Is Reconstruction Imminent?

[Jim44]

League chief executive, Neil Doncaster, has floated the idea of enlarging the top flight to 14 teams - with the possibility that such changes could be introduced in time for next season. - (Scotsman this morning).

Apparently a set up of three 14 team leagues is under dicussion and he believes that this has widespread support throughout the SPFL as the vast majority would stand to gain.

[SeanWilson]

League chief executive, Neil Doncaster, has floated the idea of enlarging the top flight to 14 teams - with the possibility that such changes could be introduced in time for next season. - (Scotsman this morning).

Apparently a set up of three 14 team leagues is under dicussion and he believes that this has widespread support throughout the SPFL as the vast majority would stand to gain.

I'm sure we'll find out a week on tuesday at 10.30pm :wink:

[Waxy]

Still doesnt mean Rangers will go up. There might be no relegation but they would still have to play the winner of the 3rd/4th playoff for promotion.

[Kojock]

League chief executive, Neil Doncaster, has floated the idea of enlarging the top flight to 14 teams - with the possibility that such changes could be introduced in time for next season. - (Scotsman this morning).

Apparently a set up of three 14 team leagues is under dicussion and he believes that this has widespread support throughout the SPFL as the vast majority would stand to gain.

They're waiting to see if The Rangers gain promotion.

[Thecat23]

As I posted at the start of the season. These plans were put in place back then and many teams and players got wind of it. I still think next season will see a 14 team Prem league.

[Blaster]

Top two promoted
3 v 4 in play off to play bottom team in top league for final place

Sounds perfect to me

[California-Hibs]

Not sure how I feel about a 14 team league. I mean it's definitely better than 12, but will it really be that much of a change just adding 2 more teams. I was always hoping for 16 personally, or even 18.

[HH81]

Would it not be too late to get the vote through before next season?

[greenginger]

As I posted at the start of the season. These plans were put in place back then and many teams and players got wind of it. I still think next season will see a 14 team Prem league.

What's the format ?

Play each team 3 times = 39 games

Split top 6 and lower 8 = 36 games top group, 40 bottom group

Or perm any other set up ?

[Jim44]

They're waiting to see if The Rangers gain promotion.

That could conceivably take till the end of the season to establish and I think that would leave it too late to force through for the next season. If they are seriously considering it, I would have thought it would be decided sooner rather than later.

[Hibbyradge]

What's the format ?

Play each team 3 times = 39 games

Split top 6 and lower 8 = 36 games top group, 40 bottom group

Or perm any other set up ?

That's the one I've been advocating.

[Kojock]

That could conceivably take till the end of the season to establish and I think that would leave it too late to force through for the next season. If they are seriously considering it, I woukd have thought it would be decided sooner rather than later.

Its amazing how quickly things can be forced through when The Rangers are involved.

[Jim44]

What's the format ?

Play each team 3 times = 39 games

Split top 6 and lower 8 = 36 games top group, 40 bottom group

Or perm any other set up ?

It would provide for each team playing each other twice and then a 'split' arrangement similar to the Danish model.

[green&left]

It would provide for each team playing each other twice and then a 'split' arrangement similar to the Danish model.

How does the Danish model work?

[Jim44]

How does the Danish model work?

A bit lengthy to describe fully but basically a 6/8 split in the three leagues after playing home and away with a further split in the 8 team lower group.

[Geo_1875]

14. The only number of teams that could make the league worse than it currently is.

Except any odd number of course.

[Thecat23]

What's the format ?

Play each team 3 times = 39 games

Split top 6 and lower 8 = 36 games top group, 40 bottom group

Or perm any other set up ?

I've no idea what the set up is but the one you posted would make sense.

[Jim44]

A bit lengthy to describe fully but basically a 6/8 split in the three leagues after playing home and away with a further split in the 8 team lower group.

A quick google of the Danish set up seems to contradict a 6/8 split as they have leagues of 12 teams. Anyway, I don't want to muddy the water further. Suffice to say its a 14 team league with a more complicated split arrangement.

[scoopyboy]

Top two promoted
3 v 4 in play off to play bottom team in top league for final place

Sounds perfect to me

Might need to scrap relegation to get all top flight clubs to vote for it.

Other than that I agree with you.

[Kaff]

I think Denmark only bringing in change next season?

For me the important thing is punishing weak teams with relegation but don't strangle them by making promotion back up too difficult. St Johnstone struggled for years to get back up with only one place available and we're in a similar position too really.
Minimum two automatic relegation/promotion and possibly even keep the playoff for a potential third place.
Too many clubs have drifted through the SPL years knowing that mediocrity means no relegation, stir them up so that if the end up in the bottom third of the league they might get sucked out of the league, of course with potential 3 places coming back up it can be a short term relegation period. Makes nearly every game important.

[Jim44]

Copied and pasted from Scotsman:

LEAGUE chief executive Neil Doncaster has floated the idea of enlarging the top flight to 14 teams – with the possibility that such changes could be introduced in time for next season.

An increase from a 12 team to a 14-team Premiership is believed to have widespread support throughout the Scottish Professional Football League because the vast majority of the 42 senior clubs would stand to gain. These teams are currently configured 12-10-10-10 in a four-tier hierarchy. In the set-up under discussions, sides would be split into three league of 14. Effectively, that would earn 18 of them promotion from their present placing at a stroke.

ADVERTISING


Doncaster, speaking at the Scottish FA convention at Hampden yesterday, mentioned the idea of a bigger league in the context of the revamping of the League Cup.



The SPFL chief executive maintained that innovation had underpinned the £8 million deal with BT Sport announced on Monday for the redrawn tournament, which will begin in mid-July with a group stage including penalty shoot-outs in drawn matches. Such innovation could now be focussed on the league structure, he suggested.

“We always want something bigger and better than we have at the moment,” Doncaster said. “Hopefully, with the changes we’ve announced with the League Cup we’ve delivered that, but the discussion will continue.

“If you look at Denmark they are currently bringing in a 14-team league from what was a 12-team league previously. Innovation in league football always continues all around the world and we’re no exception.”

Doncaster stated last summer there was a widespread desire to reduce the number of matches. The perceived problem previously with a 14-team league was that, in order to avoid free weekends created by a 7-7 split after two rounds of matches, there would need to be a 6-8 split, which would mean the bottom section playing 40 league games.

However, the Danes have tackled this by splitting off the eight into two groups of four – one group comprising the teams in seventh, ninth, 11th and 13th; the other comprising the teams in eighth, 10th, 12th and 14th. As a result, after each of the 14 teams played each other home and away, the top six would play each other home and away again for a 36-game total.


The teams in each bottom section would play against their section rivals home and away. giving each club a further eight games for a 32-game total.

Points would carry forward. With fewer games in the bottom section in the regular season, play-offs could be fitted in without the current squeeze.

This format would be replicated througout the three divisions.



Read more: http://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/competitions/premiership/14-team-premiership-could-be-brought-in-for-2016-17-1-3970519#ixzz3tojEXJkm
Follow us: @TheScotsman on Twitter | TheScotsmanNewspaper on Facebook

[NAE NOOKIE]

Not sure how I feel about a 14 team league. I mean it's definitely better than 12, but will it really be that much of a change just adding 2 more teams. I was always hoping for 16 personally, or even 18.

I would imagine that the SPFL are worried that a 16 or 18 team league would leave the Championship so devoid of clubs with the potential to make a dent in the top league on promotion that they think 14 is the biggest risk they can take.

They can also now at least put up a reasonable defence against accusations of changing things just to get Sevco promoted, in as much as they can say 'if that was the case why didn't we do it last year?'

Unlike some I have never had a problem with a split, what I did ( and do ) have a problem with is the fact that with the current set up you have for example Aberdeen playing Celtic twice at Parkhead and once at Pittodrie before the split, whereas you could have Dundee Utd playing them once at Parkhead and twice at Tannadice. That would ( no matter how slight ) give Utd a better chance of making the top 6 than Aberdeen.

The scenario is even worse for teams finishing outside the top 6 when the split comes. The team at the bottom of the league might have played twice at Parkhead, Pittodrie and Tannadice, whereas the team in 7th place may only have visited those grounds once. Hardly fair.

14 clubs gives you 26 games pre split and 10 ( top 6 ) or 14 ( bottom 8 ) post split. That sounds ok to me, though I would prefer 16.

[Jim44]

I would imagine that the SPFL are worried that a 16 or 18 team league would leave the Championship so devoid of clubs with the potential to make a dent in the top league on promotion that they think 14 is the biggest risk they can take.

They can also now at least put up a reasonable defence against accusations of changing things just to get Sevco promoted, in as much as they can say 'if that was the case why didn't we do it last year?'

Unlike some I have never had a problem with a split, what I did ( and do ) have a problem with is the fact that with the current set up you have for example Aberdeen playing Celtic twice at Parkhead and once at Pittodrie before the split, whereas you could have Dundee Utd playing them once at Parkhead and twice at Tannadice. That would ( no matter how slight ) give Utd a better chance of making the top 6 than Aberdeen.

The scenario is even worse for teams finishing outside the top 6 when the split comes. The team at the bottom of the league might have played twice at Parkhead, Pittodrie and Tannadice, whereas the team in 7th place may only have visited those grounds once. Hardly fair.

14 clubs gives you 26 games pre split and 10 ( top 6 ) or 14 ( bottom 8 ) post split. That sounds ok to me, though I would prefer 16.


No. The bottom 8 clubs would have a further split. It's described fully in what I've pasted above.

[Jim44]

The teams in each bottom section would play against their section rivals home and away. giving each club a further eight games for a 32-game total.

I think this is a mistake. The two groups of four would each have six games for a 32 game total.

[HappyAsHellas]

Whilst I think that a larger top league is long overdue and people have complained about it for years, I can't help wonder about the timing of this. With the recent online protests/polling and fans starting to make unsavoury noises in the direction of the people who run the game, I see an element of deflectionism here. However, I'll still take it if it improves our game.

[Dashing Bob S]

If this is approved then Hibs are stick-ons for the flag. I'm taking it as evidence that the Huns are running scared and their pathetic message boys are looking at how they can gerrymander them in the top flight.

I doubt it'll be an admin situ , but I can see Wallace, Tavernier and Waghorn to cover legal fees if they get Jan offers.

[Hibee87]

If this is all true, and happens, then surely only one thing can happen is 1 goes down and 3 come up? if I recall when we expanded to 12 teams someone still got relegated? so for arguments sake bottom of SPFL is relegated. top 2 automatic promotion and 3rd v 4th play off for the final spot?

[Just Alf]

Whilst I think that a larger top league is long overdue and people have complained about it for years, I can't help wonder about the timing of this. With the recent online protests/polling and fans starting to make unsavoury noises in the direction of the people who run the game, I see an element of deflectionism here. However, I'll still take it if it improves our game.


Agree with this... I've been keen on a change long before the old Rangers went to their maker.... My only reluctance was that it would be seen to be simply done to help The Rangers, and us of course.

[GreenCastle]

Would it not be too late to get the vote through before next season?

This also amazes me. They have meetings prior to new seasons starring and surely it would have to be decided before the start of any season.

You can't change the goalposts halfway through?!

Bottom line Hibs need to be back in top league - would much rather earn that right than get a free pass back up.

12/14/16/18 - the crunch for me - I want teams to play each other twice (maximum 3 or 4 if you draw them in cup). Not this 6 or 8 times we currently have with some teams playing each other.

[Jim44]

If this is all true, and happens, then surely only one thing can happen is 1 goes down and 3 come up? if I recall when we expanded to 12 teams someone still got relegated? so for arguments sake bottom of SPFL is relegated. top 2 automatic promotion and 3rd v 4th play off for the final spot?

This might result in several lowly placed teams in the top division voting against the scheme . Wouldn't they just abandon relegation and promotion and adjust the leagues from the final positions? Of course this wouldn't suit the teams finishing just outside top two in the Championship. You can't please everyone tho'.

[Blaster]

This might result in several lowly placed teams in the top division voting against the scheme . Wouldn't they just abandon relegation and promotion and adjust the leagues from the final positions? Of course this wouldn't suit the teams finishing just outside top two in the Championship. You can't please everyone tho'.

Counter argument is that if nothing changes at least one of them is definitely relegated. This way the bottom club have a final chance to stay up

[dangermouse]

How on earth can the top six playing 36 matches and the bottom eight playing 32 matches be fair? If Hibs, or any other percieved big team, dropped into the bottom eight they would be deprived of two extra home games for much needed revenue.

Proof, if any were needed, that Doncaster and his cronies have no idea how to run our game and surely makes his position untenable.

Why are the SPFL not asking the fans what they would like to see as the general concensus is a 16 or 18 team premiership with no splits?

[Monts]

This might result in several lowly placed teams in the top division voting against the scheme . Wouldn't they just abandon relegation and promotion and adjust the leagues from the final positions? Of course this wouldn't suit the teams finishing just outside top two in the Championship. You can't please everyone tho'.

For those outside the top two in the championship and those at the bottom of the premiership, they would be guaranteeing not having to compete with both rangers and hibs in the championship next season.

[Lago]

I think Denmark only bringing in change next season?

For me the important thing is punishing weak teams with relegation but don't strangle them by making promotion back up too difficult. St Johnstone struggled for years to get back up with only one place available and we're in a similar position too really.
Minimum two automatic relegation/promotion and possibly even keep the playoff for a potential third place.
Too many clubs have drifted through the SPL years knowing that mediocrity means no relegation, stir them up so that if the end up in the bottom third of the league they might get sucked out of the league, of course with potential 3 places coming back up it can be a short term relegation period. Makes nearly every game important.

Excellent post totally agree with every point you make.:top marks

[JimBHibees]

Where is the sporting integrity when the rules of promotion are changed half way during a season? Total nonsense.

[CropleyWasGod]

How on earth can the top six playing 36 matches and the bottom eight playing 32 matches be fair? If Hibs, or any other percieved big team, dropped into the bottom eight they would be deprived of two extra home games for much needed revenue.

Proof, if any were needed, that Doncaster and his cronies have no idea how to run our game and surely makes his position untenable.

Why are the SPFL not asking the fans what they would like to see as the general concensus is a 16 or 18 team premiership with no splits?

To be fair, neither of them have said that will happen. It's only speculation on here that the league would be split that way.

Not a fan of either, but we can only put the boot in when it's warranted.

[NAE NOOKIE]

[/B][/B]

No. The bottom 8 clubs would have a further split. It's described fully in what I've pasted above.

A new structure for the Danish Superliga has just been decided.



The league will now have 14 teams as opposed to 12 before.
Each team will play each other home and away (3 times before).
After this comes the playoff with the top 6 teams will meet again home and away (they carry their points)
The last 8 teams are divided into to groups with n. 7, 10, 11 and 14 in one and 8, 9, 12 and 13 in the other they also meet home and away (they also carry their points).
Number 1 in the group will meet number 2 in the other group in a semi final over two games.
The winner of the final will play against the lowest placed of the best six for a europa league qualification spot
The lowest 4 of the groups also has a mini tournament (2 game semifinal and two game final) the winner secures another year in the league and the loser face the 3. best in the 2. division.
The loser of the semifinals meet and the loser of the loser final is relegated. The winner of the loser final meets the number two of the 2. division



The only problem I see with that system is that we only have one champions league spot and 3 Europa league spots, one of which goes to the Scottish cup winners. Even if the Scottish cup spot was removed and given for league placing it would mean that at the end of the season the teams finishing 4th & 5th would be out of the Euro running whereas the team in 6th wouldn't. We could make it winner of bottom 8 v 4th for the Europa spot, but that would leave 5th & 6th scratching their heads as 7th remains in the Euro running. A lot of persuading about the good of the game over individual clubs interests would need to be done.

[Bristolhibby]

Might need to scrap relegation to get all top flight clubs to vote for it.

Other than that I agree with you.

We've got Precedence for that option. Remember the mighty Aberdeen were saved from relegation when we expanded the league to 12.

I'd expect, if this were voted through, for Us and The Zombies to go us as 1st and 2nd with no relegation.

J

[Viva_Palmeiras]

How does the Danish model work?

Helena left before I got up for work but I'll ask her later...

[Newry Hibs]

I don't like the idea of any split half way through the season. This doesn't allow a team a late surge of form to maybe get a Europa place, or indeed a big dip in form and relegation (would have saved us a couple of years ago though).

The split now - last quarter - despite its faults is better.

I would prefer a large league playing twice only.

[Diclonius]

We've got Precedence for that option. Remember the mighty Aberdeen were saved from relegation when we expanded the league to 12.

I'd expect, if this were voted through, for Us and The Zombies to go us as 1st and 2nd with no relegation.

J

I'd suspect the teams finishing 3rd and 4th would have something to say about that.

It'll be no relegation, 1st automatically promoted, and then the playoffs with 2nd playing the winner of 3rd and 4th to go up.

[Alfred E Newman]

No doubt the nitty gritty will be worked out on the other side of the fag packet Doncaster used for outlining the League Cup changes.

[The_Exile]

Having been fed up of the 1 or 2 horse race of recent decades, I propose an NFL type playoff event to decide the champions, top 8 go through to a knockout tournament with the final being a neutral venue. So play each other twice in a 16 team league, 30 games, top 8 go through to the knockout:

1st v 8th, 2nd v 7th, 3rd v 6th and 4th v 5th, one game only, no 2 legs rubbish, one game with the top 4 getting the home advantage.

Winner of 1st match play winner of last match, winner of middle two matches play each other.

Final at Hampden.

Would give others a more realistic chance of winning the league and sharing the prize/champions league money around a bit.

In addition to this, every single team goes into the Scottish Cup at the first round, again, another chance to distribute wealth around the smaller teams as they'll have more chance of drawing a bigger team, and for the first few rounds I'd let them use their discretion as to where the game is played, so for example, Buckie Thistle get Celtic at theirs, I'd let them choose whether to host the game or give Celtic the home advantage (more money for the smaller team essentially).

Edit: How many Euro places do we get? I feel we need to attach a Euro place to the cups to maintain major interest from the clubs. We get one Champions League place and 3 Europa League places eh? League winners get the Champions League spot and runners up get a Europa spot. 3rd/4th place playoff for another Europa spot. I'm thinking perhaps a playoff between the cup winners for the final Euro place?

[NAE NOOKIE]

Where is the sporting integrity when the rules of promotion are changed half way during a season? Total nonsense.

Only two clubs could have been promoted at the end of this season, possibly only one. If this went forward two would be certain of promotion, but you still have to win enough games to finish in the top 2 .... a change yes, but hardly an affront to sporting integrity.

To keep things on an even keel in the Premiership the bottom club ( Dundee Utd ? ) could play third in the Championship ( Falkirk ? ) to see who ends up in the Premiership.

Interest in the Premiership relegation battle is therefore maintained. Bottom of the Premiership can hardly complain coz they get a shot at staying up they wouldn't have had and 3rd in the Championship gets a lottery ticket.

Sporting integrity maintained.

[Hibee87]

Having been fed up of the 1 or 2 horse race of recent decades, I propose an NFL type playoff event to decide the champions, top 8 go through to a knockout tournament with the final being a neutral venue. So play each other twice in a 16 team league, 30 games, top 8 go through to the knockout:

1st v 8th, 2nd v 7th, 3rd v 6th and 4th v 5th, one game only, no 2 legs rubbish, one game with the top 4 getting the home advantage.

Winner of 1st match play winner of last match, winner of middle two matches play each other.

Final at Hampden.

Would give others a more realistic chance of winning the league and sharing the prize/champions league money around a bit.

In addition to this, every single team goes into the Scottish Cup at the first round, again, another chance to distribute wealth around the smaller teams as they'll have more chance of drawing a bigger team, and I'd let them use their discretion as to where the game is played, so for example, Buckie Thistle get Celtic at theirs, I'd let them choose whether to host the game or give Celtic the home advantage (more money for the smaller team essentially).

I like the sound of this, its very different, but would make things pretty interesting

[Smartie]

Having been fed up of the 1 or 2 horse race of recent decades, I propose an NFL type playoff event to decide the champions, top 8 go through to a knockout tournament with the final being a neutral venue. So play each other twice in a 16 team league, 30 games, top 8 go through to the knockout:

1st v 8th, 2nd v 7th, 3rd v 6th and 4th v 5th, one game only, no 2 legs rubbish, one game with the top 4 getting the home advantage.

Winner of 1st match play winner of last match, winner of middle two matches play each other.

Final at Hampden.

Would give others a more realistic chance of winning the league and sharing the prize/champions league money around a bit.

In addition to this, every single team goes into the Scottish Cup at the first round, again, another chance to distribute wealth around the smaller teams as they'll have more chance of drawing a bigger team, and for the first few rounds I'd let them use their discretion as to where the game is played, so for example, Buckie Thistle get Celtic at theirs, I'd let them choose whether to host the game or give Celtic the home advantage (more money for the smaller team essentially).

Q. Does it suit Celtic and Rangers?

A. Absolutely not.

Next suggestion please…………..


(I like the idea btw, but it will never happen).

[CropleyWasGod]

We've got Precedence for that option. Remember the mighty Aberdeen were saved from relegation when we expanded the league to 12.

I'd expect, if this were voted through, for Us and The Zombies to go us as 1st and 2nd with no relegation.

J

I would be very uncomfortable with that.

The season started on the premise that 3 teams would be involved in the play-offs at the top end, and teams act accordingly. That's what the rules were, and still are. They can't be altered part-way through.

[The_Exile]

Q. Does it suit Celtic and Rangers?

A. Absolutely not.

Next suggestion please…………..


(I like the idea btw, but it will never happen).

Then we breakaway and let them die, win-win! :greengrin

[GreenCastle]

An old link - but quite interesting to see how relegation / reconstruction has affected certain teams over the years..

http://www.scottishleague.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=6853

[Steve20]

No way will it be in place for next season unless agreed very very soon.

This will all be talk and no action yet again. It's why it's vital we win the league this season.

[offshorehibby]

A new structure for the Danish Superliga has just been decided.



The league will now have 14 teams as opposed to 12 before.
Each team will play each other home and away (3 times before).
After this comes the playoff with the top 6 teams will meet again home and away (they carry their points)
The last 8 teams are divided into to groups with n. 7, 10, 11 and 14 in one and 8, 9, 12 and 13 in the other they also meet home and away (they also carry their points).
Number 1 in the group will meet number 2 in the other group in a semi final over two games.
The winner of the final will play against the lowest placed of the best six for a europa league qualification spot
The lowest 4 of the groups also has a mini tournament (2 game semifinal and two game final) the winner secures another year in the league and the loser face the 3. best in the 2. division.
The loser of the semifinals meet and the loser of the loser final is relegated. The winner of the loser final meets the number two of the 2. division



The only problem I see with that system is that we only have one champions league spot and 3 Europa league spots, one of which goes to the Scottish cup winners. Even if the Scottish cup spot was removed and given for league placing it would mean that at the end of the season the teams finishing 4th & 5th would be out of the Euro running whereas the team in 6th wouldn't. We could make it winner of bottom 8 v 4th for the Europa spot, but that would leave 5th & 6th scratching their heads as 7th remains in the Euro running. A lot of persuading about the good of the game over individual clubs interests would need to be done.



You only see one problem. That is so over complicated it sounds like something our own SPFL would come up with

[Hibee87]

An old link - but quite interesting to see how relegation / reconstruction has affected certain teams over the years..

http://www.scottishleague.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=6853


Thats an interesting article, I never knew it was a 14 team league in 1990, i always remeber it being 10 then 12 (I was born in 1987)

when did it change back to a 10, and for what reason, then why back to a 12 what Ican only assume was 7 or 8 years after :confused:

[Hibee87]

P.s I never realised form my earlier posts clubs could be saved from relegation, I though in the past it still happened.

So i re jig my thought process and say either top 2 up no relegation, or top spot goes up 3rd v 4th in champ play 2 legs then winner player 2nd for promotion in play off......but whatever is the most confusing scenario for the SPFL to decide upon it will most likely be

[KeithTheHibby]

Where is the sporting integrity when the rules of promotion are changed half way during a season? Total nonsense.

If it is done by voting of the member clubs I don't see the issue.

[Smartie]

If it is done by voting of the member clubs I don't see the issue.

I think it's cheating the fans tbh.

I bought my season ticket for a scrap between us and The Rangers for the title, knowing that coming second could have a seriously negative impact on that club.

It's exciting, a lot more so than scrambling about trying to get into the top 6 of the Premier League.

I (paying punter, season ticket holder, CUSTOMER) don't want to see the goal posts moved halfway through a season. When the first ball is kicked you all know what you're playing for and that shouldn't be changed.

If they want to announce a change now for season 2017-2018 then that's fine, they can do that up to this summer.

But they shouldn't mess about with it for next season.

[Blaster]

I think it's cheating the fans tbh.

I bought my season ticket for a scrap between us and The Rangers for the title, knowing that coming second could have a seriously negative impact on that club.

It's exciting, a lot more so than scrambling about trying to get into the top 6 of the Premier League.

I (paying punter, season ticket holder, CUSTOMER) don't want to see the goal posts moved halfway through a season. When the first ball is kicked you all know what you're playing for and that shouldn't be changed.

If they want to announce a change now for season 2017-2018 then that's fine, they can do that up to this summer.

But they shouldn't mess about with it for next season.

I'd rather hibs were in the top league irrespective of how we get there

Imagine another season in this league. Sorry but I'll just take being back in the top league by whatever means

[J-C]

At this stage I couldn't care less about Rangers and who wins the league if there is a chance of reconstruction and we're up there next season. Getting back to SPFL is our only goal however we achieve it.

[Dan Sarf]

While they are at it (literally) why not change the system so everyone gets into Europe, everyone gets promoted, no-one is relegated, every player gets a Player of the Month award, free beer for the fans, etc? Why didn't they think of this before?

:confused:

[JimBHibees]

If it is done by voting of the member clubs I don't see the issue.

The issue is that it is changing the rules half way during the season. If they wanted reconstruction they should have done it before the season started.
Farce.

[JimBHibees]

I think it's cheating the fans tbh.

I bought my season ticket for a scrap between us and The Rangers for the title, knowing that coming second could have a seriously negative impact on that club.

It's exciting, a lot more so than scrambling about trying to get into the top 6 of the Premier League.

I (paying punter, season ticket holder, CUSTOMER) don't want to see the goal posts moved halfway through a season. When the first ball is kicked you all know what you're playing for and that shouldn't be changed.

If they want to announce a change now for season 2017-2018 then that's fine, they can do that up to this summer.

But they shouldn't mess about with it for next season.

Absolutely spot on.

[Bristolhibby]

I would be very uncomfortable with that.

The season started on the premise that 3 teams would be involved in the play-offs at the top end, and teams act accordingly. That's what the rules were, and still are. They can't be altered part-way through.

How about then?

1st up automatically

3rd plays 4th, winner of this tie plays 2nd for promotion.

J

[Bristolhibby]

I'd rather hibs were in the top league irrespective of how we get there

Imagine another season in this league. Sorry but I'll just take being back in the top league by whatever means

This.

As Homer Simpson said "Default - The two sweetest words in the English Language".

J

[Geo_1875]

I think this has been on the go since early summer. When TRFC beat us 6-2 in the Petrofac cup and opened up a seemingly insurmountable lead in the Championship Doncaster put it in the back of his drawer. Since we have pulled them back to 3 points and are going well panic has set in and the plans are being put in place.

[greenginger]

How about 1st and 2nd promoted , bottom of Prem. plays winner of 3rd and 4th places for place in top league.

[Geo_1875]

How about then?

1st up automatically

3rd plays 4th, winner of this tie plays 2nd for promotion.

J

Why should the bottom premier team(s) avoid relegation?

[StevieC]

If they want to announce a change now for season 2017-2018 then that's fine, they can do that up to this summer.
But they shouldn't mess about with it for next season.

The problem is that the only reason they are talking about a bigger league is to ensure Sevco have a better chance of getting in it. If we wait, and Sevco get promoted in the meantime, then you can bet your bottom dollar that any talk of league expansion will be instantly shelved.
The best time to push a bigger leagie through, and I think it's what we the fans want, is to do it now while the SPFL are flapping about Sevco having to spend another season in the Championship.

I agree with the other posts though, 3rd and 4th have to be given the opportunity to gain promotion. Ideally it should be involving the 2nd/3rd/4th teams, but even if it's 3rd/4th v 10th it's still better odds than what was on offer at the start of the season.

EDIT: I should add that the format for a 14 team league has to take into account season ticket sales.
How could you sell a season ticket not knowing if it were for 18 or 20 games?

[Bristolhibby]

Why should the bottom premier team(s) avoid relegation?

Because that's what happened in 2000ish when Aberdeen got "saved" so there's a precedence.

However, failing that we could have.

One and two up.

3rd plays 4th, to then play 12th in the Premier for promotion/sustainment.

Quite frankly I actually favour that as at worst we would go up automatically as 2nd.

J

[Jim44]

How about 1st and 2nd promoted , bottom of Prem. plays winner of 3rd and 4th places for place in top league.

That sounds about the fairest and most sensible solution.

[Onion]

I think it's cheating the fans tbh.

I bought my season ticket for a scrap between us and The Rangers for the title, knowing that coming second could have a seriously negative impact on that club.

It's exciting, a lot more so than scrambling about trying to get into the top 6 of the Premier League.

I (paying punter, season ticket holder, CUSTOMER) don't want to see the goal posts moved halfway through a season. When the first ball is kicked you all know what you're playing for and that shouldn't be changed.

If they want to announce a change now for season 2017-2018 then that's fine, they can do that up to this summer.

But they shouldn't mess about with it for next season.


Have a lot of sympathy with this view. If these changes are being indecently rushed through for next season then it is the most contrived change since Reagan and Doncaster tried to put The Rangers straight into the Championship. Why don't they just do the honest thing and WAIT to see if The Rangers (and Hibs) get promoted through the agreed format and then announce the change if it's still necessary. Would this be under consideration if Hibs had not caught Sevco ? Probably not.

If Reagan and Doncaster come out publicly and say they're reconstructing the league so that Hibs and The Rangers are guaranteed a place, then ok. Let's be honest about it. But this is 100% just another piece of rule changing to appease the Old Firm, West Coast media and sponsors. Our game is a joke, run by clowns.

[JimBHibees]

Because that's what happened in 2000ish when Aberdeen got "saved" so there's a precedence.

However, failing that we could have.

One and two up.

3rd plays 4th, to then play 12th in the Premier for promotion/sustainment.

Quite frankly I actually favour that as at worst we would go up automatically as 2nd.

J

They were saved as far as I remember becuaase there was a stadium criteria which was clearly outlined which the top team in the second division couldnt meet (Falkrk?). As far as I know the rules were not changed mid-season.

[blackpoolhibs]

The problem is that the only reason they are talking about a bigger league is to ensure Sevco have a better chance of getting in it. If we wait, and Sevco get promoted in the meantime, then you can bet your bottom dollar that any talk of league expansion will be instantly shelved.
The best time to push a bigger leagie through, and I think it's what we the fans want, is to do it now while the SPFL are flapping about Sevco having to spend another season in the Championship.

I agree with the other posts though, 3rd and 4th have to be given the opportunity to gain promotion. Ideally it should be involving the 2nd/3rd/4th teams, but even if it's 3rd/4th v 10th it's still better odds than what was on offer at the start of the season.

EDIT: I should add that the format for a 14 team league has to take into account season ticket sales.
How could you sell a season ticket not knowing if it were for 18 or 20 games?

Yip, this is probably where i am on this. I would like to get up automatically this season by winning the league, but the more it looks like sevco will win it, the more chance this will disappear never to be seen again. :agree:

[Bristolhibby]

They were saved as far as I remember becuaase there was a stadium criteria which was clearly outlined which the top team in the second division couldnt meet (Falkrk?). As far as I know the rules were not changed mid-season.

That season gets even more madder. From Wiki -

"As the SPL was being expanded to 12 teams, the bottom finishing side were to face the second and third finishing sides from the first division, in a three team play-off. However, due to Falkirk's stadium not meeting SPL requirements, the playoff did not take place with Dunfermline being promoted automatically from second position".

So the Pars went up automatically, Aberdeen did get saved from a playoff and poor 3rd in the first division, didnt enter into the playoff as they thought (edit, this was Falkirk).

So basacially Scottish football can make it up as they go along.

J

[Jim44]

Yip, this is probably where i am on this. I would like to get up automatically this season by winning the league, but the more it looks like sevco will win it, the more chance this will disappear never to be seen again. :agree:

All the more reason for making the decision now that, irrespective of the means and format, reconstruction will definitely happen for next season.

[blackpoolhibs]

All the more reason for making the decision now that, irrespective of the means and format, reconstruction will definitely happen for next season.

Aye thats seems fair enough. :agree:

[Nutmegged]

This might result in several lowly placed teams in the top division voting against the scheme . Wouldn't they just abandon relegation and promotion and adjust the leagues from the final positions? Of course this wouldn't suit the teams finishing just outside top two in the Championship. You can't please everyone tho'.

If it happens then I can see relegation being scraped this Season in the Premiership then the Winners of the Championship would become the 13th club and then the winner of the Championship Play-Off would become the 14th Club

If this happens though I think the SPFL will want to keep a lid on this for as long as possible, what incentive would there be for fans, TV or Media if there is absolutely no consequence to finishing bottom or 2nd bottom

[Jim44]

If it happens then I can see relegation being scraped this Season in the Premiership then the Winners of the Championship would become the 13th club and then the winner of the Championship Play-Off would become the 14th Club

If this happens though I think the SPFL will want to keep a lid on this for as long as possible, what incentive would there be for fans, TV or Media if there is absolutely no consequence to finishing bottom or 2nd bottom

I agree with the first paragraph, but, if they want to keep a lid on it, why has Doncaster raised the subject just now?

[Nutmegged]

I agree with the first paragraph, but, if they want to keep a lid on it, why has Doncaster raised the subject just now?

Put it out there, bury it then use this date as a reference come April

[ScottB]

I don't really get the proposed split:

You get a top 6 competing for the title / Europe, whatever.

A bottom 4 competing to avoid relegation / playoffs.

Then a middle 4, who are competing for what, exactly? May as well pack up! Granted the current bottom 6 can be somewhat meaningless depending on how far ahead the clubs are of each other, but still.

You also get an inconsistent number of games, how does that affect season ticket prices?


It's a rather frustrating concept, really. I don't know how it can be thought of as innovative either, it's just a more awkward version of what we have now, indeed, alongside the League Cup changes, it's making things worse, raising the possibility of some teams playing each other 6 times a season, or more! The Cup changes would have made sense alongside a 16 or 18 team league, while safe guarding the number of Derby matches for the clubs / broadcasters.

Personally, I think two leagues of 18 would do it. There's enough decent, or potentially decent clubs in the Championship who could compete in the top league, while still leaving a few behind for the new lower division, with a regional pyramid underneath.

[Monts]

I don't really get the proposed split:

You get a top 6 competing for the title / Europe, whatever.

A bottom 4 competing to avoid relegation / playoffs.

Then a middle 4, who are competing for what, exactly? May as well pack up! Granted the current bottom 6 can be somewhat meaningless depending on how far ahead the clubs are of each other, but still.

You also get an inconsistent number of games, how does that affect season ticket prices?


It's a rather frustrating concept, really. I don't know how it can be thought of as innovative either, it's just a more awkward version of what we have now, indeed, alongside the League Cup changes, it's making things worse, raising the possibility of some teams playing each other 6 times a season, or more! The Cup changes would have made sense alongside a 16 or 18 team league, while safe guarding the number of Derby matches for the clubs / broadcasters.

Personally, I think two leagues of 18 would do it. There's enough decent, or potentially decent clubs in the Championship who could compete in the top league, while still leaving a few behind for the new lower division, with a regional pyramid underneath.

It's not a middle 4. It's 7th 10th 11th and 14th in one group and the rest in the second group. Then the winners and losers from those groups play for relegation or not.

[CallumLaidlaw]

I don't really get the proposed split:

You get a top 6 competing for the title / Europe, whatever.

A bottom 4 competing to avoid relegation / playoffs.

Then a middle 4, who are competing for what, exactly? May as well pack up! Granted the current bottom 6 can be somewhat meaningless depending on how far ahead the clubs are of each other, but still.

You also get an inconsistent number of games, how does that affect season ticket prices?


It's a rather frustrating concept, really. I don't know how it can be thought of as innovative either, it's just a more awkward version of what we have now, indeed, alongside the League Cup changes, it's making things worse, raising the possibility of some teams playing each other 6 times a season, or more! The Cup changes would have made sense alongside a 16 or 18 team league, while safe guarding the number of Derby matches for the clubs / broadcasters.

Personally, I think two leagues of 18 would do it. There's enough decent, or potentially decent clubs in the Championship who could compete in the top league, while still leaving a few behind for the new lower division, with a regional pyramid underneath.



I have always felt 18-12-12 with a revamped league cup that guaranteed more games was the way forward.

34 league games then a guaranteed 4 league cup games :aok:

Maybe the feeling is there wouldnt be enough strong teams in the 2nd tier to compete once promoted to the top tier. But surely to best way to make teams stronger is by giving them some of the cash from being a top flight club.

I certainly think Hibs, Rangers, Falkirk, Raith, QotS, and Morton would give the teams in the bottom end of the premier league, a regular game.

Ok, that would then leave Dumbarton, Alloa, Livingston, St Mirren as the top championship teams, but St Mirren and Livvy have both spent good spells in the top league, and then there's Dunfermline who have been in the top league recently.

[snooky]

The split is sht :dead:

[greenlex]

If teams still have the ability to play each other 4 times on league business its not worth the chamge. The chancve of teams playing each other 7 or even 8 times a season without a replay in sight is just ****ing mental.

[chippy]

I have always felt 18-12-12 with a revamped league cup that guaranteed more games was the way forward.

34 league games then a guaranteed 4 league cup games :aok:

Maybe the feeling is there wouldnt be enough strong teams in the 2nd tier to compete once promoted to the top tier. But surely to best way to make teams stronger is by giving them some of the cash from being a top flight club.

I certainly think Hibs, Rangers, Falkirk, Raith, QotS, and Morton would give the teams in the bottom end of the premier league, a regular game.

Ok, that would then leave Dumbarton, Alloa, Livingston, St Mirren as the top championship teams, but St Mirren and Livvy have both spent good spells in the top league, and then there's Dunfermline who have been in the top league recently.

As was discussed on the earlier league reconstruction site a week or so ago. None of us are going to get all we want. Yes ideally I would like a straightforward 16 or 18 team league, but it will not happen due to lack of games , or 16/18 weakening too much the championship. A 14 as floated by Doncaster or a 16 also with splits is the only way the power brokers .i.e old firm, new firm, Edinburgh clubs plus TV will swallow a bigger league. I'm much keener on a 16 Belgian model as it protects clubs like ours and others from too much fear factor and stops us playing Scots youngsters. But if it's the 14 with splits I would accept it as a compromise rather than status quo- it could be seen as step to a 16 in a few years. I like the idea of the lower 8 split into 2 sections and a mini league then play off for the final Euro slot. But I dislike it in the 14 model as it makes teams the bottom 8 all vulnerable to relegation and therefore reliance on lower league English plodders rather that young talented and potentially valuable scots. Better to do it a bit like the Belgians but with a Scots twist. If A
16; top 4 play off for title and 2 euro slots, middle 8 split as above into 2 sections and winners of play off a and b contest the 4th euro slot with the 4th placed club it the top 4 section. A bit unfair on the 4th team but hey ho makes the whole season exciting. Oh and the bottom 4 have a mini league to decide 2 delegations slots. All points carry forward except for the middle 8 sectional games. This reduces the fear. The bottom 2 can have no excuses and 2 clubs get promoted , with the relegated clubs having a reasonable chance of coming back in a season or 2. If it's a 14 I would rather have a top 6 as floated and a bottom 8 but the bottom 8 just continue playing in an 8 team league and end up with 40 games. The winner of the 8 gets to play of with 4th for the euro slot and the bottom 2 get relegated directly. This keeps some fluidity and hope of getting back up. But all in all i would accept then Danish Girl model as proposed by Doncaster if that's only what the suits are offering. They do want 4 old firm games , Edinburgh and Dundee and North East derbies- we all need this for Scots football to improve but hopefully in a way that improves chances of more Scots youth.

[Renfrew_Hibby]

Whatever happened to this idea which was floated, I quite liked it.
2 divisions of 12 and then 2 divisions of 10, So 42 team set up.
The top two leagues have 2 rounds of fixtures and then merge into 3 groups of 8 teams. Top 8 play for title and euro places, middle 8 are playing to either stay up or get up and bottom 8 to avoid relegation to the bottom 2 regionalized leagues of 10.
They would be north/east and south/west split and the bottom team relegated into the lowland/highland leagues.

[Renfrew_Hibby]

44 team set up!

[Onion]

I have always felt 18-12-12 with a revamped league cup that guaranteed more games was the way forward.

34 league games then a guaranteed 4 league cup games :aok:

Maybe the feeling is there wouldnt be enough strong teams in the 2nd tier to compete once promoted to the top tier. But surely to best way to make teams stronger is by giving them some of the cash from being a top flight club.

I certainly think Hibs, Rangers, Falkirk, Raith, QotS, and Morton would give the teams in the bottom end of the premier league, a regular game.

Ok, that would then leave Dumbarton, Alloa, Livingston, St Mirren as the top championship teams, but St Mirren and Livvy have both spent good spells in the top league, and then there's Dunfermline who have been in the top league recently.

An 18 team top league and group stages for the League Cup ? Back to the 70's :greengrin

[CallumLaidlaw]

An 18 team top league and group stages for the League Cup ? Back to the 70's :greengrin

Ach well it would be new to those of us born in the 80's and onwards [emoji6]

[offshorehibby]

Whatever happened to this idea which was floated, I quite liked it.
2 divisions of 12 and then 2 divisions of 10, So 42 team set up.
The top two leagues have 2 rounds of fixtures and then merge into 3 groups of 8 teams. Top 8 play for title and euro places, middle 8 are playing to either stay up or get up and bottom 8 to avoid relegation to the bottom 2 regionalized leagues of 10.
They would be north/east and south/west split and the bottom team relegated into the lowland/highland leagues.

Ideally a 16 or 18 but i always fancied the above. would far rather have that than this stupid Danish idea getting touted.

[Keith_M]

The split is sht :dead:


This.


Should just change to a 16 team league, 15 home and 15 away matches. The change to the League Cup will make up for the lost League Games.

[CropleyWasGod]

This.


Should just change to a 16 team league, 15 home and 15 away matches. The change to the League Cup will make up for the lost League Games.

It won't.

15 league games, plus 2 LC = 17.

Currently it's 19.

[jodjam]

Heard from a good source the tv deal is reduced without the 4 old firm league games. Going to 14 teams gives the league the best chance to achieve this. Decisions will always be made in our game to favour them

[bingo70]

Heard from a good source the tv deal is reduced without the 4 old firm league games. Going to 14 teams gives the league the best chance to achieve this. Decisions will always be made in our game to favour them

Surely if the TV deal is the motivator as you're suggesting then the decision is being made to benefit everyone and not just them? Your post contradicts itself a bit imo

[Bristolhibby]

Heard from a good source the tv deal is reduced without the 4 old firm league games. Going to 14 teams gives the league the best chance to achieve this. Decisions will always be made in our game to favour them

So Scottish football could wait out to see if the zombies go up, however the risk to their revenue stream is they don't.

Or they act now and barraring a massive collapse guarantee OF games next season with reconstructing.

J

[jodjam]

Surely if the TV deal is the motivator as you're suggesting then the decision is being made to benefit everyone and not just them? Your post contradicts itself a bit imo

Yeah maybe didn't word it right. If my info is right the point i was making was that decisions may be getting made to fit in 4 OF games. I agree that league expansion is needed and if hibs benefit then I'm happy

[Onion]

Yeah maybe didn't word it right. If my info is right the point i was making was that decisions may be getting made to fit in 4 OF games. I agree that league expansion is needed and if hibs benefit then I'm happy

Sevco are a basket case of a club, a poor football side, struggling to win the second tier and regularly get turned over by mid-table Prem sides. Sure Celtic are worried about playing that lot 4 times a season !

[jodjam]

Sevco are a basket case of a club, a poor football side, struggling to win the second tier and regularly get turned over by mid-table Prem sides. Sure Celtic are worried about playing that lot 4 times a season !

Celtc won't be worried but will welcome them back

[GreenCastle]

Will be amazed if they announce this midseason.

I can possibly see it being announced at the end of the season so at the start of the 2016-2017, so you know at the end of that season whats happening (at that point Hibs and or Sevco could already be in the SPFL).

Though I am sure a vote by the clubs needs to take place to allow this to happen.

If the game in Scotland continues to be influenced by the Old Firm and playing each other x4 a season the game will continue to die.

Fresh challenge for the league title and getting rid of playing teams 4,5,6 or 7 times a season is a nonsense.

[ScottB]

I mean, if they are insisting on 'innovation' being the way forward, why not go nuts.

An NFL style approach, North, East, South and West Divisions, however many teams, play each other twice, so for example in the East Division you'd have us, Hearts and the Dundee clubs fighting for the divisional title, meaning there's something there to actually win, could throw in games against teams from other divisions, like the NFL does if you really want to, then when those divisions are done, switch to national play offs that will slowly whittle down to a head to head match for the national title?

Not necessarily saying that's what I'd do, but if you're going to claim to innovate, complicating what we have now or copying the Danish isn't innovative...

[Eyrie]

Whatever happened to this idea which was floated, I quite liked it.
2 divisions of 12 and then 2 divisions of 10, So 42 team set up.
The top two leagues have 2 rounds of fixtures and then merge into 3 groups of 8 teams. Top 8 play for title and euro places, middle 8 are playing to either stay up or get up and bottom 8 to avoid relegation to the bottom 2 regionalized leagues of 10.
They would be north/east and south/west split and the bottom team relegated into the lowland/highland leagues.
It was too sensible to get support.

[Alfred E Newman]

That sounds about the fairest and most sensible solution.

That's the problem Jim. Too sensible.

[jacomo]

It was too sensible to get support.

Is it sensible? You end up with many teams still playing 4 games against each other in the League, but via a much more convoluted set up.

[jacomo]

It won't.

15 league games, plus 2 LC = 17.

Currently it's 19.

But if - and it's a big if - a revamped league leads to more interest and improved attendances to each match day, is this necessarily a problem?

It would also give room for a mid winter break, which might be nice.

[CropleyWasGod]

But if - and it's a big if - a revamped league leads to more interest and improved attendances to each match day, is this necessarily a problem?

It would also give room for a mid winter break, which might be nice.
Of course not. Would be nice if it did.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

[Stax]

I mean, if they are insisting on 'innovation' being the way forward, why not go nuts.

An NFL style approach, North, East, South and West Divisions, however many teams, play each other twice, so for example in the East Division you'd have us, Hearts and the Dundee clubs fighting for the divisional title, meaning there's something there to actually win, could throw in games against teams from other divisions, like the NFL does if you really want to, then when those divisions are done, switch to national play offs that will slowly whittle down to a head to head match for the national title?

Not necessarily saying that's what I'd do, but if you're going to claim to innovate, complicating what we have now or copying the Danish isn't innovative...
Cracking post. A bit left field and tbh I had a wee chuckle when I read it first time. But do you know what? The more I read it I came to the conclusion I can't come up with anything better.

[ScottB]

Cracking post. A bit left field and tbh I had a wee chuckle when I read it first time. But do you know what? The more I read it I came to the conclusion I can't come up with anything better.

Cheers! I was pretty similar as I thought it up, but it would give certainly most of the bigger clubs a realistic chance of winning 'something' each season and a play off approach would throw up non Old Firm champions, which sadly probably makes it a non starter...

[Sir David Gray]

14. The only number of teams that could make the league worse than it currently is.

Except any odd number of course.

:agree: Not supportive of that at all.

Why is it so difficult to make it an 18 team league?

[Bristolhibby]

Cheers! I was pretty similar as I thought it up, but it would give certainly most of the bigger clubs a realistic chance of winning 'something' each season and a play off approach would throw up non Old Firm champions, which sadly probably makes it a non starter...

It would kill the Cup dead, as the Super Bowl final would be the big showpiece in May.

J

[Jim44]

:agree: Not supportive of that at all.

Why is it so difficult to make it an 18 team league?

Probably because it wouldn't generate enough of the commodity which underpins everything ........... money for the big boys, that being Celtic, Rangers and the TV companies.

[NAE NOOKIE]

It would kill the Cup dead, as the Super Bowl final would be the big showpiece in May.

J

The Porridge bowl :greengrin

[NAE NOOKIE]

I still think the answer to our problem would be to invite the 4 or 6 biggest clubs in Eire to join the Scottish league. That would definitely give us scope for an 18 or 20 team top division.

We could circumvent travel problems by changing to summer football and reaching a sponsorship deal with the airlines and ferry companies ... free travel for clubs in exchange for advertising. The population of Dublin, Cork and Limerick combined is roughly 1,500,000 people ... that's a hell of a big demographic to add to what we already have to help attract better sponsorship and TV deals.

Even though the best supported club only averages about 4,000 perhaps the thought of a new venture might galvanise some new enthusiasm for the game in Ireland. 4 or 6 clubs added to our league with the potential to have supports of up to 10,000 or more at their home games would be a real shot in the arm.

I agree that its a long shot, but I don't see why some market research into the subject couldn't be conducted.

Ask the clubs, ask the fans, ask the TV companies, ask the sponsors ... if the results are negative what have we lost?

[worcesterhibby]

This might result in several lowly placed teams in the top division voting against the scheme . Wouldn't they just abandon relegation and promotion and adjust the leagues from the final positions? Of course this wouldn't suit the teams finishing just outside top two in the Championship. You can't please everyone tho'.

I don't see how you can start the season by saying those that come 2nd 3rd and 4th in the Championship will all have a chance of promotion via the play-offs and then take that chance away half way through the season. It would have to be 2 up, and the 3rd and 4th place play for a play off spot..unless no one is relegated and the teams that come 2nd 3rd and 4th in the championship play off amongst themselves for the 2nd promotion spot.

[StevieC]

I still think the answer to our problem would be to invite the 4 or 6 biggest clubs in Eire to join the Scottish league.

:eek:

Now there's a huge can of worms right there!!!

[HibbyKeith]

I don't see how you can start the season by saying those that come 2nd 3rd and 4th in the Championship will all have a chance of promotion via the play-offs and then take that chance away half way through the season. It would have to be 2 up, and the 3rd and 4th place play for a play off spot..unless no one is relegated and the teams that come 2nd 3rd and 4th in the championship play off amongst themselves for the 2nd promotion spot.

I really don't think they can stop relegation. it's too unfair to the teams in the championship, not to mention a kick in the teeth to fans who purchased season tickets looking at an exciting end to a season with a real possibility of promotion.

I also can't see the team that looks likely to finish bottom not agreeing with a proposal that allowed them a chance at a play off game to stay up. The alternative for them is automatic relegation. 2nd bottom will dodge a bullet and remain in the top flight without a play off match and 3rd & 4th in the championship will have 1 tie less to negotiate having not had to play 2nd spot for the right to play the spfl playoff match, while in turn 2nd in the championship will be delighted at not having any play off games at all. It's really a win win win scenario or all the club's that would be involved.

[NAE NOOKIE]

:eek:

Now there's a huge can of worms right there!!!

I don't see why it has to be. The only fly in the ointment is The Rangers and in this day and age there has to be a way to spike their knuckle dragging guns.

UEFA might not approve, but just say the magic words Jean-Marc Bosman and watch them slink back into the shadows. Anyway, there's already a precedent:

Berwick Rangers, an English club, play in Scotland. Monaco play in the French league. Several Welsh clubs play in England. Derry City, a N Irish club, play in Eire. At world level there are Canadian clubs in MLS an American league.

All I'm suggesting is that it would be worth looking at to see if it would be viable. Perhaps within a time frame of 5 years to allow time for the Irish clubs to raise enough finance to go full time and make ground improvements etc.

The attitude of 'we cant do this its impossible' has cursed Scottish football for years .... Whats wrong with thinking big for a change. I'm sure Barry Hearn would approve :greengrin

[jacomo]

I still think the answer to our problem would be to invite the 4 or 6 biggest clubs in Eire to join the Scottish league. That would definitely give us scope for an 18 or 20 team top division.

We could circumvent travel problems by changing to summer football and reaching a sponsorship deal with the airlines and ferry companies ... free travel for clubs in exchange for advertising. The population of Dublin, Cork and Limerick combined is roughly 1,500,000 people ... that's a hell of a big demographic to add to what we already have to help attract better sponsorship and TV deals.

Even though the best supported club only averages about 4,000 perhaps the thought of a new venture might galvanise some new enthusiasm for the game in Ireland. 4 or 6 clubs added to our league with the potential to have supports of up to 10,000 or more at their home games would be a real shot in the arm.

I agree that its a long shot, but I don't see why some market research into the subject couldn't be conducted.

Ask the clubs, ask the fans, ask the TV companies, ask the sponsors ... if the results are negative what have we lost?

Except that:

1. IMO will hasten our demise as a footballing nation. And be unpopular with fans.
2. Any kind of travel sponsorship could negatively affect income from other sponsorships - this is not free money.
3. Large proportion of Ireland's population support English clubs and wouldn't be interested.

[blackpoolhibs]

Inviting the Irish in is a no goer, if we allow cross border football, then the bigots would demand a move to England.

[Pete]

There's only one appropriate name for a joint Irish/Scottish set up.

The Celtic league.

[Jim44]

Inviting the Irish in is a no goer, if we allow cross border football, then the bigots would demand a move to England.

What's the problem with that?

[NAE NOOKIE]

What's the problem with that?

:agree:

[hibs0666]

I still think the answer to our problem would be to invite the 4 or 6 biggest clubs in Eire to join the Scottish league. That would definitely give us scope for an 18 or 20 team top division.

We could circumvent travel problems by changing to summer football and reaching a sponsorship deal with the airlines and ferry companies ... free travel for clubs in exchange for advertising. The population of Dublin, Cork and Limerick combined is roughly 1,500,000 people ... that's a hell of a big demographic to add to what we already have to help attract better sponsorship and TV deals.

Even though the best supported club only averages about 4,000 perhaps the thought of a new venture might galvanise some new enthusiasm for the game in Ireland. 4 or 6 clubs added to our league with the potential to have supports of up to 10,000 or more at their home games would be a real shot in the arm.

I agree that its a long shot, but I don't see why some market research into the subject couldn't be conducted.

Ask the clubs, ask the fans, ask the TV companies, ask the sponsors ... if the results are negative what have we lost?

The better answer is to merge with the English pyramid, especially now that the uncertainty that did exist around independence is removed.

[hhibs]

The better answer is to merge with the English pyramid, especially now that the uncertainty that did exist around independence is removed.

Aye,that will be right...............

[NAE NOOKIE]

Except that:

1. IMO will hasten our demise as a footballing nation. And be unpopular with fans.
2. Any kind of travel sponsorship could negatively affect income from other sponsorships - this is not free money.
3. Large proportion of Ireland's population support English clubs and wouldn't be interested.

1 ..... Why should it hasten our demise as a football nation? If we got to the stage where the Irish clubs were bringing a strong challenge to the league surely that would improve the standard. Also, if it brought about an 18 team league with a bigger variety of clubs, why would it be unpopular, is that not what most of us would ideally like to see?

2 ..... The only way travel sponsorship would be affected would be if there was a clash with a club already sponsored by an airline or ferry company. At the moment the league is sponsored by a bookie, I doubt it would cause a problem with them or other sponsors if for example Ryan Air were league travel sponsor. As I alluded to in my post, surely adding the Irish interest would bring in more sponsorship and TV money etc, the population of the Irish republic is only about half a million less than Scotland.

3 ..... Look at the crowds that turn out to watch the Irish national team. I agree that a large number of Irish people follow English football, but how many of them can physically follow these clubs on a weekly basis? Perhaps having their own clubs to follow in their own cities playing in a bigger league than at the moment with ( hopefully ) better players and wider more exciting media coverage would galvanise bigger crowds for the likes of Cork City or Bohemians etc. Hell, over a million people live in Dublin, is it so much of a stretch to hope that two Dublin clubs playing in a Scottish / Irish league could attract crowds of 10,000 or so each? ...... and hopefully over time a lot more.

For all I know what you say may be bang on ..... all I am saying is why not do a bit of market research aimed at all interested parties and test the water.

[erin go bragh]

Sevco fans were bad enough in Manchester . Can you imagine them in Ireland !

GGTTH

[ChicagoHibee]

I mean, if they are insisting on 'innovation' being the way forward, why not go nuts.

An NFL style approach, North, East, South and West Divisions, however many teams, play each other twice, so for example in the East Division you'd have us, Hearts and the Dundee clubs fighting for the divisional title, meaning there's something there to actually win, could throw in games against teams from other divisions, like the NFL does if you really want to, then when those divisions are done, switch to national play offs that will slowly whittle down to a head to head match for the national title?

Not necessarily saying that's what I'd do, but if you're going to claim to innovate, complicating what we have now or copying the Danish isn't innovative...


This is so insane.......I love it!

[GreenCastle]

Zero possibility that the Scottish and English leagues will ever merge.

They don't need Celtic, Rangers or anyone else.

Unfortunately we are stuck with them forever :rolleyes:

Irish leagues...I don't think it would add anything to the Scottish game except added travel costs for clubs and potential for trouble (sadly).

[Moulin Yarns]

1 ..... Why should it hasten our demise as a football nation? If we got to the stage where the Irish clubs were bringing a strong challenge to the league surely that would improve the standard. Also, if it brought about an 18 team league with a bigger variety of clubs, why would it be unpopular, is that not what most of us would ideally like to see?

2 ..... The only way travel sponsorship would be affected would be if there was a clash with a club already sponsored by an airline or ferry company. At the moment the league is sponsored by a bookie, I doubt it would cause a problem with them or other sponsors if for example Ryan Air were league travel sponsor. As I alluded to in my post, surely adding the Irish interest would bring in more sponsorship and TV money etc, the population of the Irish republic is only about half a million less than Scotland.

3 ..... Look at the crowds that turn out to watch the Irish national team. I agree that a large number of Irish people follow English football, but how many of them can physically follow these clubs on a weekly basis? Perhaps having their own clubs to follow in their own cities playing in a bigger league than at the moment with ( hopefully ) better players and wider more exciting media coverage would galvanise bigger crowds for the likes of Cork City or Bohemians etc. Hell, over a million people live in Dublin, is it so much of a stretch to hope that two Dublin clubs playing in a Scottish / Irish league could attract crowds of 10,000 or so each? ...... and hopefully over time a lot more.

For all I know what you say may be bang on ..... all I am saying is why not do a bit of market research aimed at all interested parties and test the water.


I passed the Bohemians ground last month, capacity 4,300. Due to be redeveloped as an all purpose sports centre. I also saw Glentoran's ground, capacity 5,500 so to expect large crowds is just not going to happen.

[Jim44]

Alan Stubbs says he is in favour of reconstruction, while still intending to get Hibs back to the Premiership by winning the league, but, like Warburton, has reservations about the effect that reconstruction and a revamped League Cup will have on pre season preparation.

[J-C]

Alan Stubbs says he is in favour of reconstruction, while still intending to get Hibs back to the Premiership by winning the league, but, like Warburton, has reservations about the effect that reconstruction and a revamped League Cup will have on pre season preparation.


Reconstruction makes for a short gap between seasons but if we're having a month long break in the winter, then players can recharge the batteries and get family holidays then.

[Jim44]

Reconstruction makes for a short gap between seasons but if we're having a month long break in the winter, then players can recharge the batteries and get family holidays then.

I read that they are talking about two weeks winter break.

[NAE NOOKIE]

I passed the Bohemians ground last month, capacity 4,300. Due to be redeveloped as an all purpose sports centre. I also saw Glentoran's ground, capacity 5,500 so to expect large crowds is just not going to happen.

Glentoran are a Northern Irish club, so not a factor in this, though I know what you mean.

This is why I'm talking about a study being made into the possibility of all this. If everybody from the local authorities to potential backers, sponsors and TV companies like SKY, BT, BBC and RTE and of course the fans were consulted perhaps the results would be positive. The immediate affect of this coming to pass is TV and sponsors having a potential audience of 10 million rather than 5 million, I fail to see the downside of that.

If studies found that the concept was viable surely the will and money could be found to upgrade the stadiums to a required standard and capacity. As I recall, prior to the Taylor report the state of most Scottish stadiums makes what we have now look state of the art.

As I've freely said, the whole thing might be pie in the sky. But it might not, what's wrong with trying to find out?

[jacomo]

1 ..... Why should it hasten our demise as a football nation? If we got to the stage where the Irish clubs were bringing a strong challenge to the league surely that would improve the standard. Also, if it brought about an 18 team league with a bigger variety of clubs, why would it be unpopular, is that not what most of us would ideally like to see?

2 ..... The only way travel sponsorship would be affected would be if there was a clash with a club already sponsored by an airline or ferry company. At the moment the league is sponsored by a bookie, I doubt it would cause a problem with them or other sponsors if for example Ryan Air were league travel sponsor. As I alluded to in my post, surely adding the Irish interest would bring in more sponsorship and TV money etc, the population of the Irish republic is only about half a million less than Scotland.

3 ..... Look at the crowds that turn out to watch the Irish national team. I agree that a large number of Irish people follow English football, but how many of them can physically follow these clubs on a weekly basis? Perhaps having their own clubs to follow in their own cities playing in a bigger league than at the moment with ( hopefully ) better players and wider more exciting media coverage would galvanise bigger crowds for the likes of Cork City or Bohemians etc. Hell, over a million people live in Dublin, is it so much of a stretch to hope that two Dublin clubs playing in a Scottish / Irish league could attract crowds of 10,000 or so each? ...... and hopefully over time a lot more.

For all I know what you say may be bang on ..... all I am saying is why not do a bit of market research aimed at all interested parties and test the water.

Sponsorship is about what you've got to sell. Man Utd have been much mocked for splitting up all their properties by region and sector (so they now have, for example, an Official Asian Noodle Partner) but it has brought them a lot of income.

But - only because they have an in demand product. The EPL is popular on TV across Asia, and that attracts advertisers.

A Scottish / Irish League might succeed in getting extra money through an official travel sponsor for 1-3 years as a novelty, but my hunch is it would tail off again. I think there is a reason why the Irish don't get behind their own clubs in big numbers, and that is because Irish football is a backwater. There are good historical reasons for that, but the fact remains.

Why would Scottish football hitch itself to an even worse League? How would that lift our game? I'm afraid I just don't see it.

Now, a league involving the Netherlands, Belgium, Scandinavia? That is a different proposition. Big clubs and a good standard.

[NAE NOOKIE]

Sponsorship is about what you've got to sell. Man Utd have been much mocked for splitting up all their properties by region and sector (so they now have, for example, an Official Asian Noodle Partner) but it has brought them a lot of income.

But - only because they have an in demand product. The EPL is popular on TV across Asia, and that attracts advertisers.

A Scottish / Irish League might succeed in getting extra money through an official travel sponsor for 1-3 years as a novelty, but my hunch is it would tail off again. I think there is a reason why the Irish don't get behind their own clubs in big numbers, and that is because Irish football is a backwater. There are good historical reasons for that, but the fact remains.

Why would Scottish football hitch itself to an even worse League? How would that lift our game? I'm afraid I just don't see it.

Now, a league involving the Netherlands, Belgium, Scandinavia? That is a different proposition. Big clubs and a good standard.

Nobody is pretending any league structure we ended up with would be in the same ballpark as Man Utd or the EPL. I was pretty clear that my take on this was that the inclusion of the Irish clubs could be a way forward to a stronger, more diverse and better league which could be more attractive to fans and sponsors. I am not talking about a merger so much as inviting the 4 or 6 biggest clubs in Eire to join the Scottish set up, opening it up to a much bigger market and hopefully tapping into the potential of these clubs to be as well supported as Hibs, Dundee Utd or Aberdeen.

If Dundee Utd in a city of 140,000 with Dundee FC in the same street and in the same league can attract crowds of over 7,000 don't tell me that a team like St Patrick's athletic with perhaps Bohemians as league rivals in a city of over a million people couldn't easily top crowds of 10,000 in the right circumstances, or Bohemians do the same for that matter. Why does it have to follow that you cant take two relatively weak leagues and make them into something stronger bigger and better.

I'm not even talking about having a 'can do' attitude here, all I'm talking about is lets run it up the flag pole and see if anybody salutes it.

Two of the biggest shows on TV at the moment involve ballroom dancing and z list celebrities eating Cockroaches. Never say never eh! :greengrin

[Geo_1875]

Nobody is pretending any league structure we ended up with would be in the same ballpark as Man Utd or the EPL. I was pretty clear that my take on this was that the inclusion of the Irish clubs could be a way forward to a stronger, more diverse and better league which could be more attractive to fans and sponsors. I am not talking about a merger so much as inviting the 4 or 6 biggest clubs in Eire to join the Scottish set up, opening it up to a much bigger market and hopefully tapping into the potential of these clubs to be as well supported as Hibs, Dundee Utd or Aberdeen.

If Dundee Utd in a city of 140,000 with Dundee FC in the same street and in the same league can attract crowds of over 7,000 don't tell me that a team like St Patrick's athletic with perhaps Bohemians as league rivals in a city of over a million people couldn't easily top crowds of 10,000 in the right circumstances, or Bohemians do the same for that matter. Why does it have to follow that you cant take two relatively weak leagues and make them into something stronger bigger and better.

I'm not even talking about having a 'can do' attitude here, all I'm talking about is lets run it up the flag pole and see if anybody salutes it.

Two of the biggest shows on TV at the moment involve ballroom dancing and z list celebrities eating Cockroaches. Never say never eh! :greengrin

I think some folk would find it very expensive if not impossible to attend away games. Especially when you just know we'd get sent to the hardest to reach places for a 7:30 kick off on a cold miserable wet Tuesday night in February.

[J-C]

I read that they are talking about two weeks winter break.


I was just guessing as I've not read the whole proposal, even 2 weeks would be a nice break for the players then.

[The_Exile]

I don't take the view that travel is prohibitive, Newcastle travel to London around half a dozen times a year aswell as Southampton and Swansea etc, the only trouble is it's over the water for incorporating the Irish teams in so you'd likely need flights/ferry so not sure how feasible it all actually is or if fans with match tickets could get subsidised travel through sponsorship deals etc?

[Ozyhibby]

I'm not against the Irish teams except I don't think there is a single team over there bigger than Dunfermline.
I think we we would be better looking towards the Norwegians or Danes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Geo_1875]

I don't take the view that travel is prohibitive, Newcastle travel to London around half a dozen times a year aswell as Southampton and Swansea etc, the only trouble is it's over the water for incorporating the Irish teams in so you'd likely need flights/ferry so not sure how feasible it all actually is or if fans with match tickets could get subsidised travel through sponsorship deals etc?

And paid time off work......

[JeMeSouviens]

The better answer is to merge with the English pyramid, especially now that the uncertainty that did exist around independence is removed.

Take your point that it's certain we'll be independent, but the timing is still unknown.

On the merger, I actually agree with you. I think UEFA's (already softening) opposition to cross border leagues will be blown away when Catalunya becomes independent.

[greenpaper55]

Take your point that it's certain we'll be independent, but the timing is still unknown.

On the merger, I actually agree with you. I think UEFA's (already softening) opposition to cross border leagues will be blown away when Catalunya becomes independent.

Catalonian clubs have been told that in the event of independence that they would not be allowed in the Spanish league, like here it will never happen anyway !. Its madness to talk about welcoming Irish clubs into our league, this again will never happen as it is utter madness on all levels, we are trying to improve the product we have here instead of weakening it.

[greenlex]

I was just guessing as I've not read the whole proposal, even 2 weeks would be a nice break for the players then. Theyve just had that.:greengrin

[jgl07]

I read that they are talking about two weeks winter break.

A month's Winter break would mean playing through most of the summer.

Apart from World Cup years and European Championship years.

They tried it before and it didn't work. They scrapped it.

[Geo_1875]

A month's Winter break would mean playing through most of the summer.

Apart from World Cup years and European Championship years.

They tried it before and it didn't work. They scrapped it.

A months break would be fine but which month would they pick. If it's for weather any time between mid-November to Mid-March can be crap.

[Jim44]

A months break would be fine but which month would they pick. If it's for weather any time between mid-November to Mid-March can be crap.

The allocation of a one month winter break to avoid bad weather is a lottery. They possibly see it as a time when players can rest, have holidays etc (daft because kids are in school and it's illegal to take them out for holidays) and this would be in lieu of an earlier start to the season in summer. :dunno:

[Onion]

A months break would be fine but which month would they pick. If it's for weather any time between mid-November to Mid-March can be crap.

:agree: Every single year, when we have a little bit of bit of bad weather, there's an almighty outcry for a winter break as if somehow, magically the SPFL can predict the most effective time to have this 2 or 3 close-down.

Given their record of dealing with things they know about, I confidently predict that whatever dates the SPFL choose will NOT be the best weeks to close down and we'll still end up with masses of postponements and fixture cramming.

[Alfred E Newman]

The allocation of a one month winter break to avoid bad weather is a lottery. They possibly see it as a time when players can rest, have holidays etc (daft because kids are in school and it's illegal to take them out for holidays) and this would be in lieu of an earlier start to the season in summer. :dunno:

I notice Celtic were not keen on the two week break because it was not long enough. They should have added that it was not long enough for them to jet off to Florida or Australia to play lucrative friendlies while the rest of us twiddle our thumbs.

[NAE NOOKIE]

Catalonian clubs have been told that in the event of independence that they would not be allowed in the Spanish league, like here it will never happen anyway !. Its madness to talk about welcoming Irish clubs into our league, this again will never happen as it is utter madness on all levels, we are trying to improve the product we have here instead of weakening it.

The French prime minster is already on record saying Barcelona would be welcome to play in France.

I love how my idea is dismissed out of hand: How do you 'know' our football wouldn't get stronger over time if some Irish clubs joined? Perhaps you can point to an example from another area of business where doubling your customer base was described as 'madness'

Why is adding some new clubs as a way to an 18 or 20 team league at odds with a desire by a lot of fans to have just that. In my opinion the potential for growth of clubs in Dublin and Cork etc is a lot bigger than it is for clubs in Scottish cities.

We moan constantly about seeing the same teams all the time because of how small the league is, but we don't have ( and are never going to have ) enough clubs of the size of Dundee Utd, Hibs, Aberdeen, Hearts to make an 18 or 20 team league viable. Whereas at least three of the Irish teams have the potential to be at least that big in the right circumstances.

As for travelling to away games. Nobody is pretending that wouldn't be an issue, but there are a hell of a lot of leagues where the distance from Edinburgh to Dublin for example isn't even considered a long trip. In my view once the Irish clubs had proved that they could compete against and beat Scottish clubs ( hardly a stretch of the imagination ) and it was plain that they were going to be at least as well supported at home as the mid to upper range Scottish clubs like us, Utd or Hearts the attraction of one of them visiting Easter Road would be as likely to get Hibs fans out as a visit from a lot of the clubs currently in the top league.

It seems to me this is being viewed by a lot of folk seeing the Irish clubs as what they currently are, instead of my outlook of what the Irish teams could be. If they could realise that potential they would add massively to Scottish football and in my opinion make our league considerably richer,more successful and of a better quality.

[GreenCastle]

The French prime minster is already on record saying Barcelona would be welcome to play in France.

I love how my idea is dismissed out of hand: How do you 'know' our football wouldn't get stronger over time if some Irish clubs joined? Perhaps you can point to an example from another area of business where doubling your customer base was described as 'madness'

Why is adding some new clubs as a way to an 18 or 20 team league at odds with a desire by a lot of fans to have just that. In my opinion the potential for growth of clubs in Dublin and Cork etc is a lot bigger than it is for clubs in Scottish cities.

We moan constantly about seeing the same teams all the time because of how small the league is, but we don't have ( and are never going to have ) enough clubs of the size of Dundee Utd, Hibs, Aberdeen, Hearts to make an 18 or 20 team league viable. Whereas at least three of the Irish teams have the potential to be at least that big in the right circumstances.

As for travelling to away games. Nobody is pretending that wouldn't be an issue, but there are a hell of a lot of leagues where the distance from Edinburgh to Dublin for example isn't even considered a long trip. In my view once the Irish clubs had proved that they could compete against and beat Scottish clubs ( hardly a stretch of the imagination ) and it was plain that they were going to be at least as well supported at home as the mid to upper range Scottish clubs like us, Utd or Hearts the attraction of one of them visiting Easter Road would be as likely to get Hibs fans out as a visit from a lot of the clubs currently in the top league.

It seems to me this is being viewed by a lot of folk seeing the Irish clubs as what they currently are, instead of my outlook of what the Irish teams could be.

Scotland they need to focus on getting the current teams filling their stadiums again..

Kilmarnock (close to 18,000 capacity)
Tannadice ( 14,000+)
Fir Park (nearly 14,000)

The list goes on...check this link..https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_football_stadiums_in_Scotland

I don't think many of the current stadiums in that list are close to selling out each week - why ? Cost / lack of quality / poor facilities etc.

They should be looking to grow crowds and doing what they can to make football more accessible for all (ticket prices / food quality / alcohol at stadium possibly).

Irish teams would make it interesting but like Scottish Teams going to England - don't think the Scottish teams would vote for it as they don't want risk of crowds may increase - with extra travel (flight / hotel / bus ) costs when money is tight as it is.

[Jim44]

The French prime minster is already on record saying Barcelona would be welcome to play in France.

I love how my idea is dismissed out of hand: How do you 'know' our football wouldn't get stronger over time if some Irish clubs joined? Perhaps you can point to an example from another area of business where doubling your customer base was described as 'madness'

Why is adding some new clubs as a way to an 18 or 20 team league at odds with a desire by a lot of fans to have just that. In my opinion the potential for growth of clubs in Dublin and Cork etc is a lot bigger than it is for clubs in Scottish cities.

We moan constantly about seeing the same teams all the time because of how small the league is, but we don't have ( and are never going to have ) enough clubs of the size of Dundee Utd, Hibs, Aberdeen, Hearts to make an 18 or 20 team league viable. Whereas at least three of the Irish teams have the potential to be at least that big in the right circumstances.

As for travelling to away games. Nobody is pretending that wouldn't be an issue, but there are a hell of a lot of leagues where the distance from Edinburgh to Dublin for example isn't even considered a long trip. In my view once the Irish clubs had proved that they could compete against and beat Scottish clubs ( hardly a stretch of the imagination ) and it was plain that they were going to be at least as well supported at home as the mid to upper range Scottish clubs like us, Utd or Hearts the attraction of one of them visiting Easter Road would be as likely to get Hibs fans out as a visit from a lot of the clubs currently in the top league.

It seems to me this is being viewed by a lot of folk seeing the Irish clubs as what they currently are, instead of my outlook of what the Irish teams could be.


The example of Barcelona is hardly comparable to the SPFL inviting Irish clubs to join our leagues. The French welcome would be in the case of Barcelona being ostracised from the Spanish league. What would the Irish league's reaction be to the SPFL poaching their clubs? Unless of course you are suggesting an amalgamation of the Scottish and Irish leagues.

[Keith_M]

It won't.

15 league games, plus 2 LC = 17.

Currently it's 19.


I thought it was groups of five playing each other home and away?

:dunno:

[NAE NOOKIE]

The example of Barcelona is hardly comparable to the SPFL inviting Irish clubs to join our leagues. The French welcome would be in the case of Barcelona being ostracised from the Spanish league. What would the Irish league's reaction be to the SPFL poaching their clubs? Unless of course you are suggesting an amalgamation of the Scottish and Irish leagues.

Probably the same as it would be from the SFA / SPFL if Scotland's 6 biggest clubs were invited to join the English football league. I wonder how many of the Scottish clubs would turn down the chance instead of telling the SFA to GTF and I wonder how many of us fans would fail to back that response from our club.

[CropleyWasGod]

I thought it was groups of five playing each other home and away?

:dunno:
It's to be played over 2 weeks, so it's 2 home and 2 away. I fink :)

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

[ScottB]

There's a bit of a difference, UEFA and FIFA would fall over themselves to find Barcelona (and presumably Espanyol etc too) a new home. Though rather like the Old Firm needing each other, I can't believe that Real would stand for the other half of their meal ticket leaving.

In any case, UEFA have shown themselves to be in favour, or at least open to smaller leagues coming together, a Balkan League has been discussed (though if you think Rangers in Dublin would be bad, God knows what the potential for crowd trouble would be in that league), wouldn't be surprised if Baltic and Scandanavian mergers have been thought about too.

What I think they would be resistant to, would be bigger leagues cherry picking strong teams from smaller leagues, so I'd imagine they'd resist us pinching a couple Irish clubs, in the same way they'd oppose the Old Firm moving to England, or the oft discussed Atlantic League.

In any case, we don't improve our lot by adding a few teams with average gates smaller than the teams we already have in our top division. If Irish crowds aren't moved to turn up for Bohemians matches in their current league, why would they care more about seeing them play ICT? How many Motherwell fans would trek to Dublin and back for a Wednesday night match in February? We'd probably have smaller crowds due to less away fans with Irish clubs in the league instead of just promoting a few more of our own clubs into the top league. If the Irish clubs don't hack it, do they stay in our structure if they get relegated? Sounds like death expecting fans to follow them to Alloa or Livingston and co...


For the same reasons the English leagues wouldn't want us, we shouldn't want a few random Irish clubs pitching up in our top league.

[chippy]

There's a bit of a difference, UEFA and FIFA would fall over themselves to find Barcelona (and presumably Espanyol etc too) a new home. Though rather like the Old Firm needing each other, I can't believe that Real would stand for the other half of their meal ticket leaving.

In any case, UEFA have shown themselves to be in favour, or at least open to smaller leagues coming together, a Balkan League has been discussed (though if you think Rangers in Dublin would be bad, God knows what the potential for crowd trouble would be in that league), wouldn't be surprised if Baltic and Scandanavian mergers have been thought about too.

What I think they would be resistant to, would be bigger leagues cherry picking strong teams from smaller leagues, so I'd imagine they'd resist us pinching a couple Irish clubs, in the same way they'd oppose the Old Firm moving to England, or the oft discussed Atlantic League.

In any case, we don't improve our lot by adding a few teams with average gates smaller than the teams we already have in our top division. If Irish crowds aren't moved to turn up for Bohemians matches in their current league, why would they care more about seeing them play ICT? How many Motherwell fans would trek to Dublin and back for a Wednesday night match in February? We'd probably have smaller crowds due to less away fans with Irish clubs in the league instead of just promoting a few more of our own clubs into the top league. If the Irish clubs don't hack it, do they stay in our structure if they get relegated? Sounds like death expecting fans to follow them to Alloa or Livingston and co...


For the same reasons the English leagues wouldn't want us, we shouldn't want a few random Irish clubs pitching up in our top league.

What if rather than cherry picking elite clubs only it was an integration of the top 10 clubs in say Scotland , Norway, Sweden and Denmark . Not a bad 2 division set up. You could even add a couple from Ireland and Iceland. A potential TV population of around 30 million.. I think that woul be attractive to the public and tv companies ?

[gorgie greens]

What if rather than cherry picking elite clubs only it was an integration of the top 10 clubs in say Scotland , Norway, Sweden and Denmark . Not a bad 2 division set up. You could even add a couple from Ireland and Iceland. A potential TV population of around 30 million.. I think that woul be attractive to the public and tv companies ?

I shudder at the thought of playing Malmo again , but all joking aside , i think the stronger competition and better teams with stronger players ,with the bigger TV audience would be the injection our game so badly needs.:aok::aok:

[Jim44]

I shudder at the thought of playing Malmo again, but all joking aside , i think the stronger competition and better teams with stronger players ,with the bigger TV audience would be the injection our game so badly needs.:aok::aok:

Malmo's memories of that nightmare were revived the other night when the shoe was on the other foot .......... Real adding one more goal for good luck. :greengrin

[greenlex]

I shudder at the thought of playing Malmo again , but all joking aside , i think the stronger competition and better teams with stronger players ,with the bigger TV audience would be the injection our game so badly needs.:aok::aok:

TV is killing off our game slowly but surely. Who would travel over the North Sea fora game when you can see it in the telly? Folk can't even go to televised home games as it is.

[Earl of Currie]

Was looking at the attached link and it highlights , for me , everything that is wrong about todays league strcture

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973%E2%80%9374_in_Scottish_football

34 games for the top league , 36 for the second tier.
Clearly more competitive as no team has won the league by March , nor has any team been relegated by a significant margin.
Its a league structure that allowed young players to be developed , we had five teams competing in Europe and a the quality of player being developed enhanced the league and standing of the national team.
As there is no huge disparity between most teams in the league (games won, goal difference) it shows most games were competitve and not meaningless. Also this is a league system that allowed teams like East Fife, Arbroath ,to play in the top league and not embaress themsleves.
This was also a season with a group league cup structure , so a team like Hibs had a minimum of 43 games( 36 league , 6 league cup and 1 scottish cup)
IMO , the larger league structures (would recommend 18 team leagues) ,as above , have shown that clubs have more games , which means increased opportunity for revenue , have improved opportunities to produce and develop home grown players , a more competitive league which improves standards of the game.
For the fans it means your not watching the same 4 games a season per club , away trips become more exciting if its just once a season , a more competitive league means there is more value for the price of a ticket , more enjoyable watching more home grown talent playing.

I am sure there are arguments for this , FFP , stadium quality , how do we drop 4 teams from the existing structure , etc. But if there is evidence that we had something which clearly worked previously , why not learn from our past and take the elements which did work and integrate these with the modern game to move the scottish game forward.

[Keith_M]

It's to be played over 2 weeks, so it's 2 home and 2 away. I fink :)

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk


Cheers.


If that's the case, I'm not very keen.

[greenlex]

Was looking at the attached link and it highlights , for me , everything that is wrong about todays league strcture

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973%E2%80%9374_in_Scottish_football

34 games for the top league , 36 for the second tier.
Clearly more competitive as no team has won the league by March , nor has any team been relegated by a significant margin.
Its a league structure that allowed young players to be developed , we had five teams competing in Europe and a the quality of player being developed enhanced the league and standing of the national team.
As there is no huge disparity between most teams in the league (games won, goal difference) it shows most games were competitve and not meaningless. Also this is a league system that allowed teams like East Fife, Arbroath ,to play in the top league and not embaress themsleves.
This was also a season with a group league cup structure , so a team like Hibs had a minimum of 43 games( 36 league , 6 league cup and 1 scottish cup)
IMO , the larger league structures (would recommend 18 team leagues) ,as above , have shown that clubs have more games , which means increased opportunity for revenue , have improved opportunities to produce and develop home grown players , a more competitive league which improves standards of the game.
For the fans it means your not watching the same 4 games a season per club , away trips become more exciting if its just once a season , a more competitive league means there is more value for the price of a ticket , more enjoyable watching more home grown talent playing.

I am sure there are arguments for this , FFP , stadium quality , how do we drop 4 teams from the existing structure , etc. But if there is evidence that we had something which clearly worked previously , why not learn from our past and take the elements which did work and integrate these with the modern game to move the scottish game forward.
The season before Rangers had won the Cup Winners Cup. TV football was the world cup, the cup final and highlights from a game on a Saturday night which were all looked forward to.

[greenginger]

The season before Rangers had won the Cup Winners Cup. TV football was the world cup, the cup final and highlights from a game on a Saturday night which were all looked forward to.


Yep, used to travel down to Black Bull in Lauder to get the English Cup Final on Borders TV.

Its a different century now ! :greengrin

[CropleyWasGod]

Short answer from LD tonight to the opening question.

No.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

[CentreLine]

Short answer from LD tonight to the opening question.

No.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

To be fair, not quite what she said. She said the only route we could rely on for promotion was winning the league and that is what the club is aiming for. It's almost a no but not quite.

[Peevemor]

I think it's been in the pipeline since the summer, although LD couldn't admit it if this is the case.

[Alfred E Newman]

She quite rightly said winning the league was the only sure way to gain promotion. She didn't rule out some kind of reconstruction though. I still think if we overtake Rangers there will be an almighty scramble to have plans in place for next season.

[Thecat23]

I think it's been in the pipeline since the summer, although LD couldn't admit it if this is the case.

It has, check my posts from back then 😉

[PatHead]

She also mentioned they had been unaware of the 14 team proposal prior to Donkey talking about it last week.

[Big L]

If we win our next two games you can guarantee their will be much more reconstruction talk!

[erin go bragh]

Yep, used to travel down to Black Bull in Lauder to get the English Cup Final on Borders TV.

Its a different century now ! :greengrin

Ha ha . We used to hit the Lauderdale Hotel to watch the game . Few pints and fish in a basket .

GGTTH

[Ozyhibby]

Scotland they need to focus on getting the current teams filling their stadiums again..

Kilmarnock (close to 18,000 capacity)
Tannadice ( 14,000+)
Fir Park (nearly 14,000)

The list goes on...check this link..https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_football_stadiums_in_Scotland

I don't think many of the current stadiums in that list are close to selling out each week - why ? Cost / lack of quality / poor facilities etc.

They should be looking to grow crowds and doing what they can to make football more accessible for all (ticket prices / food quality / alcohol at stadium possibly).

Irish teams would make it interesting but like Scottish Teams going to England - don't think the Scottish teams would vote for it as they don't want risk of crowds may increase - with extra travel (flight / hotel / bus ) costs when money is tight as it is.

In those examples, the stadiums are too big. Kilmarnock and Motherwell get pretty decent crowds for the size of town they play in. I doubt there are any towns in England that size with football teams as big.
Our attendance per head of population in Scotland is among the best in Europe.
Comparing ourself with England which has a population of 60m to our 5m is not helpful.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Onion]

If we win our next two games you can guarantee their will be much more reconstruction talk!

:agree: Another factor is Dundee Utd who are favourites for the drop - another big SPFL club with 8-10 k crowds. Not likely, but if Falkirk beat the Huns on Sat, and go on to win the league, you could find Sevco, Hibs and Dundee United in the 2nd tier next season ! The SPFL cannot afford that.

IMO reconstruction for next season is more likely than not. They just know the problems any announcement will cause at this stage of the season.

[Lee Marvin]

:agree: Another factor is Dundee Utd who are favourites for the drop - another big SPFL club with 8-10 k crowds. Not likely, but if Falkirk beat the Huns on Sat, and go on to win the league, you could find Sevco, Hibs and Dundee United in the 2nd tier next season ! The SPFL cannot afford that.

IMO reconstruction for next season is more likely than not. They just know the problems any announcement will cause at this stage of the season.

This is my view.

I personally believe it's already a done deal, you just can't announce it now. You can only announce it at the end of a season, any other time wouldn't work as it's effectively makes a whole season almost redundant for many clubs.

[GreenCastle]

:agree: Another factor is Dundee Utd who are favourites for the drop - another big SPFL club with 8-10 k crowds. Not likely, but if Falkirk beat the Huns on Sat, and go on to win the league, you could find Sevco, Hibs and Dundee United in the 2nd tier next season ! The SPFL cannot afford that.

IMO reconstruction for next season is more likely than not. They just know the problems any announcement will cause at this stage of the season.

While you have a point about Dundee Utd - Hibs or Sevco or possibly both may be in the top tier next season.

It was cause uproar if they decided at the end of this season to change the structure - especially after going through with the playoffs (teams celebrating survival / promotion).

They need to vote on the issue (which won't be easy to change) plus they need to decide prior to the start of the season they will change it for the following year.

Personally I believe 100% it WON'T happen for next season - happy to be proved wrong as I'm all for expanding the leagues (16 teams - play each other only twice).

[IWasThere2016]

I think it will happen.

[NAE NOOKIE]

I think it will happen.

A good chance IMO ..... There seems to be a lot of hints being dropped, probably to encourage discussion without anybody at the SPFL having to actually put their head on the chopping block at this stage. To be honest I think most folk would be for league expansion, but it wont, and never will be, 16 teams playing each other home & away.

[Ozyhibby]

A good chance IMO ..... There seems to be a lot of hints being dropped, probably to encourage discussion without anybody at the SPFL having to actually put their head on the chopping block at this stage. To be honest I think most folk would be for league expansion, but it wont, and never will be, 16 teams playing each other home & away.

That is not enough games. The clubs could not afford the drop in income.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JeMeSouviens]

That is not enough games. The clubs could not afford the drop in income.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If they have a couple of years advance warning, surely they can cut their cloth? As long as the drop is the same number of games for everyone then nobody loses out and if it improves the product (I'm not totally convinced it would btw, but for argument's sake ...) then their income might eventually rise.

[IWasThere2016]

A good chance IMO ..... There seems to be a lot of hints being dropped, probably to encourage discussion without anybody at the SPFL having to actually put their head on the chopping block at this stage. To be honest I think most folk would be for league expansion, but it wont, and never will be, 16 teams playing each other home & away.

Yup, totally agree.

[IWasThere2016]

:agree: Another factor is Dundee Utd who are favourites for the drop - another big SPFL club with 8-10 k crowds. Not likely, but if Falkirk beat the Huns on Sat, and go on to win the league, you could find Sevco, Hibs and Dundee United in the 2nd tier next season ! The SPFL cannot afford that.

IMO reconstruction for next season is more likely than not. They just know the problems any announcement will cause at this stage of the season.

With Dundee dropping like a stone also...

[Lago]

TV is killing off our game slowly but surely. Who would travel over the North Sea fora game when you can see it in the telly? Folk can't even go to televised home games as it is.

Your right, TV has brought untold riches to our cousins down South & slowly killing our game in Scotland. Those of us old enough to remember Ernie Walker & Jim Farry will remember the restriction placed on TV games in Scotland, any league game at any level being played NO TV. Use to curse them, but you know what, they were right. If you wanted to watch football then you went to a game, now multiple TV opportunities.

[jacomo]

That is not enough games. The clubs could not afford the drop in income.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Presently, each team in the top division in the SPFL plays 38 games over a season. That's 19 home games.

Let's assume Hibs are back in the top flight next season and have an average attendance of 10,000 at each game. That's 190k tickets in total.

A 16 team league, playing each other twice, would result in 15 home games.

Let's now assume that the change in format renewed interest amongst fans and increased attendances. To sell the same 190k tickets, we'd need an average of 12,667 punters per game.

Is that really far fetched?

Would we really lose money?

[CropleyWasGod]

Presently, each team in the top division in the SPFL plays 38 games over a season. That's 19 home games.

Let's assume Hibs are back in the top flight next season and have an average attendance of 10,000 at each game. That's 190k tickets in total.

A 16 team league, playing each other twice, would result in 15 home games.

Let's now assume that the change in format renewed interest amongst fans and increased attendances. To sell the same 190k tickets, we'd need an average of 12,667 punters per game.

Is that really far fetched?

Would we really lose money?

Plus 2 in the League Cup.

[Ozyhibby]

Presently, each team in the top division in the SPFL plays 38 games over a season. That's 19 home games.

Let's assume Hibs are back in the top flight next season and have an average attendance of 10,000 at each game. That's 190k tickets in total.

A 16 team league, playing each other twice, would result in 15 home games.

Let's now assume that the change in format renewed interest amongst fans and increased attendances. To sell the same 190k tickets, we'd need an average of 12,667 punters per game.

Is that really far fetched?

Would we really lose money?

Thing is, I like football and don't want 8 less games a year.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Just Alf]

Presently, each team in the top division in the SPFL plays 38 games over a season. That's 19 home games.

Let's assume Hibs are back in the top flight next season and have an average attendance of 10,000 at each game. That's 190k tickets in total.

A 16 team league, playing each other twice, would result in 15 home games.

Let's now assume that the change in format renewed interest amongst fans and increased attendances. To sell the same 190k tickets, we'd need an average of 12,667 punters per game.

Is that really far fetched?

Would we really lose money?
Also add into the mix that there's plans to modify the cup competitions to increase the numbers of games in those competitions. Concievably we'd end up with a similar number of games overall?

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

[jacomo]

Thing is, I like football and don't want 8 less games a year.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Fair enough, but that's a different argument.

Personally, I find it hard to be enthusiastic about playing so often against the same teams.

[PatHead]

With Dundee dropping like a stone also...

but,but they are playing Celtic in USA next year.............

[rabcp1]

Presently, each team in the top division in the SPFL plays 38 games over a season. That's 19 home games.

Let's assume Hibs are back in the top flight next season and have an average attendance of 10,000 at each game. That's 190k tickets in total.

A 16 team league, playing each other twice, would result in 15 home games.

Let's now assume that the change in format renewed interest amongst fans and increased attendances. To sell the same 190k tickets, we'd need an average of 12,667 punters per game.

Is that really far fetched?

Would we really lose money?

Losing 8 games a season would be a disaster for clubs!

it's not just ticket sales we'd lose out on, with 8 less sets of fixtures our TV deal will be reduced, with less exposure sponsorship deals will also decrease and with 4 less home games theres also less revenue from pitchside advertising!

Hoping for an increase in attendeces while having clubs makes cuts (playing buget smaller = less quality on the pitch) just wont work and is very risky! While the League cup is bigger playing Cowdenbeath, Alloa et all in a League Cup group will not make up for such a drop in revenue! In a perfect world we'd get a 16 team league but it'll never happen without some sort off split similar to the new Danish or Belgian model!

[chippy]

Losing 8 games a season would be a disaster for clubs!

it's not just ticket sales we'd lose out on, with 8 less sets of fixtures our TV deal will be reduced, with less exposure sponsorship deals will also decrease and with 4 less home games theres also less revenue from pitchside advertising!

Hoping for an increase in attendeces while having clubs makes cuts (playing buget smaller = less quality on the pitch) just wont work and is very risky! While the League cup is bigger playing Cowdenbeath, Alloa et all in a League Cup group will not make up for such a drop in revenue! In a perfect world we'd get a 16 team league but it'll never happen without some sort off split similar to the new Danish or Belgian model!

Totally agree with this it's the only possible way the power brokers will agree to league expansion.

[Keith_M]

Losing 8 games a season would be a disaster for clubs!



With the new League Cup structure, the number of home games would be reduced from 19 to 17., a reduction of 2.

As we're currently in the Championship, we actually only have 18 home games, so we'd lose one (if promoted)

That's not exactly a disaster. especially as we'd probably just arrange a friendly to replace the missing game.

[rabcp1]

With the new League Cup structure, the number of home games would be reduced from 19 to 17., a reduction of 2.

As we're currently in the Championship, we actually only have 18 home games, so we'd lose one (if promoted)

That's not exactly a disaster. especially as we'd probably just arrange a friendly to replace the missing game.

Yes we're in the championship and it cost us a loss off £800k last season, why? less games v less glamorous opposition being a big factor.

Don't get me a wrong I'd love a simple 16 team league, playing each other twice, but financially I just can't see it working.

We tend to get get an average crowd of 11/12K in the Premier League, take four games from that and we lose 40+k paying fans, add in 2 cup games where we could face lower league sides we'd do well to break 9K per game, that could be a loss of 28k paying fans.

For a friendly to get a decent crowd we need a decent team who would command a fee, when we played Sunderland only a few years ago (a Premership team) we got a crowd of under 4k!

Say we qualify for Europe and are put out after our first tie v an unknown team from Azerbaijan or somewhere far flung, we'd more than likely make a loss from that tie then be down the 2 league cup matches!

Finally with 8 rounds of fixtures less we can expect sponsorship to drop as theirs 8 less games to get coverage from

[jacomo]

Losing 8 games a season would be a disaster for clubs!

it's not just ticket sales we'd lose out on, with 8 less sets of fixtures our TV deal will be reduced, with less exposure sponsorship deals will also decrease and with 4 less home games theres also less revenue from pitchside advertising!

Hoping for an increase in attendeces while having clubs makes cuts (playing buget smaller = less quality on the pitch) just wont work and is very risky! While the League cup is bigger playing Cowdenbeath, Alloa et all in a League Cup group will not make up for such a drop in revenue! In a perfect world we'd get a 16 team league but it'll never happen without some sort off split similar to the new Danish or Belgian model!

TV deals are not based on number of games alone, but viewing figures. Likewise sponsorship. Likewise advertising.

I agree that moving to a 16 team league (all other things being equal) would be a drastic change and not without a number of risks.

But, tbh, I am bored of this line that any reduction in overall matches played equals a corresponding drop in revenue. It is similar to the kind of reductive thinking that equated the loss of Rangers from the top division as inevitable Armageddon.

The whole point of league reconstruction is to rebuild interest in Scottish football and bring the fans back... if more fans are watching, there would be an increase in income.

[Sergey]

TV deals are not based on number of games alone, but viewing figures. Likewise sponsorship. Likewise advertising.

<snip>



I'll happily wager that there will be more viewers for the Pub League TV match on Friday (Wrexham/Braintree) than there will be for the next SPL match on whatever channel.

The quality on show in the Pub Leagues will be a bit better, too.

(Watch Akinola of Braintree - he'll be in the EPL in a few years)

[rabcp1]

TV deals are not based on number of games alone, but viewing figures. Likewise sponsorship. Likewise advertising.

I agree that moving to a 16 team league (all other things being equal) would be a drastic change and not without a number of risks.

But, tbh, I am bored of this line that any reduction in overall matches played equals a corresponding drop in revenue. It is similar to the kind of reductive thinking that equated the loss of Rangers from the top division as inevitable Armageddon.

The whole point of league reconstruction is to rebuild interest in Scottish football and bring the fans back... if more fans are watching, there would be an increase in income.

Yes finance is based on viewing figures but there is a correlation to the number of games too, if the SPFL tell SKY/BT that from next season the Premier League will only have 30 rounds off fixtures there is no chance they'll pay the same amount of money to view 60 games than they would to show 78 (assuming they showed 2 games per week). At the same time if sponsors and advertisers know there is less opportunity for there brand to be shown due to 8 less fixtures the amount they'll pay to advertise/sponsor will also drop.

I agree it's a boring line but unfortunately it's a true line, clubs won't vote to lose 8 rounds off fixtures and the money that goes with it! We need reconstruction but reconstruction does not guarantee that more fans will watch and that income will increase, it's a massive risk which IMO clubs won't take.

I have a feeling we'll have a 14 team league with a split within 2 years, at least a split with even home and away fixtures is a step in the right direction. A 16 team league playing twice would be great but unfortunately no one can come up with a realistic solution to filling the gap in income it would create.

[Earl of Currie]

A previous post of mine was a preference for an 18 team league , but looking at other leagues Ireland and Finland manage to have a structure where they run 12 team leagues and play each other 3 times.
Why could this not be done with a 14 or 16 team league, giving a 39 or 45 game season , with the teams in the top half of the previous season getting the extra home game the next season as a reward for performance.
Just a thought

[NAE NOOKIE]

I'll happily wager that there will be more viewers for the Pub League TV match on Friday (Wrexham/Braintree) than there will be for the next SPL match on whatever channel.

The quality on show in the Pub Leagues will be a bit better, too.

(Watch Akinola of Braintree - he'll be in the EPL in a few years)

That's the spirit mate, keep talking up our game.

[ScottB]

20 team league then, 38 games. Job done.

Yes, that means the standard in the presumably one league left underneath wouldn't be that great (though it would still have the likes of Dunfermline) and some of the top flight teams wouldn't be that good either, but it doesn't seem to do Madrid and Barca much harm having teams in their league they can thump 8 goals past, so I doubt it would do us much damage. Indeed, by establishing such a large top division, it would give the bigger clubs a safety net that might allow them to take more risks with youth?


Ultimately though, if the goal is to do something similar to the League Cup changes; basically making it more appealing to TV, then maybe we have to find out what they are looking for. I'd suspect it would be football to show when there's none to show. I mean even up here, I'd watch a Hibs game, but would I watch Motherwell v ICT if there's Premiership, Champions League, La Liga etc on? No chance...

[SanFranHibs]

Yes we're in the championship and it cost us a loss off £800k last season, why? less games v less glamorous opposition being a big factor.

Don't get me a wrong I'd love a simple 16 team league, playing each other twice, but financially I just can't see it working.

We tend to get get an average crowd of 11/12K in the Premier League, take four games from that and we lose 40+k paying fans, add in 2 cup games where we could face lower league sides we'd do well to break 9K per game, that could be a loss of 28k paying fans.

For a friendly to get a decent crowd we need a decent team who would command a fee, when we played Sunderland only a few years ago (a Premership team) we got a crowd of under 4k!

Say we qualify for Europe and are put out after our first tie v an unknown team from Azerbaijan or somewhere far flung, we'd more than likely make a loss from that tie then be down the 2 league cup matches!

Finally with 8 rounds of fixtures less we can expect sponsorship to drop as theirs 8 less games to get coverage from

I am sure it has been mentioned but would a 16 team league with a split after 30 games to get up to 37 games be feasible?

Not a huge fan of the split but might work.

[chippy]

I am sure it has been mentioned but would a 16 team league with a split after 30 games to get up to 37 games be feasible?

Not a huge fan of the split but might work.

I don't see that type of split being accepted too imbalanced and will attract similar complaints regarding the current 6/6 split.

It does appear that something is moving though. In /recent weeks we've had managers and some owners from: United, Dons, Hibs, Ross County, Rangers, Falkirk supporting or at least being open to persuasion of an expanded league. Neilson from Hertz seemed the only opponent so far. I think we'll hear from Celtic sometime soon and I did like what Warburton said in the press today. Strachan is due to offer his plans soon on saving Scottish fitba. Will he suggest a 16 team league to help foster young scots talent?
i think the key problem areas to be resolved will be underpinned by and probably dominated by the debate between TV revenue/number of old firm games/ competitiveness/ space for young players and squads to develop and thrive/ European coefficient/ self interest- maybe some recent additions to the premier league will want to protect their status by shunning expansion.
1) 14 or 16
2) a 14 needs splits what type of split? Belgian or Danish or our ane
3) a 16 team league with or without splits or enhanced play offs
4) a wildcard 18 or 20 league perhaps with increased play offs for promotion/relegation
5) next season or season after
6) no change or tinker slightly with relegation/ promotion

[Niffy]

If there were less games and less income... does it matter ?
It would be the same for every club, and anyway, chances are , more folk would turn up to watch a league that was so much less stale and boring.

[marinello59]

If there were less games and less income... does it matter ?
It would be the same for every club, and anyway, chances are , more folk would turn up to watch a league that was so much less stale and boring.

Of course it would matter if income was less. Less income equals less chance of either keeping players in Scotland or getting them to come here.
Chances are crowds would go up? We are in a title race just now, ER isn't bursting at the seams yet.

[Halifaxhibby]

Bottom line is we need an attractive set up in which investors will get on board and helps develop scottish youngsters. La liga, english prem both have 20, everyone knows theres only a few teams with any chance of winning these leagues yet it seems to work for them. Think of all the derbys you'd get as well. Something has to change. Were as well having a gamble, why not?, everyones bored of the set up at the moment.

[Hawick hibee]

The magic number seem's to be 19 the amount of home games needed to match the current rubbish we have! Fair enough but fans hate the set up the now, bored of watching the same teams over and over.
An argument against a 18 team league is it leaves the league / leagues below short of quality. Does it? Take the top league add Hibs, Rangers, Falkirk, raith, QOS and Morton basically league placing a as they are the now. All these teams would add something to the top flight.
Below the top league you still have St Mirren Dumbarton, Livingston, Alloa for a start these teams are deemed good enough for the championship the now so no different in a new set up, adding teams from the leagues below that to make up a 2nd tier Dunfermline Ayr Cowdenbeath etc. No one really moans about the Quality of the 2nd leagues in Spain, France, Holland etc in fact no one outside that country really pays much attention to them, do they?
So going back 18 teams no playoffs in place = 34 games 17 home, only 2 short of that magic 19, the new cup format gives you extra guarantee home games where your not guaranteed any the now. Introduce a playoff system if required and you increase the games again. The home game thing would then not an issue the fans are not bored so will watch it and hopefully bring fans back to a new fresh set up, oh and if that works more fans, more turnover on match day, better product to promote and in turn increase in sponsorship!!!!!!

[J-C]

The magic number seem's to be 19 the amount of home games needed to match the current rubbish we have! Fair enough but fans hate the set up the now, bored of watching the same teams over and over.
An argument against a 18 team league is it leaves the league / leagues below short of quality. Does it? Take the top league add Hibs, Rangers, Falkirk, raith, QOS and Morton basically league placing a as they are the now. All these teams would add something to the top flight.
Below the top league you still have St Mirren Dumbarton, Livingston, Alloa for a start these teams are deemed good enough for the championship the now so no different in a new set up, adding teams from the leagues below that to make up a 2nd tier Dunfermline Ayr Cowdenbeath etc. No one really moans about the Quality of the 2nd leagues in Spain, France, Holland etc in fact no one outside that country really pays much attention to them, do they?
So going back 18 teams no playoffs in place = 34 games 17 home, only 2 short of that magic 19, the new cup format gives you extra guarantee home games where your not guaranteed any the now. Introduce a playoff system if required and you increase the games again. The home game thing would then not an issue the fans are not bored so will watch it and hopefully bring fans back to a new fresh set up, oh and if that works more fans, more turnover on match day, better product to promote and in turn increase in sponsorship!!!!!!


We only get 18 home games in the Championship right now.

[NAE NOOKIE]

Deila and Warburton were on Reporting Scotland last night both making positive noises about expanding the league ..... watch this space.

[Hawick hibee]

We only get 18 home games in the Championship right now.

Aye in the championship but the argument is not to have less home games in the top league

[scoopyboy]

We only get 18 home games in the Championship right now.

Plus the play off games :duck:

[chinaman]

Deila and Warburton were on Reporting Scotland last night both making positive noises about expanding the league ..... watch this space.

Correct. And the fools who run our game only listen to the dirty, bigoted morons from tramptown .NO ONE ELSE MATTERS

[KeithTheHibby]

I'll happily wager that there will be more viewers for the Pub League TV match on Friday (Wrexham/Braintree) than there will be for the next SPL match on whatever channel.

The quality on show in the Pub Leagues will be a bit better, too.

(Watch Akinola of Braintree - he'll be in the EPL in a few years)

Absolute nonsense.

[Lago]

Deila and Warburton were on Reporting Scotland last night both making positive noises about expanding the league ..... watch this space.

Not for next season, not enough time, but maybe the following one.

[weecounty hibby]

Almost every was article in print or on radio has managers, ex managers, ex players and so called media experts all lining up saying that change needs to happen, bigger league, 16/18teams etc. It is going to happen and it will be done to save Der Hun as if the rumours are to(hopefully) be believed they are struggling badly for cash. If they can manage to the end of the season then it will be pushed through. Interesting that talk of 16/18 teams is happening as administration rumours start again. This would probably also them to take -25 points and still get into top league

[Jim44]

Deila and Warburton were on Reporting Scotland last night both making positive noises about expanding the league ..... watch this space.


Not for next season, not enough time, but maybe the following one.

http://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/teams/rangers/rangers-don-t-want-shoe-horned-into-top-flight-1-3979790

No reconstruction this year. Looks like Sevco will vote against it.

[Onion]

http://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/teams/rangers/rangers-don-t-want-shoe-horned-into-top-flight-1-3979790

No reconstruction this year. Looks like Sevco will vote against it.

Didn't read it that way. Wants Sevco promoted through merit, not reconstruction. If they win the league then they're free to vote for expansion. If they don't, they could always volunteer to stay in the Champ and give their place to a more deserving club :greengrin

Not sure many fans of other clubs would have an issue with that, but the media, Celtic and Doncaster might have :cb

[Jim44]

Didn't read it that way. Wants Sevco promoted through merit, not reconstruction. If they win the league then they're free to vote for expansion. If they don't, they could always volunteer to stay in the Champ and give their place to a more deserving club :greengrin

Not sure many fans of other clubs would have an issue with that, but the media, Celtic and Doncaster might have :cb

Maybe you're right. So he's just saying, they'll have to drag us reluctantly into the top flight if reconstruction takes place. If they really have principles and don't earn promotion by merit, they should follow your suggestion. That would be hilarious.