St Johnstone support / 18 team league?

[Springbank]

St Johnstone took 75 fans to Kilmarnock tonight.

Seventy five fans.

To my knowledge every team during our championship years brought more fans than that to ER.

Whisper it but I enjoyed the meaningful battles v Falkirk pars theRangers Raith StMirren DundeeUtd etc.

I would support an 18 team league, playing twice a season, for variety. Surely then teams would bring more than 75 fans to away games. I'd fancy 2 times a season of Hibs versus:
Celtic
Rangers
Aberdeen
Hearts
Dundee
Dundee Utd
Dunfermline
Falkirk
Raith
St Mirren
Motherwell
St Johnstone
Partick (Kingsley away once a season)
Livingston
Inverness
Ross county
Hamilton / Ayr / Dumbarton/ whoever

[lochhibs]

never happen now. as much as the ugly sisters go on about everyone wanting to play them 4 times, they want the 4 games against each other, and so do the tv companies.

[WhileTheChief..]

I’d rather play Hearts, Aberdeen, Celtic and Rangers 4 times than twice against Hamilton, Ayr, Dumbarton or whoever.

Not bothered in the slightest about how many away fans go to a game that doesn’t involve Hibs.

[Sir David Gray]

I'm not against league expansion but how would an 18 team league mean more than 75 St Johnstone fans turning up at Rugby Park on a Wednesday night?

[hfc rd]

I’d love to see a 16/18 team league as mentioned by the OP. Would make it very competitive. However I can’t see it happening anytime soon. The hierarchy were pushing to go back to a 10 team league a couple of years ago which I’m glad it was rejected.

[K.Marx]

they want the 4 games against each other, and so do the tv companies.

Only found out recently that they charge each other 49 quid a ticket for those games. 49 quid x 7000 odd fans. Mental.

[bigwheel]

St Johnstone took 75 fans to Kilmarnock tonight.

Seventy five fans.

To my knowledge every team during our championship years brought more fans than that to ER.

Whisper it but I enjoyed the meaningful battles v Falkirk pars theRangers Raith StMirren DundeeUtd etc.

I would support an 18 team league, playing twice a season, for variety. Surely then teams would bring more than 75 fans to away games. I'd fancy 2 times a season of Hibs versus:
Celtic
Rangers
Aberdeen
Hearts
Dundee
Dundee Utd
Dunfermline
Falkirk
Raith
St Mirren
Motherwell
St Johnstone
Partick (Kingsley away once a season)
Livingston
Inverness
Ross county
Hamilton / Ayr / Dumbarton/ whoever


can't really get the support for a set up like this - the second half of the season would have loads of meaningless games - can't get into europe, can't get relegated - it's a big no from me...leave it as it is - league is interesting..

[Dr What If?]

I'm not against league expansion but how would an 18 team league mean more than 75 St Johnstone fans turning up at Rugby Park on a Wednesday night?
I suppose the argument is familiarity breeds contempt, games against certain teams are less special when they come around so often. I for one am in favour of increasing the number of sides in the top league though I think 16 would be the best number, I also think we only need one lower division of say 20/22 teams. If we really need more games then we could revamp the league cup (more group games) or have a third round of premier games with a split after the first two rounds.

[Michael]

18 team league would be perfect in my opinion. With a season ticket you'd get to see Hibs play 17 different teams and the matches against the big clubs would feel like a big occasion. It would also give clubs outside Celtic and Rangers a shot at winning the league.

[ancient hibee]

You don’t think the matches against the ‘big’teams are occasions now.?

[HibeeHibernian4]

I'm not against league expansion but how would an 18 team league mean more than 75 St Johnstone fans turning up at Rugby Park on a Wednesday night?

34 games rather 38 a season = less need for midweek games. This game only needed to be played tonight because it was called off in January after St Johnstone got caught in a cup fixture backlog with Albion Rovers. Then again, that was a midweek too because of the god awful winter break.

Essentially, 34 games from August to early May would work out nicely as a game every weekend, and eliminate the ridiculous pile up of midweek fixtures that occurs at this point in the season.

[stonewaller1875]

Stop the midweek games and make it a summer season. , easy

Sent from my HTC 10 using Tapatalk

[Sir David Gray]

I suppose the argument is familiarity breeds contempt, games against certain teams are less special when they come around so often. I for one am in favour of increasing the number of sides in the top league though I think 16 would be the best number, I also think we only need one lower division of say 20/22 teams. If we really need more games then we could revamp the league cup (more group games) or have a third round of premier games with a split after the first two rounds.

I get that argument and I do agree with it. I don't think it would encourage a whole more St Johnstone fans travelling down from Perth to Kilmarnock for a midweek fixture though.

Their crowds are not good at the best of times, I really don't see that a bigger league would help more St Johnstone fans to turn up.

[Sir David Gray]

Stop the midweek games and make it a summer season. , easy

Sent from my HTC 10 using Tapatalk

How exactly is it easy?

We currently play our league season over the course of just over 9 months. If we take away the midweek fixtures and only play at weekends then it would have to be played over a longer period of time, probably over 10 months.

If that happened then no matter when you play the season, you're going to have to play during winter.

[Mantis Toboggan]

Don't think we can read too much into one game. Saints are on a terrible run as well.
16 team league is the way to go though. Mainly as it would make it a lot more likely that a non OF team could win the league.

[Dashing Bob S]

Don't think we can read too much into one game. Saints are on a terrible run as well.
16 team league is the way to go though. Mainly as it would make it a lot more likely that a non OF team could win the league.

Agreed. Sack all the 18 palaver - they are always complaining about too many games. 16 teams is 30 games and if you want to start and finish ‘the same time as England’ through silly tradition, then extend the winter break.

[Dr What If?]

Agreed. Sack all the 18 palaver - they are always complaining about too many games. 16 teams is 30 games and if you want to start and finish ‘the same time as England’ through silly tradition, then extend the winter break.
A close to 40 game league season benefits the big boys with big squads and £££s to spend on player fitness. Fewer games improves the chance of someone else going on a run and breaking the OF stranglehold.

[Sammy7nil]

St Johnstone took 75 fans to Kilmarnock tonight.

Seventy five fans.

To my knowledge every team during our championship years brought more fans than that to ER.

Whisper it but I enjoyed the meaningful battles v Falkirk pars theRangers Raith StMirren DundeeUtd etc.

I would support an 18 team league, playing twice a season, for variety. Surely then teams would bring more than 75 fans to away games. I'd fancy 2 times a season of Hibs versus:
Celtic
Rangers
Aberdeen
Hearts
Dundee
Dundee Utd
Dunfermline
Falkirk
Raith
St Mirren
Motherwell
St Johnstone
Partick (Kingsley away once a season)
Livingston
Inverness
Ross county
Hamilton / Ayr / Dumbarton/ whoever

They may bring less sitting bang in the middle or near the bottom of the league but not threatened with relegation and zero to play for

[.Sean.]

I used to like the prospect of a bigger league but now we're a force again the thought of halving the number of derbies and big games against the is firm and Aberdeen doesn't appeal.

[Hibbyradge]

I used to like the prospect of a bigger league but now we're a force again the thought of halving the number of derbies and big games against the is firm and Aberdeen doesn't appeal.

Yup.

The loss of income isn't all that appealing either.

[Eyrie]

A close to 40 game league season benefits the big boys with big squads and £££s to spend on player fitness. Fewer games improves the chance of someone else going on a run and breaking the OF stranglehold.

Alternatively it means that a team like ourselves or Aberdeen have less chance of closing the gap because we have fewer opportunities to take points off Sevco or Celtc but are more likely than they are to drop points against Dundee, Dundee United or St Mirren.

We have a decent chance of finishing above Sevco this season only because we've already beaten them twice and will need to do so a third time if we are to succeed. That would see us gaining six points on them over the four fixtures.

And the financial advantage that Celtc and Sevco have would be increased when we replace three full Dunbar Ends at 3800 each (we'd lose a derby) with 400 each from Queen of the South, Morton and Livingston. 3800 x 3 x £28 = £320k but 400 x 3 x £22 = £26.5k. That's almost £300k straight out of the player budget. That's the equivalent of replacing four players on £2500 per week with four players on £1100 which is a massive drop in quality.

[Mantis Toboggan]

Alternatively it means that a team like ourselves or Aberdeen have less chance of closing the gap because we have fewer opportunities to take points off Sevco or Celtc but are more likely than they are to drop points against Dundee, Dundee United or St Mirren.

We have a decent chance of finishing above Sevco this season only because we've already beaten them twice and will need to do so a third time if we are to succeed. That would see us gaining six points on them over the four fixtures.

And the financial advantage that Celtc and Sevco have would be increased when we replace three full Dunbar Ends at 3800 each (we'd lose a derby) with 400 each from Queen of the South, Morton and Livingston. 3800 x 3 x £28 = £320k but 400 x 3 x £22 = £26.5k. That's almost £300k straight out of the player budget. That's the equivalent of replacing four players on £2500 per week with four players on £1100 which is a massive drop in quality.

But the point is that with their resources they are favourites to beat us almost every time we play them. So 4 games versus 8 games should in theory help us.

Plus they would also lose revenue from fewer games.more than us in fact given their capacities and pricing.

At some point it needs to be about a competitive league and not money.

[KWJ]

But the point is that with their resources they are favourites to beat us almost every time we play them. So 4 games versus 8 games should in theory help us.

Plus they would also lose revenue from fewer games.more than us in fact given their capacities and pricing.

At some point it needs to be about a competitive league and not money.

And a competitive league leads to more TV money. The meaningless games mean less reluctance on not bleeding young players unlike the pressures of near half the league being in a relegation battle so the quality may improve.

[heid the baw]

Why would you travel nearly 2 hours from Perth to Kilmarnock on a freezing cold Wednesday night, for a game which you know you are going to lose, on a night when you can stay home and watch Spurs v Juve on telly?
They have Dundee away on Saturday (which is their nearest thing to a derby) followed by Hibs at home next Friday night.
The real question surely must be "why did 75 St Johnstone fans feel the need to go to this game"?

[HibeeHibernian4]

Why would you travel nearly 2 hours from Perth to Kilmarnock on a freezing cold Wednesday night, for a game which you know you are going to lose

I don't know, maybe to support your team?


on a night when you can stay home and watch Spurs v Juve on telly?

Some people have recognised the Champions League for the dullfest it is.


The real question surely must be "why did 75 St Johnstone fans feel the need to go to this game"?

Because they're passionate about their team and wanted to go and support them. Why do any of us do anything?

[Sir David Gray]

Why would you travel nearly 2 hours from Perth to Kilmarnock on a freezing cold Wednesday night, for a game which you know you are going to lose, on a night when you can stay home and watch Spurs v Juve on telly?
They have Dundee away on Saturday (which is their nearest thing to a derby) followed by Hibs at home next Friday night.
The real question surely must be "why did 75 St Johnstone fans feel the need to go to this game"?

I would have done it if it was Hibs and work didn't get in the way.

[SRHibs]

Do we not have the best supported league (relative to our population) in Europe? I think the league structure is fine to be honest. We do need to find a way to strengthen it though, but an 18 team league isn’t the answer.

[Alex Trager]

18/20 team league that involves one home and one away fixture is the only way a team outwith the OF can win the league.

Other than maybe a sugar daddy.

This setup benefits they two massively.

If you only have to play them twice, or other teams twice you can mount an actual challenge without their financial capability taking over too much.

Playing them four times over a season with the gap in finances it’s likely that they will come out on top.

Play them once home once away all you have to do is at least match their other results against the smaller clubs.

It makes too much sense.
It also won’t happen because sky etc NEED 4 OF derbies

[Alex Trager]

I used to like the prospect of a bigger league but now we're a force again the thought of halving the number of derbies and big games against the is firm and Aberdeen doesn't appeal.

But what about the prospect of actually winning the league?

[GreenCastle]

18/20 team league that involves one home and one away fixture is the only way a team outwith the OF can win the league.

Other than maybe a sugar daddy.

This setup benefits they two massively.

If you only have to play them twice, or other teams twice you can mount an actual challenge without their financial capability taking over too much.

Playing them four times over a season with the gap in finances it’s likely that they will come out on top.

Play them once home once away all you have to do is at least match their other results against the smaller clubs.

It makes too much sense.
It also won’t happen because sky etc NEED 4 OF derbies

Agreed

They don’t want it as they want a bigot fest x4 a season plus possibly cup games too.

The league would be more competitive and crowds would rise as you wouldn’t see the same team 4,5 or 6 times a season.

You could play the same team x7 teams in a season.

League x4
League cup x1
Scottish Cup and replay x2

That’s just not right !

[Since90+2]

With a18 team league you would have about 7 or 8 sides who would have absolutely nothing to play for at this stage of the season. At least with a 12 team league and the split every single side is currently playing to either avoid relegation or the playoffs , make the top 6 , battle for 4th/3rd/2nd place or competing to the win the league.

It's not a popular sentiment but I actually think the setup we have currently works quite well. I'd also rather play Celtic , Rangers , Hearts and Aberdeen 4 times than extra games against St Mirren , Morton ect.

[greenpaper55]

Playing each other at least four times a season is just boring, give me a bigger league any day , the trouble is nobody listens to the fans and we have this league rammed down our throats by folk that have never paid into a game of football in their life. It's not so long ago that the likes of Henry Mcleish and our very own Rod were pushing for a ten team league , utter clowns !

[Alex Trager]

With a18 team league you would have about 7 or 8 sides who would have absolutely nothing to play for at this stage of the season. At least with a 12 team league and the split every single side is currently playing to either avoid relegation or the playoffs , make the top 6 , battle for 4th/3rd/2nd place or competing to the win the league.

It's not a popular sentiment but I actually think the setup we have currently works quite well. I'd also rather play Celtic , Rangers , Hearts and Aberdeen 4 times than extra games against St Mirren , Morton ect.

Aye but equally you could have a few teams challenging for the title

If you look at the PL I think there’s about five or six teams that can be relegated.

You’d still have the playoffs etc but once the split is made you can argue those at the top of the bottom six have nothing to play for because they’re too far ahead of the relegation.

[Since90+2]

Aye but equally you could have a few teams challenging for the title

If you look at the PL I think there’s about five or six teams that can be relegated.

You’d still have the playoffs etc but once the split is made you can argue those at the top of the bottom six have nothing to play for because they’re too far ahead of the relegation.

Teams at the top of the bottom 6 can be dragged into a relegation or playoff spot. Its exactly what happened to us.

[Hibbyradge]

Agreed

They don’t want it as they want a bigot fest x4 a season plus possibly cup games too.

The league would be more competitive and crowds would rise as you wouldn’t see the same team 4,5 or 6 times a season.

You could play the same team x7 teams in a season.

League x4
League cup x1
Scottish Cup and replay x2

That’s just not right !

You have to look at this issue from the perspective of all the clubs, not just Hibs.

The current system has its problems, but an 18 team league would be a disaster.

People say that non OF teams would have a better chance of winning the league. That might very occasionally apply to a handful of teams, but the vast majority would have an even greater struggle to exist.

(Even when we had bigger leagues, Celtic and Rangers usually dominated.)

Crowds would fall. Fixtures like Ross County v Dumbarton or Raith v Patrick would set new embarrassing lows for the SPFL.

And what about us, if we weren't in contention? Folk aren't going to turn up to watch us play meaningless games, regardless if we've seen the opponents before.

Then there's the question of fewer games. We currently have 19 home games. An 18 team league would give us 17. So, not only would we miss out on second home games against Celtic, Rangers, Aberdeen and Hearts, we'd have over 10% fewer games and income.

It's far too simplistic to blame rantic for wanting 4 derbies, there's far more to it than just that, and there's absolutely no chance that clubs would vote for an 18 team league. I'd be surprised if a single club wanted to go that way.

[worcesterhibby]

Ok thinking outside the box..an 18 team league reduces the number of home matches by two and limits the number of Derby's for Old firm, Hibs/Hearts etc

So how about we run with an 18 team league but we also introduce a number of head to head cups (Like the calcutta cup) that is played as a two leg affair, home and away between rival teams.

Celtic V Rangers for the "Old Firm Trophy"

Hibs V Hearts for the " Pride of Edinburgh Cup"

Dundee V Dundee Utd for "The Tayside Trophy"

there could be up to 8 matches held over two weekends all on TV


etc etc

you could stagger the matches and play them over the free weekends that reducing the number of league matches would provide and it would be spot on for Telly..a football fest the TV schedule might look like this..

Saturday the ?? of October 2019

11.00am Dunfermline V Raith Rovers for the "Kingdom Cup"

1.00pm Ross County V Inverness CT for the "Highland Trophy"

3.00pm Aberdeen V St Johnstone for the "East Coast Cup"

5.00pm Kilmarnock V Ayr Utd for the "Ayrshire Cup"

Sunday the ?? of October 2019

11.00am Morton V St Mirren for the "Renfrewshire Challenge Trophy"

1.00pm Dundee V Dundee Utd for the "Tayside Championship"

3.00pm Hibs V Hearts for the "Pride of Edinburgh Cup"

5.00pm Celtic V Rangers for the " Old Firm Trophy"

the 2nd legs could then be played a month or two later to highten the tension.

I don't think their would be any issue getting sponsors for those trophies and the TV deal would be sold as one package and the money split evenly between all teams.

Result: we get a more even league with more teams involved, the big teams all get an extra two derby's to play each year..TV would buy in...We would win a cup every year !!!

[Hibbyradge]

Ok thinking outside the box..an 18 team league reduces the number of home matches by two and limits the number of Derby's for Old firm, Hibs/Hearts etc

So how about we run with an 18 team league but we also introduce a number of head to head cups (Like the calcutta cup) that is played as a two leg affair, home and away between rival teams.

Celtic V Rangers for the "Old Firm Trophy"

Hibs V Hearts for the " Pride of Edinburgh Cup"

Dundee V Dundee Utd for "The Tayside Trophy"

there could be up to 8 matches held over two weekends all on TV


etc etc

you could stagger the matches and play them over the free weekends that reducing the number of league matches would provide and it would be spot on for Telly..a football fest the TV schedule might look like this..

Saturday the ?? of October 2019

11.00am Dunfermline V Raith Rovers for the "Kingdom Cup"

1.00pm Ross County V Inverness CT for the "Highland Trophy"

3.00pm Aberdeen V St Johnstone for the "East Coast Cup"

5.00pm Kilmarnock V Ayr Utd for the "Ayrshire Cup"

Sunday the ?? of October 2019

11.00am Morton V St Mirren for the "Renfrewshire Challenge Trophy"

1.00pm Dundee V Dundee Utd for the "Tayside Championship"

3.00pm Hibs V Hearts for the "Pride of Edinburgh Cup"

5.00pm Celtic V Rangers for the " Old Firm Trophy"

the 2nd legs could then be played a month or two later to highten the tension.

I don't think their would be any issue getting sponsors for those trophies and the TV deal would be sold as one package and the money split evenly between all teams.

Result: we get a more even league with more teams involved, the big teams all get an extra two derby's to play each year..TV would buy in...We would win a cup every year !!!

They already call the League Cup the diddy cup and that's a proper tournament with a rich history.

I don't think there would be much appetite for a game which was purely designed to remove cash from the supporters pockets.

[Jones28]

I wonder if there would be an appetite for a 16 team league with a split? That way you'd still get the old firm playing 3 times per season/3 Edinburgh derbies etc plus the cups with the potential for big games?

[MB62]

Only found out recently that they charge each other 49 quid a ticket for those games. 49 quid x 7000 odd fans. Mental.

If you're mental enough to pay that amount, you deserve everything you get.

[Hibbyradge]

I wonder if there would be an appetite for a 16 team league with a split? That way you'd still get the old firm playing 3 times per season/3 Edinburgh derbies etc plus the cups with the potential for big games?

How would that work?

At the moment we play each team 3 times then split and play the 5 teams once.

If that system was applied to a 16 team league, there would be 45 games before the split then another 7.

[green&left]

I wonder if there would be an appetite for a 16 team league with a split? That way you'd still get the old firm playing 3 times per season/3 Edinburgh derbies etc plus the cups with the potential for big games?

You'd then have the argument about playing a team twice away and only one home etc.

How do the Poles, Serbs, Swedes, Greeks and Belgians etc do it for their 16 team league? I take it just home and away once with no daft split or anything?

[Jones28]

How would that work?

At the moment we play each team 3 times then split and play the 5 teams once.

If that system was applied to a 16 team league, there would be 45 games before the split then another 7.

Sorry, should have clarified - home and away then a split.

Then do a draw for the split.

I didn't really think it through tbh but you'd have 30 games plus then 7post split giving 37 games.

You then face the prospect of having 7 away games though.

I don't think it will ever change anyway but that way you'd most likely get the big games at least 2 and possibly 3 times a season.

You could then have more playoff spots for relegation to give more to play for after the split.

[Hibbyradge]

Sorry, should have clarified - home and away then a split.

Then do a draw for the split.

I didn't really think it through tbh but you'd have 30 games plus then 7post split giving 37 games.

You then face the prospect of having 7 away games though.

I don't think it will ever change anyway but that way you'd most likely get the big games at least 2 and possibly 3 times a season.

You could then have more playoff spots for relegation to give more to play for after the split.

The Polish league is 16 teams with a split. I don't know how they decide the post split fixtures though.

I'll try to find out.

[Pretty Boy]

I find seeing the same teams 4 times a season (or in some cases for us recently 5 and 6 times) boring. Probably more boring than seeing a bunch of youngsters given a run out in April v say Dundee because we are out the running for Europe and safe from relegation in a bigger set up.

There's nothing as conservative as a football fan though. Loads of people more away about the quality, competitiveness and image of the league set up currently but vehemently oppose any suggestions of change.

A 16/18 team set up with 2 up, 2 down and a play off position seems competitive enough to me. 5 or 6 teams battling relegation and 4 or 5 battling for Europe with the possibility of another couple being involved in a title race doesn't leave that many more meaningless games than the teams in 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th have had in recent years.

The 4 games, 3 points system massively benefits Celtic and, previously, Rangers.

[Hibbyradge]

That was easy 😁

After thr 30th round league will be split into 'champion' (top eight teams) and 'relegation' (bottom eight teams) groups.

Each team plays seven more games (teams ranked 1–4 and 9–12 play four times at home). The 2016–17 season was last when teams started an extra round with half the points (rounded up) achieved during the first phase of 30 matches.

It doesn't explain how they decide which teams you play at home, though.

[Hibbyradge]

I find seeing the same teams 4 times a season (or in some cases for us recently 5 and 6 times) boring. Probably more boring than seeing a bunch of youngsters given a run out in April v say Dundee because we are out the running for Europe and safe from relegation in a bigger set up.

There's nothing as conservative as a football fan though. Loads of people more away about the quality, competitiveness and image of the league set up currently but vehemently oppose any suggestions of change.

A 16/18 team set up with 2 up, 2 down and a play off position seems competitive enough to me. 5 or 6 teams battling relegation and 4 or 5 battling for Europe with the possibility of another couple being involved in a title race doesn't leave that many more meaningless games than the teams in 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th have had in recent years.

The 4 games, 3 points system massively benefits Celtic and, previously, Rangers.

I'm all for change, but it has to be beneficial to the clubs.

The record attendances and ST take up that we're experiencing, doesn't support the claim that the current set up is boring. The suggestion that our league isn't competitive isn't valid either. If Rangers win at the weekend, they could end up as champions. We're competing for 3rd if not 2nd place.

In fact, every team has something to play for. Teams in the top 6 will have big games, even if they're unlikely to win a European place. There's a chance that the 7th and 8th clubs might have little to play for, but that's far fewer meaningless games than we used to have.

For example, Rangers won the league with 55 points in 1964, East Stirling and QOS were relegated with 12 and 16 respectively.

The following year, Third Lanark were bottom with 7! They must have been relegated before Christmas.

And look at the crowds we were getting. Even during the wonderful Tornadoes period, we regularly had crowds of 5 and 6 thousand. Our averages look reasonable because of the huge numbers the OF brought, but even so, they're dwarfed by what we get now.

It's true that the 4 game system benefits Celtic and The Rangers, but remember that there have been 121 league campaigns under different systems, including an 18 team league and between them, the Old Firm have won 102. We managed 4, the same as Hearts and Aberdeen and, in those days, clubs shared their home gates with the opposition so it was fairer financially than it is now.

The idea that somehow Celtic and Rangers domination of Scottish football would be under threat by an 18 team league is fanciful.

[NAE NOOKIE]

Considering that even when they were doing well St Johnstone couldn't muster a decent away support their turnout last night was hardly a surprise. No amount of restructuring of the league is going to change that.

The laugh is that if the league positions remain the same there's a good chance Partick thistle, a club capable of a very good away support, could be replaced by Livingston a club who can hardly fill a bus for an average away game.

What is more concerning to me at least is the pathetic showing from Motherwell for their game against Hearts. It was the tie of the round with the possible exception of Aberdeen v Killie and they couldn't even shift 3000 home tickets .... I don't care if it was on the telly, that was a piss poor effort from them. If Killie end up beating Aberdeen the semi final crowd is going to be embarrassing unless they give tickets away.

[Stevie Reid]

As much as it is a flawed system, the SPL split does very much have its merits - you are almost guaranteed meaningful games at either end of the table, and there's parity between title/relegation contenders as everyone in their half of the table faces the same opponents. I can't wait for our post-split fixtures.

The only thing that is problematic is sometimes having to play 3 away matches v one opponent.

[WestStandWillie]

Expanding the league will dae nowt to stop Celtic dominating.

Celtic get the champs league money and will only get richer.

I'm aw over a bigger league but nae chance of getting that pushed through. Diddy teams rely on the 4 visits from the OF (some even gie them 3 stands :rolleyes:)

[overdrive]

Agreed

They don’t want it as they want a bigot fest x4 a season plus possibly cup games too.

The league would be more competitive and crowds would rise as you wouldn’t see the same team 4,5 or 6 times a season.

You could play the same team x7 teams in a season.

League x4
League cup x1
Scottish Cup and replay x2

That’s just not right !

You could actually play each other 8 times in a season due to the group stages of the League Cup if you are either the promoted club or get drawn in the same group as the promoted team then draw them again in the knock-out rounds if one qualifies as a best runner-up (as happened with Dundee and Dundee Utd). If we finished bottom 6 this season then drew Ross County in the later rounds of the League Cup, then drew them in the Scottish Cup which went to a replay, we'd have played them 8 times.

[ian cruise]

Could you run a trial for a season?

I get that there would be potential for no relegation but you'd have to trust teams to do their best every game (maybe without prize money if it can be proven teams did not treat it as they would have durian normal season? There would be a lot of hurdles to overcome but it could be better than just making a blanket decision to stay or change without knowing how the other would have affected the game?

[.Sean.]

But what about the prospect of actually winning the league?
Very good point. I was commenting to a pal at work that in the space of the last ten, fifteen years the gap between who wins the league and 2nd/3rd has, with the exception of the odd season, really closed.

So you're probably right, half the amount of games against Celtic specifically and you'd maybe see someone other than one of the OF win the league sooner rather than later.

[overdrive]

Very good point. I was commenting to a pal at work that in the space of the last ten, fifteen years the gap between who wins the league and 2nd/3rd has, with the exception of the odd season, really closed.

So you're probably right, half the amount of games against Celtic specifically and you'd maybe see someone other than one of the OF win the league sooner rather than later.

Aberdeen would probably be much closer to winning the league given it is the games against Celtic (and to an extent Rangers) that they bottle.

[The Modfather]

I’d support a bigger league in principal, subject to the specific details.

It won’t happen though as too many clubs (Killie, Motherwell, Hamilton etc) appear to rely on visits from the Old Firm to run hand to mouth.

[SouthMoroccoStu]

I would have done it if it was Hibs and work didn't get in the way.

Maybe that’s what the St Johnstone fans thought too😉

[Keith_M]

I'm not against league expansion but how would an 18 team league mean more than 75 St Johnstone fans turning up at Rugby Park on a Wednesday night?


I was wondering that as well. Maybe I'm being thick but I don't see the connection.

[KWJ]

Surely Ross County, Hamilton, Partick Thistle, St. Johnstone and Dundee would all be happier with mid table obscurity than a nail biting relegation fight.

Again, this would be a far better environment for them to bleed youngsters into the team and increase the quality as the play for wins rather than not to get beat.

[Famous Fiver]

Back to the OP's remarks about 75 supporters.

Apparently at the final whistle the St Johnstone players went over to acknowledge their supporters.

There were only 4 left!!! The other 71 were long gone.

[greenlex]

Alternatively it means that a team like ourselves or Aberdeen have less chance of closing the gap because we have fewer opportunities to take points off Sevco or Celtc but are more likely than they are to drop points against Dundee, Dundee United or St Mirren.

We have a decent chance of finishing above Sevco this season only because we've already beaten them twice and will need to do so a third time if we are to succeed. That would see us gaining six points on them over the four fixtures.

And the financial advantage that Celtc and Sevco have would be increased when we replace three full Dunbar Ends at 3800 each (we'd lose a derby) with 400 each from Queen of the South, Morton and Livingston. 3800 x 3 x £28 = £320k but 400 x 3 x £22 = £26.5k. That's almost £300k straight out of the player budget. That's the equivalent of replacing four players on £2500 per week with four players on £1100 which is a massive drop in quality.
Putting the financial arguement aside playing the old firm twice a season should get us closer to them. We would already be square on points head to head with them taking the first two home and away games. It’s how we and they would do against the rest this season. If we are challenging near the top as this season has shown fans want to come and watch. Record season ticket sales are not because we have four old firm games and two derbies. We have healthy crowds regardless of who we are playing. Best crowds since the 50s and it’s not because we are shoe ins to win the league. Challenging at the right end and playing decent has done that.
Moving onto the financial side of things the old firm would also have less attractive home games and presumably suffer financially too.

[greenlex]

Surely Ross County, Hamilton, Partick Thistle, St. Johnstone and Dundee would all be happier with mid table obscurity than a nail biting relegation fight.

Again, this would be a far better environment for them to bleed youngsters into the team and increase the quality as the play for wins rather than not to get beat.
Agree about the youngsters comment. There is no such thing as a meaningless game. If you are perennially fighting relegation the managers are unwilling to play inexperienced youngsters.

[Ringothedog]

I would have a 16 team league playing each other twice, this would give you 30 games. To make up the game numbers why not have a Premier League Cup, split into 4 regional sections, this would give you another 4 home games, the winners of each group go through to the semi finals. I would add those games to the Season tickets, no splitting of the gates etc. The winners get a European place.

[greenlex]

As much as it is a flawed system, the SPL split does very much have its merits - you are almost guaranteed meaningful games at either end of the table, and there's parity between title/relegation contenders as everyone in their half of the table faces the same opponents. I can't wait for our post-split fixtures.

The only thing that is problematic is sometimes having to play 3 away matches v one opponent.
Possibly the 3 away matches and youngsters watching whilst the journeyman pros try and stave of relegation or try to bag a European spot. Both negatives. Everyone faces the same opponents over the course of the season. We need to try and break the old firm dominance not effectively help them by giving them four opportunities to beat you. You might win a couple out of four of them but very little chance of getting the better of them over eight games. That would be true for every team in the league and not just us.

[Eyrie]

Possibly the 3 away matches and youngsters watching whilst the journeyman pros try and stave of relegation or try to bag a European spot. Both negatives. Everyone faces the same opponents over the course of the season. We need to try and break the old firm dominance not effectively help them by giving them four opportunities to beat you. You might win a couple out of four of them but very little chance of getting the better of them over eight games. That would be true for every team in the league and not just us.

You don't break the Ugly Sisters dominance by only giving them two chances each to beat you. You break it by having four chances to beat each of them and by having a team that season which is good enough to do just that whilst not slipping up against the other teams. And if your team isn't good enough then it won't matter how few times you play Celtc or Sevco.

I pointed out earlier in the thread that we've already beaten Sevco twice and will need to do so a third time to finish ahead of them. if we only had two games then we'd have split with them.

Both Sevco and Celtc will always have a financial advantage over us due to the size of their stadia which means that they can sell 40-50,000 tickets. And the effect on us of losing a second visit from them together with a derby?

And the financial advantage that Celtc and Sevco have would be increased when we replace three full Dunbar Ends at 3800 each (we'd lose a derby) with 400 each from Queen of the South, Morton and Livingston. 3800 x 3 x £28 = £320k but 400 x 3 x £22 = £26.5k. That's almost £300k straight out of the player budget. That's the equivalent of replacing four players on £2500 per week with four players on £1100 which is a massive drop in quality.
What I didn't add in is the lower home attendance that would result, so the impact on the player budget would be even worse. Then add in that most people are talking about an 18 team league rather than 20 teams, so that's two home games lost and another hole in the player budget.

And what if we're not challenging for the title? How many fans will turn up for a mid-table game in March or April? Probably the same 6686 we had for Dumbarton a couple of years ago. That won't turn into 13372 just because three under 20s are getting a start.

Just because the current system has its flaws, that doesn't mean that any change is for the better. There are too many issues with an 18 team league for that to be a solution.

[WhileTheChief..]

^^:top marks

[where'stheslope]

I’d rather play Hearts, Aberdeen, Celtic and Rangers 4 times than twice against Hamilton, Ayr, Dumbarton or whoever.

Not bothered in the slightest about how many away fans go to a game that doesn’t involve Hibs.

I think what the OP was trying to say is 75 fans puts very little in our coffers, yet our 2-3,000 fills their coffers and keeps them afloat!!!!!

[jockodile]

Play only 2 times way better for the league. No doubt about thst at least in competitive terms.

If keeping status quo how about a salary cap?

[jgl07]

With a18 team league you would have about 7 or 8 sides who would have absolutely nothing to play for at this stage of the season. At least with a 12 team league and the split every single side is currently playing to either avoid relegation or the playoffs , make the top 6 , battle for 4th/3rd/2nd place or competing to the win the league.


Have a look at the English Premier League and you will see there are next to no 'mid table' teams. The Manchester United through to Chelsea are fighting for three remaining Champions League places. The teams at the bottom from Stoke through to Brighton are all potentially involved in relegation issues. That leaves a mid-table from Watford up to Burnley who are looking to join Arsenal in the Europa League.

There are only three teams who are likely to have nothing to play for including Manchester City, Arsenal and maybe West Brom, who appear doomed.

[Geo_1875]

18/20 team league

Bin the split and the play-offs

Play games at 3:00pm on Saturdays and 7:45 pm on Wednesdays at beginning and end of the season

2 points for a win and 1 point for a draw

Sorted

[Dan Sarf]

18/20 team league

Bin the split and the play-offs

Play games at 3:00pm on Saturdays and 7:45 pm on Wednesdays at beginning and end of the season

2 points for a win and 1 point for a draw

Sorted

And bring back toe caps and shoulder charging the goalie (who should be wearing a proper cloth bunnet).

[Hibbyradge]

And bring back toe caps and shoulder charging the goalie (who should be wearing a proper cloth bunnet).

Angela goalies should be made to bounce the ball every few yards as they run with it.

[blackpoolhibs]

Angela goalies should be made to bounce the ball every few yards as they run with it.

I'm finished with the game if we are introducing women keepers.