 08:33 AM
18 team SPL will turn more fans sway than anything. Too many meaningless games. Fairer share of money is a positive step forward as is a change of the voting system. One governing body should save money and should look after all clubs not a elite few. Scottish football is struggling and new ideas have to be tried. Summer football has to come in as it will open up the tv market. I like the 3*8 split but they should have zeroed the points in all divisions. As for player development a reinstated reserve league would do more for young players than a bigger first team league. Whilst the proposals are not going to solve all the games problems, it is an attempt to try and change and take the game forward

Bill Milne
09-01-2013, 08:46 AM
The SFA have just conducted a major poll on this issue, with the im-plication that fans' views would be taken into account. As I believe we can now take it that Regan etc are not happy with the results, this poll will be comprehensively ignored. Indeed, I note that Regan is now referring to "education" for the fans to help us to understand why we are wrong and he is right!! You just couldn't make it up.:confused:

down-the-slope
09-01-2013, 09:07 AM
Is any form of reconstruction going to be perfect ?...in a word NO..

However what we currently have is well past its sell by date. Most would agree that 3 governing bodies is terrible, that the 11v1 SPL voting rights make decisions 'rigged', that the distribution of TV/Sponsorship cash is currently unfair, The 1 up 1 down in SPL is boring...I could list more...

The current proposal would deal with all those and more in one feel swoop - to say nothing of creating one 'product' for TV / Sponsorship and potential benefits of that - will it be perfect? I doubt it...but there is enough in it to give cause for full consideration

dangermouse
09-01-2013, 10:48 AM
One thing I don't understand with the 8-8-8 split. Who gets crowned as the winner of the first division? An existing SPL team or the first division team with the most points of the middle 8 teams? Do we not bother with a trophy? :confused:

Russell The Dug
09-01-2013, 10:59 AM
Honestly this is terrible for us if it goes through. Half a season of crap matches missing old firm and derbies if we end in 8th at new year ffs. There's a good chance either hibs and especially hearts won't be in the top 8 regularly in the next few years which loses is our biggest game and income.

Are we expected to buy season tickets that reflects SPL calibre and the games they bring to be wiped away half a season later?

The only one this deal suits is the old firm when newco arrive it will be guaranteed 4 games a season and they won't care about the rest. Oh wait you can rest assured they will moan like mad if teams who can't make the top 8 in say December like Dundee play reserve sides leading up to there point reset in January, why would they risk injury and suspension? Or there are two sides going for top 8 and one plays Celtic last and one plays a side who can't make the top 8 and play a reserve side, how is that fair? In fact you could have 2 or 3 sides doing that come December.

Russell The Dug
09-01-2013, 11:00 AM
One thing I don't understand with the 8-8-8 split. Who gets crowned as the winner of the first division? An existing SPL team or the first division team with the most points of the middle 8 teams? Do we not bother with a trophy? :confused:

The 5th best side that didnt make the 8 I would imagine! Farcical.

The_Exile
09-01-2013, 11:53 AM
You can't not reset the middle groups points to 0, otherwise say someone like Dunfermline in the championships group has 40 or 50 odd points and say Dundee from the SPL had 10/20 points, that's not exactly fair is it? if they start on points already accumulated. Not sure what the problem is here, at least they're looking at ways to make it a bit fresher, agreed it's not ideal but it looks a hell of a lot more exciting than what we've got, i think there'll be less meaningless games than there is now.

Lets be honest, most games anyone outside the old firm play are meaningless from the start of the season to the last kick, what are we playing for? Avoiding the drop? 3rd place? That's why tens of thousands of folk don't turn up anymore, it's a joke of a league and has been for decades, when 3rd place is seen as a successfull season. We don't play to win, we play to survive, we are no longer slaves to a feeling, but to results and survival.

JimBHibees
09-01-2013, 11:54 AM
Honestly this is terrible for us if it goes through. Half a season of crap matches missing old firm and derbies if we end in 8th at new year ffs. There's a good chance either hibs and especially hearts won't be in the top 8 regularly in the next few years which loses is our biggest game and income.

Are we expected to buy season tickets that reflects SPL calibre and the games they bring to be wiped away half a season later?

The only one this deal suits is the old firm when newco arrive it will be guaranteed 4 games a season and they won't care about the rest. Oh wait you can rest assured they will moan like mad if teams who can't make the top 8 in say December like Dundee play reserve sides leading up to there point reset in January, why would they risk injury and suspension? Or there are two sides going for top 8 and one plays Celtic last and one plays a side who can't make the top 8 and play a reserve side, how is that fair? In fact you could have 2 or 3 sides doing that come December.

If you are 8th you are in the top 8. :greengrin

Chuck Rhoades
09-01-2013, 12:26 PM
Took this from Ultras UK from a Well fan, decent post:

Baw Burst?

For me, if this happens (knowing fine well that this term has been thrown around spuriously in the recent past) then the baw is burst.

I hope, and partly know, that I’m not alone thinking this. Splitting the league into 8, 8 and 8 is completely ridiculous. There is no "increased competition" by simply splitting the leagues and adding in playoffs, in fact this may even make things even worse. What’s the most worrying is that it is the complete opposite of what fans want.

Being a Motherwell fan I know we are lucky to have watched what we have on the park in the last few years compared to Aberdeen, Hibs etc. However, I've also witnessed at that same time no increase in attendance - even in more "meaningful" matches as Ragan puts it. He seems to think meaningful matches are the be all and end all for fans turning up. All you need to do is look at the St Johnstone game at Fir Park last season. Attendance was in the 4k's our average for the season was around 6k and this was a Saturday 3pm KO not on the TV?!

What meddlers Regan, Doncaster and Longmuir fail to realise is that it's not all what’s on the park that is the real problem. Fans don't turn up now for a number of reasons that are not new to anyone one here:

1) No Standing areas in grounds where fans that want to create atmosphere noise or whatever can do so. Your average fan is reluctant to stand and get involved out with the wee areas we see here and there. Sad but true that we need designated areas for it to happen and for likeminded fans to meet up. It’s by no means a fix but it's a start. As a result of overzealous stewarding and policing they've successfully put the *****rs into plenty fans who would otherwise get involved, we have soulless atmospheres up and down the Country in the top leagues as the fans interested are often dispersed over the stadium.

2) Can't have a beer at the games. Correct me if I’m wrong, but we must be one of, if not the, only leagues in Europe that you can't get a ****ing beer before the game or at half time in the Stadiums? Why are clubs so against this? Stand full of guys wanting a beer - sell beer for £3 - make plenty £££?

3) Ticket prices. Whilst not totally ridiculous like England for most clubs, it’s verging on it. £22 for a 'Well vs. St Mirren game and it's a wonder folk don’t turn up?! Surely across the board price of £15 and £10 for EVERY game would see an increase in fans? We don't see sustained increase in attendance after fan days where clubs charge £1 to get in because the disparity between this price and the standard price is so ludicrous. £1 vs. Dundee United in a big game up the top of the division say, then week later back to £22 for a nothing game at home to Inverness. Fans are likely to think "aye £1 I’ll give that a go again this weekend" - bumper crowd, week later "much is it this week a tenner? ... Wait £22? **** that!"

4) Media. Why do the journos in this country continue to downsize rubbish, heckle and disgrace the Scottish game? Aye it's not great, yes the on the park quality isn't brilliant - but there are thousands of fans who don't go for a huge spectacle on the park but for the love of their club, for a day with mates they don't see out with the football etc. We need to stop looking below the border and trying to have and be something we are not and never will be.

I could go on forever.

I’m feeling completely and utterly scunnered with the people in charge of our game. How in ****s name do these guys qualify to run it? Solution? - I don't know, knock it down and start again but for me it has to start with taking fans into consideration or they’re going to alienate another generation of youth from regularly supporting a team on a Saturday.

When will it hit?

Is it time for widespread protest from fans of all clubs? How can we change it?

Because let’s face it, the lads on here are the last bastion of any form of fight before nobody whatsoever gives a ****.

Gatecrasher
09-01-2013, 12:32 PM
Took this from Ultras UK from a Well fan, decent post:

Baw Burst?

For me, if this happens (knowing fine well that this term has been thrown around spuriously in the recent past) then the baw is burst.

I hope, and partly know, that I’m not alone thinking this. Splitting the league into 8, 8 and 8 is completely ridiculous. There is no "increased competition" by simply splitting the leagues and adding in playoffs, in fact this may even make things even worse. What’s the most worrying is that it is the complete opposite of what fans want.

Being a Motherwell fan I know we are lucky to have watched what we have on the park in the last few years compared to Aberdeen, Hibs etc. However, I've also witnessed at that same time no increase in attendance - even in more "meaningful" matches as Ragan puts it. He seems to think meaningful matches are the be all and end all for fans turning up. All you need to do is look at the St Johnstone game at Fir Park last season. Attendance was in the 4k's our average for the season was around 6k and this was a Saturday 3pm KO not on the TV?!

What meddlers Regan, Doncaster and Longmuir fail to realise is that it's not all what’s on the park that is the real problem. Fans don't turn up now for a number of reasons that are not new to anyone one here:

1) No Standing areas in grounds where fans that want to create atmosphere noise or whatever can do so. Your average fan is reluctant to stand and get involved out with the wee areas we see here and there. Sad but true that we need designated areas for it to happen and for likeminded fans to meet up. It’s by no means a fix but it's a start. As a result of overzealous stewarding and policing they've successfully put the *****rs into plenty fans who would otherwise get involved, we have soulless atmospheres up and down the Country in the top leagues as the fans interested are often dispersed over the stadium.

2) Can't have a beer at the games. Correct me if I’m wrong, but we must be one of, if not the, only leagues in Europe that you can't get a ****ing beer before the game or at half time in the Stadiums? Why are clubs so against this? Stand full of guys wanting a beer - sell beer for £3 - make plenty £££?

3) Ticket prices. Whilst not totally ridiculous like England for most clubs, it’s verging on it. £22 for a 'Well vs. St Mirren game and it's a wonder folk don’t turn up?! Surely across the board price of £15 and £10 for EVERY game would see an increase in fans? We don't see sustained increase in attendance after fan days where clubs charge £1 to get in because the disparity between this price and the standard price is so ludicrous. £1 vs. Dundee United in a big game up the top of the division say, then week later back to £22 for a nothing game at home to Inverness. Fans are likely to think "aye £1 I’ll give that a go again this weekend" - bumper crowd, week later "much is it this week a tenner? ... Wait £22? **** that!"

4) Media. Why do the journos in this country continue to downsize rubbish, heckle and disgrace the Scottish game? Aye it's not great, yes the on the park quality isn't brilliant - but there are thousands of fans who don't go for a huge spectacle on the park but for the love of their club, for a day with mates they don't see out with the football etc. We need to stop looking below the border and trying to have and be something we are not and never will be.

I could go on forever.

I’m feeling completely and utterly scunnered with the people in charge of our game. How in ****s name do these guys qualify to run it? Solution? - I don't know, knock it down and start again but for me it has to start with taking fans into consideration or they’re going to alienate another generation of youth from regularly supporting a team on a Saturday.

When will it hit?

Is it time for widespread protest from fans of all clubs? How can we change it?

Because let’s face it, the lads on here are the last bastion of any form of fight before nobody whatsoever gives a ****.
These are issues that are raised on here quite regular and the people running our game need to listen to the people who are actually still parting with their cash to watch SPL football

Russell The Dug
09-01-2013, 12:42 PM
If you are 8th you are in the top 8. :greengrin

Ok joint 8th but below them haha.

Mikey
09-01-2013, 12:42 PM
Took this from Ultras UK from a Well fan, decent post:

Baw Burst?

For me, if this happens (knowing fine well that this term has been thrown around spuriously in the recent past) then the baw is burst.

I hope, and partly know, that I’m not alone thinking this. Splitting the league into 8, 8 and 8 is completely ridiculous. There is no "increased competition" by simply splitting the leagues and adding in playoffs, in fact this may even make things even worse. What’s the most worrying is that it is the complete opposite of what fans want.

Being a Motherwell fan I know we are lucky to have watched what we have on the park in the last few years compared to Aberdeen, Hibs etc. However, I've also witnessed at that same time no increase in attendance - even in more "meaningful" matches as Ragan puts it. He seems to think meaningful matches are the be all and end all for fans turning up. All you need to do is look at the St Johnstone game at Fir Park last season. Attendance was in the 4k's our average for the season was around 6k and this was a Saturday 3pm KO not on the TV?!

What meddlers Regan, Doncaster and Longmuir fail to realise is that it's not all what’s on the park that is the real problem. Fans don't turn up now for a number of reasons that are not new to anyone one here:

1) No Standing areas in grounds where fans that want to create atmosphere noise or whatever can do so. Your average fan is reluctant to stand and get involved out with the wee areas we see here and there. Sad but true that we need designated areas for it to happen and for likeminded fans to meet up. It’s by no means a fix but it's a start. As a result of overzealous stewarding and policing they've successfully put the *****rs into plenty fans who would otherwise get involved, we have soulless atmospheres up and down the Country in the top leagues as the fans interested are often dispersed over the stadium.

2) Can't have a beer at the games. Correct me if I’m wrong, but we must be one of, if not the, only leagues in Europe that you can't get a ****ing beer before the game or at half time in the Stadiums? Why are clubs so against this? Stand full of guys wanting a beer - sell beer for £3 - make plenty £££?

3) Ticket prices. Whilst not totally ridiculous like England for most clubs, it’s verging on it. £22 for a 'Well vs. St Mirren game and it's a wonder folk don’t turn up?! Surely across the board price of £15 and £10 for EVERY game would see an increase in fans? We don't see sustained increase in attendance after fan days where clubs charge £1 to get in because the disparity between this price and the standard price is so ludicrous. £1 vs. Dundee United in a big game up the top of the division say, then week later back to £22 for a nothing game at home to Inverness. Fans are likely to think "aye £1 I’ll give that a go again this weekend" - bumper crowd, week later "much is it this week a tenner? ... Wait £22? **** that!"

4) Media. Why do the journos in this country continue to downsize rubbish, heckle and disgrace the Scottish game? Aye it's not great, yes the on the park quality isn't brilliant - but there are thousands of fans who don't go for a huge spectacle on the park but for the love of their club, for a day with mates they don't see out with the football etc. We need to stop looking below the border and trying to have and be something we are not and never will be.

I could go on forever.

I’m feeling completely and utterly scunnered with the people in charge of our game. How in ****s name do these guys qualify to run it? Solution? - I don't know, knock it down and start again but for me it has to start with taking fans into consideration or they’re going to alienate another generation of youth from regularly supporting a team on a Saturday.

When will it hit?

Is it time for widespread protest from fans of all clubs? How can we change it?

Because let’s face it, the lads on here are the last bastion of any form of fight before nobody whatsoever gives a ****.

Would agree with points 1, 2 & 4. However, reducing prices by such a large amount wouldn't work.

There are clearly quite a few people on here though who haven't read it through, don't understand it, and are dead against it.

Hainan Hibs
09-01-2013, 12:46 PM
There are clearly quite a few people on here though who haven't read it through, don't understand it, and are all for it.

Fixed

Mikey
09-01-2013, 12:46 PM
Fixed

:aok:

CREESE
09-01-2013, 01:18 PM
Personally, I quite like the idea. Would I prefer to see Hibs playing Aberdeen four times a season, rather than twice and Morton twice - hell yes. No disrespect to Morton but I want to see Hibs competing against the top clubs. We all want Hibs to get into the top 6, as it is just now - the split to 8-8-8 after 22 games, just means that each mini division should have real excitement post New Year. Top 8 challenging for Europe, middle 8 for promotion and relegation and the bottom 8, were the bottom 8, so there's no difference for them from the current set up.

Stevie Reid
09-01-2013, 01:43 PM
You can't not reset the middle groups points to 0, otherwise say someone like Dunfermline in the championships group has 40 or 50 odd points and say Dundee from the SPL had 10/20 points, that's not exactly fair is it? if they start on points already accumulated. Not sure what the problem is here, at least they're looking at ways to make it a bit fresher, agreed it's not ideal but it looks a hell of a lot more exciting than what we've got, i think there'll be less meaningless games than there is now.

Lets be honest, most games anyone outside the old firm play are meaningless from the start of the season to the last kick, what are we playing for? Avoiding the drop? 3rd place? That's why tens of thousands of folk don't turn up anymore, it's a joke of a league and has been for decades, when 3rd place is seen as a successfull season. We don't play to win, we play to survive, we are no longer slaves to a feeling, but to results and survival.

Yeah, I made that point on this thread last night - don't see why people are so upset about it, it's the only way that it can possibly be fair.

Agree with the rest as well, no new set up was going to please everybody, and I can see all 3 leagues of 8 being both competitive and interesting. I especially like the idea of the last 14 games of the season being home and away against the other top 7 teams in the league if you finish in the top 8, but if you are struggling, the plan to play the last half of the season against the top 4 teams from the lower league would add interest for those who are bored of playing the same team four times a season. I also think the four up/four down system will be a huge boost, especially given how competitive the First Division usually is, and will be lapped up by the lower league teams.

I am genuinely surprised that so many people are against this idea, and even more surprised at the predictions of a doomsday scenario for Scottish football should it be implemented - we scoffed at the suggestion when made in reference to an SPL without Rangers, so why should we believe it now? Many people have said that it is change for the sake of change, and that it won't be any more competitive, but as far as I can see, no one has explained why they feel that way. We'll never know or sure unless it goes ahead, but I think it sounds good in theory.

St Pats Branch
09-01-2013, 01:45 PM
Deleted

Mikey
09-01-2013, 01:46 PM
There are clearly quite a few people on here though who haven't read it through, don't understand it, and are dead against it.




I am genuinely surprised that so many people are against this idea, and even more surprised at the predictions of a doomsday scenario for Scottish football should it be implemented - we scoffed at the suggestion when made in reference to an SPL without Rangers, so why should we believe it now? Many people have said that it is change for the sake of change, and that it won't be any more competitive, but as far as I can see, no one has explained why they feel that way. We'll never know or sure unless it goes ahead, but I think it sounds good in theory.

I refer you to my comment above, which was immediately criticised :wink:

JeMeSouviens
09-01-2013, 01:48 PM
Personally, I quite like the idea. Would I prefer to see Hibs playing Aberdeen four times a season, rather than twice and Morton twice - hell yes. No disrespect to Morton but I want to see Hibs competing against the top clubs. We all want Hibs to get into the top 6, as it is just now - the split to 8-8-8 after 22 games, just means that each mini division should have real excitement post New Year. Top 8 challenging for Europe, middle 8 for promotion and relegation and the bottom 8, were the bottom 8, so there's no difference for them from the current set up.

I"m not so sure about the less meaningless games. It can be better or worse depending on the situation at the split. Teams towards the bottom of the top 8 but too far back to challenge for europe are now safe with completely meaningless games. Same goes for "safe" teams at the top of the bottom 8. The middle 8 should be better but you could still have teams either definitely safe or down after 7 or 8 games who then have meaningless run ins. It stops a late surge towards europe or promotion.

I like the fact that we get rid of the ludicrous split after 3 games though.

Stevie Reid
09-01-2013, 01:58 PM
I"m not so sure about the less meaningless games. It can be better or worse depending on the situation at the split. Teams towards the bottom of the top 8 but too far back to challenge for europe are now safe with completely meaningless games. Same goes for "safe" teams at the top of the bottom 8. The middle 8 should be better but you could still have teams either definitely safe or down after 7 or 8 games who then have meaningless run ins. It stops a late surge towards europe or promotion.

I like the fact that we get rid of the ludicrous split after 3 games though.

Only meaningless for them, not necessarily the team they are playing, who may be challenging for Europe or the title, meaning the game itself is not meaningless - I think it unlikely that many teams in the top 8 would be in that situation anyway. If they were though, it may make games more exciting if one of the teams has nothing to lose, and could contribute to an open, attacking game without one team concentrating on not getting beat.

I agree with your point that there are no guarantees of more meaningful games, but in theory, I think it sounds good. There has been much more to play for in the SPL this season and it has been the most exciting an unpredictable season yet.

KeithTheHibby
09-01-2013, 02:02 PM
To save me trawling through 6 pages can anyone tell me where sevco would end up providing they won the SFL3 this year?

On the face of it they would end up with the opportunity to get back to the top league one year earlier under reconstruction?

Stevie Reid
09-01-2013, 02:04 PM
To save me trawling through 6 pages can anyone tell me where sevco would end up providing they won the SFL3 this year?

On the face of it they would end up with the opportunity to get back to the top league one year earlier under reconstruction?

If the new structure were to come into play from next season, Rangers would be in the bottom tier regardless of where they finish in the league this year.

JeMeSouviens
09-01-2013, 02:21 PM
To save me trawling through 6 pages can anyone tell me where sevco would end up providing they won the SFL3 this year?

On the face of it they would end up with the opportunity to get back to the top league one year earlier under reconstruction?

No reconstruction, they would have to

2013 - win SFL3 (or playoffs)
2014 - win SFL2 (or playoffs)
2015 - win SFL1

With reconstruction

2013 - doesn't matter
2014 - get out of "national league" of 18, haven't seen how many promoted anywhere?
2015 - get to top 4 of "championship" at split then get into top 4 of middle 8

Either way they don't get back until 2015/16. Post-reconstruction is arguably a little easier for them as there are 4 promotion spots from the middle 8 but they will have to compete with the bottom 4 of the SPL to get one of them.

STs for "national league" might be a tough sell if they do hike the prices in line with Green's previous pronouncements.

ScottB
09-01-2013, 02:39 PM
Some more wonderings on this:

What do these divisions get called? Presumably it follows the reports and starts as Premier League, Championship and National League, after the split what do the resultant 3 divisions get called? Premier League A, B and C?

Does the team finishing top of the Championship at Christmas get awarded the title for that division?

I think there are big issues about playing squads here; what's to stop a team signing a bunch of players on 6 month deals / loan deals to scrape into the top 8, then coasting by safe for the rest of the season with youth players? Conversely, teams that begin the season in the Championship will suddenly find themselves competing with top league teams with little chance for rebuilding, look at Dundee this season, they were good enough to challenge Ross County in Division 1 last year, but while County prepared over the summer they didn't have the chance to with all the Sevco nonsense, result, they are getting beaten most weeks. This could well make it harder for Championship teams to make it to the Premier League proper, or will force them to assemble SPL level squads in the hope they make the Middle 8 at Christmas. Sounds like a recipe for financial instability to me. The same issue about clubs being happy to skirt by on minimal squads post split effect the Middle 8 too of course.

Malthibby
09-01-2013, 02:42 PM
Voted no in case Der Hun benefit, even though it appears they should not. Wanted a bigger top league as well, although a smaller one would make it harder for the penniless yams to avoid relegation.
GG

basehibby
09-01-2013, 05:29 PM
Voted no in case Der Hun benefit, even though it appears they should not. Wanted a bigger top league as well, although a smaller one would make it harder for the penniless yams to avoid relegation.
GG


The Huns patently do NOT benefit from this set up so maybe you should think again...

Interesting that some folk are making the effect on the Huns their raison d'etre in this vote - surely that would mean they would be dead against a large league set up (eg 20-22) as that is the only set up which would help the Huns return to the top flight more quickly.

Personally, I think the Huns' situation should have nothing to do with it - it's the bigger long term picture for the whole of the game in Scotland that matters - whether the Huns benefit or not is of zero significance IMO.

marinello59
09-01-2013, 05:32 PM
The Huns patently do NOT benefit from this set up so maybe you should think again...

Interesting that some folk are making the effect on the Huns their raison d'etre in this vote - surely that would mean they would be dead against a large league set up (eg 20-22) as that is the only set up which would help the Huns return to the top flight more quickly.

Personally, I think the Huns' situation should have nothing to do with it - it's the bigger long term picture for the whole of the game in Scotland that matters - whether the Huns benefit or not is of zero significance IMO.

Agreed.
Voting no in case the Huns benefit only proves Traynors assertion that some people are motivated by hatred of Rangers rather than sporting integrity and the greater good of Scottish football. It's long past time for us all to move on.

ancient hibee
09-01-2013, 05:54 PM
An excellent new set up.The winner of the second division will be decided after 22 games and then the 8 clubs fight it out for a meaningful outcome-seems a no brainer to me.

degenerated
09-01-2013, 06:03 PM
It sounds fairly ridiculous to me but the mere fact that its caused Charles green to spit out his falsers has sold it for me.

hibby rae
09-01-2013, 06:21 PM
If it were to result in Rangers actively looking to p!ss off elsewhere then it may be worth it; but I'm not really sold on the idea. I'd like to see consideration given to a 2 league set up which is what seems to be most common in Europe for instance. Would just need to invite two more teams to join the leagues and then have 22 teams in each league playing twice a a season.

ancient hibee
09-01-2013, 06:26 PM
There's not enough dates to play the games we've got now never mind adding to them.

rcarter1
09-01-2013, 06:31 PM
My personal view is that I can't believe there will be three mini leagues of 3, after a certain amount of initial fixtures have been completed.

RP mentioned this at the AGM, that the middle 8, would all go back to zero points and start a new "league"....It just sounds like madness to me....

Sounds quite fun to me! Means that if you have a real stinking first half season, you get to start from scratch midway, and only have to finish top four of 8 to survive. A bit annoying if your well clear in 9th... It also means that if you go down, you can rebuild and stand a good chance of going back up again.

My vote is to go with the proposal, laugh at Rangers, and if it all goes pear shaped start a revolution to take charge of Scottish football... :greengrin

Prof. Shaggy
09-01-2013, 09:30 PM
The Sevco issue is mainly a red herring.
The main issue here is the new proposal retains the four games a season which, in due course, will renew the guarantee that the new-old firm end the season in first and second place. The Scottish league is less competitive than the Spanish - hence the historic decline in our game.
It's a big NO from me.

Eyrie
09-01-2013, 10:32 PM
A question for those still misty eyed about an eighteen team league. Would you rather see Hibs against Hearts four times a season or settle for twice and have two games against Dumbarton with the home game in early April when we've little chance of Europe?

The only serious problem that I've come across so far with 12-12-18 is the issue of ensuring that all teams complete their 22 games before the split, which could be a problem with bad weather in December. Even that can be overcome with a two week break in mid-January when games can be made up. I've dealt with the season ticket question in a previous post.

degenerated
09-01-2013, 10:37 PM
A question for those still misty eyed about an eighteen team league. Would you rather see Hibs against Hearts four times a season or settle for twice and have two games against Dumbarton with the home game in early April when we've little chance of Europe?

The only serious problem that I've come across so far with 12-12-18 is the issue of ensuring that all teams complete their 22 games before the split, which could be a problem with bad weather in December. Even that can be overcome with a two week break in mid-January when games can be made up. I've dealt with the season ticket question in a previous post.

What about stadium criteria, could quite easily end up with teams in the 2nd group of 8 that aren't allowed up because they don't have 6000 all seat grounds?

CropleyWasGod
09-01-2013, 10:45 PM
What about stadium criteria, could quite easily end up with teams in the 2nd group of 8 that aren't allowed up because they don't have 6000 all seat grounds?

That was an SPL criterion. I don't think that the SPL will exist after the merger.

Eyrie
09-01-2013, 11:02 PM
What about stadium criteria, could quite easily end up with teams in the 2nd group of 8 that aren't allowed up because they don't have 6000 all seat grounds?
That can be dropped. Given that Cowdenbeath seemed to cope with us playing there last season, is it even needed?

It's also a question for an eighteen team league to look at as well, and the same answer would result.

ScottB
09-01-2013, 11:12 PM
Surely the point in only playing the bigger teams twice is that it makes them more important games? We don't sell out against Hearts or Celtic, maybe we would if they only came once a season. Also lets not forget the season of 6 Old Firm games. Ridiculous.

Yes there'd be games against weak teams, good! We might actually win them. Don't forget that the proposed set up could very well result in a season where we play the big clubs at ER once then spend the rest of the season entertaining Dunfermlines and Greenock Mortons anyway.

Part/Time Supporter
09-01-2013, 11:14 PM
A question for those still misty eyed about an eighteen team league. Would you rather see Hibs against Hearts four times a season or settle for twice and have two games against Dumbarton with the home game in early April when we've little chance of Europe?

The only serious problem that I've come across so far with 12-12-18 is the issue of ensuring that all teams complete their 22 games before the split, which could be a problem with bad weather in December. Even that can be overcome with a two week break in mid-January when games can be made up. I've dealt with the season ticket question in a previous post.

Exactly. Folk say they don't like the four times a season thing, yet their ticket buying habits contradict this. Hibs played Hearts for the fifth time in just over a year last week, but the game was a sell out (officially at least). The number of games against a single opponent is a red herring, the concern is product. The quality of the product on the pitch has diminished due to the growing financial strength of other leagues, particularly England.

The other problem with the big league concept is that, okay, you can maybe draw up a list of 18 reasonable teams that can fill an expanded top flight. But the problem is that you need at least another 10 teams on top of that to compete for the promotion places into that league. For example, the EPL has been going for 20 years now, and about half of the teams in the top four divisions have been in the top flight at some point. Even the SPL, which has been going for a shorter period and has limited promotion and relegation, has had 19 different teams. If you had an 18 team top flight, you will get part-time clubs getting promoted who wouldn't stand a chance of survival.

This proposal is growing on me. It has the potential to deliver things that people have called for, but have not been delivered, for years. These include a pyramid system, fairer financing, more opportunity for promotion / relegation and reducing the number of governing bodies. Celtic say they are making a significant financial sacrifice to make it work (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/celtic/9791057/Celtic-reveal-costs-of-reconstruction-after-unveiling-three-year-shirt-sponsorship-deal-with-Magners.html).


“In proportion the two top clubs, from where we were, are giving up a considerable amount,” [Peter Lawwell] said. "That’s not taking away from what the other six are also giving up. In order to get it done there is a change to the distribution. Some would deem that fairer. would probably not call it fairer because those who generate the value should get the most but I think it’s a recognition – certainly from Celtic – that in order to get out of this gridlock we need to in some way compromise in the central revenue to get things moving along.”

Asked whether he considered that a big sacrifice, Lawwell replied: “It is, yes. [The Magners sponsorship] certainly doesn’t cover it, put it that way.”

Obviously we will need to wait for more of the detail (eg1 voting rights, eg2 relegation from the bottom tier, eg3 how the tables are calculated) to be revealed, but I think this should not be dismissed out of hand. Certainly the shrill reaction from the zombie club should be ridiculed or (preferably) ignored.

Eyrie
09-01-2013, 11:27 PM
Surely the point in only playing the bigger teams twice is that it makes them more important games? We don't sell out against Hearts or Celtic, maybe we would if they only came once a season. Also lets not forget the season of 6 Old Firm games. Ridiculous.

Yes there'd be games against weak teams, good! We might actually win them. Don't forget that the proposed set up could very well result in a season where we play the big clubs at ER once then spend the rest of the season entertaining Dunfermlines and Greenock Mortons anyway.

The important games are those when there is something at stake. And cramming a few hundred more Jambos/Smeltic/Sevco Huns supporters in once a season is not going to compensate for the loss of income from a second game against them when 3500 Jambos/Smeltic/Sevco Huns are replaced by a few hundred Partick Thistle or Raith fans and there is a lower home gate as well.



This proposal is growing on me. It has the potential to deliver things that people have called for, but have not been delivered, for years. These include a pyramid system, fairer financing, more opportunity for promotion / relegation and reducing the number of governing bodies. Celtic say they are making a significant financial sacrifice to make it work (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/celtic/9791057/Celtic-reveal-costs-of-reconstruction-after-unveiling-three-year-shirt-sponsorship-deal-with-Magners.html).
My view was always that the financial pain of spreading the TV money more fairly would be largely felt by the first and second placed clubs in the SPL, but it's good to hear that Celtic are willing to do this in the interests of Scottish football rather than moan about it.

StevieC
09-01-2013, 11:29 PM
Exactly. Folk say they don't like the four times a season thing, yet their ticket buying habits contradict this. Hibs played Hearts for the fifth time in just over a year last week, but the game was a sell out (officially at least).

I don't think anyone will argue about the attraction of 4 games against Hearts/Celtic/Rangers, but it's the 4 games against the other 8 teams in the league (possibly excluding Aberdeen/Dundee Utd) that is killing the attraction of the current set up.

Depor Hibs
09-01-2013, 11:50 PM
The present set-up of, potentially, four games against the OF was heavily in favour of the OF as the chances of coming out on top, or even breaking even with them points-wise, was minimal, especially when taken over the course of a number of seasons.
Reverting to a system where each team plays every other team once at home and once away gives the non-OF teams more of a statistical chance of breaking even or bettering the tally of points from the OF, well Celtic for the moment.
In other words, maybe more of a level playing field could be achieved, (if ever one could be).

There are obviously other factors such as the potential loss of finance from fewer games against the so called "bigger" clubs which may sway the decision when votes are cast.

beensaidbefore
10-01-2013, 12:03 AM
crap idea. the whole heads in the sand regarding a larger leagues is purely to gift the OF 4 derbies a season, and the whole of scottish football is going through this 'shake up' that will in actual realtiy result in the top division functioning in almost exactly the same way as it currently does. Give it 5 years maximum and the fans will be just as bored as they are now. I hardly attend the games now, this will not entice me back, and im sure there are thousands of others throughout the country who are as equally underwhelmed as I am.

SFA/SPL/SFL PLEASE LISTEN TO THE FANS AND INCREASE THE NUMBER OF TEAMS IN THE LEAGUES. YOUR SHORTSIGHTEDNESS AND LUST FOR CASH PREVENTS YOU FROM SEEING THE LONGTERM BENEFITS TO SCOTTISH FOOTBALL. PREVIOUS ATTEMPTS TO RECONSTUCT THE GAME HAVE FAILED, SEE THE NATIONAL TEAM, CLUBS IN EUROPE, FALLING ATTENDANCES, INCREASING CLUB DEBT. PLEASE LISTEN, AND BE REMEMBERED FRO THE RIGHT REASONS, AS MEN WITH A VISION AND THE STRENGTH TO CHANGE THE GAME FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE WHOLE GAME IN SCOTLAND.....rant over!!:grr:

beensaidbefore
10-01-2013, 12:27 AM
...'A miser went every day to look at his treasure which he had put into a bag, and hidden in a hole in the earth. A workman who had often watched him, and who had guessed the reason of these visits, followed him and saw where the treasure lay buried. Then one day when the miser was not there, the workman dug up the gold and took it away.
The next day, on discovering his loss, the miser tore his hair, and cried aloud in despair. A passer-by, seeing his distress, asked what troubled him, and on being told said, "I see no cause for so much sorrow. Your treasure did not bring you any great joy. Take, therefore, a stone, hide itin the same hole, and pretend that it is your gold. It will serve your purpose just as well, for when you had the gold you made no use of it."'

jdships
10-01-2013, 09:32 AM
Apologies if this question has been asked before on this thread.
Since Green's 'comments' I have looked at the new proposals a wee bit closer and my question is

When the split into leagues of eight comes along , is it correct that all points gathered in the previous 22 games will be scrubbed and everything starts from scratch ?
If this is correct what is the point of having the first 22 games if they mean nothing more than getting into a league of 8 ? :confused:
It is like a 'play off' without ' playing '

Thoughts anybody ?

:greengrin

Gatecrasher
10-01-2013, 09:42 AM
Apologies if this question has been asked before on this thread.
Since Green's 'comments' I have looked at the new proposals a wee bit closer and my question is

When the split into leagues of eight comes along , is it correct that all points gathered in the previous 22 games will be scrubbed and everything starts from scratch ?
If this is correct what is the point of having the first 22 games if they mean nothing more than getting into a league of 8 ? :confused:
It is like a 'play off' without ' playing '

Thoughts anybody ?

:greengrin

Its only the middle 8 where they restart at Zero as the bottom 4 of the SPL and top 4 of division 1 will be merging into their own league.

jdships
10-01-2013, 09:47 AM
Its only the middle 8 where they restart at Zero as the bottom 4 of the SPL and top 4 of division 1 will be merging into their own league.

Many thanks for that - puts a different perspective on the whole thing :thumbsup:
Can see the logic in that as it will be a ' new league with new teams' which could be really competitive !!!

:agree:

JimBHibees
10-01-2013, 09:57 AM
The present set-up of, potentially, four games against the OF was heavily in favour of the OF as the chances of coming out on top, or even breaking even with them points-wise, was minimal, especially when taken over the course of a number of seasons.
Reverting to a system where each team plays every other team once at home and once away gives the non-OF teams more of a statistical chance of breaking even or bettering the tally of points from the OF, well Celtic for the moment.
In other words, maybe more of a level playing field could be achieved, (if ever one could be).

There are obviously other factors such as the potential loss of finance from fewer games against the so called "bigger" clubs which may sway the decision when votes are cast.

A very good point playing the OF only twice would give other teams a chance to compete if they were to go on a good winning run against the other teams. I know things have changed enormously in Scottish football however just look at the loads of different teams that won the Scottish league prior to the formation of the SPL.

Gatecrasher
10-01-2013, 09:57 AM
Many thanks for that - puts a different perspective on the whole thing :thumbsup:
Can see the logic in that as it will be a ' new league with new teams' which could be really competitive !!!

:agree:
If anything its the most interesting part of the proposal, It would be interesting to see how the 1st Division teams cope playing SPL teams on a regular basis.

Ryan91
10-01-2013, 10:05 AM
I'm still not fully sold on this idea - I understand the middle 8 would have all previously gained points scrubbed but nit the top 8. I do feel that the top 8 would be better if all previously gained points were scrubbed as the result of the top 8 could be a foregone conclusion if a club had a large point cushion.

JeMeSouviens
10-01-2013, 10:07 AM
A very good point playing the OF only twice would give other teams a chance to compete if they were to go on a good winning run against the other teams. I know things have changed enormously in Scottish football however just look at the loads of different teams that won the Scottish league prior to the formation of the SPL.

I think that's a red herring tbh. The 2 main periods where OF domination was broken were the 50s/early 60s (Hibs, Hearts, Aberdeen, Dundee all won titles) and the 80s (Aberdeen, D Utd). The first was playing the OF twice, the second four times. The main common factors (imo) that link the 2 periods are:

- One of the OF was very weak, Celtic in the 50s, Huns in the 80s.

- OF financial domination was much less. In the 50s because everyone had enormous crowds. In the 80s because Glasgow crowds fell away while the "New Firm's" rose. Ferguson, Jim McLean, Willie Miller, Alex McLeish all turned down OF offers to stay in the North East. No way that would happen now.

cabbageandribs1875
10-01-2013, 10:14 AM
not had the time to even find out what the details of reconstruction are, but...if charles green is against it...i'm well for it :aok: the SPL is a breath of fresh air this season without the neanderthalic huns :agree: imagine a rangers-free nation, we could tell the whole world that Scotland has finally dragged itself into the 21st century :cb tiz all good

StevieC
10-01-2013, 10:23 AM
I know things have changed enormously in Scottish football however just look at the loads of different teams that won the Scottish league prior to the formation of the SPL.

You hit the nail on the head at the start of the sentence.

There are so many factors now that would prevent the ability of "poor" teams to win the league you will really struggle to get a winner outwith the OF, even with a larger league.

Part/Time Supporter
10-01-2013, 10:30 AM
I'm still not fully sold on this idea - I understand the middle 8 would have all previously gained points scrubbed but nit the top 8. I do feel that the top 8 would be better if all previously gained points were scrubbed as the result of the top 8 could be a foregone conclusion if a club had a large point cushion.

I don't think you can do anything but scrub the points for the middle league.

Regarding the top league, Georgia has a similar system presently and they have an interesting idea - only the results against the teams that are in that part of the league (the top 8) are carried forward. This means that the final table for the top 8 is based on the 28 matches against each other (4 x 7). The results of the top 8 against the bottom four teams, who drop into the middle league, are ignored.

matty_f
10-01-2013, 10:32 AM
It sounds fairly ridiculous to me but the mere fact that its caused Charles green to spit out his falsers has sold it for me.

:greengrin Me too!

StevieC
10-01-2013, 10:40 AM
I've now had a chance to mull over the proposed league change, and while it's not what the supporters want (ie larger league) it does seem to be a step in the right direction. The problem is, that to get the variety of games that the supporters crave the team needs to have a really bad start to the season. If the team start reasonably well then it's back to 4 games against the teams they are playing season in season out.

The really important issue for me is the distribution of finances. This doesn't seem to have been discussed at all. If this is still skewed in favour of the OF (ie top 2) then the teams that are often in the relegation battles are going to be financially crippled within a few seasons.

My view .. keep holding out for 2 games and a larger league, but lets see the guys that are trying to re-organise this start throwing some figures about on the distribution of finances before they start with their fancy splits and an SPL2.

JimBHibees
10-01-2013, 10:46 AM
You hit the nail on the head at the start of the sentence.

There are so many factors now that would prevent the ability of "poor" teams to win the league you will really struggle to get a winner outwith the OF, even with a larger league.

Agree with that however a strong 3rd team such as a decent Hibs/Utd/Dons etc would IMO be much closer to the top if they only played OF twice rather than 4 times.

bob12345
10-01-2013, 10:51 AM
Quite a good article here - http://www.theawayend.net/articles/opinion/1405-new-league-split-may-finally-spell-armageddon

Phil MaGlass
10-01-2013, 11:30 AM
I think its a good idea, lower division clubs have something to play for and so do the bottom 4 of the SPL.Only problem I see would see is if none of the top 4 in the lower div were promoted after playing their remaining games against SPL sides.

StevieC
10-01-2013, 12:05 PM
Agree with that however a strong 3rd team such as a decent Hibs/Utd/Dons etc would IMO be much closer to the top if they only played OF twice rather than 4 times.

Agreed. At the end of the day though, does it matter whether it's 3 points or 30 points?

If it isn't winning titles, what is it that we (the supporters) are actually looking for?

The proposed reconstruction would give the variety of new teams, the downside is you need to be one of the poorest 4 in a 12 team league. I'm trying to se the positives of the proposals but, from a league perspective, I don't view it as a vast improvement .. or even a reasonable comprimise.

Malthibby
10-01-2013, 12:28 PM
I voted no but if Jim 'Mouth of 'Sauron' Traynor opposes the change I would like to vote yes instead.
GG

Stevie Reid
10-01-2013, 01:45 PM
Agreed. At the end of the day though, does it matter whether it's 3 points or 30 points?

If it isn't winning titles, what is it that we (the supporters) are actually looking for?

The proposed reconstruction would give the variety of new teams, the downside is you need to be one of the poorest 4 in a 12 team league. I'm trying to se the positives of the proposals but, from a league perspective, I don't view it as a vast improvement .. or even a reasonable comprimise.

I would say so - a gap of 3 points between teams at the end of the season means an issue sorted on the last day, a gap of 30 points means things were most likely over with a quarter of the season still to play. I agree that it will still be highly unlikely that a non OF team will win the league, but a narrowing of the gap would make things more interesting, and the longer the league stays interesting over the season, the better. Redistribution of wealth will be key to this, and I'll be interested to see what the proposals are on that front - with that in mind, Peter Lawell's comments are to be welcomed, and are certainly light years away from those that that goon Green continually spouts.

If there were a guaranteed way to vastly improve the league I'm sure it would have been implemented already, but even on this thread there is great debate about what people would like to see, and opinions on how well the respective ideas would work. Similarly I realise that this new proposed set up will offer no guarantee of improvement, but I like the sound of it on paper, and think it is worth a try.

Part/Time Supporter
10-01-2013, 01:54 PM
A director of Falkirk makes an important point here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/20969616

At present, it is very difficult (verging on impossible) to achieve any change in Scottish football because you have god knows how many bodies, all of whom require large percentage votes in favour to enact change. Particularly the 11-1 rule in the SPL. This reform will reduce, if not remove, many of these barriers. Which means that if having tried this format, it has failed, it will be easier to implement a new system.

PatHead
10-01-2013, 01:55 PM
The bit that hacks me off is that the SFA did a survey. The results are due out next month. One of the main topics was league re-construction and the amalgamation of SPL/SFA/Scottish League.

Why didn't they wait on the results of the survey and take the fans views into account rather than the other way round? They also should have started selling the benefits first (if there are any) such as proposed income of various scenarios. It just shows that to most boards the fans are a pest rather than the lifeblood of the club.

Just Alf
10-01-2013, 02:04 PM
I don't think you can do anything but scrub the points for the middle league.

Regarding the top league, Georgia has a similar system presently and they have an interesting idea - only the results against the teams that are in that part of the league (the top 8) are carried forward. This means that the final table for the top 8 is based on the 28 matches against each other (4 x 7). The results of the top 8 against the bottom four teams, who drop into the middle league, are ignored.

its a good point re the top league.

going into it the leaders could have made most of the points against the "easier" teams, then in the run up to the end the chasing pack will all be playing against each other... i.e the "harder" teams????

PatHead
10-01-2013, 02:08 PM
A director of Falkirk makes an important point here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/20969616

At present, it is very difficult (verging on impossible) to achieve any change in Scottish football because you have god knows how many bodies, all of whom require large percentage votes in favour to enact change. Particularly the 11-1 rule in the SPL. This reform will reduce, if not remove, many of these barriers. Which means that if having tried this format, it has failed, it will be easier to implement a new system.

The other side of that coin is the smaller clubs will be running Scottish football if it is one vote for each club. If you look at Hibs with a stadium, training centre, first team squad, youth development programme etc. A club like Arbroath with next to no overheads, a part time squad with a players budget of say £200k get the same say. Just doesn't seem right

JeMeSouviens
10-01-2013, 02:14 PM
The other side of that coin is the smaller clubs will be running Scottish football if it is one vote for each club. If you look at Hibs with a stadium, training centre, first team squad, youth development programme etc. A club like Arbroath with next to no overheads, a part time squad with a players budget of say £200k get the same say. Just doesn't seem right

Before the SPL, the SFL used to work: 4 votes for premier clubs, 2 for D1, 1 for the rest and you needed 75% to get most changes made.

Spike Mandela
10-01-2013, 02:14 PM
The other side of that coin is the smaller clubs will be running Scottish football if it is one vote for each club. If you look at Hibs with a stadium, training centre, first team squad, youth development programme etc. A club like Arbroath with next to no overheads, a part time squad with a players budget of say £200k get the same say. Just doesn't seem right

Democracy...........it'll never catch on.:rolleyes:

Sergio sledge
10-01-2013, 03:06 PM
Regarding the top league, Georgia has a similar system presently and they have an interesting idea - only the results against the teams that are in that part of the league (the top 8) are carried forward. This means that the final table for the top 8 is based on the 28 matches against each other (4 x 7). The results of the top 8 against the bottom four teams, who drop into the middle league, are ignored.

Interesting concept and, if my calculations are correct, the table post split this season would have looked like this:



Team
P
W
D
L
F
A
+/-
Pts


Motherwell
14
7
3
4
29
22
7
24


Celtic
13
6
3
4
19
14
5
21


ICT
14
5
6
3
26
25
1
21


Hibernian
14
6
3
5
20
19
1
21


Aberdeen
14
5
4
5
20
22
-2
19


St Johnstone
14
3
6
5
12
17
-5
15


Kilmarnock
14
3
4
7
21
24
-3
13


Dundee Utd
13
2
7
4
20
24
-4
13

--------
10-01-2013, 03:11 PM
The other side of that coin is the smaller clubs will be running Scottish football if it is one vote for each club. If you look at Hibs with a stadium, training centre, first team squad, youth development programme etc. A club like Arbroath with next to no overheads, a part time squad with a players budget of say £200k get the same say. Just doesn't seem right


This is the same argument that the OF use to justify the way they treat us and the rest of the SPL. A League is a League, not an aggregate of individual clubs cutting one anothers' throats. That's what we've had for far too long, and it's led Scottish football to the place it is now - up the creek without a paddle.

Hibs used to compete effectively in Europe - as did Aberdeen, Dunfermline, Dundee, and Dundee United. A lot of very good English and European teams came to Scotland and left with their tails between their legs. That doesn't happen now.

Hibs used to be able to replace top players quickly and without a great deal of difficulty - Joe McBride for Colin Stein, Arthur Duncan for Eric Stevenson, for example. We could bring in good players from the Second Division - Erich Schaedler, Neil Martin, Des Bremner spring to mind.

This was because the players were there in the lower leagues - resources and talent were more evenly spread. Gates were shared - the away team got 40% of the gate. The OF didn't like it, but around the rest of the league it worked out OK. Some of the non-OF teams, unfortunately, got delusions of grandeur, and thought they could compete with the OF on and off the field. They learned.

The Scottish Premier Division was formed by the top 10 teams in the old First Division; those 10 teams reckoned to keep a much bigger slice of the cake for themselves rather than sharing it with the wee teams like Arbroath. The trouble was they forgot about the cuckoos in the SPD nest - the OF. The top ten screwed the wee teams; then the OF screwed the rest of the top 10 - which from one point of view was no more than the second-tier clubs like Hibs deserved.

Martin Ritchie is right, IMO - if this reconstruction goes through and we have ONE football league in Scotland, the voting rules will HAVE to be altered, with the approval of all the clubs involved. This could be the first chance for a long time to sort out some of the more serious problems in the game in Scotland.

The Scottish Football League/Leagues need to realise that the game as a whole is the product, and start to pull together to benefit the whole League. That way the whole game could begin to prosper. A sporting league is one of the very few business ventures that needs to be run on Socialist lines to prosper - from each according to their means, to each according to their needs. Strangely enough, you see this in the very capitalist US - the NFL, NHL, NBA and so on work and act together for the good of the whole league rather than allowing individual teams to ride roughshod over the interests of the others.

For all the investment in infrastructure you mention, Hibs have more in common with Falkirk and Queen of the South right now than they have with the OF.

Just Alf
10-01-2013, 03:59 PM
This is the same argument that the OF use to justify the way they treat us and the rest of the SPL. A League is a League, not an aggregate of individual clubs cutting one anothers' throats. That's what we've had for far too long, and it's led Scottish football to the place it is now - up the creek without a paddle.

Hibs used to compete effectively in Europe - as did Aberdeen, Dunfermline, Dundee, and Dundee United. A lot of very good English and European teams came to Scotland and left with their tails between their legs. That doesn't happen now.

Hibs used to be able to replace top players quickly and without a great deal of difficulty - Joe McBride for Colin Stein, Arthur Duncan for Eric Stevenson, for example. We could bring in good players from the Second Division - Erich Schaedler, Neil Martin, Des Bremner spring to mind.

This was because the players were there in the lower leagues - resources and talent were more evenly spread. Gates were shared - the away team got 40% of the gate. The OF didn't like it, but around the rest of the league it worked out OK. Some of the to(non-OF) teams, unfortunately, got delusions of grandeur, and thought they could compete with the OF on and off the field. They learned.

The Scottish Premier Division was formed by the top 10 teams in the old First Division; those 10 teams reckoned to keep a much bigger slice of the cake for themselves rather than sharing it with the wee teams like Arbroath. The trouble was they forgot about the cuckoos in the SPD nest - the OF. The top ten screwed the wee teams; then the OF screwed the rest of the top 10 - which from one point of view was no more than the second-tier clubs like Hibs deserved.

Martin Ritchie is right, IMO - if this reconstruction goes through and we have ONE football league in Scotland, the voting rules will HAVE to be altered, with the approval of all the clubs involved. This could be the first chance for a long time to sort out some of the more serious problems in the game in Scotland.

The Scottish Football League/Leagues need to realise that the game as a whole is the product, and start to pull together to benefit the whole League. That way the whole game could begin to prosper. A sporting league is one of the very few business ventures that needs to be run on Socialist lines to prosper - from each according to their means, to each according to their needs. Strangely enough, you see this in the very capitalist US - the NFL, NHL, NBA and so on work and act together for the good of the whole league rather than allowing individual teams to ride roughshod over the interests of the others.

For all the investment in infrastructure you mention, Hibs have more in common with Falkirk and Queen of the South right now than they have with the OF.

:top marks

Stevie Reid
10-01-2013, 04:02 PM
This is the same argument that the OF use to justify the way they treat us and the rest of the SPL. A League is a League, not an aggregate of individual clubs cutting one anothers' throats. That's what we've had for far too long, and it's led Scottish football to the place it is now - up the creek without a paddle.

Hibs used to compete effectively in Europe - as did Aberdeen, Dunfermline, Dundee, and Dundee United. A lot of very good English and European teams came to Scotland and left with their tails between their legs. That doesn't happen now.

Hibs used to be able to replace top players quickly and without a great deal of difficulty - Joe McBride for Colin Stein, Arthur Duncan for Eric Stevenson, for example. We could bring in good players from the Second Division - Erich Schaedler, Neil Martin, Des Bremner spring to mind.

This was because the players were there in the lower leagues - resources and talent were more evenly spread. Gates were shared - the away team got 40% of the gate. The OF didn't like it, but around the rest of the league it worked out OK. Some of the to(non-OF) teams, unfortunately, got delusions of grandeur, and thought they could compete with the OF on and off the field. They learned.

The Scottish Premier Division was formed by the top 10 teams in the old First Division; those 10 teams reckoned to keep a much bigger slice of the cake for themselves rather than sharing it with the wee teams like Arbroath. The trouble was they forgot about the cuckoos in the SPD nest - the OF. The top ten screwed the wee teams; then the OF screwed the rest of the top 10 - which from one point of view was no more than the second-tier clubs like Hibs deserved.

Martin Ritchie is right, IMO - if this reconstruction goes through and we have ONE football league in Scotland, the voting rules will HAVE to be altered, with the approval of all the clubs involved. This could be the first chance for a long time to sort out some of the more serious problems in the game in Scotland.

The Scottish Football League/Leagues need to realise that the game as a whole is the product, and start to pull together to benefit the whole League. That way the whole game could begin to prosper. A sporting league is one of the very few business ventures that needs to be run on Socialist lines to prosper - from each according to their means, to each according to their needs. Strangely enough, you see this in the very capitalist US - the NFL, NHL, NBA and so on work and act together for the good of the whole league rather than allowing individual teams to ride roughshod over the interests of the others.

For all the investment in infrastructure you mention, Hibs have more in common with Falkirk and Queen of the South right now than they have with the OF.

Good post Doddie, a very interesting read. Whilst there is no definitive blueprint for the league being successful going forward, it would be unforgivable if we did not learn from past mistakes.

Very interesting and relevant point about American sports also.

StevieC
10-01-2013, 04:24 PM
This is the same argument that the OF use to justify the way they treat us and the rest of the SPL. A League is a League, not an aggregate of individual clubs cutting one anothers' throats.

Totally.

We can't have a go at the greed of the OF and in the same breath fight against anything that might affect us financially.

The changes need to be for the benefit of the game, not the elite few.

Lucius Apuleius
10-01-2013, 04:37 PM
I don't know if it is going to be a good change or not. I do know we need the change. The one body is a huge step. This must lead to a change in the voting structure, so that is good as well. Turnbull Hutton is for it and the man always comes over as an intelligent guy to me. Personally I would have preferred 16 or 18 teams but willing to give it and its foibles a chance

rcarter1
10-01-2013, 11:31 PM
This is the same argument that the OF use to justify the way they treat us and the rest of the SPL. A League is a League, not an aggregate of individual clubs cutting one anothers' throats. That's what we've had for far too long, and it's led Scottish football to the place it is now - up the creek without a paddle.

Hibs used to compete effectively in Europe - as did Aberdeen, Dunfermline, Dundee, and Dundee United. A lot of very good English and European teams came to Scotland and left with their tails between their legs. That doesn't happen now.

Hibs used to be able to replace top players quickly and without a great deal of difficulty - Joe McBride for Colin Stein, Arthur Duncan for Eric Stevenson, for example. We could bring in good players from the Second Division - Erich Schaedler, Neil Martin, Des Bremner spring to mind.

This was because the players were there in the lower leagues - resources and talent were more evenly spread. Gates were shared - the away team got 40% of the gate. The OF didn't like it, but around the rest of the league it worked out OK. Some of the to(non-OF) teams, unfortunately, got delusions of grandeur, and thought they could compete with the OF on and off the field. They learned.

The Scottish Premier Division was formed by the top 10 teams in the old First Division; those 10 teams reckoned to keep a much bigger slice of the cake for themselves rather than sharing it with the wee teams like Arbroath. The trouble was they forgot about the cuckoos in the SPD nest - the OF. The top ten screwed the wee teams; then the OF screwed the rest of the top 10 - which from one point of view was no more than the second-tier clubs like Hibs deserved.

Martin Ritchie is right, IMO - if this reconstruction goes through and we have ONE football league in Scotland, the voting rules will HAVE to be altered, with the approval of all the clubs involved. This could be the first chance for a long time to sort out some of the more serious problems in the game in Scotland.

The Scottish Football League/Leagues need to realise that the game as a whole is the product, and start to pull together to benefit the whole League. That way the whole game could begin to prosper. A sporting league is one of the very few business ventures that needs to be run on Socialist lines to prosper - from each according to their means, to each according to their needs. Strangely enough, you see this in the very capitalist US - the NFL, NHL, NBA and so on work and act together for the good of the whole league rather than allowing individual teams to ride roughshod over the interests of the others.

For all the investment in infrastructure you mention, Hibs have more in common with Falkirk and Queen of the South right now than they have with the OF.

cracking post. :top marks a step in the right direction perhaps. I also have a lot of time for Gordon Smith who apparently came up with the idea.

PatHead
10-01-2013, 11:50 PM
Totally.

We can't have a go at the greed of the OF and in the same breath fight against anything that might affect us financially.

The changes need to be for the benefit of the game, not the elite few.

Not saying to make the larger clubs have all the running power but to ensure that we don't suffer due to the smaller clubs bullying us around similar to the way the Old Firm did.

lord bunberry
11-01-2013, 12:08 AM
I think its a good idea, lower division clubs have something to play for and so do the bottom 4 of the SPL.Only problem I see would see is if none of the top 4 in the lower div were promoted after playing their remaining games against SPL sides.


That's a good point. In theory we could have the same teams in the top division for years on end which would hardly be adding to the excitement

Stevie Reid
11-01-2013, 10:52 AM
Paul Murray speaking at least some sense from a Rangers point of view in The Herald (talk of 'rising above things' aside): -

However, Murray – who was part of the Blue Knights group who tried to buy the Ibrox club last summer – is eager for Rangers to become a positive voice in the debate.

"Charles Green has only been in Scotland for less than a year and dealing with administration in Scotland is a frustrating process," he said. "I'm no longer involved, it's a new era at Rangers and it's got off to a good start. If we're using that to try to rebuild bridges within Scottish football, then I think Charles Green and the Rangers board should actually rise above some of the things.

"No-one is more frustrated with what happened last year than me but I think it's now time for us to rise above that and actually provide leadership to the rest of Scottish football. Charles Green is well positioned to do that.

"With regards to leaving Scottish football, that's been discussed for many, many years. I think Charles Green and the Rangers board should be more focused on improving Scottish football from within."

Murray lost his place on the Ibrox board following Craig Whyte's ill-fated takeover, before joining forces with the Blue Knights when the Ibrox club fell into administration. The whole saga has soured Murray's view of how the game is run in this country but he believes Rangers have a part of play in improving it.

"I wouldn't say they've got an obligation but I think they are better suited to trying to improve the game from within than threatening to leave. I'm not quite sure what that really achieves," he said. "[Green] should use his position to try to engineer change."

blackpoolhibs
12-01-2013, 01:18 PM
Paul Murray speaking at least some sense from a Rangers point of view in The Herald (talk of 'rising above things' aside): -

However, Murray – who was part of the Blue Knights group who tried to buy the Ibrox club last summer – is eager for Rangers to become a positive voice in the debate.

"Charles Green has only been in Scotland for less than a year and dealing with administration in Scotland is a frustrating process," he said. "I'm no longer involved, it's a new era at Rangers and it's got off to a good start. If we're using that to try to rebuild bridges within Scottish football, then I think Charles Green and the Rangers board should actually rise above some of the things.

"No-one is more frustrated with what happened last year than me but I think it's now time for us to rise above that and actually provide leadership to the rest of Scottish football. Charles Green is well positioned to do that.

"With regards to leaving Scottish football, that's been discussed for many, many years. I think Charles Green and the Rangers board should be more focused on improving Scottish football from within."

Murray lost his place on the Ibrox board following Craig Whyte's ill-fated takeover, before joining forces with the Blue Knights when the Ibrox club fell into administration. The whole saga has soured Murray's view of how the game is run in this country but he believes Rangers have a part of play in improving it.

"I wouldn't say they've got an obligation but I think they are better suited to trying to improve the game from within than threatening to leave. I'm not quite sure what that really achieves," he said. "[Green] should use his position to try to engineer change."

I disagree, i think they do have an obligation to improve the game, like EVERY other club in Scotland, why would they think they are any different? :confused:

PatHead
12-01-2013, 03:23 PM
This is the same argument that the OF use to justify the way they treat us and the rest of the SPL. A League is a League, not an aggregate of individual clubs cutting one anothers' throats. That's what we've had for far too long, and it's led Scottish football to the place it is now - up the creek without a paddle.

Hibs used to compete effectively in Europe - as did Aberdeen, Dunfermline, Dundee, and Dundee United. A lot of very good English and European teams came to Scotland and left with their tails between their legs. That doesn't happen now.

Hibs used to be able to replace top players quickly and without a great deal of difficulty - Joe McBride for Colin Stein, Arthur Duncan for Eric Stevenson, for example. We could bring in good players from the Second Division - Erich Schaedler, Neil Martin, Des Bremner spring to mind.

This was because the players were there in the lower leagues - resources and talent were more evenly spread. Gates were shared - the away team got 40% of the gate. The OF didn't like it, but around the rest of the league it worked out OK. Some of the non-OF teams, unfortunately, got delusions of grandeur, and thought they could compete with the OF on and off the field. They learned.

The Scottish Premier Division was formed by the top 10 teams in the old First Division; those 10 teams reckoned to keep a much bigger slice of the cake for themselves rather than sharing it with the wee teams like Arbroath. The trouble was they forgot about the cuckoos in the SPD nest - the OF. The top ten screwed the wee teams; then the OF screwed the rest of the top 10 - which from one point of view was no more than the second-tier clubs like Hibs deserved.

Martin Ritchie is right, IMO - if this reconstruction goes through and we have ONE football league in Scotland, the voting rules will HAVE to be altered, with the approval of all the clubs involved. This could be the first chance for a long time to sort out some of the more serious problems in the game in Scotland.

The Scottish Football League/Leagues need to realise that the game as a whole is the product, and start to pull together to benefit the whole League. That way the whole game could begin to prosper. A sporting league is one of the very few business ventures that needs to be run on Socialist lines to prosper - from each according to their means, to each according to their needs. Strangely enough, you see this in the very capitalist US - the NFL, NHL, NBA and so on work and act together for the good of the whole league rather than allowing individual teams to ride roughshod over the interests of the others.

For all the investment in infrastructure you mention, Hibs have more in common with Falkirk and Queen of the South right now than they have with the OF.

Looks like the larger clubs will have a greater say with more votes according to BBC. Must admit I agree with that

"The proposed voting structure in the new set-up would see Premier clubs having three votes, with those in the Championship receiving two votes and National league clubs getting one vote.
An independent executive chairman would have the casting vote in the event of a stalemate."

Also the stadium rules will be relaxed.

Mr White
12-01-2013, 03:32 PM
Looks like the larger clubs will have a greater say with more votes according to BBC. Must admit I agree with that

"The proposed voting structure in the new set-up would see Premier clubs having three votes, with those in the Championship receiving two votes and National league clubs getting one vote.
An independent executive chairman would have the casting vote in the event of a stalemate."

Also the stadium rules will be relaxed.
has anything more been mentioned about regional promotion/relegation? Seems to have gone pretty quiet on that front.

PatHead
12-01-2013, 03:38 PM
has anything more been mentioned about regional promotion/relegation? Seems to have gone pretty quiet on that front.

Yes, from same article

"From season 2014/15, the bottom two from the National league will be relegated and replaced by sides from an unspecified set-up that will involve the Highland League, Juniors and the South of Scotland League."

Full article

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/20997587

Must admit warming a bit to the changes.

Mr White
12-01-2013, 03:45 PM
Yes, from same article

"From season 2014/15, the bottom two from the National league will be relegated and replaced by sides from an unspecified set-up that will involve the Highland League, Juniors and the South of Scotland League."

Full article

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/20997587

Must admit warming a bit to the changes.

Me too, the more I hear about it the more I think its got the potential to right a few of the worst aspects of our leagues. I like the suggestion that someone posted here last week about the points in the top and bottom 8 being adjusted after the split so that the games against the 4 teams that have gone to the middle 8 get wiped. Don't think its been mentioned anywhere in the media as being under consideration though.

Diclonius
12-01-2013, 03:56 PM
Yes, from same article

"From season 2014/15, the bottom two from the National league will be relegated and replaced by sides from an unspecified set-up that will involve the Highland League, Juniors and the South of Scotland League."

Full article

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/20997587

Must admit warming a bit to the changes.

Very pleased with that.

jgl07
12-01-2013, 04:12 PM
Yes, from same article

"From season 2014/15, the bottom two from the National league will be relegated and replaced by sides from an unspecified set-up that will involve the Highland League, Juniors and the South of Scotland League."

East of Scotland League would surely be involved?

Mikey
12-01-2013, 04:13 PM
Also the stadium rules will be relaxed.

Getting standing areas back is a change that would definitely work. Far too much emphasis is put on encouraging families and stadiums are far too sanitised.

PatHead
12-01-2013, 04:16 PM
East of Scotland League would surely be involved?

Would hope so as well. Means Hearts would have a chance of getting back into the leagues eventually. :devil:

bingo70
12-01-2013, 04:19 PM
Would hope so as well. Means Hearts would have a chance of getting back into the leagues eventually. :devil:

I know you've put the devil smiley there but it's a fair point, i think there's an assumption if hearts go tits up they'll do a sevco and start again in the 3rd division but if there's a pyramid system in place by the time this happens then that might not be an option.

I'm sure if a team in England went pop they'd have to start again at the very bottom and wouldn't just shuffle into league 3 or the conference.

ScottB
12-01-2013, 05:07 PM
I know you've put the devil smiley there but it's a fair point, i think there's an assumption if hearts go tits up they'll do a sevco and start again in the 3rd division but if there's a pyramid system in place by the time this happens then that might not be an option.

I'm sure if a team in England went pop they'd have to start again at the very bottom and wouldn't just shuffle into league 3 or the conference.

Rangers being sold as a going concern was a big part of them returning as they did, and as you say, with the 3rd Division being as low as a club can go in the professional structure.

Hearts post any insolvency event will likely not be in as good a state, there's no guarantee of a single clear bidder, the stadium continuing to be available, any playing staff remaining etc. Getting straight into a league, any league would be a massive achievement consider their mess!


A regional pyramid is very important for me. To be honest there's probably too many clubs in the national structure as it is.

lord bunberry
12-01-2013, 06:49 PM
I disagree, i think they do have an obligation to improve the game, like EVERY other club in Scotland, why would they think they are any different? :confused:

Cause they ar a peepul

Famous Fiver
12-01-2013, 08:49 PM
I think the genie is out of the bottle.

With all the bile coming out of Ibrox I think new Rangers days in Scotland are coming to an end.

Even if they have to start at the same level as AFC Wimbledon their future will be down south.

They have discovered there is life outside the SPL ( just as we enjoyed our sojourn in the SFL) and there is no way they will come back in to the SPL unless they are propelled into the top tier next season ( not completely outside the bounds of possibility due to our completely incompetent Scottish leadership). They are trying to bully their way in to the negotiations. If they don't get their way they are offski.

Green is busy backing himself into a corner and unless he starts to build some bridges I see the exit coming soon.

Personally I can't wait.

Velma Dinkley
12-01-2013, 09:07 PM
England doesn't need them, want them and would be worse with them. Nobody wants them and we don't care.

StevieC
13-01-2013, 02:34 AM
I am pretty sure that The Rangers had been fully expecting to be invited into an SPL2 next season. As it looks more and more likely that they will have to work their way up the leagues the "proper" way, I feel they are getting more and more desperate.

jgl07
13-01-2013, 04:15 AM
Charles Green commented that if Rangers were in the English Conference they would be at a higher level than they are now. Thgis may be true, but the only problem is that if they were permitted to join the English League system they would not simly be able to jump in at level five (The Coference Premier) but more likely at level ten or lower.

AFC Wimbledon took the best part of ten years to climb they way to the Football League Two Division.

It shows how accommodating the authorities were to Sevco by allowing them to join at level four of the Scottish League system.

alexedwards
13-01-2013, 11:10 AM
Charles Green commented that if Rangers were in the English Conference they would be at a higher level than they are now. Thgis may be true, but the only problem is that if they were permitted to join the English League system they would not simly be able to jump in at level five (The Coference Premier) but more likely at level ten or lower.

AFC Wimbledon took the best part of ten years to climb they way to the Football League Two Division.

It shows how accommodating the authorities were to Sevco by allowing them to join at level four of the Scottish League system.

Level 4 of Scotland is equivalent to levels 12-15 in England - so not that accommodating.
English Conference pays higher wages than the current 2nd placed team in the SPL - the difference is staggering between the nations.

O'Rourke3
13-01-2013, 11:44 AM
Charles Green commented that if Rangers were in the English Conference they would be at a higher level than they are now. Thgis may be true, but the only problem is that if they were permitted to join the English League system they would not simly be able to jump in at level five (The Coference Premier) but more likely at level ten or lower.

AFC Wimbledon took the best part of ten years to climb they way to the Football League Two Division.

It shows how accommodating the authorities were to Sevco by allowing them to join at level four of the Scottish League system.

Doddie made the point I was going to on the share at the gate. 40% of two visits to Glasgow and Tynie go a long way to making up for the loss of extra home games. The fans want bigger leagues, the Chairmen know that's very difficult to finance.

The English start from the bottom is what would need to happen. Green has probably got something faster in mind like "Buy Portsmouth" and then move them to Glasgow. This would be a bit of a tester for the FA and UEFA. Registered in England, play in Scotland. Would they then actually qualify for Europe of not. I think Swansea, if they win the League Cup, cannot play in Europe on one of the English places, but maybe they can through historical association.

So if Europe is not currently possible, other than TV money what's the point as there's no way into the Top Competition the way there is in Scotland.

Or the OF think there's some form of Europe Competition where teams move permanently to the Champions League. They'd be rubbing their hands (and other parts) thinking their infrastructure and support would get them in, but I'd guess eventually a team left out from a more fashionable country would do what Green might try and do to get to England's top tier quicker, buy them and move them to Rome or Valencia or Athens or Moscow.

Waxy
13-01-2013, 12:05 PM
Couldn't the SFA invite teams from England to join the Scottish league?
We already have Berwick.
I think Newcastle is more northerly than Annan and Carlisle would be a good addition.

Sylar
13-01-2013, 12:28 PM
How many times do the English FA need to come out and say "we don't want/need..." these vile institutions before it sinks in??

Green is new to the charade but Lawell (who is also bleating again this morning) has been here before.

Nobody wants these cancerous clubs in their league except the beaks who govern our league and can't envisage life without them.

Ozyhibby
13-01-2013, 12:30 PM
Getting standing areas back is a change that would definitely work. Far too much emphasis is put on encouraging families and stadiums are far too sanitised.

Standing areas are allowed now. No clubs are interested as they don't want to drop prices.