They're trying to force a ten team league again

[SHODAN]

Hopefully an April fool. SPFL working group are doing what they do every 5 or so years and trying to reduce the size of the league instead of expanding it.

[JohnM1875]

Hopefully an April fool. SPFL working group are doing what they do every 5 or so years and trying to reduce the size of the league instead of expanding it.

Not an April fools joke and worrying they see that as the way forward. Will never get enough votes to pass.

"THE SPFL are drawing up plans to return to a 10-team Premiership and abolish the top-six split.

The Competitions Working Group are studying potential changes to the league structure in order to ease the fixture congestion caused by the expansion of UEFA club competitions.


The CWG have also been asked to help secure a softer landing for clubs like Brechin City and Cowdenbeath when they drop out of the senior set-up to the largely unfunded Lowland and Highland Leagues.


While most supporters favour an expansion of the top flight to 14 or 16 teams, Herald Sport has learned that the idea gaining most traction is a return to a 10-team top flight with a drop in the number of fixtures from 38 to 36. Below that would be a second tier of 10 clubs and a third league potentially featuring 16 clubs or more. "

[we are hibs]

Someone get Ann Budge on the phone. Heard she's big on reconstruction for the betterment of Scottish football.

Sent from my SM-A405FN using Tapatalk

[HoboHarry]

Not an April fools joke and worrying they see that as the way forward. Will never get enough votes to pass.

"THE SPFL are drawing up plans to return to a 10-team Premiership and abolish the top-six split.

The Competitions Working Group are studying potential changes to the league structure in order to ease the fixture congestion caused by the expansion of UEFA club competitions.


The CWG have also been asked to help secure a softer landing for clubs like Brechin City and Cowdenbeath when they drop out of the senior set-up to the largely unfunded Lowland and Highland Leagues.


While most supporters favour an expansion of the top flight to 14 or 16 teams, Herald Sport has learned that the idea gaining most traction is a return to a 10-team top flight with a drop in the number of fixtures from 38 to 36. Below that would be a second tier of 10 clubs and a third league potentially featuring 16 clubs or more. "
So is that what that rascal does when he isn't keeping .net straight on all matters financial?

[Not In The Know]

Never let the aresholes at Aberdeen forget they blew the only chance to get rid of the 2 team veto voting on stuff like this.

[JohnM1875]

So is that what that rascal does when he isn't keeping .net straight on all matters financial?

😂 doesn't strike you as a 10-team league kinda guy. Just goes to show, you never know.

[Billy Whizz]

Where is this getting reported

[JohnM1875]

Where is this getting reported

An exclusive from The Herald. Various other places going with it as well. PLZ etc

[AmericanKev]

An exclusive from The Herald. Various other places going with it as well. PLZ etc

April fool

[overdrive]

They want a 36 game season.
Fans want less repetition of teams that they play.

Why not:

16 team league.
Play each other twice, home and away (30 games each).

Split into 4 sections of 4 teams.
Play each other twice, home and away (6 extra games each).

Total 36 games.

Disadvantage would be the middle two sections, probably have nothing to play for but maybe make seeding or a bye in a revised League Cup format a "prize to be won" in those sections. The other disadvantage which is why it would never be voted in would be the money going round more teams.

Potentially less derbies, though (though you'd pretty much be guaranteed 4 OF games which is what the league seems to care about).

[overdrive]

April fool

It was only posted about an hour ago so past the noon cut-off for that sort of thing

[Jones28]

All for the sake of dropping 2 games?

I don't like the term but a 10 team top flight is diddy league stuff. Basically this would be done to better facilitate Celtic and Rangers European campaigns. Are we just going to not have weekend games prior to 2 European games per season? Whats the point?

[Dalianwanda]

The split keeps a bit of excitement in the middle of the table. Then theres the the European places and relegation to fight for. At the moment I dont see any need to change it we have something going on for almost every teamon the league. Although I would have been a fan of a larger league in the past I think we have it about right just now so dont see the need for change.

[Billy Whizz]

It was only posted about an hour ago so past the noon cut-off for that sort of thing

Huntigowk is past

[chippy]

April fool

Got to be but it got me until it sunk in

[davhibby]

They want a 36 game season.
Fans want less repetition of teams that they play.

Why not:

16 team league.
Play each other twice, home and away (30 games each).

Split into 4 sections of 4 teams.
Play each other twice, home and away (6 extra games each).

Total 36 games.

Disadvantage would be the middle two sections, probably have nothing to play for but maybe make seeding or a bye in a revised League Cup format a "prize to be won" in those sections. The other disadvantage which is why it would never be voted in would be the money going round more teams.

Potentially less derbies, though (though you'd pretty much be guaranteed 4 OF games which is what the league seems to care about).

The best way to get 36 games is 14 teams playing twice then a 6/8 split where you play twice. Works for everyone - Celtic and Rangers(who this is really all about) still play 4 times but only play 36 all in and the bottom 8 still play 38 games as a softener for losing a home game v the OF. Add in some sort of european playoff and a minimum of 2 down automatically and it’s every bit as interesting as the league currently is but seems to cater to the issue they have

[Pagan Hibernia]

If it's not an april fool it's a terrible idea.

There's little enough variety in the league calender as it is.

[Bishop Hibee]

I like the current set up. There’s no need for reconstruction. More likely to see Hearts winning the League Cup than a 16 team league.

[Paul1642]

They want a 36 game season.
Fans want less repetition of teams that they play.

Why not:

16 team league.
Play each other twice, home and away (30 games each).

Split into 4 sections of 4 teams.
Play each other twice, home and away (6 extra games each).

Total 36 games.

Disadvantage would be the middle two sections, probably have nothing to play for but maybe make seeding or a bye in a revised League Cup format a "prize to be won" in those sections. The other disadvantage which is why it would never be voted in would be the money going round more teams.

Potentially less derbies, though (though you'd pretty much be guaranteed 4 OF games which is what the league seems to care about).

16 teams is the way to go IMO, I’m sick of playing the same teams 4 times a season, and in theory even 5 or 6 in some cases if cup games dictate.

The 4 sections of 4 split wouldn’t be great IMO. The top 4 split would be weird as it would effectively be two separated competitions, Old Firm competing for the league and 3rd and 4th competing for the better European spot. That’s if the point gap even makes it relevant.

And then as you mention, the 9th - 12th split would be pointless. The potential upside of this would be a great opportunity to try out youth risk free.

I think a 7-7 split would be better, still resulting in 36 games, with the only downside being a team missing a fixture each gameweek after the split which would be really odd if you weren’t playing the final gameweek with something big at stake.

[Billy Whizz]

It’s in the Daily record now
Suggestion is 10 10 16

[Unseen work]

We need a bigger top flight league imo.

16 teams would be ideal

10 would be garbage and just increase the turnover in managers

[AmericanKev]

It was only posted about an hour ago so past the noon cut-off for that sort of thing

Don't think that applies online

[AmericanKev]

It’s in the Daily record now
Suggestion is 10 10 16

16 lower league??

[Lago]

Hopefully an April fool. SPFL working group are doing what they do every 5 or so years and trying to reduce the size of the league instead of expanding it.
There is zero chance of expanding the league.

[Ozyhibby]

There is zero chance the clubs including Hibs will vote for 14 or 16 team league. They can’t afford it. And the fans only say they want it but they don’t really. The minute Falkirk v Partick comes on Sportscene they will be switching off. Or when either visit Easter road the crowd will be thousands lower than if it were Aberdeen or Dundee Utd. Then there is the loss of the derby and Old firm games at Easter road. Easily the best attended games. Replace that with a visit from Dunfermline and see how well the hospitality suites and ticket sales do.
The only way to increase league size for Scotland is to bring in other big clubs from abroad. Fans might say they want more variety but when it comes down to what they will pay for, the reality is they are lying.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[greenlex]

There is zero chance the clubs including Hibs will vote for 14 or 16 team league. They can’t afford it. And the fans only say they want it but they don’t really. The minute Falkirk v Partick comes on Sportscene they will be switching off. Or when either visit Easter road the crowd will be thousands lower than if it were Aberdeen or Dundee Utd. Then there is the loss of the derby and Old firm games at Easter road. Easily the best attended games. Replace that with a visit from Dunfermline and see how well the hospitality suites and ticket sales do.
The only way to increase league size for Scotland is to bring in other big clubs from abroad. Fans might say they want more variety but when it comes down to what they will pay for, the reality is they are lying.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You speak for yourself. The home end is all but sold out when we played bottom of the table St Johnstone at the weekend. Fans will watch a winning team. They’re not lying they want to see the team win more often than not. Very good season ticket sales that I would be willing to bet would be replicated in a bigger league if we are winning.

[Nicho87]

I’d go 18 teams

34 games a season
Home and away

Simple

[JohnM1875]

You speak for yourself. The home end is all but sold out when we played bottom of the table St Johnstone at the weekend. Fans will watch a winning team. They’re not lying they want to see the team win more often than not.

Absolutely spot on. Pretty much every fan from every team I speak to are sick of the 4 times a season nonsense. Including fans of the OF teams.

Must be one of the few decent leagues in the world where we play the same teams four times.

[Paul1642]

There is zero chance the clubs including Hibs will vote for 14 or 16 team league. They can’t afford it. And the fans only say they want it but they don’t really. The minute Falkirk v Partick comes on Sportscene they will be switching off. Or when either visit Easter road the crowd will be thousands lower than if it were Aberdeen or Dundee Utd. Then there is the loss of the derby and Old firm games at Easter road. Easily the best attended games. Replace that with a visit from Dunfermline and see how well the hospitality suites and ticket sales do.
The only way to increase league size for Scotland is to bring in other big clubs from abroad. Fans might say they want more variety but when it comes down to what they will pay for, the reality is they are lying.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I hear all the points you say and still want a larger league. I have zero interest in the fact we are playing Rangers and Dundee yet again over the next few weeks other than the fact i desperately want the points to get us closer to Europe.

Would be no less interested if it were Dunfermline and Falkirk.

[HendoDelivered]

10 teams in the top flight sounds absolutely crap. Would welcome 14/16 league format though. The current set up has needed change for years IMO. It’s boring as hell playing the same teams 3/4 times a year.

[Billy Whizz]

A raft of proposals for change will now be debated among clubs including a return to a ten team top flight, remaining with a 12 side division or expanding to either 14 or 16 clubs.

The talks have been triggered after the SPFL’s Competitions Working Group received a request to put reconstruction back on the agenda.

It’s understood they will now schedule a meeting to take place later this month when a number of options will be explored.

The option of expanding to a 16 team top flight provides difficulties of its own and not just because it would result in slashing the fixture list to just 30 games over the course of the campaign - which would risk incurring the wrath of broadcasters who have already shelled out to screen an increased number of live matches from Scotland’s top division.

separate discussion is also set to take place at the other end of the pyramid which could see the creation of a Midlands League to sit alongside the current Highland and Lowland set-ups.

If change can be agreed and consensus across the board, which seems unlikely, a proposal for change would then go forward to the SPFL’s AGM where it would then be rubber-stamped with a new look set-up put in place for the start of the 2026/27 season.

Last paragraph says it’s unlikely

https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11781/13339891/scottish-premiership-spfl-competitions-working-group-drawing-up-plans-over-10-team-top-flight-and-scrapping-top-six-split

Sky reporting it now

[bingo70]

I’d go 18 teams

34 games a season
Home and away

Simple

Whether you agree with it or not, any solution needs to include 4 old firm games a season. Any alternative suggestions are just pie in the sky that’ll never happen, our tv deal depends on it and the clubs depend on the TV deal.

I love the split but think there has to be a better way of incorporating it so all teams play an equal number of games. Some kind of split after we play each other twice seems an obvious starting point.

[Ozyhibby]

I hear all the points you say and still want a larger league. I have zero interest in the fact we are playing Rangers and Dundee yet again over the next few weeks other than the fact i desperately want the points to get us closer to Europe.

Would be no less interested if it were Dunfermline and Falkirk.

Like all clubs we have fans who would go watch us in a training game but that doesn’t change the fact that some fans are only up for the big games. Ticket sales show that.
If we are up for losing money then we have to accept that will mean signing poorer quality players.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[SickBoy32]

I’d go 18 teams

34 games a season
Home and away

Simple

Only way we’ll ever see a non OF league winner would be in the above format. I’d love to see us go for a 20 team league home and away.

Always find it baffling that folk are content to just be eternal also rans in the current setup.

Unfortunately football in Scotland is run by the OF, for the OF - so there is zero chance of this. Bleak.

[JeMeSouviens]

Whether you agree with it or not, any solution needs to include 4 old firm games a season. Any alternative suggestions are just pie in the sky that’ll never happen, our tv deal depends on it and the clubs depend on the TV deal.

I love the split but think there has to be a better way of incorporating it so all teams play an equal number of games. Some kind of split after we play each other twice seems an obvious starting point.

:agree:

14 teams split into a top 6 and bottom 8 I think.

[Paul1642]

Whether you agree with it or not, any solution needs to include 4 old firm games a season. Any alternative suggestions are just pie in the sky that’ll never happen, our tv deal depends on it and the clubs depend on the TV deal.

I love the split but think there has to be a better way of incorporating it so all teams play an equal number of games. Some kind of split after we play each other twice seems an obvious starting point.

Create a charity shield style competition where 1st and 2nd from previous year play each other. The rest of us can not give a crap about it and they get they precious only firm game.

[Hibs4185]

https://m.youtube.com/shorts/hsKbWqoom_Q

This guy has a decent idea

[DH1875]

Hopefully get rid of this top six split. The notion that finishing 6th in the league is some sort of success baffles me.

[LEaston87]

14 teams
Top 6
Bottom 8

26 games then split (each team home and away)

Top 6 play each other twice total 36 games.

Bottom 8 play each other once total 33 games, then 7-10 play each other once and 11-14 play each other once.

Bottom 2 relegated, third bottom playoff against third in championship.

7-10 placed teams final games have the incentive of finishing 7th gets a bye from the league cup group stages to prevent the games being a dead rubber.

[Ozyhibby]

14 teams
Top 6
Bottom 8

26 games then split (each team home and away)

Top 6 play each other twice total 36 games.

Bottom 8 play each other once total 33 games, then 7-10 play each other once and 11-14 play each other once.

Bottom 2 relegated, third bottom playoff against third in championship.

7-10 placed teams final games have the incentive of finishing 7th gets a bye from the league cup group stages to prevent the games being a dead rubber.

Hibs and Hearts would not vote for that. Too big a risk of losing two derbies.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Billy Whizz]

Is it still an 11/1 voting to get this through?
Can’t see the likes of County and St Johnstone etc voting for this

[skyehibee]

No chance any of this gets past the voting stage.

[.Sean.]

:agree:

14 teams split into a top 6 and bottom 8 I think.
A bottom 8 would be utterly pointless. Half a season with nothing to play for bar dead rubbers for some teams

[Paul1642]

No chance any of this gets past the voting stage.

Turkeys voting for Christmas is terms of relegation for several of the current bottom 6 if they were to vote for this, with very little, if any gain. I don't see what any non old firm team would think they gain from a 10 team league.

That’s before you factor in that the fans simply don’t want it and at least some of the boards dint hold their fans in contempt.

[AmericanKev]

It's amazing how many times things happen that people don't want, I include other things in life in that btw like Trump etc..

If they wanted rid of the split they should have done it long ago (started in 2000-01).


It's possibly time for change but it needs to go the other way and EXPAND the league - not back to last century's set up.

[davhibby]

A bottom 8 would be utterly pointless. Half a season with nothing to play for bar dead rubbers for some teams

They’d have to add in a European playoff as quite a lot of similar sized leagues have. 7/8 play and the winner plays 5th or something similar. With that and 2 going down automatically you’d keep everyone playing for something for the most part.

It’s obvious that this is all because Celtic and Rangers want to play less games due to the extra games in the top 2 European comps. 14 with a split is the only option that might get enough support that offers that. You’d imagine Sky will be saying they need 4 derbies so that rules out having anything bigger

[Ozyhibby]

Turkeys voting for Christmas is terms of relegation for several of the current bottom 6 if they were to vote for this, with very little, if any gain. I don't see what any non old firm team would think they gain from a 10 team league.

That’s before you factor in that the fans simply don’t want it and at least some of the boards dint hold their fans in contempt.

They would gain more games v the old firm which means more money? For Hibs and Hearts it guarantees the 4th derby.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[hibsforeurope]

There’s easily 4 possibly 6 teams in the championship who would be capable of making the top flight 16 or even 18 teams. Play home and away simple. Less games, less boredom for fans and some much needed variety.
I really hope Hibs consult fans before they vote on this.

[Wilson]

It's amazing how many times things happen that people don't want, I include other things in life in that btw like Trump etc..

If they wanted rid of the split they should have done it long ago (started in 2000-01).


It's possibly time for change but it needs to go the other way and EXPAND the league - not back to last century's set up.

Enough people voted Trump. They got what they wanted.

[Ozyhibby]

It's amazing how many times things happen that people don't want, I include other things in life in that btw like Trump etc..

If they wanted rid of the split they should have done it long ago (started in 2000-01).


It's possibly time for change but it needs to go the other way and EXPAND the league - not back to last century's set up.

I can’t see anyway that there is the votes for any kind of change just now? The way the voting system works I just don’t see it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

There’s easily 4 possibly 6 teams in the championship who would be capable of making the top flight 16 or even 18 teams. Play home and away simple. Less games, less boredom for fans and some much needed variety.
I really hope Hibs consult fans before they vote on this.

That would mean much less income for Hibs? There is no way we vote for that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[AmericanKev]

currently 38 games per season so any change needs to stay close to that figure but with a view to expanding the league.

The split for all it's faults actually quite works .

[AmericanKev]

Hopefully get rid of this top six split. The notion that finishing 6th in the league is some sort of success baffles me.

It's something that teams like Kilmarnock strive for. Top 6 means one more home game v the old firm and that gets the club through the year. As you say, it's not a success story.

[Michael]

Realistically I think we probably have the best format for Scottish football already. 18 team league would have too many meaningless fixtures. Maybe 14 would work, but it gets complicated with a split - would have to be 8/6 or something

[Nicho87]

On reflection I said 18 teams

My second choice would even be 14 teams

Play each other 3 times a season, no split.

Would mean most teams get one of old firm at home twice a season so three in total.

Means less times playing each other slightly

But I’d still like Scotland to be bold and go 18

I’d rather watch a fife derby for instance rather than st Mirren v Ross county

[AmericanKev]

On reflection I said 18 teams

My second choice would even be 14 teams

Play each other 3 times a season, no split.

Would mean most teams get one of old firm at home twice a season so three in total.

Means less times playing each other slightly

But I’d still like Scotland to be bold and go 18

I’d rather watch a fife derby for instance rather than st Mirren v Ross county


Do you think Sky and to a lesser extent Primer sports will be interested?

They want 4 old firm and the possible 4 Edinburgh & Dundee derbies.

[lyonhibs]

When you see what % of the teams would have to agree to the changes down the leagues, there's more chance of my wife allowing me a sultry affair with Margot Robbie AND Margot Robbie being up for it then there is of anything changing fundamentally. Lot of hot wind.

[Gmack7]

They’d have to add in a European playoff as quite a lot of similar sized leagues have. 7/8 play and the winner plays 5th or something similar. With that and 2 going down automatically you’d keep everyone playing for something for the most part.

It’s obvious that this is all because Celtic and Rangers want to play less games due to the extra games in the top 2 European comps. 14 with a split is the only option that might get enough support that offers that. You’d imagine Sky will be saying they need 4 derbies so that rules out having anything bigger
Are we not close to losing the 5th European place? I'd be gutted to finish 4th and lose a playoff to the 7th placed team

[AmericanKev]

When you see what % of the teams would have to agree to the changes down the leagues, there's more chance of my wife allowing me a sultry affair with Margot Robbie AND Margot Robbie being up for it then there is of anything changing fundamentally. Lot of hot wind.

But never underestimate that Doncaster fella. Slimey bas

[greenginger]

I’m sure the loudest voices in the claims of too many fixtures are two arse cheeks.

They are always the first to be touring the far east or states playing glamour friendlies and creating extra fixtures to top up their coffers.

[lyonhibs]

But never underestimate that Doncaster fella. Slimey bas

If he can set me up with Margot Robbie, I'm perfectly happy to forgive his previous sins.

[Ozyhibby]

If he can set me up with Margot Robbie, I'm perfectly happy to forgive his previous sins.

Might be Doncaster in a Margot Robbie mask.[emoji2961]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

Looking round Europe it appears that only Norway (16) and Cyprus (14) have a league bigger than 12 among countries with a population of 5 million or less.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ruthven_raiders]

Realistically I think we probably have the best format for Scottish football already. 18 team league would have too many meaningless fixtures. Maybe 14 would work, but it gets complicated with a split - would have to be 8/6 or something

6/8 split is perfect, top get 36 games, so old firm get less games, keeps excitement going till split, also even number of home and away games, 14 is the only option that should considered...

[ancient hibee]

I think this group has had to produce something to justify a few expense account lunches.

[Ozyhibby]

6/8 split is perfect, top get 36 games, so old firm get less games, keeps excitement going till split, also even number of home and away games, 14 is the only option that should considered...

Bottom 8 after the split will be very dull for a couple of teams.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Joe6-2]

Where is this getting reported

STV news

[BILLYHIBS]

There is going to be a Budgie meltdown and a High Court case if for any reason Hearts go down :greengrin

[Mcbizz1998]

The BBC are reporting that it’s not just a 10 team league being considered, 14 and 16 also?

Would be more than happy to make it a bigger league.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/c62x56lvl55o

[hibsbollah]

I’d go 18 teams

34 games a season
Home and away

Simple

Id love that. Sadly its all about the old firm tv fodder. If they could play each other 6 games a season the tv guys would be over the moon and we’d all probably all vote for it.

[Eyrie]

I've said it before and I'll say it again.

We need a 24 team set up with everyone playing 36 games.

The top twelve play home and away for 22 games, then the league splits with the top eight playing home and away again for Europe and the title.

The lower twelve play home and away for 22 games, then the league splits with the top four in that league and the bottom four in the top twelve play home and away again for promotion/relegation.

The bottom eight teams in the lower twelve play home and away after the split to avoid relegation to the regional leagues.

Having a more fluid promotion/relegation situation means that there will be more variety in the teams each club plays in the first half of the season and the second half of the season will give teams of a similar standard meaningful games.

[HarpOnHibee]

The solution is quite simple. Reduce the 4 professional leagues down to 3.

From 12-10-10-10 to 2-20-20. Problem solved.

[Sylar]

14 or 16 don't work - twice a season only results in 26 or 30 games home and away, which is too few...play 3 times and one of either Rangers or Celtc gets 2 home games, and neither will agree to that. Four times is too much...

The only way to expand it properly (without any weird split) is 18 or 20. Both of those result in Sky losing 2 Old Firm games, and most likely ALL clubs losing TV revenue as a result (as that's all Sky are really interested in).

Quite the bind...

[Speedy]

Never let the aresholes at Aberdeen forget they blew the only chance to get rid of the 2 team veto voting on stuff like this.

Anyone know why they did that? I mean, I imagine self interest. But what did they think was going to happen?

[HarpOnHibee]

Anyone know why they did that? I mean, I imagine self interest. But what did they think was going to happen?

More concerned about losing their blood money several times a season than to stand up for something principled.

[SHODAN]

I've said it before and I'll say it again.

We need a 24 team set up with everyone playing 36 games.

The top twelve play home and away for 22 games, then the league splits with the top eight playing home and away again for Europe and the title.

The lower twelve play home and away for 22 games, then the league splits with the top four in that league and the bottom four in the top twelve play home and away again for promotion/relegation.

The bottom eight teams in the lower twelve play home and away after the split to avoid relegation to the regional leagues.

Having a more fluid promotion/relegation situation means that there will be more variety in the teams each club plays in the first half of the season and the second half of the season will give teams of a similar standard meaningful games.

This is it.

They floated this idea a while back if I remember correctly.

[PatHead]

Anyone know why they did that? I mean, I imagine self interest. But what did they think was going to happen?

Stewart Milne had a different plan for Scottish football and tried to be clever by blackmailing clubs unless they agreed with him. Can't remember his cunning plan but I was told this by another clubs chairman.

[SickBoy32]

Realistically I think we probably have the best format for Scottish football already. 18 team league would have too many meaningless fixtures. Maybe 14 would work, but it gets complicated with a split - would have to be 8/6 or something

A cynic could argue that every league game in the current setup is meaningless. 10 out of 12 teams scrapping it out for either a few trips to the continent (great for us fans to be fair 👍) - or to avoid relegation.

10 out of 12 teams playing 38 games in a competition that has been setup to ensure we cannot win it.

We need change, but even the voting structure has been rigged against us !

[marinello59]

You speak for yourself. The home end is all but sold out when we played bottom of the table St Johnstone at the weekend. Fans will watch a winning team. They’re not lying they want to see the team win more often than not. Very good season ticket sales that I would be willing to bet would be replicated in a bigger league if we are winning.

We had something to play for on Saturday
When we had the bigger league there were far too many meaningless games with nothing at stake resulting in low attendances. The current set up isn’t perfect but it’s part of the reason why Hibs v St Johnstone did attract a large crowd.

[chippy]

We had something to play for on Saturday
When we had the bigger league there were far too many meaningless games with nothing at stake resulting in low attendances. The current set up isn’t perfect but it’s part of the reason why Hibs v St Johnstone did attract a large crowd.

Disagree completely. Big crowd is due to Hibs on a 14 league run without defeat after being bottom of league. Having a strong footballing side scoring goals and being strong favourites to win. A real team/club spirit with some very good players in the team/squad and sensible managers. There’s always something g at stake.

[Bristolhibby]

Never let the aresholes at Aberdeen forget they blew the only chance to get rid of the 2 team veto voting on stuff like this.

I thought that was Toss County and St Mirren?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/22151308.amp

[marinello59]

Disagree completely. Big crowd is due to Hibs on a 14 league run without defeat after being bottom of league. Having a strong footballing side scoring goals and being strong favourites to win. A real team/club spirit with some very good players in the team/squad and sensible managers. There’s always something g at stake.

It’s why I said the current set up is part of the reason. There are special circumstances at play here, it’s a run most of us here have not seen in our lifetime.
A mid table game in the second half of the season with nothing to play for did not attract crowds in the past and there is no reason to suppose it would now.

[AmericanKev]

I thought that was Toss County and St Mirren?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/22151308.amp

Kilmarnock are another one who love the old firm pound

[LaMotta]

It’s why I said the current set up is part of the reason. There are special circumstances at play here, it’s a run most of us here have not seen in our lifetime.
A mid table game in the second half of the season with nothing to play for did not attract crowds in the past and there is no reason to suppose it would now.

I genuinely don't get why people think moving to a bigger league would make things much better. There would be far more meaningless games for many teams in the league, and it wouldn't do anything to stop Celtic and rangers being ahead of the rest. People just want change for the sake of it. If we did change I think people would soon be clamouring for a return to the halycon days of the 12 league top 6 split.

Look at the EPL this season. League won by 1st April and all three relegation spots already decided. There's at least 9 teams with nothing left to play for now. Utter borefest.

[greenpaper55]

I genuinely don't get why people think moving to a bigger league would make things much better. There would be far more meaningless games for many teams in the league, and it wouldn't do anything to stop Celtic and rangers being ahead of the rest. People just want change for the sake of it. If we did change I think people would soon be clamouring for a return to the halycon days of the 12 league top 6 split.

Look at the EPL this season. League won by 1st April and all three relegation spots already decided. There's at least 9 teams with nothing left to play for now. Utter borefest.

EPL mid table teams playing their heart out so a load of rubbish. Playing games with less of a fear factor means you can play home grown youngsters, look at the players that came through with the bigger league in the past compared to now ? Teams would rather bring in established players from all over the world than risk being relegated-sixteen team league please

[LaMotta]

EPL mid table teams playing their heart out so a load of rubbish. Playing games with less of a fear factor means you can play home grown youngsters, look at the players that came through with the bigger league in the past compared to now ? Teams would rather bring in established players from all over the world than risk being relegated-sixteen team league please


EPL mid table players can play their heart out all they like the games are still basically meaningless. Couple of million per league position is chicken feed to them all -no chance of Europe, no chance of relegation, or relegated already. Rubbish.

As for the bit in bold that's another argument that doesn't stack up for me. If young players are good enough they will eventually make the grade. Blooding them in meaningless end of season mid table games isnt going to help them much.

One of our greatest ever midfielders blooded in the 12 team league at 18 years old with St Mirren. He was a cup winner with them that same season. You don't need a bigger league with more pointless game to have the environment to play good young players.

[AmericanKev]

I genuinely don't get why people think moving to a bigger league would make things much better. There would be far more meaningless games for many teams in the league, and it wouldn't do anything to stop Celtic and rangers being ahead of the rest. People just want change for the sake of it. If we did change I think people would soon be clamouring for a return to the halycon days of the 12 league top 6 split.

Look at the EPL this season. League won by 1st April and all three relegation spots already decided. There's at least 9 teams with nothing left to play for now. Utter borefest.

It's been 25 years with this setup but

[LaMotta]

It's been 25 years with this setup but

but what? :greengrin

[007]

EPL mid table teams playing their heart out so a load of rubbish. Playing games with less of a fear factor means you can play home grown youngsters, look at the players that came through with the bigger league in the past compared to now ? Teams would rather bring in established players from all over the world than risk being relegated-sixteen team league please

So if what you say is right then have all these mid-table EPL teams been giving home grown youngsters lots of game time?

[AmericanKev]

but what? :greengrin

But was 25 years twas

[HoboHarry]

But was 25 years twas
Just out of interest in your user name - are you based in the USA?

[greenlex]

We had something to play for on Saturday
When we had the bigger league there were far too many meaningless games with nothing at stake resulting in low attendances. The current set up isn’t perfect but it’s part of the reason why Hibs v St Johnstone did attract a large crowd.

If we are winning more games against smaller statures teams we should be at the right end of the table always playing for something. If we can get closer to the ugly sisters by only playing them twice then bingo.

[lucky]

The league does not need to change. The split gives everyone something to play for.

[Speedy]

If we are winning more games against smaller statures teams we should be at the right end of the table always playing for something. If we can get closer to the ugly sisters by only playing them twice then bingo.

I'm not sure that logic stacks up. We'll drop more points against the bottom 6 in a league of say 16 than Rangers or Celtic. How does that get us closer to them?

[The Spaceman]

The league does not need to change. The split gives everyone something to play for.

Exactly where I’m at. The split works well and creates an exciting end to the season with some brilliant matches to look forward to either way.

The very last thing our league should be doing is getting smaller. That would be quite dull.

[Ozyhibby]

It will stay how it is because that’s the best system we can come up with. We don’t have enough big clubs to go with a bigger league and a reduction to 10 won’t get the votes from teams fearful of demotion.
We are stuck with 12 and the split.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[flash]

It will stay how it is because that’s the best system we can come up with. We don’t have enough big clubs to go with a bigger league and a reduction to 10 won’t get the votes from teams fearful of demotion.
We are stuck with 12 and the split.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Here's hoping.

[BILLYHIBS]

Ten team SPL was a living nightmare playing each other four times a season plus cup ties sterile negative boring football teams terrified to lose and absolutely petrified of relegation everyone knew everyone’s style of play and players inside out entertainment went out the window and fans drifted away to the cinema Hibs Manager’s of yesteryear set their stall out at 36 points a season ( 2 points a win ) usually made up of 0-0 draws a good result the secret was not to lose Many a fine squad with good players could not cope with the constant pressure and financial demands and were sucked into the abyss

[AmericanKev]

Just out of interest in your user name - are you based in the USA?

I used to be more but now I travel a lot between the 2

[Trinity Hibee]

It will stay how it is because that’s the best system we can come up with. We don’t have enough big clubs to go with a bigger league and a reduction to 10 won’t get the votes from teams fearful of demotion.
We are stuck with 12 and the split.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Tend to agree. The split doesn’t feel ideal as you can end up playing one team away 3 times etc but for the size of our league/country it’s the best option we have.

Only alternative I could think of would be to play each team twice, have the split, then place home and away again but even that’s only 32 games so clubs wouldn’t agree on that due to loss of revenue.

[Musselbound]

A bottom 8 would be utterly pointless. Half a season with nothing to play for bar dead rubbers for some teams

That's the main problem I see with this suggestion. It seems good otherwise. Perhaps having 2 automatic relegation spots and 12th into a play off would help a bit and keep the league fresh. But there's still likely to be teams with nothing much to play for with 14 games to go. Imagine it was Hibs if they didn't make the top 6.

I really hope it doesn't return to 10 clubs. I remember that and it was rubbish. I'd rather keep the status quo with the split than go back to that.

I'm quite surprised they are talking about this just now. It's usually a summer, slow news day story. Seems an awful lot of fuss and hassle for the sake of losing 2 games.

[nonshinyfinish]

Never let the aresholes at Aberdeen forget they blew the only chance to get rid of the 2 team veto voting on stuff like this.


I thought that was Toss County and St Mirren?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/22151308.amp

The poster wasn't talking about a specific vote on reconstruction, they were talking about a vote on the voting structure itself. Because we need 11-1 for major decisions (distribution of prize money etc), the OF have always had an effective veto. When Rangers ceased to exist and their reanimated corpse was in the lower leagues, there was a unique opportunity to change the voting structure as the 11 clubs could outvote Celtic. For unknown reasons Aberdeen voted with Celtic so it failed.

[EGL2000]

There is zero chance the clubs including Hibs will vote for 14 or 16 team league. They can’t afford it. And the fans only say they want it but they don’t really. The minute Falkirk v Partick comes on Sportscene they will be switching off. Or when either visit Easter road the crowd will be thousands lower than if it were Aberdeen or Dundee Utd. Then there is the loss of the derby and Old firm games at Easter road. Easily the best attended games. Replace that with a visit from Dunfermline and see how well the hospitality suites and ticket sales do.
The only way to increase league size for Scotland is to bring in other big clubs from abroad. Fans might say they want more variety but when it comes down to what they will pay for, the reality is they are lying.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You could also argue that partick, Falkirk and Dunfermline would all bring more than Ross county and st Johnstone

I would personally much rather see these teams playing at Easter road than Ross county.

[Greenbeard]

The league does not need to change. The split gives everyone something to play for.
How very SPFL - considering changing the set-up during one of the most competitive, unpredictable and entertaining see-saw seasons 3 to 12 for a long time. Ok maybe 3 to 11.

[GreenCastle]

Playing Celtic x6 a season isn’t the way forward.

That’s Hibs this season as we drew them in both cups - that’s before any potential replays.

Stadiums would sell out more often and away crowds would be bigger if you knew it was only chance to see team X play Hibs at home or Hibs play team X away.

I don’t hate the current set up but think there are clubs in Scotland who would enhance the league. Ayr, Dunfermline, Raith, Falkirk - more derbies and larger away supports.

10 team is definitely worst option so they better stay away from that - I doubt anyone would vote to get relegated.

[Ribs1875]

The problem in Scottish football is there are far too many leagues and not enough pro clubs. It never made sense why teams like Hamilton get much of a say as clubs like ours when it comes to voting systems. These smaller clubs remind me of feminism, they want the empowerment just not the responsibility. These clubs would be viewed as semi pro/amateurs in the German, French, English leagues. So why we have all these lesser clubs spread out over 3 leagues is ridiculous in my eyes. I would be more for in favour of doing away with a league and having the premier with more teams, championship and 3rd division. 5 Edinburgh derbies/old firms per year is boring. That said, the money generated in these games would be the reasoning for not wanting change.

The current product in Scottish football is a lacking overall. So much potential to be good, yet fans are never listened to. I take inspiration from the Scandinavian leagues, 2 of whom have listened to their fans and scrapped VAR.

[LaMotta]

Playing Celtic x6 a season isn’t the way forward.

That’s Hibs this season as we drew them in both cups - that’s before any potential replays.

Stadiums would sell out more often and away crowds would be bigger if you knew it was only chance to see team X play Hibs at home or Hibs play team X away.

I don’t hate the current set up but think there are clubs in Scotland who would enhance the league. Ayr, Dunfermline, Raith, Falkirk - more derbies and larger away supports.

10 team is definitely worst option so they better stay away from that - I doubt anyone would vote to get relegated.

I think average attendances over a season would actually be more likely to go down in a bigger league.

Remove 4 home games against Aberdeen, Dun Utd, Hearts and Celtic for example where everyone has something to play for and replace them with home games against Falkirk,Livvy, Ayr and Partick, whith the likelihood being more teams in mid table with nothing to play for?

I dont think people really want that.

[Jones28]

Kilmarnock are another one who love the old firm pound

Loved. They stopped giving them 2 stands and have seen home attendances increase for games against they two.

All credit to them.

[PatHead]

How very SPFL - considering changing the set-up during one of the most competitive, unpredictable and entertaining see-saw seasons 3 to 12 for a long time. Ok maybe 3 to 11.

And in a week when the largest 6 clubs fill the top 6 places in the table which does not happen often.

[flash]

You could also argue that partick, Falkirk and Dunfermline would all bring more than Ross county and st Johnstone

I would personally much rather see these teams playing at Easter road than Ross county.

If they want to play at Easter Road then they need to do a lot better on the park.

That's the way it should be.

[McSwanky]

These smaller clubs remind me of feminism, they want the empowerment just not the responsibility.

Anyone else spot this car crash in the middle of a reasonably sensible argument :greengrin

I still can't understand how we have national leagues down to the 42nd best club in a country of just over 5 million people with more than a few geographical challenges. 2 top leagues could be national - 12 or 16 clubs. Then the rest should be regionalised. Are the likes of Stranraer really going to moan about not getting their midweek trip to Elgin? These smaller clubs are struggling to make ends meet, wouldn't they welcome a break with travel times and costs?

[NAE NOOKIE]

Having a split is fine, the only thing that's wrong with it just now is the uneven distribution of games before and after it.

14 team league splitting to 6 and 8 after 26 fixtures playing home and away ... that's 36 games for the top 6 and 40 for the bottom 8.

Keep the same relegation / promotion format, but make the playoff final a one off game at a neutral venue. Get rid of the frankly ridiculous league cup groups ... they were binned to begin with for a reason.

A ten team league is giving absolutely no leeway for teams to risk youngsters, whereas a 14 team league would give a bit more than now.

A ten team league makes it even harder for Scotland's mid range clubs like Dunfermline, Falkirk, Ayr Utd, Partick Thistle etc to ..... (A) get into the top league ..... (B) consolidate themselves when they do get there ..... a 14 team league with two relegation places would help them do that. If you change to a ten team league you are making it even more likely that teams like these will end up part time, or even go bust if they are continually consigned to the lower leagues.

Clubs should only sell STs for 36 games ... if you end up in the bottom 8 it's only an 2 extra home games ... the league could set a rule that tickets must be sold for those games at a maximum of £20

What the incentive would be for finishing 'best of the rest' to keep things in the bottom 8 interesting is beyond me ... but surely it's not beyond the wit of man to come up with something.

A RETURN TO A 10 TEAM LEAGUE IS NOTHING SHORT OF INSANITY !!!

[Ozyhibby]

Having a split is fine, the only thing that's wrong with it just now is the uneven distribution of games before and after it.

14 team league splitting to 6 and 8 after 26 fixtures playing home and away ... that's 36 games for the top 6 and 40 for the bottom 8.

Keep the same relegation / promotion format, but make the playoff final a one off game at a neutral venue. Get rid of the frankly ridiculous league cup groups ... they were binned to begin with for a reason.

A ten team league is giving absolutely no leeway for teams to risk youngsters, whereas a 14 team league would give a bit more than now.

A ten team league makes it even harder for Scotland's mid range clubs like Dunfermline, Falkirk, Ayr Utd, Partick Thistle etc to ..... (A) get into the top league ..... (B) consolidate themselves when they do get there ..... a 14 team league with two relegation places would help them do that. If you change to a ten team league you are making it even more likely that teams like these will end up part time, or even go bust if they are continually consigned to the lower leagues.

Clubs should only sell STs for 36 games ... if you end up in the bottom 8 it's only an 2 extra home games ... the league could set a rule that tickets must be sold for those games at a maximum of £20

What the incentive would be for finishing 'best of the rest' to keep things in the bottom 8 interesting is beyond me ... but surely it's not beyond the wit of man to come up with something.

A RETURN TO A 10 TEAM LEAGUE IS NOTHING SHORT OF INSANITY !!!

What does a 14 team league add in terms of revenue to the league? I’d say it’s a negative amount and that’s why it won’t happen.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Cooshed Kid]

A 12 team Premiership is boring already with playing each other up to 4 times a season. God forbid it becomes even smaller.

[GreenCastle]

I think average attendances over a season would actually be more likely to go down in a bigger league.

Remove 4 home games against Aberdeen, Dun Utd, Hearts and Celtic for example where everyone has something to play for and replace them with home games against Falkirk,Livvy, Ayr and Partick, whith the likelihood being more teams in mid table with nothing to play for?

I dont think people really want that.

Not sure..

Hibs have sold most tickets for x2 games outwith the old firm / Derby in home end this season.

If fans knew they could only visit ER once a season I reckon away supports would be bigger - less travel costs etc.

I know I would go to more away games if it was certain teams only once a season.

We can’t have a model where clubs just rely on away fans as that’s really not a way to run a club.

[Ozyhibby]

A 12 team Premiership is boring already with playing each other up to 4 times a season. God forbid it becomes even smaller.

It won’t go to ten but I can’t see it increasing either. The fundamental facts are we have a small population that can’t support more than 12 teams in the league without weakening those 12.
If we want a bigger league we need to play in a bigger market population wise.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Hibs4185]

Bigger league is the only option. Yes there may be more meaningless games at the end of the season but there is an advantage of being able to play youngsters etc if there is no jeopardy.

The biggest thing for me though is, Leicester. If they played the top 4/5 teams 4 times a year they’d never of won the league. If we only play Celtic and rangers twice a season and we can sneak a draw and a loss, there is more potential to keep it close at the top which then creates more drama and perhaps more viewers.

I don’t want anything that means playing rangers, Celtic, hearts or Aberdeen 4 times a season. It’s just boring.

A bigger league means and a bigger variety of away days and more variety. Plus you’ve got more chance of getting a few confidence boosting victories with some of the smaller teams in the league.

It’s a no brainer.

[Ozyhibby]

Bigger league is the only option. Yes there may be more meaningless games at the end of the season but there is an advantage of being able to play youngsters etc if there is no jeopardy.

The biggest thing for me though is, Leicester. If they played the top 4/5 teams 4 times a year they’d never of won the league. If we only play Celtic and rangers twice a season and we can sneak a draw and a loss, there is more potential to keep it close at the top which then creates more drama and perhaps more viewers.

I don’t want anything that means playing rangers, Celtic, hearts or Aberdeen 4 times a season. It’s just boring.

A bigger league means and a bigger variety of away days and more variety. Plus you’ve got more chance of getting a few confidence boosting victories with some of the smaller teams in the league.

It’s a no brainer.

Except for the fact that the clubs won’t vote for less money. Including Hibs. So it won’t happen.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[GreenCastle]

I think average attendances over a season would actually be more likely to go down in a bigger league.

Remove 4 home games against Aberdeen, Dun Utd, Hearts and Celtic for example where everyone has something to play for and replace them with home games against Falkirk,Livvy, Ayr and Partick, whith the likelihood being more teams in mid table with nothing to play for?

I dont think people really want that.

Not sure..

Hibs have sold most tickets for x2 games outwith the old firm / Derby in home end this season.

If fans knew they could only visit ER once a season I reckon away supports would be bigger - less travel costs etc.

I know I would go to more away games if it was certain teams only once a season.

We can’t have a model where clubs just rely on away fans as that’s really not a way to run a club.

[Cooshed Kid]

Are we sure this wasn't an April Fool?

[greenlex]

I'm not sure that logic stacks up. We'll drop more points against the bottom 6 in a league of say 16 than Rangers or Celtic. How does that get us closer to them?

Why would we? It’s up to the rest of us to step up to the plate. The logic is we won’t drop as many points against the old firm.

[Ozyhibby]

Why would we? It’s up to the rest of us to step up to the plate. The logic is we won’t drop as many points against the old firm.

Our weaker budget will bring us closer to those bottom 6 teams.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[greenlex]

Our weaker budget will bring us closer to those bottom 6 teams.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
No it won’t. It will be the same for everyone.

[NAE NOOKIE]

What does a 14 team league add in terms of revenue to the league? I’d say it’s a negative amount and that’s why it won’t happen.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Its only 2 more clubs mate. Whatever the case it's better than 10 teams ..... I acknowledge you are not advocating for it in your post.

The TV folk already get their 4 uglies derbies so a 10 team league will add nothing to TV revenue, all it will do is add two more clubs to the list of skint clubs struggling in the lower reaches, while the top 10 get an insignificant increased share of the existing pot.

In the meantime the fans will be pissed off at a format being reintroduced that everybody and their dug grew to hate the longer it went on and that did the square root of sod all to make life harder for the uglies in the long run ... or increase attendances for the likes of us, in fact the longer that format went on the worse the crowds became*

* On that note, somebody mentioned our biggest crowds outside of the derby being against Celtic and Sevco. That's as maybe, but the fact is they are nothing like the factor they used to be for us ... we had 17,000 against St Johnstone on Saturday, not even 2K less than our last home game against Celtic, which means more home fans turned out to see us play St Johnstone than Celtic.

The absolute fact is that for Hibs fans and fans of every other club in the league games against the uglies are nothing like the draw they used to be .... In fact I'm willing to bet that in this and the last few seasons the single game record turnout of home fans for practically every club in the league does not include a game against either ugly sister ..... and you can include Hibs in that even without the derby.

In the end this is a league that depends on gate money more than most leagues in Europe. Reintroducing a failed format that in the end drove fans away in their droves is as f'ing stupid an idea as I've heard in a long time, and that's saying something when it comes to the idiots who run our game.
How is guaranteeing St Mirren for example 4 instead of 3 home games to the uglies plus a bigger share of a small TV and sponsorship pot going to compensate for the loss of fans who watch them every week allied to an increased risk of relegation .... both of which will happen if the SPFL are stupid enough to do this.

[Sergio sledge]

For me, I think the league works about as well as we can probably expect at the minute. 10 team league would be a step backwards and 14 / 16 team leagues bring their own problems, mostly centered around a more complicated split structure needed to accommodate more teams.

But... if change was going to happen and I had to pick I'd go wild with it and have some fun, make it as complicated as possible.

- 2 leagues of 16 teams (Premiership & Championship) with Highland and Lowland leagues below them. Convince the 10 clubs being "demoted" to agree to it by agreeing to move around the allocation of price money / revenue to give more money to the regional leagues than they currently get. This should be easy enough to achieve without costing the higher up clubs too much money as the money currently given to league 2 can just be re-allocated.
- Everyone play the other teams home and away giving each team 30 games, and at the end the league winner is crowned and they get the automatic champions league spot.
- Then each league splits into 4 groups of 4 for the end of season sprint. Points are reset to zero and each team plays the others in their group of 4 home and away.
- the top 4 play for the "sprint cup" or whatever you want to call it. More prize money and a trophy. Another champions league spot is available for the winner and the remaining 2 teams go into Europa League / Conference League.
- the next 4 play for the final european spot if we have 5 spots. If we only have 4 spots then the winner of this section goes into a playoff with 4th in the section above for the final european spot.
- the next group of 4 play to avoid the relegation playoffs (2 spots available)
- the bottom 4 play to avoid automatic relegation (2 automatic spots and 2 playoff spots)
- the same structure in the championship, with 2 automatic promotion spots to play for, 2 automatic relegation spots and 4 playoff spots at each end of the league so something to play for in each sprint section.
- the bottom 2 teams in the premiership are relegated and the next 4 enter playoffs with spots 3 - 6 in the championship.
- playoffs are 8 teams with 2-leg quarter finals and single leg semi-finals and final in a neutral venue.

Everyone plays 36 games with teams involved in play offs playing a maximum of 40 and minimum 38.

[Nicho87]

I don’t want any more splits

A top 6 and bottom 8, can you imagine the meaningless games if your in the bottom eight but healthy enough your away from safety.

I don’t think you should be tarnished with a bottom half status or top half either after only 26 games. Doesn’t seem enough

It took us 15 games to look like what we are now.

If it’s 14 play each other 3 times no split

16 wouldn’t work as I don’t want a split

18 would be my preference
34 games home and away once. The way it should be

People go on about meaningless games, I think the atmospheres and attendances would go up further for all clubs due to the fact your only playing the said 17 teams once at home

Drink the derby in and win.

[ancient hibee]

There's no way gates would increase playing only twice. You would be replacing teams who have good away support with teams that you wouldn't open your curtains to watch.

[EGL2000]

If they want to play at Easter Road then they need to do a lot better on the park.

That's the way it should be.

I agree ! But I'm just saying that a top flight Dunfermline or Falkirk bring much more into our league than Ross county do.

They do need to get there on merit though, which will most likely happen with Falkirk next season.

[EGL2000]

There's no way gates would increase playing only twice. You would be replacing teams who have good away support with teams that you wouldn't open your curtains to watch.

If you look at this season average attendances Dunfermline and Falkirk both have higher or very similar average attendances than County and St Johnstone. Dunfermline are playing are playing pish and these team would obviously see an increase in attendances when playing top flight football. I don't think it's guaranteed to go down.

[LaMotta]

Bigger league is the only option. Yes there may be more meaningless games at the end of the season but there is an advantage of being able to play youngsters etc if there is no jeopardy.

The biggest thing for me though is, Leicester. If they played the top 4/5 teams 4 times a year they’d never of won the league. If we only play Celtic and rangers twice a season and we can sneak a draw and a loss, there is more potential to keep it close at the top which then creates more drama and perhaps more viewers.

I don’t want anything that means playing rangers, Celtic, hearts or Aberdeen 4 times a season. It’s just boring.

A bigger league means and a bigger variety of away days and more variety. Plus you’ve got more chance of getting a few confidence boosting victories with some of the smaller teams in the league.

It’s a no brainer.

More meaningless games is exactly why its not a no brainer. Watch what happens to crowds when midtable glorified friendlies become regular things. Nobody will be arsed about watching some youth team players being thrown in to find out if they are good enough. Playing them in meaningless games doesnt neceserally tell you whether they are good enough either.

As for the bit about a bigger league making a Leicester more likely - when the Scottish league changed from 18 to 10 in 1975 Celtic had just won 9 in a row. Moving to a ten team league actually saw Aberdeen and United mixing things up for a period.

[Jones28]

Does anyone else feel like things now are optimal for Scottish Football?

I think 12 with the split is perfect, it adds some intrigue to this point in the season, its giving teams in the bottom half something to fight for.

The split adds extra big games for teams that make it, but also offers a safety net from relegation or the play-off when things are tight at the bottom of the table.

It gives a real incentive for teams to scrap to get in to the top 6 at this time of year and kind of negates the possibilities of meaningless matches so early in the season.

A bigger league would lead to more of these and there would be a bigger middle pack of teams chasing nothing as early as March - not going to get relegated, not going to compete for Europe, nothing there to add any sort of competition for places other than final placing.

Look at the Hearts-Motherwell game, it's April and there's a game that could be defining for both their seasons.

Playing teams 3 or 4 times per season doesn't bother me in the slightest, I'd rather have a chance at an extra derby than playing Ayr home and away, might just be me?

[LaMotta]

Does anyone else feel like things now are optimal for Scottish Football?

I think 12 with the split is perfect, it adds some intrigue to this point in the season, its giving teams in the bottom half something to fight for.

The split adds extra big games for teams that make it, but also offers a safety net from relegation or the play-off when things are tight at the bottom of the table.

It gives a real incentive for teams to scrap to get in to the top 6 at this time of year and kind of negates the possibilities of meaningless matches so early in the season.

A bigger league would lead to more of these and there would be a bigger middle pack of teams chasing nothing as early as March - not going to get relegated, not going to compete for Europe, nothing there to add any sort of competition for places other than final placing.

Look at the Hearts-Motherwell game, it's April and there's a game that could be defining for both their seasons.

Playing teams 3 or 4 times per season doesn't bother me in the slightest, I'd rather have a chance at an extra derby than playing Ayr home and away, might just be me?

I completely agree. I think a larger league would be horrendous for our game actually. Totally agree re the derbies too - losing a derby or two seriously devalues the season ticket IMO.

[Ozyhibby]

Does anyone else feel like things now are optimal for Scottish Football?

I think 12 with the split is perfect, it adds some intrigue to this point in the season, its giving teams in the bottom half something to fight for.

The split adds extra big games for teams that make it, but also offers a safety net from relegation or the play-off when things are tight at the bottom of the table.

It gives a real incentive for teams to scrap to get in to the top 6 at this time of year and kind of negates the possibilities of meaningless matches so early in the season.

A bigger league would lead to more of these and there would be a bigger middle pack of teams chasing nothing as early as March - not going to get relegated, not going to compete for Europe, nothing there to add any sort of competition for places other than final placing.

Look at the Hearts-Motherwell game, it's April and there's a game that could be defining for both their seasons.

Playing teams 3 or 4 times per season doesn't bother me in the slightest, I'd rather have a chance at an extra derby than playing Ayr home and away, might just be me?

I think what we have is probably best we can hope for. My own preference would be some sort of cross border league that brought in a few more big clubs and increased the market the league operates in. That’s just as unlikely just now.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Jones28]

I completely agree. I think a larger league would be horrendous for our game actually. Totally agree re the derbies too - losing a derby or two seriously devalues the season ticket IMO.

I didn't really think about it from that point of view but it's also something to be considered.

If we had an 18 team set up with 1 fixture each against Celtic, Rangers and Hearts then the season ticket becomes more expensive on a game by game basis because of the cost of the tickets for these games.

The financials would be hard for clubs to swallow too. We can sell 21,000 tickets for derbies x2, old firm x 4 plus the extra numbers from Dundee United and Aberdeen, so you could argue thats around 25,000 tickets per season.

Wheres the money coming from to make up for that? Dunfermline and Falkirk visiting with a thousand or so fans - tickets for which would be cheaper - once per season certainly isn't going to make that up, and I do not for one second believe that because we play these teams once per season crowds are suddenly going to flock to these games.

[Ozyhibby]

I didn't really think about it from that point of view but it's also something to be considered.

If we had an 18 team set up with 1 fixture each against Celtic, Rangers and Hearts then the season ticket becomes more expensive on a game by game basis because of the cost of the tickets for these games.

The financials would be hard for clubs to swallow too. We can sell 21,000 tickets for derbies x2, old firm x 4 plus the extra numbers from Dundee United and Aberdeen, so you could argue thats around 25,000 tickets per season.

Wheres the money coming from to make up for that? Dunfermline and Falkirk visiting with a thousand or so fans - tickets for which would be cheaper - once per season certainly isn't going to make that up, and I do not for one second believe that because we play these teams once per season crowds are suddenly going to flock to these games.

Not to mention reduced hospitality incomes for those games and no TV means less corporate sponsorship. I think the board would be not doing their financial duty to the shareholders if they were to vote for such a plan.
The only way there will be change is if it involves more money for the clubs not less. So far nobody has put forward such a plan.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ancient hibee]

If you look at this season average attendances Dunfermline and Falkirk both have higher or very similar average attendances than County and St Johnstone. Dunfermline are playing are playing pish and these team would obviously see an increase in attendances when playing top flight football. I don't think it's guaranteed to go down.

Yes but games against Dunfermline and Falkirk would be replacing games against the OF,Hearts and Aberdeen and there's no way the attendances for games against Dunfermline and Falkirk would be bigger than those other teams in my opinion.

[greenlex]

Everyone going down the loss of revenue route. If we are winning the crowds will come. Like every season right now when we are knickers they are down. Granted with more smaller teams coming to ER that would be exacerbated. The other side if the coin just like Saturday past get it right in the park and they will come no matter who you are playing. They won’t fill the away end like the hearts and the old firm but there really is nothing to stop us going a ways to mitigate that if we are going well.
It might not look at first glance like being successful but are we just old firm whores or are we gonna make meaningful change?

[Amit]

Apologies if this has been said already. Does a 14 team league in the following format work?

Pre-split, each team plays home & away = 26 games

The league splits into top and bottom 7

Post-split, each team plays home and away = 12 games

Total games per team remains at 38 and Sky will likely get their 4 OF league matches per season.

[LaMotta]

Apologies if this has been said already. Does a 14 team league in the following format work?

Pre-split, each team plays home & away = 26 games

The league splits into top and bottom 7

Post-split, each team plays home and away = 12 games

Total games per team remains at 38 and Sky will likely get their 4 OF league matches per season.

Cant have split of 7 and 7 because means one team per 7 sits out each round of fixtures.

[Renfrew_Hibby]

OK... top 2 divisions of 12 teams each

Play each other home & away once = 22 games.

The 2 divisions then come together to form 3 leagues of 8 where everyone plays each other home & away once = 14 games.

So everyone plays a total of 36 games with equal home and away fixtures between teams, no going to Pittodrie 3 times ect ect.

The beauty of this is that after 22 games you then have a top league battling it out for the title and euro spots.

Then a middle league bringing the bottom half of the Prem together with the top teams in the championship, end result being anything up to 4 teams could go up or down and the bottom league fighting to stay up.

To spice it up the leagues could revert back to zero points after the split, at least the middle league would have to.

Each mini league could even play for a title.

Below the top 24 teams I would have 2 regionalisd leagues maybe a north/east one and a south/west one.

[SickBoy32]

Our weaker budget will bring us closer to those bottom 6 teams.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Year on year we are getting closer to the bottom 6 in a (relative) budget sense as it is.

The status quo has been setup to ensure there can be no realistic challenge to the OF monopoly on the big Euro £££ each season.

Surely the essence of sport is to try and compete, win trophies.

Talk of us losing money (the whole league would) makes me despair.

We literally make up the numbers to facilitate the OF show currently, with an (increasingly) small chance of the odd cup win.

HFC shareholders don’t receive monetary rewards for their holdings, so I like to hope they’d be in favour of the club voting for a better chance of sporting success.

Otherwise - what is the point in it all?

[ruthven_raiders]

Cant have split of 7 and 7 because means one team per 7 sits out each round of fixtures.

14 only works if 6-8 split....tho the two leagues of 12 then split into 3 8 team leagues seems a good idea, a ten is the most nonsensical decision...

[Ozyhibby]

Everyone going down the loss of revenue route. If we are winning the crowds will come. Like every season right now when we are knickers they are down. Granted with more smaller teams coming to ER that would be exacerbated. The other side if the coin just like Saturday past get it right in the park and they will come no matter who you are playing. They won’t fill the away end like the hearts and the old firm but there really is nothing to stop us going a ways to mitigate that if we are going well.
It might not look at first glance like being successful but are we just old firm whores or are we gonna make meaningful change?

I think Hibs, Hearts and Aberdeen would oppose this more than Celtic or Sevco.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

I know there are no dividends but if we are going to make less money then what do we cut? Players wages? Get rid of East Mains? Academy?
The club doesn’t make money but it also can’t afford to lose money for long either.
If you’re proposing a system that makes the club less money then you should say what you want to cut. Nobody is putting forward a scheme that makes more money?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[SHODAN]

Cant have split of 7 and 7 because means one team per 7 sits out each round of fixtures.

I don't see why this is such an issue.

[Ozyhibby]

I don't see why this is such an issue.

League season would need to be longer with two teams sitting out each week?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[chippy]

I don't see why this is such an issue.

Indeed a weeks break would help teams in Europe

[eastmainsmsh]

Would like to see a top 16 setup

[7Hero]

Forget the 2 uglies for a minute this league is heading for a very exciting conclusion, everyone has something to play for, nothing wrong with the split at all..

[Lago]

Where has this league reconstruction talk come from it has come out of nowhere, 10 club league, I remember those days, dull, dull dull.

[JohnM1875]

According to Keith Jackson (🙄 I know)

‘EXCLUSIVE! 10 team top flight set to be TORPEDOED as clubs push for bigger Premiership as date for showdown talks set’

[LaMotta]

I don't see why this is such an issue.


Indeed a weeks break would help teams in Europe

The main issue is sporting integrity. Not all teams finish the season on the same day for example. Just would never be acceptable

[SickBoy32]

I know there are no dividends but if we are going to make less money then what do we cut? Players wages? Get rid of East Mains? Academy?
The club doesn’t make money but it also can’t afford to lose money for long either.
If you’re proposing a system that makes the club less money then you should say what you want to cut. Nobody is putting forward a scheme that makes more money?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Cut the wage bill accordingly. Scale back on transfer fees paid. This would obviously apply to all clubs so Hibs wouldn’t be disadvantaged (domestically at least).

We’re currently watching League 1 level players, in a competition that we cannot compete to win. The cups are getting harder and harder to win too. To just accept the status quo, purely due to ‘money’ - is baffling to me.

Personally I’d happily get a lesser standard of player on the pitch at ER (League 2 level say), if it gave us a fighters chance to compete (I think a 18/20 team league would allow genuine competition against the OF).

Or we can keep it as it is, and continue to just take part - maybe enjoying the occasional win over the Glasgow pair.

FWIW I think if we were having a good season, going strong near the top after Xmas, ER would be rammed full.

Aberdeen vs Deila Celtic showed what can be achieved (almost) by consistently beating lesser sides. Ultimately their H2H vs Celtic ended the title race (which from memory went deep into the season).

At the end of the day what have we got to lose? Other than money 😂

[GreenCastle]

Something else not mentioned..

Would Rangers actually be for it ?

Basically the gap between them and Celtic has increased so much over a season maybe just x2 old firm games would suit them and more chance to win a league again?

I know we talk about money but could the tv contract be renegotiated ?

[Eyrie]

OK... top 2 divisions of 12 teams each

Play each other home & away once = 22 games.

The 2 divisions then come together to form 3 leagues of 8 where everyone plays each other home & away once = 14 games.

So everyone plays a total of 36 games with equal home and away fixtures between teams, no going to Pittodrie 3 times ect ect.

The beauty of this is that after 22 games you then have a top league battling it out for the title and euro spots.

Then a middle league bringing the bottom half of the Prem together with the top teams in the championship, end result being anything up to 4 teams could go up or down and the bottom league fighting to stay up.

To spice it up the leagues could revert back to zero points after the split, at least the middle league would have to.

Each mini league could even play for a title.

Below the top 24 teams I would have 2 regionalisd leagues maybe a north/east one and a south/west one.

:not worth :not worth :not worth

I've been in favour of that set up for close to forty years now.

[Ozyhibby]

Cut the wage bill accordingly. Scale back on transfer fees paid. This would obviously apply to all clubs so Hibs wouldn’t be disadvantaged (domestically at least).

We’re currently watching League 1 level players, in a competition that we cannot compete to win. The cups are getting harder and harder to win too. To just accept the status quo, purely due to ‘money’ - is baffling to me.

Personally I’d happily get a lesser standard of player on the pitch at ER (League 2 level say), if it gave us a fighters chance to compete (I think a 18/20 team league would allow genuine competition against the OF).

Or we can keep it as it is, and continue to just take part - maybe enjoying the occasional win over the Glasgow pair.

FWIW I think if we were having a good season, going strong near the top after Xmas, ER would be rammed full.

Aberdeen vs Deila Celtic showed what can be achieved (almost) by consistently beating lesser sides. Ultimately their H2H vs Celtic ended the title race (which from memory went deep into the season).

At the end of the day what have we got to lose? Other than money [emoji23]

Lowering the quality of the league and lowering the income it brings in? It just won’t happen.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[flash]

Cut the wage bill accordingly. Scale back on transfer fees paid. This would obviously apply to all clubs so Hibs wouldn’t be disadvantaged (domestically at least).

We’re currently watching League 1 level players, in a competition that we cannot compete to win. The cups are getting harder and harder to win too. To just accept the status quo, purely due to ‘money’ - is baffling to me.

Personally I’d happily get a lesser standard of player on the pitch at ER (League 2 level say), if it gave us a fighters chance to compete (I think a 18/20 team league would allow genuine competition against the OF).

Or we can keep it as it is, and continue to just take part - maybe enjoying the occasional win over the Glasgow pair.

FWIW I think if we were having a good season, going strong near the top after Xmas, ER would be rammed full.

Aberdeen vs Deila Celtic showed what can be achieved (almost) by consistently beating lesser sides. Ultimately their H2H vs Celtic ended the title race (which from memory went deep into the season).

At the end of the day what have we got to lose? Other than money 😂

A 20 team.league would be utterly horrific with reams of meaningless games every season.

[SickBoy32]

Lowering the quality of the league and lowering the income it brings in? It just won’t happen.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

As fans, what do we want? To watch mediocre players in an inherently flawed system, or to watch slightly worse players in a more competitive league?

And if it’s not a decision for the fans, why not? Who makes the call? And for whose benefit?

[SickBoy32]

A 20 team.league would be utterly horrific with reams of meaningless games every season.

Aye so I’ve read, what’s more meaningless than playing in a league competition setup specifically to prevent…. Competition 😂

[flash]

Aye so I’ve read, what’s more meaningless than playing in a league competition setup specifically to prevent…. Competition 😂

We have competition all over the table this season.

If you think Celtic wouldn't win a bigger league you are deluded.

[marinello59]

As fans, what do we want? To watch mediocre players in an inherently flawed system, or to watch slightly worse players in a more competitive league?

And if it’s not a decision for the fans, why not? Who makes the call? And for whose benefit?

This is our national sport and our top league should be a showcase for the best we have to offer. Accepting lower standards would be the wrong thing to do and it won’t guarantee that we see a more competitive league. All systems will be flawed, what we currently have is probably the least flawed option there is for a country with the number of top flight clubs we can properly support.

[shetlandhibee]

This is our national sport and our top league should be a showcase for the best we have to offer. Accepting lower standards would be the wrong thing to do and it won’t guarantee that we see a more competitive league. All systems will be flawed, what we currently have is probably the least flawed option there is for a country with the number of top flight clubs we can properly support.
This 100% :top marks:agree:

[Jones28]

As fans, what do we want? To watch mediocre players in an inherently flawed system, or to watch slightly worse players in a more competitive league?

And if it’s not a decision for the fans, why not? Who makes the call? And for whose benefit?

Slightly worse? Have you ever watched a league 1/2 game? It’s ****ing awful. Seriously awful.

And you seem to be disregarding the fact that we have two behemoth clubs that will win the league forever, there’s not a chance any of us will win the league ever again. It just will not happen, you could have one league of 50 teams and it won’t happen.

The quicker you realise we will never be champions of Scotland ever the quicker you can come to terms with it.

[Trinity Hibee]

Cut the wage bill accordingly. Scale back on transfer fees paid. This would obviously apply to all clubs so Hibs wouldn’t be disadvantaged (domestically at least).

We’re currently watching League 1 level players, in a competition that we cannot compete to win. The cups are getting harder and harder to win too. To just accept the status quo, purely due to ‘money’ - is baffling to me.

Personally I’d happily get a lesser standard of player on the pitch at ER (League 2 level say), if it gave us a fighters chance to compete (I think a 18/20 team league would allow genuine competition against the OF).

Or we can keep it as it is, and continue to just take part - maybe enjoying the occasional win over the Glasgow pair.

FWIW I think if we were having a good season, going strong near the top after Xmas, ER would be rammed full.

Aberdeen vs Deila Celtic showed what can be achieved (almost) by consistently beating lesser sides. Ultimately their H2H vs Celtic ended the title race (which from memory went deep into the season).

At the end of the day what have we got to lose? Other than money 😂

A country the size of Scotland shouldn’t have 4 leagues in my opinion. 2 leagues would be enough and then regionalise the rest. A 20 team premier league will simply not happen

[Ozyhibby]

A country the size of Scotland shouldn’t have 4 leagues in my opinion. 2 leagues would be enough and then regionalise the rest. A 20 team premier league will simply not happen

Small clubs managed to get themselves a lovely subsidy from the professional clubs when we were panicking about losing Rangers. Only thing that keeps most of them going.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[danhibees1875]

OK... top 2 divisions of 12 teams each

Play each other home & away once = 22 games.

The 2 divisions then come together to form 3 leagues of 8 where everyone plays each other home & away once = 14 games.

So everyone plays a total of 36 games with equal home and away fixtures between teams, no going to Pittodrie 3 times ect ect.

The beauty of this is that after 22 games you then have a top league battling it out for the title and euro spots.

Then a middle league bringing the bottom half of the Prem together with the top teams in the championship, end result being anything up to 4 teams could go up or down and the bottom league fighting to stay up.

To spice it up the leagues could revert back to zero points after the split, at least the middle league would have to.

Each mini league could even play for a title.

Below the top 24 teams I would have 2 regionalisd leagues maybe a north/east one and a south/west one.

Someone, maybe yourself, posted this a few years back. It always stuck with me.

I started drafting it earlier for this thread but couldn't remember the finer details and my post wasn't making any sense so I gave up. Glad you've raised this (again?). I think it's a good one if we're changing things - although FWIW, I think we have it pretty good at the moment too.

Maybe post-split the top 8 could have their points tally halved. Tightens it up without eliminating the efforts of phase 1 and just adds an extra bit of quirkiness.

[Donegal Hibby]

A ten team league just won’t happen . The argument of increasing the league as there’s a bit of a fear factor in it , teams playing one another to much I think is a valid point but would Sky be happy with losing out on a OF game or two and clubs be happy losing revenue etc . I can’t see that happening either . We probably got as good a league system as we are going to get , one I don’t think is by any means perfect but the other options I think are probably worse .

[Eyrie]

Someone, maybe yourself, posted this a few years back. It always stuck with me.
Almost certainly me, and very certainly a number of times.


I started drafting it earlier for this thread but couldn't remember the finer details and my post wasn't making any sense so I gave up. Glad you've raised this (again?). I think it's a good one if we're changing things - although FWIW, I think we have it pretty good at the moment too.

Maybe post-split the top 8 could have their points tally halved. Tightens it up without eliminating the efforts of phase 1 and just adds an extra bit of quirkiness.

Nice quirk to add even more interest.

[Renfrew_Hibby]

Someone, maybe yourself, posted this a few years back. It always stuck with me.

I started drafting it earlier for this thread but couldn't remember the finer details and my post wasn't making any sense so I gave up. Glad you've raised this (again?). I think it's a good one if we're changing things - although FWIW, I think we have it pretty good at the moment too.

Maybe post-split the top 8 could have their points tally halved. Tightens it up without eliminating the efforts of phase 1 and just adds an extra bit of quirkiness.

Takes a bit to get your head around it but for me it would make for a very exciting and compelling spectacle.

[greenlex]

We have competition all over the table this season.

If you think Celtic wouldn't win a bigger league you are deluded.

We should just have a top league with the two uglies then and be done with it. That’ll showcase it.

[AmericanKev]

Something else not mentioned..

Would Rangers actually be for it ?

Basically the gap between them and Celtic has increased so much over a season maybe just x2 old firm games would suit them and more chance to win a league again?

I know we talk about money but could the tv contract be renegotiated ?

There will never ever be a reduction in old firm games my friend. TV companies wouldn't ware it. It's 4 old firm games plus the cups forever

[flash]

We should just have a top league with the two uglies then and be done with it. That’ll showcase it.

No idea what your point is here and I strongly suspect you don't either.

[superfurryhibby]

The headline of the thread is misleading. League reconstruction options will be discussed, including an expanded league. It's irrelevant anyway, as there will be no change.

[danhibees1875]

No idea what your point is here and I strongly suspect you don't either.

2-team premiership- home and away 18 times each zero relegation into the league below. :greengrin

[SickBoy32]

Slightly worse? Have you ever watched a league 1/2 game? It’s ****ing awful. Seriously awful.

And you seem to be disregarding the fact that we have two behemoth clubs that will win the league forever, there’s not a chance any of us will win the league ever again. It just will not happen, you could have one league of 50 teams and it won’t happen.

The quicker you realise we will never be champions of Scotland ever the quicker you can come to terms with it.

I’ve been going along to ER for 20+ years, I’m well aware we’ll never be Scottish champions in the current setup - hence why I’m suggesting an alternative that I believe would allow for a genuine title challenge.

Reducing our games against the big scary ‘behemoths’ as you describe them, from the current 21% of our league fixtures to just 10% - would certainly increase the viability of a genuine challenge for the league.

Whose to say a good Hibs team couldn’t get off to a flyer - winning the opening ten fixtures, all of a sudden even getting a couple draws vs the OF would really open up the league.

But nah you’re right, it’s better to just be content with taking part, and being happy with whatever crumbs we get from the OF gorging on Scottish football.

[Prof. Shaggy]

Maybe post-split the top 8 could have their points tally halved. Tightens it up without eliminating the efforts of phase 1 and just adds an extra bit of quirkiness.

Or, teams keep only the points they've won against other teams in their post-split league?

[danhibees1875]

Or, teams keep only the points they've won against other teams in their post-split league?

Without working it through that sounds like it would be advantage Rantic. Obviously wouldn't be the case if we'd (or others) got results against them but been less consistent against the bottom half right enough.

[Jones28]

I’ve been going along to ER for 20+ years, I’m well aware we’ll never be Scottish champions in the current setup - hence why I’m suggesting an alternative that I believe would allow for a genuine title challenge.

Reducing our games against the big scary ‘behemoths’ as you describe them, from the current 21% of our league fixtures to just 10% - would certainly increase the viability of a genuine challenge for the league.

Whose to say a good Hibs team couldn’t get off to a flyer - winning the opening ten fixtures, all of a sudden even getting a couple draws vs the OF would really open up the league.

But nah you’re right, it’s better to just be content with taking part, and being happy with whatever crumbs we get from the OF gorging on Scottish football.

I'd prefer being where we are than worsen the quality of the league like you seem to want to.

We won't be title challengers with any league set up. It's just not going to happen. The imbalance between Glasgow and everyone else is too big.

The League itself needs to make it more appealing for investment from the media. That investment needs to be better distributed to try and close the gap between us and the Old Firm. We have the worst TV deal in Europe, but by population more people attend football games in Scotland than anywhere else.

Improve the TV deals and increase the revenue stream for the clubs outside Celtic and Rangers and there might be a chance of a challenge in a Leicester type situation.

I've already said in this thread that clubs cannot afford to play fewer games with big attendances - ourselves included. 25,000 odd tickets at £32 each is £800,000, not taking in to account the increased home attendances for bigger matches. For a club that posted a loss of £7m could we afford to lose that income?

[LaMotta]

I’ve been going along to ER for 20+ years, I’m well aware we’ll never be Scottish champions in the current setup - hence why I’m suggesting an alternative that I believe would allow for a genuine title challenge.

Reducing our games against the big scary ‘behemoths’ as you describe them, from the current 21% of our league fixtures to just 10% - would certainly increase the viability of a genuine challenge for the league.

Whose to say a good Hibs team couldn’t get off to a flyer - winning the opening ten fixtures, all of a sudden even getting a couple draws vs the OF would really open up the league.

But nah you’re right, it’s better to just be content with taking part, and being happy with whatever crumbs we get from the OF gorging on Scottish football.

That would be the only argument for expanding the league. But as I've said above somewhere Celtic had just won 9 in a row last time we had a big league, so why do you think things would be different this time round?

[Hibs Go Bragh]

Forget the 2 uglies for a minute this league is heading for a very exciting conclusion, everyone has something to play for, nothing wrong with the split at all..

Very much this!

The most boring part of our league is the top 2 places which are set in stone. Literally every other club has something to play for.

Even after the split 3rd - 6th will have a shot at a European place and anyone in the bottom 4 could end up in the play off.

[Viva_Palmeiras]

I think only clubs with over 20k seated stadia should be allowed to permanently exist in the Premiership :)
Hearts with Tynie - 19,852 well I’m afraid just falls short.

[Prof. Shaggy]

Without working it through that sounds like it would be advantage Rantic. Obviously wouldn't be the case if we'd (or others) got results against them but been less consistent against the bottom half right enough.

I think it would tighten everything up for the run-in. Obviously the amount of tightening up will vary season to season but, in general I think it would make results against the OF more valuable for teams in the top split.

[SickBoy32]

That would be the only argument for expanding the league. But as I've said above somewhere Celtic had just won 9 in a row last time we had a big league, so why do you think things would be different this time round?

We’re talking 50+ years ago, so I’m not sure how comparable the football landscape in Scotland is. That 9IAR Celtic team had won the European Cup. The current Celtic 9IAR / quadruple treble sides were hopeless in Europe by comparison. So it could be argued that decreasing the size of league inadvertently led to a drastic reduction in quality in the 5 decades in between? (Obviously other factors at play too)

I guess I’d hope that the league expansion would lead to the table being tighter at the top, and offer clubs a genuine chance to go the distance.

As a few posters have noted though, cash is king and it appears even some supporters would prefer us to have a higher revenue (with no hope to compete) rather than a dip in revenue but with a more equitable competition.

[Jones28]

We’re talking 50+ years ago, so I’m not sure how comparable the football landscape in Scotland is. That 9IAR Celtic team had won the European Cup. The current Celtic 9IAR / quadruple treble sides were hopeless in Europe by comparison. So it could be argued that decreasing the size of league inadvertently led to a drastic reduction in quality in the 5 decades in between? (Obviously other factors at play too)

I guess I’d hope that the league expansion would lead to the table being tighter at the top, and offer clubs a genuine chance to go the distance.

As a few posters have noted though, cash is king and it appears even some supporters would prefer us to have a higher revenue (with no hope to compete) rather than a dip in revenue but with a more equitable competition.

There's three things here.

What WOULD happen, 100% happen, if the league were to expand is we would lose revenue. A prize pool being diluted and shared amongst more teams, fewer tickets sales and a de-valuation in the season ticket due to losing Cat A games.

Celtic have tens of millions in the bank and would be able to maintain their level, if not increase on it as they seem to have done annually for the last 10 years. They would be totally unaffected, the league revenue is pittance to them. Rangers are a mess, but will still have some protection due to their turnover and potential investment from the San Diego 69'ers or whatever they're called.

Something that MIGHT happen is we could win more games, but with a drop in revenue and Celtic in particular being very cushioned from that we would not be able to maintain our level without significant investment from the owners. Something they've done to tidy up their mess, but not something they can do year to year.

I'd love to see us have a real chance at a league title, don't get me wrong. But league expansion will not help, it will hinder.

The league need to explore options to better re-distribute the pittance in income we receive from the TV deal. I don't know how they could do it, which is probably why it is the way it is.

[Since452]

I actually like the current set up and I like the split. Think it's a brilliant concept and brings a bit of excitement to what would otherwise be pretty dull mid table affairs. I think they have the relegation and playoffs spot on as well. It seems a bit strange to me changing what I feel is working pretty well. Just my opinion though and others will hate the current set up.

[H18S NX]

I still think it was an April fools day prank.

[JeMeSouviens]

Keep the current setup, but give teams, say, 15 or so warm up games where the results are discounted. In fact why not just clear the first 15 results from this season and call it an experiment? :wink:

https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/scottish-premiership/formtabelle/wettbewerb/SC1?saison_id=2024&min=17&max=31

[Hibs Go Bragh]

I actually like the current set up and I like the split. Think it's a brilliant concept and brings a bit of excitement to what would otherwise be pretty dull mid table affairs. I think they have the relegation and playoffs spot on as well. It seems a bit strange to me changing what I feel is working pretty well. Just my opinion though and others will hate the current set up.

The only thing I would like to change with the play offs is to make the premiership play off the same format as the lower leagues but obviously the premiership teams would never vote for that.

[Wilson]

I'd like a bigger setup. I think having more teams exposed to playing the Old Firm, ourselves, Hearts, and Aberdeen, would be for the greater benefit of the Scottish game.

There would be no point doing it if we didn't have the clubs but we have some famous old clubs left floundering and financially hamstrung, by a poor championship in terms of exposure and money.

I can only see an upside in levelling up the likes of Dunfermline, Falkirk, Partick in the longer term. Clubs that traditionally blood young players (doing it at the top level) and their ability to use their spl status to attract talent, whose performance would mean more to us, as we're scouting it at the same level we play at.

[Leith_Hibee]

The only thing I would like to change with the play offs is to make the premiership play off the same format as the lower leagues but obviously the premiership teams would never vote for that.

I'd agree with that, a proper semi final and final. I would also change the final to be played at a neatrual venue in all leagues, make it a bit of a show piece event.

[Hibs4185]

There's three things here.

What WOULD happen, 100% happen, if the league were to expand is we would lose revenue. A prize pool being diluted and shared amongst more teams, fewer tickets sales and a de-valuation in the season ticket due to losing Cat A games.

Celtic have tens of millions in the bank and would be able to maintain their level, if not increase on it as they seem to have done annually for the last 10 years. They would be totally unaffected, the league revenue is pittance to them. Rangers are a mess, but will still have some protection due to their turnover and potential investment from the San Diego 69'ers or whatever they're called.

Something that MIGHT happen is we could win more games, but with a drop in revenue and Celtic in particular being very cushioned from that we would not be able to maintain our level without significant investment from the owners. Something they've done to tidy up their mess, but not something they can do year to year.

I'd love to see us have a real chance at a league title, don't get me wrong. But league expansion will not help, it will hinder.

The league need to explore options to better re-distribute the pittance in income we receive from the TV deal. I don't know how they could do it, which is probably why it is the way it is.

If we want more money we should just have a league with rangers, Celtic, hearts and Aberdeen then. Big gates every game and less distribution to smaller clubs.

Play 4 at home and 4 away. 32 game season.

Win, win.

Luckily I would rather have a better completion and try to make the league more attractive to broadcasters by being more competitive.

[overdrive]

Revised half-arsed and probably terrible suggestion to the one I made early on the thread (16 teams, home and away, then split into 4 sections of 4).

Expand to 16 teams. Play each other home and away. Interspersed during the season, you also play extra fixtures based on the prior year's performance based around "groups". So:

Prior year 1st, 2nd, 15th/Promoted Team and 16th/Promoted Team play additional fixtures against each other home and away
Prior year 3rd, 4th, 13th, 14th play each other home and away
Prior year 5th, 6th, 11th, 12th play each other home and away
Prior year 7th, 8th, 9th 10th play each other home and away

Keeps the SPFL/SFA happy as likely 4 OF games and they get an easier couple of fixtures to ensure nobody can get near them which they'd absolutely love :greengrin
Incentive to finish high up the league as possible as you get some easier extra games the next season
36 games which seems to be the SPFL's goal.
Risk only 2 Edinburgh, Dundee, New Firm derbies, etc.

Or you could do something similar but regionalise the "extra games groups" so to ensure 4 sets of each derbies.

Right, where do I apply to be the Chief Creator of League Structure Chaos within the Belgian FA? :greengrin

[Jones28]

If we want more money we should just have a league with rangers, Celtic, hearts and Aberdeen then. Big gates every game and less distribution to smaller clubs.

Play 4 at home and 4 away. 32 game season.

Win, win.

Luckily I would rather have a better completion and try to make the league more attractive to broadcasters by being more competitive.

Thats clearly not what I want. I don't want league expansion or contraction, a 10 team top flight is not something any top league should be aspiring to.

[Ozyhibby]

I’ve been going along to ER for 20+ years, I’m well aware we’ll never be Scottish champions in the current setup - hence why I’m suggesting an alternative that I believe would allow for a genuine title challenge.

Reducing our games against the big scary ‘behemoths’ as you describe them, from the current 21% of our league fixtures to just 10% - would certainly increase the viability of a genuine challenge for the league.

Whose to say a good Hibs team couldn’t get off to a flyer - winning the opening ten fixtures, all of a sudden even getting a couple draws vs the OF would really open up the league.

But nah you’re right, it’s better to just be content with taking part, and being happy with whatever crumbs we get from the OF gorging on Scottish football.

Only a salary cap set up will deliver variety in title winners. The difference between Celtic, Sevco and the rest is too big to bridge otherwise.

If the SPFL was merged into the English leagues, then we would have two regular Premiership teams, three regular championship teams, two or three in league one and the rest in league two and below. We have those massive gaps all in one league. There is no way to bridge those gaps. Especially with the Euro money helping the two already far away giants.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

We’re talking 50+ years ago, so I’m not sure how comparable the football landscape in Scotland is. That 9IAR Celtic team had won the European Cup. The current Celtic 9IAR / quadruple treble sides were hopeless in Europe by comparison. So it could be argued that decreasing the size of league inadvertently led to a drastic reduction in quality in the 5 decades in between? (Obviously other factors at play too)

I guess I’d hope that the league expansion would lead to the table being tighter at the top, and offer clubs a genuine chance to go the distance.

As a few posters have noted though, cash is king and it appears even some supporters would prefer us to have a higher revenue (with no hope to compete) rather than a dip in revenue but with a more equitable competition.

Situation now is much worse. Celtic turnover has increased by many multiples of ours since then. With the European money and their vast commercial income we are not close enough. In 1970, with mostly home grown squads, only gate receipts and little tv money and little Euro money it was more possible to get close. Not now.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[NAE NOOKIE]

I'd like a bigger setup. I think having more teams exposed to playing the Old Firm, ourselves, Hearts, and Aberdeen, would be for the greater benefit of the Scottish game.

There would be no point doing it if we didn't have the clubs but we have some famous old clubs left floundering and financially hamstrung, by a poor championship in terms of exposure and money.

I can only see an upside in levelling up the likes of Dunfermline, Falkirk, Partick in the longer term. Clubs that traditionally blood young players (doing it at the top level) and their ability to use their spl status to attract talent, whose performance would mean more to us, as we're scouting it at the same level we play at.

This is something I spoke about elsewhere and something I think is really important.

In the context of Scottish football Dunfermline, Falkirk, Ayr United, Partick Thistle and a few others are clubs capable of growth and bringing something to the table, you only have to look at the excellent turnouts for games between Dunfermline and Falkirk for example.

Our 12 team league is bad enough for massively reducing the chances for those clubs to remain full time and grow, a 10 team league would be disastrous and almost certainly in the long term lead to most full time teams in the Championship going part time.

If our clubs could put self interest aside for 5 minutes they would see the value of a bigger league in the context of the health of our game overall, even if it was only an expansion to 14 clubs, which would give the likes of Falkirk and Dunfermline not only a better chance of making the premiership, but of staying in it for more than one season when they did.

There is no league format, absolutely none, that will make a dent in the Glasgow duopoly such is the gulf in finance and the sooner we accept that the better. That does not mean that the game cannot be an enjoyable and exciting experience for fans of the other clubs and I think the upturn in crowds for the likes of Hibs, Aberdeen and Hearts over the last 10 years, even in the face of that reality, is testament to that acceptance already manifesting itself.

It is why I have long advocated for a 'fans cup' ..... a trophy founded by and funded by fans of the non OF clubs, awarded to the highest finishing non Uglies club at the end of every season. I absolutely refute any suggestion that it would be 'giving up' it would be a signal to the rest of football, not to mention the SFA / SPFL, of the acknowledgement by fans in this country that our clubs simply cannot compete with an insurmountably massive gulf in finance that has created an equally massively unequal playing field in favour of two clubs who for a hundred years have undeniably used their success, not to mention other less savoury factors, to suck up fans at the expense of the other clubs.

It should also be remembered if you are going to trash this idea, that if any owner was to put the sort of money into a club like Hibs that would undoubtedly be required for us to compete with Celtic on transfer fees and wages, we would fall foul of UEFA's FFP rules about 5 minutes after our plane touched down in Europe.

In the MLS there are already two fans cups .... one awarded to the top team at the end of the 'regular' season in acknowledgement that who wins the subsequent playoffs does not always reflect who the best team was over the season, and the Cascadia cup, played for between Portland Timbers, Seattle Sounders and Vancouver Whitecaps. All the clubs involved take both cups extremely seriously and have pride in winning them.

I for one couldn't give a rats arse how fans of the Uglies would react to this and even less how the football world as a whole would react, they already think our league is a joke. All we would be doing is sidelining to an extent the two clubs who have made it a laughing stock.

I bet a million quid Paddy Power would be willing to sponsor such a cup .. say for £100,000 :greengrin

[AmericanKev]

Reality check is that we can't reduce the amount of old firm games to below 4. We already get a pittance from Sky (and prem haha they are joke) and we canny upset the broadcaster further.

[Ozyhibby]

This is something I spoke about elsewhere and something I think is really important.

In the context of Scottish football Dunfermline, Falkirk, Ayr United, Partick Thistle and a few others are clubs capable of growth and bringing something to the table, you only have to look at the excellent turnouts for games between Dunfermline and Falkirk for example.

Our 12 team league is bad enough for massively reducing the chances for those clubs to remain full time and grow, a 10 team league would be disastrous and almost certainly in the long term lead to most full time teams in the Championship going part time.

If our clubs could put self interest aside for 5 minutes they would see the value of a bigger league in the context of the health of our game overall, even if it was only an expansion to 14 clubs, which would give the likes of Falkirk and Dunfermline not only a better chance of making the premiership, but of staying in it for more than one season when they did.

There is no league format, absolutely none, that will make a dent in the Glasgow duopoly such is the gulf in finance and the sooner we accept that the better. That does not mean that the game cannot be an enjoyable and exciting experience for fans of the other clubs and I think the upturn in crowds for the likes of Hibs, Aberdeen and Hearts over the last 10 years, even in the face of that reality, is testament to that acceptance already manifesting itself.

It is why I have long advocated for a 'fans cup' ..... a trophy founded by and funded by fans of the non OF clubs, awarded to the highest finishing non Uglies club at the end of every season. I absolutely refute any suggestion that it would be 'giving up' it would be a signal to the rest of football, not to mention the SFA / SPFL, of the acknowledgement by fans in this country that our clubs simply cannot compete with an insurmountably massive gulf in finance that has created an equally massively unequal playing field in favour of two clubs who for a hundred years have undeniably used their success, not to mention other less savoury factors, to suck up fans at the expense of the other clubs.

It should also be remembered if you are going to trash this idea, that if any owner was to put the sort of money into a club like Hibs that would undoubtedly be required for us to compete with Celtic on transfer fees and wages, we would fall foul of UEFA's FFP rules about 5 minutes after our plane touched down in Europe.

In the MLS there are already two fans cups .... one awarded to the top team at the end of the 'regular' season in acknowledgement that who wins the subsequent playoffs does not always reflect who the best team was over the season, and the Cascadia cup, played for between Portland Timbers, Seattle Sounders and Vancouver Whitecaps. All the clubs involved take both cups extremely seriously and have pride in winning them.

I for one couldn't give a rats arse how fans of the Uglies would react to this and even less how the football world as a whole would react, they already think our league is a joke. All we would be doing is sidelining to an extent the two clubs who have made it a laughing stock.

I bet a million quid Paddy Power would be willing to sponsor such a cup .. say for £100,000 :greengrin

The lesson to take from the MLS is the salary cap.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[EGL2000]

Reality check is that we can't reduce the amount of old firm games to below 4. We already get a pittance from Sky (and prem haha they are joke) and we canny upset the broadcaster further.

I think a larger issue is how badly we get shafted with our TV package revenue for the league. Just look at some comparable leagues deals

-Norway $120 million
-Denmark $110 million
-Austria $60 million
-Scotland $37 million

Crazy how little we get compared to them! We also have a fixture that alot of people across the world would have in there top 5 derbies and actually attracts international audience. This is the real issue for me.

[KeithTheHibby]

I think a larger issue is how badly we get shafted with our TV package revenue for the league. Just look at some comparable leagues deals

-Norway $120 million
-Denmark $110 million
-Austria $60 million
-Scotland $37 million

Crazy how little we get compared to them! We also have a fixture that alot of people across the world would have in there top 5 derbies and actually attracts international audience. This is the real issue for me.


We started from such a low bar thanks to that ****ing idiot Doncaster and that other clown Regan with their Armageddon crap around the time the huns went bust.
We will never catch the above teams revenue wise imo with Doncaster still in charge.

[greenlex]

That would be the only argument for expanding the league. But as I've said above somewhere Celtic had just won 9 in a row last time we had a big league, so why do you think things would be different this time round?
Most likely they would continue to win but I’ll bet they didn’t win them at a canter.

[HoboHarry]

We started from such a low bar thanks to that ****ing idiot Doncaster and that other clown Regan with their Armageddon crap around the time the huns went bust.
We will never catch the above teams revenue wise imo with Doncaster still in charge.
Don't forget the "Social Unrest" garbage they were spouting also. Two Englishmen with no lifelong association to either club clearly displaying the institutional bias in the SFA afforded to those two clubs at the expense of all others.

[Trinity Hibee]

I think a larger issue is how badly we get shafted with our TV package revenue for the league. Just look at some comparable leagues deals

-Norway $120 million
-Denmark $110 million
-Austria $60 million
-Scotland $37 million

Crazy how little we get compared to them! We also have a fixture that alot of people across the world would have in there top 5 derbies and actually attracts international audience. This is the real issue for me.

Really is a shambles when you see those numbers. Need a better marketing dept

[HoboHarry]

Really is a shambles when you see those numbers. Need a better marketing dept
We need a whole new SFA. Clear out from top to bottom.

[Steve20]

No way should they be making the league 16 teams. It just means the second half of the season will be meaningless for so many teams. Lots of teams not challenging for europe and not in a relegaton battle. Half a season of meaningless games for teams.

And the case for it would give teams a chance to field younger players. Who cares if it's meaningless games with nothing to play for.

[chippy]

No way should they be making the league 16 teams. It just means the second half of the season will be meaningless for so many teams. Lots of teams not challenging for europe and not in a relegaton battle. Half a season of meaningless games for teams.

And the case for it would give teams a chance to field younger players. Who cares if it's meaningless games with nothing to play for.

A 16 team Belgian style league- very few meaningless games. Splits after 30 games - Champs/ Euro spots group of 6 ( could be 4) , followed by 2 sections of 3 teams each, play home and away- section winners play a final and the winner plays the 5th club in the top 6 for the 5th Euro spot. Bottom 4 section for relegation of 2. Other ways to do this but splits can work well and maintain interest

[chippy]

Are we not close to losing the 5th European place? I'd be gutted to finish 4th and lose a playoff to the 7th placed team

It would be a trade off to keep most of the league competitive and interesting

[Ozyhibby]

I think a larger issue is how badly we get shafted with our TV package revenue for the league. Just look at some comparable leagues deals

-Norway $120 million
-Denmark $110 million
-Austria $60 million
-Scotland $37 million

Crazy how little we get compared to them! We also have a fixture that alot of people across the world would have in there top 5 derbies and actually attracts international audience. This is the real issue for me.

It’s important to consider how many live games we are putting on TV. In those other nations every game is live. And have kick off times that we would hate.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Donegal Hibby]

I see across the road they had a poll on it .. over 43% voted a 16 team league , over 32% for a 14 team league and just over 2% for the way it is now with just over 1% voted 10 teams .

There were other options on their poll of 18 and 20 teams but that’s pretty pointless considering that wasn’t ever mentioned. Wonder what would be the popular choice on here?

[Keith_M]

I think a larger issue is how badly we get shafted with our TV package revenue for the league. Just look at some comparable leagues deals

-Norway $120 million
-Denmark $110 million
-Austria $60 million
-Scotland $37 million

Crazy how little we get compared to them! We also have a fixture that alot of people across the world would have in there top 5 derbies and actually attracts international audience. This is the real issue for me.


The crazy thing about the difference with Austria is that football is such an irrelevance over there, in comparison to Scotland.

They have one club (Rapid) with an average attendance marginally higher than Hibs and Hearts, and the rest are drastically lower.

[Ozyhibby]

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20250403/2a7d02ce4708b0616d43179b416b828e.jpg

We only sell 48 games a season to TV compared with about 250 in Sweden and 240 in Denmark. It’s not alway easy to compare. A per game price has us at about 8th in Europe.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[chippy]

I see across the road they had a poll on it .. over 43% voted a 16 team league , over 32% for a 14 team league and just over 2% for the way it is now with just over 1% voted 10 teams .

There were other options on their poll of 18 and 20 teams but that’s pretty pointless considering that wasn’t ever mentioned. Wonder what would be the popular choice on here?
If a poll is done it ought to offer:
16 club with splits
16 club without splits
14 club - ditto

[overdrive]

The crazy thing about the difference with Austria is that football is such an irrelevance over there, in comparison to Scotland.

They have one club (Rapid) with an average attendance marginally higher than Hibs and Hearts, and the rest are drastically lower.

Plus they have one of the big leagues on their doorstep with televised games in the same language - which is an argument I’ve seen before for why we can’t get more.

[AmericanKev]

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20250403/2a7d02ce4708b0616d43179b416b828e.jpg

We only sell 48 games a season to TV compared with about 250 in Sweden and 240 in Denmark. It’s not alway easy to compare. A per game price has us at about 8th in Europe.


.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


The more we sell the less 3pm Saturday games there are.

[Fifeshirehibs]

4 times ain't going anywhere soon, defo not 10, AND NO PLASTIC PITCHES .

[AmericanKev]

4 times ain't going anywhere soon, defo not 10, AND NO PLASTIC PITCHES .

Livi and killie

[Ozyhibby]

Livi and killie

I think Killie going back to grass this summer?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[cabbageandribs1875]

I think Killie going back to grass this summer?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


next summer

[ruthven_raiders]

If a poll is done it ought to offer:
16 club with splits
16 club without splits
14 club - ditto

Surel can't have 16 with a split? Also 14 without a split....only option for me is 14 with a 6-8 split....

[Hibrandenburg]

4 leagues. 1 league with two teams in it, no relegation or promotion and 3 leagues with 2 leagues of 16 and a bottom league of 18 with 2 teams up and down.

[danhibees1875]

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20250403/2a7d02ce4708b0616d43179b416b828e.jpg

We only sell 48 games a season to TV compared with about 250 in Sweden and 240 in Denmark. It’s not alway easy to compare. A per game price has us at about 8th in Europe.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Good context within the debate. :aok:

I wonder to what degree that's our decision vs the broadcaster, and if ours then how bad would the times of games be that we're being protected from enduring.

[chippy]

Surel can't have 16 with a split? Also 14 without a split....only option for me is 14 with a 6-8 split....

Yes you can have 16 and 14 team leagues with various splits. Google Belgian pro league for example

[chippy]

Surel can't have 16 with a split? Also 14 without a split....only option for me is 14 with a 6-8 split....

Key word here is splits - plural. Check out the Belgian pro league methods for an example

[worcesterhibby]

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20250403/2a7d02ce4708b0616d43179b416b828e.jpg

We only sell 48 games a season to TV compared with about 250 in Sweden and 240 in Denmark. It’s not alway easy to compare. A per game price has us at about 8th in Europe.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

do the Belgians really only get £280 a game :greengrin

[Ozyhibby]

Good context within the debate. :aok:

I wonder to what degree that's our decision vs the broadcaster, and if ours then how bad would the times of games be that we're being protected from enduring.

It’s definitely our decision. We value our high attendances at games. Pretty sure we are best attended top league in Europe per capita?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[danhibees1875]

It’s definitely our decision. We value our high attendances at games. Pretty sure we are best attended top league in Europe per capita?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I believe we are, yes. Not sure we can say the other bits of your post with certainty though unless I've missed that being confirmed.

I'm not personally against Friday night and Monday night football which is what I'm assuming is the difference going by a quick look at the Swedish fixture list.

[superfurryhibby]

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20250403/2a7d02ce4708b0616d43179b416b828e.jpg

We only sell 48 games a season to TV compared with about 250 in Sweden and 240 in Denmark. It’s not alway easy to compare. A per game price has us at about 8th in Europe.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think this is a crucial observation.

Bare statistics imply our league may be undervalued, in terms of overall income. Drill down and it's not so black and white.

As Ozy says, our top flight football is pretty well attended. For all the mucking about with fixture times, there is still a culture based around 3pm on a Saturday.

If we choose the Swedish/Danish model we would be reducing fan involvement in going to matches. Ultimately, that would create a different football culture.

I personally don't want to see random SPfL fixtures, on the telly. I only enjoy watching Hibs. Offset the extra cash from blanket tv coverage against smaller attendances and loss of revenue associated with this and ask, is it really worth it?

Clubs can raise extra revenue through getting more people involved. We have seen a lot of changes, with more women and more children going to watch the football. Promoting involvement is a good strategy all round, play, watch and support our clubs.

I think it's reasonable that clubs are given the chance to debate the structure of our football leagues. However, we aren't ever going back to a ten team top flight. Nor will will expand the league. I can see change around the lower tiers and regionalisation, pyramid set up and the like though.

[Ozyhibby]

I think this is a crucial observation.

Bare statistics imply our league may be undervalued, in terms of overall income. Drill down and it's not so black and white.

As Ozy says, our top flight football is pretty well attended. For all the mucking about with fixture times, there is still a culture based around 3pm on a Saturday.

If we choose the Swedish/Danish model we would be reducing fan involvement in going to matches. Ultimately, that would create a different football culture.

I personally don't want to see random SPfL fixtures, on the telly. I only enjoy watching Hibs. Offset the extra cash from blanket tv coverage against smaller attendances and loss of revenue associated with this and ask, is it really worth it?

Clubs can raise extra revenue through getting more people involved. We have seen a lot of changes, with more women and more children going to watch the football. Promoting involvement is a good strategy all round, play, watch and support our clubs.

I think it's reasonable that clubs are given the chance to debate the structure of our football leagues. However, we aren't ever going back to a ten team top flight. Nor will will expand the league. I can see change around the lower tiers and regionalisation, pyramid set up and the like though.

I do think change will come but it will be from outside. Some sort of Euro league will happen and either the Glasgow teams will go or it will force us to merge with other leagues.
We won’t instigate it but will be open to it when it happens.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[chippy]

I think this is a crucial observation.

Bare statistics imply our league may be undervalued, in terms of overall income. Drill down and it's not so black and white.

As Ozy says, our top flight football is pretty well attended. For all the mucking about with fixture times, there is still a culture based around 3pm on a Saturday.

If we choose the Swedish/Danish model we would be reducing fan involvement in going to matches. Ultimately, that would create a different football culture.

I personally don't want to see random SPfL fixtures, on the telly. I only enjoy watching Hibs. Offset the extra cash from blanket tv coverage against smaller attendances and loss of revenue associated with this and ask, is it really worth it?

Clubs can raise extra revenue through getting more people involved. We have seen a lot of changes, with more women and more children going to watch the football. Promoting involvement is a good strategy all round, play, watch and support our clubs.

I think it's reasonable that clubs are given the chance to debate the structure of our football leagues. However, we aren't ever going back to a ten team top flight. Nor will will expand the league. I can see change around the lower tiers and regionalisation, pyramid set up and the like though.

If you’re drilling down perhaps we should look at who gets what out of those 48 games. Celtic and Rangers are on probably 15-20 times each with the likes of Hibs 6 or 7 ish. Out iof that 600k per game the vast bulk goes to maintain the old firm supremacy

[superfurryhibby]

I do think change will come but it will be from outside. Some sort of Euro league will happen and either the Glasgow teams will go or it will force us to merge with other leagues.
We won’t instigate it but will be open to it when it happens.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I thought that a wider European League would happen years ago and it hasn't yet. Uefa have bent over backwards to accommodate the big clubs, expanded non Champions League, dropping into other competitions etc.

What do you think would be the catalyst for it? Clearly there are big clubs (like Celtic, Benfica, Ajax) who don't get much of a consistent sniff of the big money.

Equally, I thought international football might reach the end of the line. There's nothing in it for clubs and the corruption and chaos caused by the Arab money just emphasises the money grabbing binge -fest of FIFA.

[Ozyhibby]

If you’re drilling down perhaps we should look at who gets what out of those 48 games. Celtic and Rangers are on probably 15-20 times each with the likes of Hibs 6 or 7 ish. Out iof that 600k per game the vast bulk goes to maintain the old firm supremacy

Money only based on league position.

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20250404/6e58f154401c3e38150645f3ed6233ce.jpg

Last years TV money.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

I thought that a wider European League would happen years ago and it hasn't yet. Uefa have bent over backwards to accommodate the big clubs, expanded non Champions League, dropping into other competitions etc.

What do you think would be the catalyst for it? Clearly there are big clubs (like Celtic, Benfica, Ajax) who don't get much of a consistent sniff of the big money.

Equally, I thought international football might reach the end of the line. There's nothing in it for clubs and the corruption and chaos caused by the Arab money just emphasises the money grabbing binge -fest of FIFA.

I honestly don’t know what or how it will change but there is enough of a desire for it from the biggest clubs. The Superleague recently won their case in the European courts so I suspect they will be back with a new idea at some point.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Jones28]

If you’re drilling down perhaps we should look at who gets what out of those 48 games. Celtic and Rangers are on probably 15-20 times each with the likes of Hibs 6 or 7 ish. Out iof that 600k per game the vast bulk goes to maintain the old firm supremacy

It doesn't work like that as far as I know, the money allocated per league position, not per televised match.

But still, on that basis it still works out as more money going to the OF for finishing in the top 2.

[superfurryhibby]

If you’re drilling down perhaps we should look at who gets what out of those 48 games. Celtic and Rangers are on probably 15-20 times each with the likes of Hibs 6 or 7 ish. Out iof that 600k per game the vast bulk goes to maintain the old firm supremacy

Drilling down further, it's probably associated with the fact that those two clubs have by far a bigger audience and broader appeal than the other clubs put together.
Of course, it's not just about the direct revenue from the TV, this will undoubtedly link to sponsorship income and the like.

Out of interest, how would you share the TV money more equitably?

[danhibees1875]

Drilling down further, it's probably associated with the fact that those two clubs have by far a bigger audience and broader appeal than the other clubs put together.
Of course, it's not just about revenue from the TV, this will undoubtedly link to sponsorship revenues and the like.

Out of interest, how would you share the TV money more equitably?

90% to Hibs, the rest shared equally between teams not called Celtic or Rangers.

[NAE NOOKIE]

The lesson to take from the MLS is the salary cap.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I absolutely agree mate. But you and I know that is never going to happen, there's as much chance of the uglies agreeing to such a thing as there is of Real Madrid or Man Utd agreeing to it if UEFA tried to bring it in, even in the face of the fact that unfettered wage demands by players is crippling clubs all over Europe .... the 'big boys' have no intention of allowing a state of affairs that would level the playing field and they are the tail that wags the dug in domestic, European and world football.

[NAE NOOKIE]

I honestly don’t know what or how it will change but there is enough of a desire for it from the biggest clubs. The Superleague recently won their case in the European courts so I suspect they will be back with a new idea at some point.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

They might, but if there's one thing they learned from the the first time, it's that the fans hated the idea, especially in Germany, but even in England ... where commercialism is as rampant as any league in the world ... they have accepted their fixtures being chucked all over the place vis a vis day and KO time with barely a whimper and ticket prices that in no way reflect the enormous TV and commercial revenue the EPL generates being passed on to the fans in the form of lower ticket prices. Even for them a European super league was a step too far.

For a European super league to work it has to fill stadiums .... all it would take is for fans to refuse to support it and it would die on the vine.

[Ringothedog]

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20250403/2a7d02ce4708b0616d43179b416b828e.jpg

We only sell 48 games a season to TV compared with about 250 in Sweden and 240 in Denmark. It’s not alway easy to compare. A per game price has us at about 8th in Europe.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


We haven’t , we have sold up to 60 games with Sky and 20 with Premier sports. I would be surprised if it’s worth anymore than £500k a game

[chippy]

90% to Hibs, the rest shared equally between teams not called Celtic or Rangers.

I was going to say divide the total by 12. An even split for everyone in the same comp. But this idea is much better

[Centre Hawf]

The more we sell the less 3pm Saturday games there are.

This is the problem I have whenever people debate the TV deal. We all want more money but actually our deal is very good for what we give up.

If we want more money we have to create more value to whoever it paying for it. Which is already a difficult task when we limit what they can show so much that it basically turns itself into a Celtic/Rangers subscription service.

[AmericanKev]

This is the problem I have whenever people debate the TV deal. We all want more money but actually our deal is very good for what we give up.

If we want more money we have to create more value to whoever it paying for it. Which is already a difficult task when we limit what they can show so much that it basically turns itself into a Celtic/Rangers subscription service.

Yes and you would also get Monday night stuff for example.

Despite it being old firm TV it's actually preferable to showing non old firm games. St Johnston v Kilmarnock live on sky !!! No thanks.. the best games are when a team like Kilmarnock actually gives Celtic a game and gets stuck in

[Centre Hawf]

Yes and you would also get Monday night stuff for example.

Despite it being old firm TV it's actually preferable to showing non old firm games. St Johnston v Kilmarnock live on sky !!! No thanks.. the best games are when a team like Kilmarnock actually gives Celtic a game and gets stuck in

I have no issue with MNF or Sunday kick offs if the money is better for the TV Deal. I would actually encourage it.

Hugely disagree on the type of fixture that I'd prefer to watch. I would much rather watch a United vs Hearts this weekend than if Celtic played Kilmarnock tomorrow for example. It's a waste of 2 hours of my life sitting watching Celtic march on towards another League title on the 5% chance Kilmarnock draw or win against them, which ultimately changes nothing in regards to Celtics season. At least with other fixtures I can actually see a competitive game of football where two teams have a good chance of beating each other. That to me has value within at least the Scottish audience.

[AmericanKev]

I have no issue with MNF or Sunday kick offs if the money is better for the TV Deal. I would actually encourage it.

Hugely disagree on the type of fixture that I'd prefer to watch. I would much rather watch a United vs Hearts this weekend than if Celtic played Kilmarnock tomorrow for example. It's a waste of 2 hours of my life sitting watching Celtic march on towards another League title on the 5% chance Kilmarnock draw or win against them, which ultimately changes nothing in regards to Celtics season. At least with other fixtures I can actually see a competitive game of football where two teams have a good chance of beating each other. That to me has value within at least the Scottish audience.

Disagree. When someone scores first v the old firm you know you're in for a game (mainly talking about when the old firm are away). Hearts v Dundee Utd isn't something that will get the world wide audience, of even UK audience that excited.

[Centre Hawf]

Disagree. When someone scores first v the old firm you know you're in for a game (mainly talking about when the old firm are away). Hearts v Dundee Utd isn't something that will get the world wide audience, of even UK audience that excited.

Each to their own but I think showcasing games with Celtic and Rangers will continuously have us at a ceiling of people who are mostly just interested in the teams they've heard of when they're flicking through the channels, we should be selling the league as a whole which includes the relegation and top 6 scraps. It's becoming Harlem Globetrotter stuff just showing Celtic going to Perth to pump St Johnstone and Ross County 6-0 when we're about so much more than that as a league.

Rangers games are bit more entertaining at the moment admittedly because they've been rank enough to risk dropping points, but that's not always the case and again they have zero to play for it so there's no jeopardy other than "can Dundee get something"

[AmericanKev]

Each to their own but I think showcasing games with Celtic and Rangers will continuously have us at a ceiling of people who are mostly just interested in the teams they've heard of when they're flicking through the channels, we should be selling the league as a whole which includes the relegation and top 6 scraps. It's becoming Harlem Globetrotter stuff just showing Celtic going to Perth to pump St Johnstone and Ross County 6-0 when we're about so much more than that as a league.

Rangers games are bit more entertaining at the moment admittedly because they've been rank enough to risk dropping points, but that's not always the case and again they have zero to play for it so there's no jeopardy other than "can Dundee get something"

Hearts v united is unlikely to attract new viewers to our game.

[Eyrie]

Hearts v united is unlikely to attract new viewers to our game.

Doesn't appeal to me either.

[AmericanKev]

Doesn't appeal to me either.

Won't make you by sky either.

[Trinity Hibee]

They had Keith Lasley on sportsound as he’s on this league working group and there is no appetite for a 10 team league. 14 seems the only viable option if it’s to change from 12

[AmericanKev]

They had Keith Lasley on sportsound as he’s on this league working group and there is no appetite for a 10 team league. 14 seems the only viable option if it’s to change from 12

Good

[allezsauzee]

I know I'm in the minority but if we are changing the league structure then I am in favour of a 10 team premier league rather than 14. I just don't see the logic that makes the quality better by keeping St Johnstone up and adding Ayr United. Whatever ails Scottish football, I don't think it's the current set up which I think has succeeded in making a lot of games more meaningful.