SPFL Strategic Review

[Unseen work]

https://www.afc.co.uk/2021/09/14/spfl-member-clubs-invest-in-independent-advice-on-strategic-review/

Stolen from Aberdeen as I don’t see Hibs mentioning anything yet.

Ourselves, Aberdeen, Hearts, Dundee and Dundee United looking to review the current SPFL and improve it.

[Allez Hibs]

Simple really. Follow Ron's plan to a degree and make the top league 16-18 teams playing each other twice like virtually every other top league in Europe as we do have the highest attended league per capita in Europe and all that.

Time to end the Old Firm reliance and have a proper competitive league. There's something wrong when we are the ONLY league out of the top 20 leagues to have the same TWO clubs play in the Champions League proper since it started.

[04Sauzee]

I thought I had heard Ron Gordon talk about this previously and had even spoken about using some of his own cash to look prepare a report? Or is this something completely different.

[lord bunberry]

I wonder if teams selling ppv for their own games has had an impact on how clubs look at the tv deal and it’s insistence on four bigotfests every year. The tv deal has always been the thing that has held back change in this country, clubs reliance on that money stops any meaningful reconstruction.

[Del Boy]

On the face of it this sounds like a positive. Other clubs have basically just fallen in line with what the bigot brothers have decided for years. Having the next 5 biggest clubs working together will hopefully lead to them standing up to them a bit more.

[Billy Whizz]

https://www.afc.co.uk/2021/09/14/spfl-member-clubs-invest-in-independent-advice-on-strategic-review/

Stolen from Aberdeen as I don’t see Hibs mentioning anything yet.

Ourselves, Aberdeen, Hearts, Dundee and Dundee United looking to review the current SPFL and improve it.

https://www.afc.co.uk/2021/09/14/spfl-member-clubs-invest-in-independent-advice-on-strategic-review/

KEY POINTS
• The strategic review will include independent recommendations. These will be based on consultations with stakeholders and the review of available data and insight, informed by Deloitte’s extensive expertise in the sports business.
• This review is being undertaken with a view to identifying how the SPFL can significantly increase the annual distribution of revenues to Member Clubs.
• This is not about redistribution of existing income sources in favour of so-called ‘bigger clubs’. The Clubs are seeking to unlock new revenues and grow the Scottish game as a whole where ‘a rising tide lifts all ships’.
• We believe that unlocking new revenues will allow us to, amongst other things, produce better, more technically gifted players, to compete in European Club competitions and at national level.
• The SPFL board has endorsed this important review that the Clubs have commissioned with Deloitte and welcome the support and engagement of all who share our ambition to grow the Scottish game via a clear vision, strategy, and set of goals.

[Just Alf]

Simple really. Follow Ron's plan to a degree and make the top league 16-18 teams playing each other twice like virtually every other top league in Europe as we do have the highest attended league per capita in Europe and all that.

Time to end the Old Firm reliance and have a proper competitive league. There's something wrong when we are the ONLY league out of the top 20 leagues to have the same TWO clubs play in the Champions League proper since it started.Good post, agree 100%

[blackpoolhibs]

I'd love an 18 team league, sponsors wouldn't.

[Irish_Steve]

Nothing is going to happen when we still have the farcical 11 - 1 voting system

[Ozyhibby]

Simple really. Follow Ron's plan to a degree and make the top league 16-18 teams playing each other twice like virtually every other top league in Europe as we do have the highest attended league per capita in Europe and all that.

Time to end the Old Firm reliance and have a proper competitive league. There's something wrong when we are the ONLY league out of the top 20 leagues to have the same TWO clubs play in the Champions League proper since it started.

Given that Hibs, Aberdeen and Hearts are the biggest opponents of a 16 team league and they are conducting the study, I can’t see that happen.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Hibernian Verse]

Nothing is going to happen when we still have the farcical 11 - 1 voting system

Clubs would need to break away from the SPFL. Come or be left behind.

[Is It On....]

3. SPFL Structure, Governance, Organisation, Resources, and Competition

The exercise will review and recommend structural and organisational changes to improve the governance and administration of the league, - focused on streamlining the delivery of the strategic goals. It will benchmark against other leagues and best practices across the game.

This the key point. We need proper governance to break the stagnation

[LongJohnBanger]

Given that Hibs, Aberdeen and Hearts are the biggest opponents of a 16 team league and they are conducting the study, I can’t see that happen.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Is that a current Hibs point of view or an historic one?

[worcesterhibby]

Exciting times...Go Ron !

[Eyrie]

Hmm - an eighteen team league with two fewer home games overall, and three full houses against the Ugly Sisters and Hearts replaced by Inverness, Kilmarnock and Queen of the South. Good way to fund better players.

Hmm - an eighteen team league with even more opportunities for Hibs, Hearts, Aberdeen etc to drop points against Ross County, Hamilton and Partick Thistle. Good way to improve our chances of catching the Ugly Sisters, who won't drop those points.

Hmm - an eighteen team league with mid table clashes from February onwards with no chance or Europe or relegation. Good way to increase crowds.

Hmm - an eighteen team league which Scottish football had for years and eventually recognised wasn't working. Good way to evolve our game.

[Smartie]

3. SPFL Structure, Governance, Organisation, Resources, and Competition

The exercise will review and recommend structural and organisational changes to improve the governance and administration of the league, - focused on streamlining the delivery of the strategic goals. It will benchmark against other leagues and best practices across the game.

This the key point. We need proper governance to break the stagnation

I think part of the issue is that it probably isn't clear exactly what "proper governance" is - or rather, that different clubs will have different ideas on what constitutes "proper governance".

Rangers are keen on the idea of improving the governance of Scottish football. I'd imagine their vision of what that might involve would be fairly amusing.

[CMurdoch]

The absence of the Old Firm invite to the party is significant.
3 american club owners, Americacentric Cormack plus Anderson Hearts.
Suspect this group is all about how they can strategically wrestle some of the money and power back from the Old Firm whilst admittedly looking to come up with ways to make a bigger pie.
Expect the Old Firm to cozy up together to work out how to retain their whiphand.

[Moulin Yarns]

Hibernian, Hearts, Aberdeen, Dundee United & Dundee commission independent advisers to conduct a review of the SPFL, with the aim of significantly increasing revenue.


https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/58565111

[neil7908]

Hmm - an eighteen team league with two fewer home games overall, and three full houses against the Ugly Sisters and Hearts replaced by Inverness, Kilmarnock and Queen of the South. Good way to fund better players.

Hmm - an eighteen team league with even more opportunities for Hibs, Hearts, Aberdeen etc to drop points against Ross County, Hamilton and Partick Thistle. Good way to improve our chances of catching the Ugly Sisters, who won't drop those points.

Hmm - an eighteen team league with mid table clashes from February onwards with no chance or Europe or relegation. Good way to increase crowds.

Hmm - an eighteen team league which Scottish football had for years and eventually recognised wasn't working. Good way to evolve our game.

What in the history of the SPFL makes you think things will get any better with the current set up?

[Allez Hibs]

Hmm - an eighteen team league with two fewer home games overall, and three full houses against the Ugly Sisters and Hearts replaced by Inverness, Kilmarnock and Queen of the South. Good way to fund better players.

Hmm - an eighteen team league with even more opportunities for Hibs, Hearts, Aberdeen etc to drop points against Ross County, Hamilton and Partick Thistle. Good way to improve our chances of catching the Ugly Sisters, who won't drop those points.

Hmm - an eighteen team league with mid table clashes from February onwards with no chance or Europe or relegation. Good way to increase crowds.

Hmm - an eighteen team league which Scottish football had for years and eventually recognised wasn't working. Good way to evolve our game.

Something needs to change. The current set up clearly isn't working.

[Eyrie]

What in the history of the SPFL makes you think things will get any better with the current set up?

As with anything else, it's easy to see the flaws in the current set up and very difficult to come up with something better as opposed to simply different. An 18 team league would be different but certainly not better once the downsides are considered.

[Juniper Greens]

Hmm - an eighteen team league with two fewer home games overall, and three full houses against the Ugly Sisters and Hearts replaced by Inverness, Kilmarnock and Queen of the South. Good way to fund better players.

Hmm - an eighteen team league with even more opportunities for Hibs, Hearts, Aberdeen etc to drop points against Ross County, Hamilton and Partick Thistle. Good way to improve our chances of catching the Ugly Sisters, who won't drop those points.

Hmm - an eighteen team league with mid table clashes from February onwards with no chance or Europe or relegation. Good way to increase crowds.

Hmm - an eighteen team league which Scottish football had for years and eventually recognised wasn't working. Good way to evolve our game.

I disagree with your point that more "poor teams" makes it more likely for old firm dominance to continue. A few years back, Aberdeen only lost the league due to results against celtic.
Celtic and rangers are almost as likely to drop points against bottom 6 teams as they are against us.

[Allez Hibs]

As with anything else, it's easy to see the flaws in the current set up and very difficult to come up with something better as opposed to simply different. An 18 team league would be different but certainly not better once the downsides are considered.

Nonsense. Rangers and Celtic would be playing against teams each week away in full stadiums which would be cup finals to the smaller clubs in the league which would also spread the wealth and give their players a chance to shine. It would be great for these clubs and Scottish Football as a whole whilst making it more competitive with only playing each other twice.

An 18 team league is miles better than the current fiasco of a split. The benchmarking exercise is vital.

What really is the point in the current set up when the best Hibs can really finish is 3rd as we are hamstrung with 8 games against the Old Firm a season if we are decent?

Ah but our finances will take a hit with the drop in revenue from Old Firm ticket sales - what a pathetically negative outlook clubs have looking at it that way. Let's be brave and look at the bigger picture for the sake of Scottish Football.

[Eyrie]

I disagree with your point that more "poor teams" makes it more likely for old firm dominance to continue. A few years back, Aberdeen only lost the league due to results against celtic.
Celtic and rangers are almost as likely to drop points against bottom 6 teams as they are against us.

I agree that the Ugly Sisters are as likely to drop points against the bottom six as against us - the problem is neither happens very often compared to how often we drop points against other clubs.

Look at last season. We were 39 points behind Sevco and Aberdeen were 46 points behind. Or the season before that. Motherwell were 34 points behind Celtc and 21 behind Sevco, Aberdeen were 35 and 22 respectively.

That is due to the third and fourth placed teams dropping points against all the other teams, and not solely their results against the Ugly Sisters.

The key to anyone outside the gruesome twosome making a title bid will always be consistency against the rest of the league and taking more points off the Ugly Sisters than are dropped. Much easier said than done, and whether the top flight has 10, 12, 16, 18 or 20 teams is largely irrelevant.

[Allez Hibs]

I agree that the Ugly Sisters are as likely to drop points against the bottom six as against us - the problem is neither happens very often compared to how often we drop points against other clubs.

Look at last season. We were 39 points behind Sevco and Aberdeen were 46 points behind. Or the season before that. Motherwell were 34 points behind Celtc and 21 behind Sevco, Aberdeen were 35 and 22 respectively.

That is due to the third and fourth placed teams dropping points against all the other teams, and not solely their results against the Ugly Sisters.

The key to anyone outside the gruesome twosome making a title bid will always be consistency against the rest of the league and taking more points off the Ugly Sisters than are dropped. Much easier said than done, and whether the top flight has 10, 12, 16, 18 or 20 teams is largely irrelevant.

What about the season Aberdeen nearly won the league a few seasons ago because there was no Rangers in the league which made it more competitive for them?

You have to admit the chances of getting closer to the old firm playing them 8 times a season compared to 4 games are greatly reduced, this is what makes the whole league weaker.

[WhileTheChief..]

Something needs to change. The current set up clearly isn't working.What’s wrong with it?!We’ve got a decent league just now. This is about trying to get more cash into it.

[hibbysam]

I agree that the Ugly Sisters are as likely to drop points against the bottom six as against us - the problem is neither happens very often compared to how often we drop points against other clubs.

Look at last season. We were 39 points behind Sevco and Aberdeen were 46 points behind. Or the season before that. Motherwell were 34 points behind Celtc and 21 behind Sevco, Aberdeen were 35 and 22 respectively.

That is due to the third and fourth placed teams dropping points against all the other teams, and not solely their results against the Ugly Sisters.

The key to anyone outside the gruesome twosome making a title bid will always be consistency against the rest of the league and taking more points off the Ugly Sisters than are dropped. Much easier said than done, and whether the top flight has 10, 12, 16, 18 or 20 teams is largely irrelevant.

Rangers, Celtic, hearts, Aberdeen x2 each or Kilmarnock, raith, Dunfermline and ayr - which is likely to gain Hibs the most points?

If we lose 4 times to Rangers they are 12 ahead already, if we played and lost twice to them it’s only 6 points. You only need to sneak one result against them to ‘break even’ in head to head.

While still unlikely, it would give teams a far greater chance of winning or competing.

Unfortunately that isn’t what this is about. It’s about wealth and increasing revenues. Increasing teams isn’t going to do that short term so will be put in the bin.

[CMurdoch]

[QUOTE=WhileTheChief..;6693523]What’s wrong with it?!We’ve got a decent league just now. This is about trying to get more cash into it.[/QUOTE

Ignore the claptrap.
This is about those in the group wanting more cash and power.
2 ways to do that
1. take it from the Old Firm with a restructured ruling body, new rules and voting rights etc and/or
2. take it from others i.e the part time teams. See 1.

[Cat Stanton]

Nothing is going to happen when we still have the farcical 11 - 1 voting system

Do we? I thought that was the SPL (when it was separate from the rest of the league). Is it not different now it's the SPFL (and therefore all the clubs, not just the top 12)?

[WhileTheChief..]

Ignore the claptrap.This is about getting more cash and power.2 ways to do that1. take it from the Old Firm with a restructured ruling body, new rules and voting rights etc and/or2. take it from others i.e the part time teams. See 1.Sounds good to me.

[King Cosell]

Something needs to change. The current set up clearly isn't working.

We've been through all the permutations a million times, the current setup is the best. Every club's got something to play. If Dundee Utd or St Mirren were 8th or 9th in March, they could still make the top six and end up with a place in Europe or they could go down.

[Wakeyhibee]

We've been through all the permutations a million times, the current setup is the best. Every club's got something to play. If Dundee Utd or St Mirren were 8th or 9th in March, they could still make the top six and end up with a place in Europe or they could go down.

They can do that without a split. In fact they wont be excluded with 5 games to go.

Every club has nothing to play for as it stands outside the cups. The survivalist football this has inbred over the years means Europe is a bit extra dosh but not a serious hope of doing well, we're that far behind now.

[bigwheel]

We've been through all the permutations a million times, the current setup is the best. Every club's got something to play. If Dundee Utd or St Mirren were 8th or 9th in March, they could still make the top six and end up with a place in Europe or they could go down.

Agree completely …people often says these glib “it needs to change “ comments without recognising that we probably have the set up that makes more game meaningful and important than any other set up…I like the split, and I like the league size…it works..

I’m old enough to remember the bigger leagues….there were so many meaningless games. It would be dreadful today.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Wakeyhibee]

Agree completely …people often says these glib “it needs to change “ comments without recognising that we probably have the set up that makes more game meaningful and important than any other set up…I like the split, and I like the league size…it works..

I’m old enough to remember the bigger leagues….there were so many meaningless games. It would be dreadful today.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


So am I just and they produced better players all round and in the context of the era it was played in. This set up works ish internally if you're excited about making top6, a euro spot you know you probably wont win more than 2 games against a minnow and avoiding relegation.

Times have changed, 3pts, better Stadia and pitches. It was done for reasons that belonged in the 70s ie falling attendances. Now the OF have lapped it up as mid ranking teams just try to survive and the gap has grown. Scotland cant afford to develop talent, it costs and the risk of relegation is to great.

Theres only 3 ever presents in the top flight outside Celtic this century. You cant plan with that attrition.

[Allez Hibs]

I’m old enough to remember the bigger leagues….there were so many meaningless games. It would be dreadful today.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

It works? Really?

Why are there not so many meaningless games in the English Premier League then in a 20 team league? Or in Italy, Spain, France or Germany? Why is our top league structure not the benchmark for leagues across Europe?

The current set up does not work when you look at the quality of player when Scottish sides play in Europe or the pool of players for the Scottish National side. The League needs a long term plan with these things in mind and to benefit more clubs, not just Rangers Celtic Hibs Hearts and Aberdeen if they are protecting the pie for themselves.

[Allez Hibs]

Theres only 3 ever presents in the top flight outside Celtic this century. You cant plan with that attrition.

That is staggering and highlights the here and now problem clubs have. There's no question that's the reason why we haven't seen more players come through our academy since East Mains was built and hold down a first team place.

When did we last produce a proper striker that held down a regular place?

It can't be a coincidence that Riordan and O Connor held their places due to the fact we relied on youth through necessity from 2002-2005 because they played every week and we're given proper time to develop, Steven Fletcher also emerged around 05.

We have finished in the top 6 10 times since that structure was brought in for the 00-01 season 20 years ago. As a fan base have we ever gotten excited about or celebrated clinching a top 6 place like say a Dundee have? I can't remember one.

[bigwheel]

It works? Really?

Why are there not so many meaningless games in the English Premier League then in a 20 team league? Or in Italy, Spain, France or Germany? Why is our top league structure not the benchmark for leagues across Europe?

The current set up does not work when you look at the quality of player when Scottish sides play in Europe or the pool of players for the Scottish National side. The League needs a long term plan with these things in mind and to benefit more clubs, not just Rangers Celtic Hibs Hearts and Aberdeen if they are protecting the pie for themselves.

There are many many more meaningless games in those leagues. There are loads of teams who can’t get to Europe or relegated long before the season is finished…..almost every point you make here is wrong.. our structure works for us, because if the size and level of our teams. the quality of player has nothing to do with the league structure


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[bigwheel]

So am I just and they produced better players all round and in the context of the era it was played in. This set up works ish internally if you're excited about making top6, a euro spot you know you probably wont win more than 2 games against a minnow and avoiding relegation.

Times have changed, 3pts, better Stadia and pitches. It was done for reasons that belonged in the 70s ie falling attendances. Now the OF have lapped it up as mid ranking teams just try to survive and the gap has grown. Scotland cant afford to develop talent, it costs and the risk of relegation is to great.

Theres only 3 ever presents in the top flight outside Celtic this century. You cant plan with that attrition.

The production of players has much more to do with the social environment and coaching approach than the league. Almost all Kids played football 3-4 hours every day back then, often more. That’s not the case now,
. We don’t have the talent pool we had then , not because of league structure . I’m talking about the league is much more interesting now. 20 team leagues would kill football here today.

I actually like the level of challenge he it is to succeed or to avoid relegation battles in our league. For me it makes it much mire exiting. If you increase the league and reduce that, crowds will fall, as many more games will become what they used to be, meaningless..

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Hibs4185]

Good to see the new owners coming together and trying to challenge the status quo. There is a few easy fixes but whether there is appetite for change from the blazers and those with their self interest remains to be seen.

Exposure/reputation- start the season slightly earlier so teams are up to speed in European qualifying. If Hibs, Aberdeen or whoever can make the group stages of Europe, it raises the profile of the scottish game. Getting pumped out at the third round of qualifying isn’t great for the reputation of the scottish game. How hard is it to begin the season a month earlier? Not very

Young players- colts teams in the lower leagues. Not just rangers and Celtic but any premier league team who wants one/can afford one. Young players are then playing against seasoned players rather than development friendlies. Controversial but a no brainer for me. If Hibs colts v hearts colts in a cup competition or in the third division I’d probably pay for a ticket. I wouldn’t for a development game. Brings money into the lower league and brings on young players.

Bigger league - in my eyes Hibs are more likely to challenge playing the old firm twice a season rather than 4 times a season. Creates more interest at the top and a closer run competition. Whether the teams needed to expand the competition have the right facilities etc to be a good addition is another matter. Bit embarrassing having some of the smaller grounds on tv but with more money competing in the premiership they may be able to improve over a few years.

New Blood - Doncaster etc need emptied and more experienced commercial people need brought in with a fresh set of eyes, new ideas and no allegiances. Having the rangers director on the board for example is nonsense. Scudamore transformed the EPL, we need someone in a similar vein.

Anyway, all that will happen is the clubs will produce a report and it will be discussed to death for 5 years with nothing changing.

[LongJohnBanger]

We've been through all the permutations a million times, the current setup is the best. Every club's got something to play. If Dundee Utd or St Mirren were 8th or 9th in March, they could still make the top six and end up with a place in Europe or they could go down.

Does this only apply to Dundee United or St. Mirren?

Only I read not too long ago that in Hibs case at least, European qualification / league placing was not an achievement.

[Peevemor]

That is staggering and highlights the here and now problem clubs have. There's no question that's the reason why we haven't seen more players come through our academy since East Mains was built and hold down a first team place.

When did we last produce a proper striker that held down a regular place?

It can't be a coincidence that Riordan and O Connor held their places due to the fact we relied on youth through necessity from 2002-2005 because they played every week and we're given proper time to develop, Steven Fletcher also emerged around 05.

We have finished in the top 6 10 times since that structure was brought in for the 00-01 season 20 years ago. As a fan base have we ever gotten excited about or celebrated clinching a top 6 place like say a Dundee have? I can't remember one.

It's often said on here that Williamson was forced to play youngsters (O'Connor & Riordan), but I think the main reason they played relatively often at a young age is because they were above average talents.

In Williamson's first full season (02/03) we still had Mixu, Paco Luna (half season?) & Tam McManus to choose from along with Deek & Garry as well as Brebner & Murray chipping in from midfield.

The following season Deek & G'OC were established & scored 25 goals between them, but there was also Tam, Dobbie & Fletcher.

The pair of them along with Brown, Thomson & Whittaker got games because they were better than the established pros that were also there, not because there was nobody else.

Bobby Williamson maybe deserves a bit more credit in this respect.

[seanshow]

Remember the year long strategic review of 2008, antipation of an expanded league was shootie in or so we thought.
Proposal put forward = a ten team league.
Endorsed 6 months later by the then yes man first minister.

ffwrd to 2012, the chance to change Scottish football forever, and the 11v1 voting structure for major decisions, the then sheepies owner f***s us over for his own clubs short term gain, and the rest is history.

[hibbysam]

It's often said on here that Williamson was forced to play youngsters (O'Connor & Riordan), but I think the main reason they played relatively often at a young age is because they were above average talents.

In Williamson's first full season (02/03) we still had Mixu, Paco Luna (half season?) & Tam McManus to choose from along with Deek & Garry as well as Brebner & Murray chipping in from midfield.

The following season Deek & G'OC were established & scored 25 goals between them, but there was also Tam, Dobbie & Fletcher.

The pair of them along with Brown, Thomson & Whittaker got games because they were better than the established pros that were also there, not because there was nobody else.

Bobby Williamson maybe deserves a bit more credit in this respect.

Fletch would’ve been 16/17 in that second season and was still playing in the 19s, both Dobbie and McManus were very early 20’s as well. There were no established pro’s in the squad, just a lot of very young attackers and Deek and O’Connor were the best of that bunch so played.

[Since452]

We've been through all the permutations a million times, the current setup is the best. Every club's got something to play. If Dundee Utd or St Mirren were 8th or 9th in March, they could still make the top six and end up with a place in Europe or they could go down.

Agreed. The split is the one thing that is fantastic.

[Ozyhibby]

I can’t see how adding 6 teams weaker than the current 12 improves any league? Surely if you want to improve a league you ask better teams to join?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[marinello59]

I can’t see how adding 6 teams weaker than the current 12 improves any league? Surely if you want to improve a league you ask better teams to join?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

:agree:

[MrSmith]

Due to the insular exclusivity of the SPFL, teams like Dunfermline, Raith, Partick etc. are losing supporters hand over fist. Absolutely shameful! I'm 100% for changing the league to more teams.

[Peevemor]

100%

Also due to the insular exclusivity of the SPFL, teams like Dunfermline, Raith, Partick etc. are losing supporters hand over fist. Absolutely shameful!

I don't understand how this ties in with you being 100% in agreement with Ozy. :confused:

[Since452]

I'm really enjoying the league just now. Having the Edinburgh and Dundee derbies back is brilliant. I like the split and i like the relegation/promotion playoffs. 12 teams is bang on i reckon.

[Allez Hibs]

I'm really enjoying the league just now. Having the Edinburgh and Dundee derbies back is brilliant. I like the split and i like the relegation/promotion playoffs. 12 teams is bang on i reckon.
How is the current set up bang on? Playing each other 4 times a season just hands the title to either Rangers and Celtic?

How is the 11-1 voting structure a good thing meaning nothing for the benefit of the whole game gets voted through?

The current set up is totally weighted towards the old firm succeeding.

Hibs Hearts Aberdeen Dundee and Dundee Utd need to be brave here and not look after just their own interests but the bigger picture.

Is it really desirable for more of the same for the next 25 years, where we know either Rangers or Celtic will win the league before the start of each season, if so then what's really the point of Hibs Hearts Aberdeen even existing?

[MrSmith]

I don't understand how this ties in with you being 100% in agreement with Ozy. :confused:

Correct, misread the post so now edited.

[The Modfather]

I can’t see how adding 6 teams weaker than the current 12 improves any league? Surely if you want to improve a league you ask better teams to join?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

For me it’s not about improving the league by adding better teams but making changes to make it greater than the sum of its parts.

I’m not sure playing the likes of Motherwell or Livingston 4 times a season and possibly again in the cups is anymore desirable than playing Killie, Patrick, Raith or Ayr, as someone else mentioned, twice a season.

My preference would be to go with an 18 team league.There’s plenty of meaningless games in the current set up. If you just miss out on the arbitrary top 6, and are in no danger of relegation you have 5 dead rubbers to play out before you can finish the season. A scenario we have encountered in the not so distant past.

I’d look to have a root and branch clear out of those running the SPFL and bring in an external governing body. Doncaster takes a lot of stick, and rightly so, but he represents the clubs and it is them who keep him in his post. I don’t think any club, ours included, acts in the interest of the greater good or backs changes unless it benefits them. The fans don’t have a voice. The last review the fans backed a larger league but a 10 team league was proposed and backed by Hibs. You only have to look at Ron coming in as an outsider to see the benefits and new ideas he has brought with him. We missed a trick not getting Barry Hearn involved when he was interested. I’d reach out to him again.

The voting structure and distribution of money, across all leagues, but appreciate this is an SPFL review, needs reviewed, not just with the biggest two/biggest five clubs in mind.

I’d also like to copy the gentleman’s agreement the Dutch league had/has in terms of homegrown players in the matchday squad.

Once we sort the SPFL let’s start the SFA reform. Anyone any idea what Petrie’s vision is or what he’s doing differently 2 or 3 years down the line?

[Allez Hibs]

For me it’s not about improving the league by adding better teams but making changes to make it greater than the sum of its parts.

I’m not sure playing the likes of Motherwell or Livingston 4 times a season and possibly again in the cups is anymore desirable than playing Killie, Patrick, Raith or Ayr, as someone else mentioned, twice a season.

My preference would be to go with an 18 team league.There’s plenty of meaningless games in the current set up. If you just miss out on the arbitrary top 6, and are in no danger of relegation you have 5 dead rubbers to play out before you can finish the season. A scenario we have encountered in the not so distant past.

I’d look to have a root and branch clear out of those running the SPFL and bring in an external governing body. Doncaster takes a lot of stick, and rightly so, but he represents the clubs and it is them who keep him in his post. I don’t think any club, ours included, acts in the interest of the greater good or backs changes unless it benefits them. The fans don’t have a voice. The last review the fans backed a larger league but a 10 team league was proposed and backed by Hibs. You only have to look at Ron coming in as an outsider to see the benefits and new ideas he has brought with him. We missed a trick not getting Barry Hearn involved when he was interested. I’d reach out to him again.

The voting structure and distribution of money, across all leagues, but appreciate this is an SPFL review, needs reviewed, not just with the biggest two/biggest five clubs in mind.

I’d also like to copy the gentleman’s agreement the Dutch league had/has in terms of homegrown players in the matchday squad.

Once we sort the SPFL let’s start the SFA reform. Anyone any idea what Petrie’s vision is or what he’s doing differently 2 or 3 years down the line?

Agree with all of that.

Not getting Barry Hearn involved last time was a missed opportunity.

It can't be progressive to go forward with this current structure.

A 10 team league would be completely pointless and the joke of European Football.

[WhileTheChief..]

It's a polite way for Ron and Dave etc to get rid of the current exec.

They'll put a plan forward and if the smaller club don't agree we'll see a breakaway again.

Id imagine the old firm are in agreement with the 5 clubs but are just staying out the spotlight for a change.

[Brightside]

Playing teams 4 times a season is just boring. Extend the league. Reduce the overall number of “league” teams. Two leagues of 20. 2 up 2 down at all levels.

[Ozyhibby]

The revue is about increasing the revenues of the league, not about making the competition fairer. There is no way the leagues revenues get bigger by introducing smaller clubs.
The press release tells you this but still people carry on fantasising about 20 team leagues.[emoji849]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Tommy75]

I wonder if teams selling ppv for their own games has had an impact on how clubs look at the tv deal and it’s insistence on four bigotfests every year. The tv deal has always been the thing that has held back change in this country, clubs reliance on that money stops any meaningful reconstruction.

The current TV deal is a disgrace that shafts every club in the league other than The Rangers and Celtic.

[Allez Hibs]

The revue is about increasing the revenues of the league, not about making the competition fairer. There is no way the leagues revenues get bigger by introducing smaller clubs.
The press release tells you this but still people carry on fantasising about 20 team leagues.[emoji849]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It's pretty obvious a bigger league playing each other twice provides a better chance of Hibs Hearts or Aberdeen winning the league. Aberdeen might have won the league a few years ago if it was home and away against every team. Every supporter of these clubs should want a bigger league playing each other twice. Forget revenues, isn't football about trying to be successful? Sporting integrity and all that.

[Ozyhibby]

It's pretty obvious a bigger league playing each other twice provides a better chance of Hibs Hearts or Aberdeen winning the league. Aberdeen might have won the league a few years ago if it was home and away against every team. Every supporter of these clubs should want a bigger league playing each other twice. Forget revenues, isn't football about trying to be successful? Sporting integrity and all that.

But the revue is about increasing revenue. They have made that really really clear. It’s about finding more money to compete in Europe.
So talk of 18/20 teams leagues is a waste of oxygen.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Billy Whizz]

But the revue is about increasing revenue. They have made that really really clear. It’s about finding more money to compete in Europe.
So talk of 18/20 teams leagues is a waste of oxygen.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Did Ron not say somewhere a few weeks ago, that we had too many clubs in the SPFL?

[LeithMike]

I'm not sure there is an easy fix for Scottish football given the SPFL Premiership has teams from the quality equivalent to bottom half of English Premier League right down to Conference League. To make it better some kind of levelling up would be necessary but that will never happen.

I certainly amn't a fan of the current structure (an uneven split can impact who wins the title and who gets relegated) and would like to see an expanded league.

I get the argument that this might bring more meaningless games for some teams but the upside of that is half the league will not all be terrified of relegation and might, therefore, be in a position to play more youngsters. Taking the fear out of the game might also encourage teams to play more football. That can only be a good thing in the long-term.

Sent from my SM-N960F using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

Did Ron not say somewhere a few weeks ago, that we had too many clubs in the SPFL?

He did and he is right. The SPFL really should only be the full time professional clubs. There is a place for all the other clubs but not within the full time set up.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Allez Hibs]

Did Ron not say somewhere a few weeks ago, that we had too many clubs in the SPFL?

The SPFL is made up of 42 member clubs.

Two leagues of 18 then regional below for me. That's what most countries in Europe do.

Grow the game.

[Peevemor]

It's pretty obvious a bigger league playing each other twice provides a better chance of Hibs Hearts or Aberdeen winning the league. Aberdeen might have won the league a few years ago if it was home and away against every team. Every supporter of these clubs should want a bigger league playing each other twice. Forget revenues, isn't football about trying to be successful? Sporting integrity and all that.

Why is it obvious? From memory, the OF are generally at the top of the table by the time we get to 22 matches played (ie. all played each other once home & away).

[Ozyhibby]

Why is it obvious? From memory, the OF are generally at the top of the table by the time we get to 22 matches played (ie. all played each other once home & away).

Yip. It’s not the size of the league that keeps them winning. It’s the many multiples of pounds put into their wage bill that does that.
Seria A has 20 clubs but Juventus have won 9 out the last 10 championships.
Bundesliga has 18 teams and Bayern has won 9 out of 10 titles.
How come such big leagues are not providing multiple winners?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CMurdoch]

It's a polite way for Ron and Dave etc to get rid of the current exec.

They'll put a plan forward and if the smaller club don't agree we'll see a breakaway again.

Id imagine the old firm are in agreement with the 5 clubs but are just staying out the spotlight for a change.

Correct, this is all about self interest I.e.
Why should we share our cake with East Fife.
Why should we allow East Fife a vote on important matters.
Etc.

This is all about revenue, power and restructure to ensure the bigger teams get a bigger cut.
Easiest way to do that is set up a new governing body and freeze out the part time teams obviously after an 'independent review' paid for by the interested group.
They will obviously dress it up as something positive but a break away is what it will be.
Scotland has 4 cities of any size and this group contains only the 5 big city clubs outside of Glasgow.

The real truth is that the biggest single factor that holds Scottish football back post Bosman is our tiny population.
No strategic review or any other review can change this. It dictates everything from advertising revenues to the much discussed TV deal.
Our market is our population plus ex pats and the Irish. That won't support an EPL type circus.

Despite this we currently have the 8th best league in Europe as per the UEFA coefficient and our top league has the 7th highest average attendances in Europe.
Accordingly for all it's faults our league structure is punching well above it's weight so must be fit for purpose.
Where Scottish clubs have fallen post Bosman has been the sale of players for a fraction of their real value.
I reckon this is where increased revenue for bigger Scottish clubs can come from. Hibs are on the launchpad with this and Ron has held his nerve.

That leads us back to the beginning.
Unless this group can come up with significant new revenue streams this is simply a trojan horse with selfish ulterior motives.
Celtic and Rangers are the elephants in the room. Are they part of this or have they not been invited?

FWIW I believe Hibs and Hearts are on the rise and will go up a level next season.
Both clubs are debt free and have all but completed any infastructure projects.
Both can now seek to build increased revenues from the sale of players then reinvest in new players. Rince and repeat.

We have no real need to force smaller clubs out of the league structure to grab another few quid at their expense or exert our will on them at every turn.
In essence this has nothing to do with the number of teams in the top league or any other sporting factor.
It's all about money and power and this group may be seeking to do to other clubs what the Old Firm have done to us in the past.
There is no magic bullet only the slight of hand of selfish businessmen.
I will be watching closely.

[CapitalGreen]

Why is it obvious? From memory, the OF are generally at the top of the table by the time we get to 22 matches played (ie. all played each other once home & away).

Non-Old Firm teams average more points per game against other non-Old Firm teams. In the current set up, 21% (8/38) of a top 6 teams games are v an Old Firm team, in an 18 team league that drops to just 11% (4/36).

Last season Hibs averaged 1.7 points per game (0.5 per game v the Old Firm & 2 per game v the rest). If we applied those percentages to an 18 team set up our points per game increases to 1.81 points per game.

[Allez Hibs]

Why is it obvious? From memory, the OF are generally at the top of the table by the time we get to 22 matches played (ie. all played each other once home & away).

Top 2 after 22 games

14/15 Celtic Aberdeen 1pt between top 2
15/16 Celtic Aberdeen 4pts between top 2
16/17 Celtic Aberdeen 11pts between top 2 Rangers now in league
17/18 Celtic Aberdeen 8pts between top 2
18/19 Celtic Kilmarnock
19/20 Celtic Rangers
20/21 Rangers Celtic

See above, less games against the old firm makes a massive difference.

https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/scottish-premiership/formtabelle/wettbewerb/SC1?saison_id=2014&min=1&max=22

[Moulin Yarns]

He did and he is right. The SPFL really should only be the full time professional clubs. There is a place for all the other clubs but not within the full time set up.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

How would Kelty Hearts get a chance of higher level football if they were denied promotion because they can't go full time? How could these teams afford to be full time? Part of the enjoyment for some clubs is the pyramid system

[Ozyhibby]

Top 2 after 22 games

14/15 Celtic Aberdeen 1pt between top 2
15/16 Celtic Aberdeen 4pts between top 2
16/17 Celtic Aberdeen
17/18 Celtic Aberdeen
18/19 Celtic Kilmarnock
19/20 Celtic Rangers
20/21 Rangers Celtic

See above, less games against the old firm makes a massive difference.

https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/scottish-premiership/formtabelle/wettbewerb/SC1?saison_id=2014&min=1&max=22

Meaningless unless you are suggesting a 22 games season? It’s the second half of a season where the depth of talent in their squads starts to really count. Injuries for them mean another internationalist coming into the team where for most other clubs it’s a youngster or another journeyman pro that fans think is lucky to be there.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Allez Hibs]

Meaningless unless you are suggesting a 22 games season? It’s the second half of a season where the depth of talent in their squads starts to really count. Injuries for them mean another internationalist coming into the team where for most other clubs it’s a youngster or another journeyman pro that fans think is lucky to be there.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Your missing the point. Less games against the old firm means a more competitive league where Hibs Hearts or Aberdeen actually have a chance of winning the league.

[Ozyhibby]

How would Kelty Hearts get a chance of higher level football if they were denied promotion because they can't go full time? How could these teams afford to be full time? Part of the enjoyment for some clubs is the pyramid system

They have to accept there is a ceiling to what they can achieve the same as Hibs fans accept we have our limits.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Moulin Yarns]

They have to accept there is a ceiling to what they can achieve the same as Hibs fans accept we have our limits.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Restrictive practices! I can see the lawyers loving it 😉

What limits are imposed on hibs?

[Allez Hibs]

They have to accept there is a ceiling to what they can achieve the same as Hibs fans accept we have our limits.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Why should we accept it? When it's clearly an old firm cartel.

[Peevemor]

Your missing the point. Less games against the old firm means a more competitive league where Hibs Hearts or Aberdeen actually have a chance of winning the league.

So you say. I don't see any reason why this might be the case.

[Fergus52]

Correct, this is all about self interest I.e.
Why should we share our cake with East Fife.
Why should we allow East Fife a vote on important matters.
Etc.

This is all about revenue, power and restructure to ensure the bigger teams get a bigger cut.
Easiest way to do that is set up a new governing body and freeze out the part time teams.
They will obviously dress it up as something positive but that is what it will be.

The real truth is that the biggest single factor that holds Scottish football back post Bosman is our tiny population.
No strategic review or any other review can change this.

Despite this we currently have the 8th best league in Europe as per the UEFA coefficient and our top league has the 7th highest average attendances in Europe.
Accordingly for all it's faults our league structure is punching well above it's weight so must be fit for purpose.
Where Scottish clubs have fallen post Bosman has been the sale of players for a fraction of their real value.
I reckon this is where increased revenue for bigger Scottish clubs can come from. Hibs are on the launchpad with this and Ron has held his nerve.

That leads us back to the beginning.
Unless this group can come up with significant new revenue streams this is simply a trojan horse with selfish ulterior motives.
Celtic and Rangers are the elephants in the room. Are they part of this or have they not been invited?

FWIW I believe Hibs and Hearts are on the rise and will go up a level next season.
Both clubs are debt free and have all but completed any infastructure projects.
Both can now seek to build increased revenues from the sale of players then reinvest in new players. Rince and repeat.

We have no real need to force smaller clubs out of the league structure to grab another few quid at their expense or exert our will on them at every turn.
In essence this has nothing to do with the number of teams in the top league or any other sporting factor.
It's all about money and power and this group may be seeking to do to other clubs what the Old Firm have done to us in the past.
There is no magic bullet only the slight of hand of selfish businessmen.
I will be watching closely.

This is a good post, but I feel the current governance's inability to secure a decent TV deal is also a factor.

We have one of the worst TV deals of all the main football nations in Europe. Countries like Poland, Greece, czech republic all have lower ranked leagues than us but get far more money.

They may have bigger populations, but I'm sure I seen that countries like Denmark, Croatia and Serbia also get far more TV money than Scotland despite having a similar population.

[Allez Hibs]

So you say. I don't see any reason why this might be the case.

For me it's simple probability as CapitalGreen pointed out in his post. If you restrict the number of points the old firm can take off teams then surely it makes the whole league more competitive and narrows the gap at the top.

[Ozyhibby]

This is a good post, but I feel the current governance's inability to secure a decent TV deal is also a factor.

We have one of the worst TV deals of all the main football nations in Europe. Countries like Poland, Greece, czech republic all have lower ranked leagues than us but get far more money.

They may have bigger populations, but I'm sure I seen that countries like Denmark, Croatia and Serbia also get far more TV money than Scotland despite having a similar population.

Actually the TV deal we have now is quite competitive.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Allez Hibs]

Actually the TV deal we have now is quite competitive.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Eh??? The current TV deal is pathetic when compared with other leagues ranked below us in the coefficient table!

[Andy74]

For me it's simple probability as CapitalGreen pointed out in his post. If you restrict the number of points the old firm can take off teams then surely it makes the whole league more competitive and narrows the gap at the top.

They also play each other less so you’re giving them each a couple of easier fixtures too.

[Peevemor]

For me it's simple probability as CapitalGreen pointed out in his post. If you restrict the number of points the old firm can take off teams then surely it makes the whole league more competitive and narrows the gap at the top.

So we increase the top league to include teams like Kilmarnock, Raith Rovers, partick, etc. Who are most likely to drop points against those sides - Hibs/Hearts/Aberdeen or the old firm?

Also in the current set up, one of the OF is guaranteed to drop points 4 times per season, that would reduce to twice under your suggestion.

What makes either of the OF favourites for the league is that they have 5-10 times the spending power of anyone else. This means that they can assemble squads that will pick up points more consistently than anyone else.

I'm not saying the current set-up can't be bettered (I honestly don't know), but playing each other twice in a bigger league won't change anything in terms of the OF duopoly, but will hurt the likes of Hibs financially due to a huge drop in gate receipts - the OF with 40k+ & 50k+ STs won't be affected.

[CapitalGreen]

They also play each other less so you’re giving them each a couple of easier fixtures too.

Applying similar methodology to Rangers last season where Celtic, Hibs and Aberdeen are treated as their ‘difficult fixtures’ sees their average points per game actually drop slightly from 2.4 to 2.37 under an 18 team set up. Taking both together would have resulted in the gap between 1st and 3rd decreasing from 29 points to 20 points.

[Ozyhibby]

Eh??? The current TV deal is pathetic when compared with other leagues ranked below us in the coefficient table!

Which ones?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[jacomo]

Simple really. Follow Ron's plan to a degree and make the top league 16-18 teams playing each other twice like virtually every other top league in Europe as we do have the highest attended league per capita in Europe and all that.

Time to end the Old Firm reliance and have a proper competitive league. There's something wrong when we are the ONLY league out of the top 20 leagues to have the same TWO clubs play in the Champions League proper since it started.


Yes to all this. I think an expanded top division is the answer. It would hopefully drive up standards over time.

The Glasgow media will try to sabotage that by saying the smaller clubs rely on Old Firm crowds and the tv deal relies on 4 OF derbies a season. But that over reliance is in reality the problem… Scottish football needs a healthier and more competitive set up, which will in turn drive attendance and commercial income.

[CMurdoch]

This is a good post, but I feel the current governance's inability to secure a decent TV deal is also a factor.

We have one of the worst TV deals of all the main football nations in Europe. Countries like Poland, Greece, czech republic all have lower ranked leagues than us but get far more money.

They may have bigger populations, but I'm sure I seen that countries like Denmark, Croatia and Serbia also get far more TV money than Scotland despite having a similar population.

Poland has 40 million people, so that is 40 million possible customers to sell football coverage to and 40 million people for advertisers to target their wares to. So no mystery why the Polish league have a bigger TV contract than SPFL.

Assessing only the top line revenue of a TV contract in isolation does not give an accurate picture of value.
You need to work how much the TV companies are paying per game and how much revenue their coverage costs the clubs in reduced attendances.

The leagues you mention are badly attended.
The people in those countries take their teams games in on TV rather than attend so the TV deal is bigger because the companies sell the product to more customers but gate money is vastly reduced, hospitality, club shop sales etc reduced and the atmosphere at games poor.

The most accurate way to assess true match income is to add the season tickets, walk ups, hospitality etc and TV revenues together.
What you will find is that our TV deal is better than you thought.

The only significant money teams like Hibs are missing out on is transfer fees.
Take our recent European opponents Rijeka. Tiny attendances, reasonable TV deal but make their real money from transfer fees.
Take goalkeepers alone. They have sold 4 keepers in the last 8 years and brought in circa £8 million in the process.
Last keeper we sold was Goram 30 years ago!
Hibs are now on the launch pad of following this model and this is where the key to our future revenue growth really lies.

[Allez Hibs]

So we increase the top league to include teams like Kilmarnock, Raith Rovers, partick, etc. Who are most likely to drop points against those sides - Hibs/Hearts/Aberdeen or the old firm?

Also in the current set up, one of the OF is guaranteed to drop points 4 times per season, that would reduce to twice under your suggestion.

What makes either of the OF favourites for the league is that they have 5-10 times the spending power of anyone else. This means that they can assemble squads that will pick up points more consistently than anyone else.

I'm not saying the current set-up can't be bettered (I honestly don't know), but playing each other twice in a bigger league won't change anything in terms of the OF duopoly, but will hurt the likes of Hibs financially due to a huge drop in gate receipts - the OF with 40k+ & 50k+ STs won't be affected.

You would hope though in a more competitive league more Hibs fans would attend games and they would become more appealing to youngsters to support as a consequence.

[Peevemor]

You would hope though in a more competitive league more Hibs fans would attend games and they would become more appealing to youngsters to support as a consequence.

We can hope but I can't see it in the long term. Even in the 50s & 60s crowds were normally pretty low for unglamorous matches. The 10 team premier league was introduced partly because of this. If we take a 20 team top league, by the time we get 3/4 of the way through the season there'll be around 10 teams who have nothing to play for (with say 6 teams in with a shout for Europe & 4 scrapping it out at the bottom).

[Ozyhibby]

We can hope but I can't see it in the long term. Even in the 50s & 60s crowds were normally pretty low for unglamorous matches. The 10 team premier league waas introduced partly because of this. If we take a 20 team top league, by the time we get 3/4 of the way through the season there'll be around 10 teams who have nothing to play for (with say 6 teams in with a shout for Europe & 4 scrapping it out at the bottom).

And you can’t replace games v Heart, Aberdeen, Rangers and Celtic with Championship teams and expect crowds to rise. Hibs and Hearts are doing pretty well at bringing in good crowds just now. Certainly they are the highest they have been in my lifetime. I can’t see how swapping those fixtures will bring in more fans?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[bigwheel]

Why anyone thinks that a bigger league with more games against worse teams and less games against the bigger teams would be more interesting is beyond me ……and why they also view this will Somehow reduce the percentage of games The old firm win is another confused point for me

[Yorkshire HFC]

The only significant money teams like Hibs are missing out on is transfer fees.
Take our recent European opponents Rijeka. Tiny attendances, reasonable TV deal but make their real money from transfer fees.
Take goalkeepers alone. They have sold 4 keepers in the last 8 years and brought in circa £8 million in the process.
Last keeper we sold was Goram 30 years ago!
Hibs are now on the launch pad of following this model and this is where the key to our future revenue growth really lies.[/QUOTE]

Basing your future on selling players is not a business model - it's a massive gamble. What happens if you don't produce any decent players?

I'd guess that teams want the conclusion of this report to be that each team should be able to sell their own tv rights. The last year showed that attendances don't matter - clubs can survive without crowds - what they want to be able to do is to buy a Japanese player and sell the games to people in Japan. Buy an American player and get people in Texas to buy the games.

I was in Cairo when Liverpool were in the CL final - it was massive. Everyone in Egypt wants to watch Liverpool games just now because Salah plays for them - when he's sold to Barcelona, then they'll all change to supporting Barcelona.

The model that worked in Scotland in 1950, and which we're still using, is not the way forward.

[ancient hibee]

We can hope but I can't see it in the long term. Even in the 50s & 60s crowds were normally pretty low for unglamorous matches. The 10 team premier league waas introduced partly because of this. If we take a 20 team top league, by the time we get 3/4 of the way through the season there'll be around 10 teams who have nothing to play for (with say 6 teams in with a shout for Europe & 4 scrapping it out at the bottom).

My experience of the days of bigger leagues was that the aim of many clubs was to avoid relegation. Once it became clear,usually due to at least one club becoming detached,that a club would be safe instead of a relaxation with good football being played in an effort to move up that in fact many meaningless games took place. Tom Hart was a driving force in smaller leagues. He reasoned that the more games clubs played against the OF the more used they would become to the pressure of playing them. Although Hibs didn’t get a huge amount of success Aberdeen certainly did as did Dundee United to a lesser extent. The only pity was that lack of ambition by owners along with poor financial decisions meant that eventually the OF re established themselves at the top of the Scottish game.

[worcesterhibby]

The real truth is that the biggest single factor that holds Scottish football back post Bosman is our tiny population.
No strategic review or any other review can change this. It dictates everything from advertising revenues to the much discussed TV deal.
Our market is our population plus ex pats and the Irish. That won't support an EPL type circus.



The population of Scotland is 5.4million

The population of Norway is 5.4 million

The TV Deal for Scotland brings in 30 million

The TV Deal for Norway brings in 63 million

It's possible to earn significantly more from our TV deal without increasing our population. However it would involve far more live matches being shown, which might have a negative impact on attendances. We currently allow 48 live matches, plus play-offs. Norway currently allow 240 live matches.

Maybe the best way of looking at TV deals is to see how much money they bring in per head of population of the country. If we ignore England, Italy, Spain and Germany as they have a truly global reach rather than a mostly national reach then here are some relevant figures:

TV Money per head of population

Scotland - £5.50

Greece - £5
Portugal - £12.6
Poland - £1.24
Austria - £3
Belgium - £9
Netherlands - £4
Norway - £12
Sweden - £5

As you can see Portugal and Norway are over performing but both allow almost all matches to be broadcast live

Greece, Netherlands, Sweden are in the same ballpark as Scotland

Poland and Austria are under performing

We need to stop judging out TV income by England which brings in £29 per head of population and look at more comparable leagues

[Moulin Yarns]

The population of Scotland is 5.4million

The population of Norway is 5.4 million

The TV Deal for Scotland brings in 30 million

The TV Deal for Norway brings in 63 million

It's possible to earn significantly more from our TV deal without increasing our population. However it would involve far more live matches being shown, which might have a negative impact on attendances. We currently allow 48 live matches, plus play-offs. Norway currently allow 240 live matches.

Maybe the best way of looking at TV deals is to see how much money they bring in per head of population of the country. If we ignore England, Italy, Spain and Germany as they have a truly global reach rather than a mostly national reach then here are some relevant figures:

TV Money per head of population

Scotland - £5.50

Greece - £5
Portugal - £12.6
Poland - £1.24
Austria - £3
Belgium - £9
Netherlands - £4
Norway - £12
Sweden - £5

As you can see Portugal and Norway are over performing but both allow almost all matches to be broadcast live

Greece, Netherlands, Sweden are in the same ballpark as Scotland

Poland and Austria are under performing

We need to stop judging out TV income by England which brings in £29 per head of population and look at more comparable leagues

Another way of looking at it is what is paid per league game.

Scotland £625,000

Norway £262,500

[Dmas]

The population of Scotland is 5.4million

The population of Norway is 5.4 million

The TV Deal for Scotland brings in 30 million

The TV Deal for Norway brings in 63 million

It's possible to earn significantly more from our TV deal without increasing our population. However it would involve far more live matches being shown, which might have a negative impact on attendances. We currently allow 48 live matches, plus play-offs. Norway currently allow 240 live matches.

Maybe the best way of looking at TV deals is to see how much money they bring in per head of population of the country. If we ignore England, Italy, Spain and Germany as they have a truly global reach rather than a mostly national reach then here are some relevant figures:

TV Money per head of population

Scotland - £5.50

Greece - £5
Portugal - £12.6
Poland - £1.24
Austria - £3
Belgium - £9
Netherlands - £4
Norway - £12
Sweden - £5

As you can see Portugal and Norway are over performing but both allow almost all matches to be broadcast live

Greece, Netherlands, Sweden are in the same ballpark as Scotland

Poland and Austria are under performing

We need to stop judging out TV income by England which brings in £29 per head of population and look at more comparable leagues

Tv deal becomes more difficult when you take into consideration the comparable nations you mention will have their own national broadcaster we don’t have that, BBC Scotland won’t have £60m+ to spend on the football and probably can’t commit to the amount of games that sum would require them to show, Skys commitments are elsewhere we are already well aware of that and BT seem to be winding down.

SPFL TV Would maybe be an option but how that’s set up would need some real thinking, if clubs are handed the income on a stream by stream basis the gap between larger supported clubs and the smaller would grow and a Netflix style monthly sub model would probably have to be pretty steep for supporters to guarentee it covers or goes above the deal already in place, it will also likely hit clubs at the gate when the winter months kick in it’s easier to sit on the couch than attend in horrible conditions.

[jacomo]

I can’t see how adding 6 teams weaker than the current 12 improves any league? Surely if you want to improve a league you ask better teams to join?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


But those teams would likely improve over time no? A bigger league might encourage fresh investment into clubs like Dunfermline, Dundee, Kilmarnock etc.

[WhileTheChief..]

Does anyone actually have a clue about how these things work?

I don't. But I do know that TV companies don't just pick a number out of thin air.

They know exactly who watches what for how long. This is the info the ad agencies use to sell ad space.

They in turn know exactly what every second of screen time is worth.

So, ultimately they come up with a figure based on loads of factors. The SPFL can then try and haggle for a bit more I guess.

But what's the alternative? Sky are the only show in town and they know it. Premier Sports were never about to step up and offer more. Who else is there?

If Scottish Football was as desirable as some make out we'd have broadcasters fighting over themselves to show it. But it's not so there is isn't.

When teams in our top league barely get 5000 of their own fans in their stadium, it's a bit rich to expect a broadcaster to pay them zillions to put it on the telly. The demand simply isn't there.

Maybe in other countries there are several broadcasters meaning competition? Maybe some of them charge £100pm to watch the football?

Just saying that country X gets more than us therefore our deal is crap is pretty much just throwing toys out prams.

[jacomo]

Does anyone actually have a clue about how these things work?

I don't. But I do know that TV companies don't just pick a number out of thin air.

They know exactly who watches what for how long. This is the info the ad agencies use to sell ad space.

They in turn know exactly what every second of screen time is worth.

So, ultimately they come up with a figure based on loads of factors. The SPFL can then try and haggle for a bit more I guess.

But what's the alternative? Sky are the only show in town and they know it. Premier Sports were never about to step up and offer more. Who else is there?

If Scottish Football was as desirable as some make out we'd have broadcasters fighting over themselves to show it. But it's not so there is isn't.

When teams in our top league barely get 5000 of their own fans in their stadium, it's a bit rich to expect a broadcaster to pay them zillions to put it on the telly. The demand simply isn't there.

Maybe in other countries there are several broadcasters meaning competition? Maybe some of them charge £100pm to watch the football?

Just saying that country X gets more than us therefore our deal is crap is pretty much just throwing toys out prams.


All of this is a very good argument for change.

One unfortunate consequence of the internet is that money and attention becomes ever more focused on a smaller and smaller elite, with everyone else scrabbling for pennies.

I do wonder if the frequency of league OF games (and the Edinburgh derby) actually diminishes their appeal. Drop them to twice a season and their value would increase.

[Moulin Yarns]

All of this is a very good argument for change.

One unfortunate consequence of the internet is that money and attention becomes ever more focused on a smaller and smaller elite, with everyone else scrabbling for pennies.

I do wonder if the frequency of league OF games (and the Edinburgh derby) actually diminishes their appeal. Drop them to twice a season and their value would increase.

Aye, familiarity breeds contempt.


I know that a lot of people will watch whatever football is on the screen. Me, I will watch hibs, sometimes Scotland but rarely will I go out of my way to watch another game that has no interest for me.

Let's face it, one week we have some team against rangers and the following week it will be another team against Celtc. Very rarely is there a game on telly that doesn't involve one of Them! I get it, the TV companies want the maximum audience, but they are alienating half the viewing public.. IMHO

[Lendo]

Aye, familiarity breeds contempt.


I know that a lot of people will watch whatever football is on the screen. Me, I will watch hibs, sometimes Scotland but rarely will I go out of my way to watch another game that has no interest for me.

Let's face it, one week we have some team against rangers and the following week it will be another team against Celtc. Very rarely is there a game on telly that doesn't involve one of Them! I get it, the TV companies want the maximum audience, but they are alienating half the viewing public.. IMHO

The Old Firm derbies have been a boring, stale foul-fest for years now, perhaps even going back to before the original Rangers died. The only thing that it had going for it was the vile atmosphere, but if away fans aren’t coming back any time soon even that might die on its arse.

Two games a year (plus their inevitable meeting in cups) might start to return some life to the game.

[CMurdoch]

Basing your future on selling players is not a business model - it's a massive gamble. What happens if you don't produce any decent players?I'd guess that teams want the conclusion of this report to be that each team should be able to sell their own tv rights. The last year showed that attendances don't matter - clubs can survive without crowds - what they want to be able to do is to buy a Japanese player and sell the games to people in Japan. Buy an American player and get people in Texas to buy the games.I was in Cairo when Liverpool were in the CL final - it was massive. Everyone in Egypt wants to watch Liverpool games just now because Salah plays for them - when he's sold to Barcelona, then they'll all change to supporting Barcelona.The model that worked in Scotland in 1950, and which we're still using, is not the way forward.[/QUOTE]

Really, IMO teams selling their own TV rights would only suit the Old Firm.A lot of folk using IPTV and other free ways of streaming games would also cut deep into sales.That is to say nothing of the reduction in attendances and ancilliary sales such as match day food and drink and club shop sales.As for your chat about Salah. That is corporate circus football that has no relevance to Hibs. As for still using the same model as 1950 that is total rubbish.The model then was just to live for the day and spend all their money on players and wages.No thought for the future. No development. Players training in public parks.This amateur model was followed by Hibs until they finally ran the club right into the ground and we almost went out of business. At that point 30 years ago we were debt ridden and our ground was a slum collection of wooden and tin huts and the players trained in public parks. .The Hibs model after that was to live within our means and use monies raised to reduce our debt, rebuild our ground and build our own training centre. After 30 years Hibs and indeed Hearts have repaired the damage caused by the 1950-90 model and are ready to improve the team year on year and make progress in European competition.

[Smartie]

Does anyone actually have a clue about how these things work?

I don't. But I do know that TV companies don't just pick a number out of thin air.

They know exactly who watches what for how long. This is the info the ad agencies use to sell ad space.

They in turn know exactly what every second of screen time is worth.

So, ultimately they come up with a figure based on loads of factors. The SPFL can then try and haggle for a bit more I guess.

But what's the alternative? Sky are the only show in town and they know it. Premier Sports were never about to step up and offer more. Who else is there?

If Scottish Football was as desirable as some make out we'd have broadcasters fighting over themselves to show it. But it's not so there is isn't.

When teams in our top league barely get 5000 of their own fans in their stadium, it's a bit rich to expect a broadcaster to pay them zillions to put it on the telly. The demand simply isn't there.

Maybe in other countries there are several broadcasters meaning competition? Maybe some of them charge £100pm to watch the football?

Just saying that country X gets more than us therefore our deal is crap is pretty much just throwing toys out prams.

I remember seeing the Sky UK viewing figures for English and Scottish games a few years back. Obviously the English figures were bigger, but they weren't by the many orders of magnitude you might expect, or certainly that the different deals would lead you to expect. I think it might have been during Sevco's banter years, and the numbers they were drawing for games against the likes of Stenhousemuir were pretty eye watering tbh. Maybe the most hun-positive thing I'll ever say - is that there sure are a lot of them.

The OF drew big figures but even games involving "other Scottish teams" drew decent audiences.

They were way out of kilter with what you might expect, based on the money put into English and Scottish football by Sky.

Obviously there is then the global interest, where the English league will clearly appeal more to a global audience.

[wookie70]

Nothing is going to happen when we still have the farcical 11 - 1 voting system


Agree and it is the Dons fault we have that. Seems a bit ironic them putting forward a proposal that won't happen because they have essentially given the New, New Firm the casting vote

[jacomo]

I remember seeing the Sky UK viewing figures for English and Scottish games a few years back. Obviously the English figures were bigger, but they weren't by the many orders of magnitude you might expect, or certainly that the different deals would lead you to expect. I think it might have been during Sevco's banter years, and the numbers they were drawing for games against the likes of Stenhousemuir were pretty eye watering tbh. Maybe the most hun-positive thing I'll ever say - is that there sure are a lot of them.

The OF drew big figures but even games involving "other Scottish teams" drew decent audiences.

They were way out of kilter with what you might expect, based on the money put into English and Scottish football by Sky.

Obviously there is then the global interest, where the English league will clearly appeal more to a global audience.


Secvo were great for the lower leagues, really boosted attendance figures and audiences. I think it’s Celtic’s turn next :wink:

[jgl07]

The problem with Scottish football is the dominance of ‘Rangers’ and Celtic. The last time any other team won the League was in the early 1980s when Aberdeen and Dundee United were still competitive. That is not far off 40 years where two teams have a monopoly on League titles.

Compare that to England where Manchester City, Manchester United, Chelsea, Leicester City and Liverpool have all won League titles in the last ten years. Going back to the mid-1980s, you could add Arsenal, Blackburn Rovers, Leeds United, and Everton to that list. Extend it back a few more years and you could include Nottingham Forest, Derby County, and Aston Villa.

Until a formula is devised that can somehow break the dominance of the bigot brothers in Scotland, I don’t see much changing. I am not sure if or how this can be done.

[chippy]

He did and he is right. The SPFL really should only be the full time professional clubs. There is a place for all the other clubs but not within the full time set up.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I agree with you here Ozy. I’d presume there would be specific criteria for what F/T Pro meant in terms of 1st team pool and academy. How many clubs then? 24 -28 perhaps. Promotion relegation between 1st and 2nd tier. No automatic relegation from tier 2 but maybe go back to re election of bottom club if bottom on consecutive seasons. How would you divide the leagues if 24, 26 or 28? Looking at the current positions the only decent sized club not in the current top 24 is Falkirk. Queens Park are 23 , Montrose 24, Dumbarton 25, Falkirk 26, Cove Rangers 27 and Airdrie 28

12/12, similar to now
14/12, safer for some ? More attacking football, more younger players play earlier. Even split in tier1
14/14 as above but more so
14/12 as above
16/12 Needs splits through league , can still get 4 OF matches and probably Edinburgh derbies. Even more young players?
16/10 as above just 2 less teams

[HoboHarry]

Hope this review is actually read and considered, unlike the Henry McLeish review which was filed under trash while being laughed at by the ugly sisters....

[Smartie]

The problem with Scottish football is the dominance of ‘Rangers’ and Celtic. The last time any other team won the League was in the early 1980s when Aberdeen and Dundee United were still competitive. That is not far off 40 years where two teams have a monopoly on League titles.

Compare that to England where Manchester City, Manchester United, Chelsea, Leicester City and Liverpool have all won League titles in the last ten years. Going back to the mid-1980s, you could add Arsenal, Blackburn Rovers, Leeds United, and Everton to that list. Extend it back a few more years and you could include Nottingham Forest, Derby County, and Aston Villa.

Until a formula is devised that can somehow break the dominance of the bigot brothers in Scotland, I don’t see much changing. I am not sure if or how this can be done.

It’s interesting that “the next biggest 5” are getting together to discuss what might be done. This is the size of Scottish club who have underperformed quite horrendously over the past 30 years or so. Rangers and Celtic do what they do, their big crowds and European appearances generate results generally proportionate to that revenue. Clubs like St Johnstone, Ross County, Motherwell should really be applauded for the trophies they’ve won and players they’ve produced.

The 5 clubs mentioned? Ok, Aberdeen haven’t been relegated, but between Hibs, Hearts, Dundee United and Dundee you’ve got a couple of relegations each. Hearts and Dundee (at least once) have an insolvency event. There’s the odd cup win in there, and we shouldn’t easily dismiss the work these clubs have had to do since Hillsborough to get their grounds in order but the underachievement of Scotland’s biggest clubs out with the OF over the past quarter century or so has been shameful.

I’m glad they’re getting together to discuss it but remain a wee bit cynical about what they might come up with.

[Keith_M]

Perhaps the proposal should be that Rangers and Celtc only get two points for a win and the other teams still get three.

That would reduce the gap at the top quite a bit... though Rangers would still have won the league last season, ahead of Hibs in second place.

[hibbysam]

I agree with you here Ozy. I’d presume there would be specific criteria for what F/T Pro meant in terms of 1st team pool and academy. How many clubs then? 24 -28 perhaps. Promotion relegation between 1st and 2nd tier. No automatic relegation from tier 2 but maybe go back to re election of bottom club if bottom on consecutive seasons. How would you divide the leagues if 24, 26 or 28? Looking at the current positions the only decent sized club not in the current top 24 is Falkirk. Queens Park are 23 , Montrose 24, Dumbarton 25, Falkirk 26, Cove Rangers 27 and Airdrie 28

12/12, similar to now
14/12, safer for some ? More attacking football, more younger players play earlier. Even split in tier1
14/14 as above but more so
14/12 as above
16/12 Needs splits through league , can still get 4 OF matches and probably Edinburgh derbies. Even more young players?
16/10 as above just 2 less teams

So then we just chuck the rest of the pyramid under a bus for our own self interest? Fantastic idea that.

[Ozyhibby]

So then we just chuck the rest of the pyramid under a bus for our own self interest? Fantastic idea that.

In what way Chuck them under a bus? They would still exist just not as part of the professional set up.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Moulin Yarns]

In what way Chuck them under a bus? They would still exist just not as part of the professional set up.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

With no incentive to progress?????

What I said about Kelty Hearts earlier, these 'wee' clubs live to be part of the 'big boys'

these 'wee' teams are admitted to the league on merit, remember, that's how Livingston started, Ferranti Thistle, became Meadowbank Thistle before moving out of town. Inverness Caley Thistle, Ross County? Do you deny them the chance to grow, win cups etc????

[hibbysam]

In what way Chuck them under a bus? They would still exist just not as part of the professional set up.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Chucking them out the league they are currently in for starters (see Arbroath who are one tier from the top), what would you do when they get promoted? Clubs that are doing absolutely no harm and are where they deserve to be are getting binned due to their location/size? All extremely jambo thinking that.

[hibbysam]

With no incentive to progress?????

What I said about Kelty Hearts earlier, these 'wee' clubs live to be part of the 'big boys'

these 'wee' teams are admitted to the league on merit, remember, that's how Livingston started, Ferranti Thistle, became Meadowbank Thistle before moving out of town. Inverness Caley Thistle, Ross County? Do you deny them the chance to grow, win cups etc????

Nah he’d still expect them to take part in a cup competition to make it worthwhile for the bigger clubs.

[WhileTheChief..]

With no incentive to progress?????

What I said about Kelty Hearts earlier, these 'wee' clubs live to be part of the 'big boys'

these 'wee' teams are admitted to the league on merit, remember, that's how Livingston started, Ferranti Thistle, became Meadowbank Thistle before moving out of town. Inverness Caley Thistle, Ross County? Do you deny them the chance to grow, win cups etc????

Thing with this is, there are more fans of other clubs like yourself who stick up for these clubs, than there are of these wee clubs in the first place.

If under 1000 people can be assed to turn up regularly, should they really be part of the professional set up?

I'd say no. Sounds harsh, but hey-ho, under a bus they go.

They should have zero say on how the professional game is run.

[Moulin Yarns]

Thing with this is, there are more fans of other clubs like yourself who stick up for these clubs, than there are of these wee clubs in the first place.

If under 1000 people can be assed to turn up regularly, should they really be part of the professional set up?

I'd say no. Sounds harsh, but hey-ho, under a bus they go.

They should have zero say on how the professional game is run.

That's not the case though, I don't have the numbers to hand but the likes of Ross County were getting decent crowds in the highland league, same with Elgin. Why should the big clubs dictate who gets to join the club just because they don't get big crowds?

[hibbysam]

Thing with this is, there are more fans of other clubs like yourself who stick up for these clubs, than there are of these wee clubs in the first place.

If under 1000 people can be assed to turn up regularly, should they really be part of the professional set up?

I'd say no. Sounds harsh, but hey-ho, under a bus they go.

They should have zero say on how the professional game is run.

Yes they should. Football isn’t about size, if it was what right do we have to play with Rangers and Celtic? They got to where they are through merit and sporting achievement. The pyramid needs amended but in no way should we be binning over 100 clubs because they don’t get 10k through the door.

[WhileTheChief..]

That's not the case though, I don't have the numbers to hand but the likes of Ross County were getting decent crowds in the highland league, same with Elgin. Why should the big clubs dictate who gets to join the club just because they don't get big crowds?

Point taken, but I'm referring to the wee clubs with less than 1000 fans.

The big clubs should dictate what happens because they are meant to be the elite clubs of Scottish football.

These tiny wee clubs are nothing of the sort. They're community cubs, and more power to them for what they do, but they're a million miles form being elite.

All you ever hear form their chairmen is how they need money from the league or SFA. Well, if that's the case maybe they need to look at how their club are set up / run.

Look at the mess Brechin caused the last couple of years. Somehow their chairmen was a member of the board that decides what happens to the rest of Scottish football? The very definition of amateur hour and self interest.

I want guys like Cormack and Gordon running the show.

[WhileTheChief..]

Yes they should. Football isn’t about size, if it was what right do we have to play with Rangers and Celtic? They got to where they are through merit and sporting achievement. The pyramid needs amended but in no way should we be binning over 100 clubs because they don’t get 10k through the door.

The clubs can still exist in the same way as any other community clubs do. Junior football manages pretty well. Why do they have to be part of the professional set up?

They offer nothing.

It's a well accepted fact within football that clubs are nothing without fans. Well these clubs pretty much don't have any!

There were 230 people could be bothered going to watch Albion Rovers against Cowdenbeath last week. You think their chairmen should make decisions that could effect Hibs? Not on your Nelly.

[hibbyfraelibby]

Two full time leagues of 12 teams
Phase 1 22 qualifying games
Phase 2 split 8/8/8
All points returned to Zero round of 14 games.
Phase 3 top 4 play off for Premiership
38 game season

Bottom 4 seeded play off against top 4 in tier 2 home and away 38 game season.

Middle 8 see above

Bottom 8 same up to play offs then bottom 4 play off to avoid a relegation play off against the pyramid winners

Sound familiar? You can bet your 'tache on it

[hibbysam]

The clubs can still exist in the same way as any other community clubs do. Junior football manages pretty well. Why do they have to be part of the professional set up?

They offer nothing.

It's a well accepted fact within football that clubs are nothing without fans. Well these clubs pretty much don't have any!

There were 230 people could be bothered going to watch Albion Rovers against Cowdenbeath last week. You think their chairmen should make decisions that could effect Hibs? Not on your Nelly.

Junior football is literally dying on its arse. Superb comparison. All their clubs are joining the senior set up.

I want a football set up that is based on a clubs footballing ability. Very simple!

[Wakeyhibee]

Junior football is literally dying on its arse. Superb comparison. All their clubs are joining the senior set up.

I want a football set up that is based on a clubs footballing ability. Very simple!

Agree, and one that promotes without the need for extended play offs designed to give the higher club an advantage as there is in the Championship and Highland/Lowland leagues.

Totally for playoffs not the top and bottom ones the way they are.

[Allez Hibs]

It’s interesting that “the next biggest 5” are getting together to discuss what might be done. This is the size of Scottish club who have underperformed quite horrendously over the past 30 years or so. Rangers and Celtic do what they do, their big crowds and European appearances generate results generally proportionate to that revenue. Clubs like St Johnstone, Ross County, Motherwell should really be applauded for the trophies they’ve won and players they’ve produced.

The 5 clubs mentioned? Ok, Aberdeen haven’t been relegated, but between Hibs, Hearts, Dundee United and Dundee you’ve got a couple of relegations each. Hearts and Dundee (at least once) have an insolvency event. There’s the odd cup win in there, and we shouldn’t easily dismiss the work these clubs have had to do since Hillsborough to get their grounds in order but the underachievement of Scotland’s biggest clubs out with the OF over the past quarter century or so has been shameful.

I’m glad they’re getting together to discuss it but remain a wee bit cynical about what they might come up with.

Very good post.

[Allez Hibs]

Two full time leagues of 12 teams
Phase 1 22 qualifying games
Phase 2 split 8/8/8
All points returned to Zero round of 14 games.
Phase 3 top 4 play off for Premiership
38 game season

Bottom 4 seeded play off against top 4 in tier 2 home and away 38 game season.

Middle 8 see above

Bottom 8 same up to play offs then bottom 4 play off to avoid a relegation play off against the pyramid winners

Sound familiar? You can bet your 'tache on it

Far too messy that.

[hibbysam]

Agree, and one that promotes without the need for extended play offs designed to give the higher club an advantage as there is in the Championship and Highland/Lowland leagues.

Totally for playoffs not the top and bottom ones the way they are.

100%. Not helped by the amount of different bodies overseeing leagues. For example 2 different ones at tier 5, 3 at tier 6 - meaning clubs depending on their location start at a different point of the pyramid.

[Billy Whizz]

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/scottish-football-review-could-propose-lifting-of-alcohol-ban-xnrs7q9ls#:~:text=The%20news%20comes%20after%20The ,to%20be%20published%20next%20month.&text=Speaking%20to%20Hibs%20TV%2C%20Gordon,would%2 0love%20to%20see%20change.

Interview with Ron Gordon in The Times today re this. I don’t have a subscription unfortunately
He’s also done with Brian McLaughlin of the BBC, not sure when it will be aired

[Danderhall Hibs]

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/scottish-football-review-could-propose-lifting-of-alcohol-ban-xnrs7q9ls#:~:text=The%20news%20comes%20after%20The ,to%20be%20published%20next%20month.&text=Speaking%20to%20Hibs%20TV%2C%20Gordon,would%2 0love%20to%20see%20change.

Interview with Ron Gordon in The Times today re this. I don’t have a subscription unfortunately
He’s also done with Brian McLaughlin of the BBC, not sure when it will be aired

I didn’t hear it but I think I was on before the matches today with Willie Miller being dubious due to Gordon using “big words”.

[Billy Whizz]

I didn’t hear it but I think I was on before the matches today with Willie Miller being dubious due to Gordon using “big words”.

They played a snippet of it, Willie Miller etc said they’d seen so many reviews over the years, and nothing ever happened

[Stairway 2 7]

They played a snippet of it, Willie Miller etc said they’d seen so many reviews over the years, and nothing ever happened

That's the attitude willie 😆 Ron and dare I say it budge ect, are a breath of fresh air compared to the same old mouth pieces

[bingo70]

I didn’t hear it but I think I was on before the matches today with Willie Miller being dubious due to Gordon using “big words”.

😂 Brilliant.

The likes of Willie Miller will be terrified the SPFL gets it’s actually together and starts to promote itself properly as he should be nowhere near it now.

Remember the day before the season started last season I was really excited about football starting up again, tuned into the BBC season preview and they spent around 15 minutes of a 45 minutes build up to the season ahead discussing whether it would be a problem that we’d be able to hear swearing from the dug outs.

[Danderhall Hibs]

That's the attitude willie 😆 Ron and dare I say it budge ect, are a breath of fresh air compared to the same old mouth pieces

No idea why this guys still on the radio. I’m 43, he was a great player when I was at primary school, a crap manager when I was at high school and he’s been a ***** pundit ever since. Doesn’t understand stuff, played in an era of football that’s not relevant to todays games but still gets airtime?

[chippy]

1) Spfl. Full time clubs only. Each club will have to have minimum of x players on full time contracts with likely minimum wage set by spfl
2) 24-28 clubs likely outcome 2 divisions. Splits up and down leagues.
3) no direct relegation from 2nd tier, club bottom for 2 consecutive seasons must be re elected
4) u 23 B team/reserve league for minimum of 10 clubs. Clubs that can’t afford a B team can share a team with another club e.g Dundee and St Johnstone, Ross Couny and ICT, St Mirren and Killie, etc. These players can be utilised by the first team.
5) Similarly under 18/19 league minimum of 10 teams. Can be utilised by B and even A team.
6) League Cup still open to semi pro teams through a qualification phase
7) Streamed live away games per club, on a season subscription or ppv basis. Home season ticket gets you live stream if not attending. Potential return of Spl TV? Ron knows his stuff
8) Exploration of potential new additional tournament with Scandic clubs

[Gatecrasher]

1) Spfl. Full time clubs only. Each club will have to have minimum of x players on full time contracts with likely minimum wage set by spfl
2) 24-28 clubs likely outcome 2 divisions. Splits up and down leagues.
3) no direct relegation from 2nd tier, club bottom for 2 consecutive seasons must be re elected
4) u 23 B team/reserve league for minimum of 10 clubs. Clubs that can’t afford a B team can share a team with another club e.g Dundee and St Johnstone, Ross Couny and ICT, St Mirren and Killie, etc. These players can be utilised by the first team.
5) Similarly under 18/19 league minimum of 10 teams. Can be utilised by B and even A team.
6) League Cup still open to semi pro teams through a qualification phase
7) Streamed live away games per club, on a season subscription or ppv basis. Home season ticket gets you live stream if not attending. Potential return of Spl TV? Ron knows his stuff
8) Exploration of potential new additional tournament with Scandic clubs

The first three can bolt lol
4 and 5,meh another reserve restructuring that will be changed again a few years later.
6 meh same as above.
7 yes please
8 lol

[Allez Hibs]

1) Spfl. Full time clubs only. Each club will have to have minimum of x players on full time contracts with likely minimum wage set by spfl
2) 24-28 clubs likely outcome 2 divisions. Splits up and down leagues.
3) no direct relegation from 2nd tier, club bottom for 2 consecutive seasons must be re elected
4) u 23 B team/reserve league for minimum of 10 clubs. Clubs that can’t afford a B team can share a team with another club e.g Dundee and St Johnstone, Ross Couny and ICT, St Mirren and Killie, etc. These players can be utilised by the first team.
5) Similarly under 18/19 league minimum of 10 teams. Can be utilised by B and even A team.
6) League Cup still open to semi pro teams through a qualification phase
7) Streamed live away games per club, on a season subscription or ppv basis. Home season ticket gets you live stream if not attending. Potential return of Spl TV? Ron knows his stuff
8) Exploration of potential new additional tournament with Scandic clubs

Nope. That would make things even worse.

[Allez Hibs]

😂 Brilliant.

The likes of Willie Miller will be terrified the SPFL gets it’s actually together and starts to promote itself properly as he should be nowhere near it now.

Remember the day before the season started last season I was really excited about football starting up again, tuned into the BBC season preview and they spent around 15 minutes of a 45 minutes build up to the season ahead discussing whether it would be a problem that we’d be able to hear swearing from the dug outs.

Did anyone hear him say Ron is using American type words like "increased revenue" then went on to say OK they are just words. Bizzare. You are part of th eproblem Willie. Time to be part of the solution Willie.

[Wakeyhibee]

1) Spfl. Full time clubs only. Each club will have to have minimum of x players on full time contracts with likely minimum wage set by spfl
2) 24-28 clubs likely outcome 2 divisions. Splits up and down leagues.
3) no direct relegation from 2nd tier, club bottom for 2 consecutive seasons must be re elected
4) u 23 B team/reserve league for minimum of 10 clubs. Clubs that can’t afford a B team can share a team with another club e.g Dundee and St Johnstone, Ross Couny and ICT, St Mirren and Killie, etc. These players can be utilised by the first team.
5) Similarly under 18/19 league minimum of 10 teams. Can be utilised by B and even A team.
6) League Cup still open to semi pro teams through a qualification phase
7) Streamed live away games per club, on a season subscription or ppv basis. Home season ticket gets you live stream if not attending. Potential return of Spl TV? Ron knows his stuff
8) Exploration of potential new additional tournament with Scandic clubs

As above replies but also.

No 3 - how does pullimg the ladder up further, stifeling competition, get a look in to any set up? Sends a clear message "dont invest, advertise in or sponsor in grass roots Scottish football"

[Phil MaGlass]

As above replies but also.

No 3 - how does pullimg the ladder up further, stifeling competition, get a look in to any set up? Sends a clear message "dont invest, advertise in or sponsor in grass roots Scottish football"

To be fair, I think he is just putting out a load of ideas for folk to debate and talk about and get folk to give their input on how they could see the game panning out? If folk are going to disagree, say why and they can give their ideas. Building blocks.