NO to reconstruction

[CMurdoch]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I’m old enough to recall the bigger leagues....so many meaningless games. It was such the right decision to reduce league size..

Likely in the minority, but I really like our league set up - almost every game makes a difference....


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

The old 18 team top league was horrific.
There was always 3 or 4 teams who were absolutely hosed by the big teams.

[Eyrie]

Season ticket sales will drop massively if there is a 16, 18 or 20 team league.

We'd be replacing full houses against Hearts and the Ugly Sisters with a couple of hundred fans from St Mirren or Inverness, so it will be much easier to get a walk up ticket. That means there's no need to pay in advance for games in the latter half of the season when we're as likely to be mired in mid-table mediocrity as having a realistic chance of Europe. Miss a couple of those games and the season ticket will cost more.

It's a financial non-starter.

[Ozyhibby]

Only takes two top flight teams to be against any of the proposed changes for it not to happen. I haven’t seen any proposal that increases revenue for the top flight teams.
Does anyone seriously expect anything that cuts revenue to get passed? That means 11 premiership teams voting to take less money?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Roxyhibee]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Im a yes for league reconstruction.

Playing the same team 4 times is piss poor.

Id go 16 or 18, play twice. 3 up, 3 down.

Not a fan of the split either.

No. 18 teams is utter purgatory, trust me. 16 is a big no too. There won’t be a product for any tv deals either.

Playing each other 3/4 times a season is not ideal but after you’ve played a handful of meaningless games in a row in an 18 team league, you’ll be dying to play one of the same big teams twice in one week if necessary, never mind over a season.

[NAE NOOKIE]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I could have quoted your lengthy meanderings on league construction but wanted to get to the nub of why we are in this position. It isn’t the for good of Scottish football it is YET AGAIN purely and squarely to bail out the mismanaged duo from their own over indulgence.

If you want ‘fairness’ the obvious answer is a 20 team top league playing each other twice 38 games. As you know this isn’t going to fly as the Premier clubs self interest determines they want to play celtic and Rangers 4 times.

So instead they bundle together this 14 team league messY idea splitting to a 6 and an 8 after two rounds. A complete dogs dinner cooked up purely to be ‘fair’ to Hearts whilst completely ignoring the ‘unfairness’ to the 3rd and 4th place playoff teams in the championship..

You can pretend a solution is being desired for the common good but every single one of the 42 clubs is posturing and voting purely on a sel interest basis and couldn’t give a toss about the other clubs. Do you really think ICT voted no because it is unfair to relegate Hearts, of course it’s not, it’s to get in the top league themselves. Do you honestly believe thst Rangers are the honest arbitrators of Scottish football campaigning for the benefit of every one? Do you honestly think Hearts would give a f*** if they were sitting 11th?

We were the ‘bigger man’ and moved on after the last time Rangers and Hearts cheated Scottish football but here they are again sticking their fingers up to the rest of us and demanding, yes demanding we see sense and do what they want.

League reconstruction is a no no for me.

So far as I'm aware the only benefit to the Huns would be a 100/1 chance of stopping Celtic winning the league .. so any vote makes little difference to them, in spite of their nonsense.

My idea for a 14 team league is at least manageable ... I haven't seen any other proposals. No it won't help 3rd and 4th in the championship in the short term, but it will cause damage to as few clubs as possible, in view of the fact that any league bigger than that would be unworkable in a country of this size.

As for the rest of your own 'lengthy meanderings' ... I couldn't give a rats arse what the clubs or the fans motivations are, I'm stating my point of view as I see it and saying what I think would be the best option for the game going forward ..... It's my honest opinion and I'm not allowing it to be influenced by the self serving attitude of a number of clubs and the parochialism of other fans.

I dont give a **** what Hearts think, what Celtic think, what ICT think or what anybody else thinks ... this is just my opinion of what's best for Scottish football as I see it. If it falls into line with some great ... if its hated by others that's too bad ... I'm not going to change what I feel is best for the game just to fit in.

[1875STEVE]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I’m old enough to recall the bigger leagues....so many meaningless games. It was such the right decision to reduce league size..

Likely in the minority, but I really like our league set up - almost every game makes a difference....


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

There's plenty meaningless games now.

There's plenty teams big enough down in the Championship who would make a difference to the league.

IMO Dundee Utd, Dundee, ICT, Ayr, Dunfermline, Morton, Partick and QOS are all good sized clubs.

Go down a league further and you have Raith and Falkirk.

Id much rather have trips to tannadice, dens, firhill etc, than another two trips to fir park and killie.

Also, there would be a derby just about every other week.

The more i think about it, the more i like 18.

It's no coincidence, imo, that he best leagues in the world all have bigger leagues, it would allow the bleeding of youngsters more as well, as I think clubs would take a chance if they are not in trouble.

I also don't think it's a coincidence that Scotland had some good national sides, and qualified for tournaments when we had bigger leagues.

If had my way, id promote the top 6 from the championship, and keep what we have, and keep doing it down the ladder, until we reach the bottom, then ask for new teams from juniors etc to apply to fill the gaps.

If they couldn't get enough teams to fill the gaps, id go down the colt route to fill it up.

[bigwheel]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

There's plenty meaningless games now.

There's plenty teams big enough down in the Championship who would make a difference to the league.

IMO Dundee Utd, Dundee, ICT, Ayr, Dunfermline, Morton, Partick and QOS are all good sized clubs.

Go down a league further and you have Raith and Falkirk.

Id much rather have trips to tannadice, dens, firhill etc, than another two trips to fir park and killie.

Also, there would be a derby just about every other week.

The more i think about it, the more i like 18.

It's no coincidence, imo, that he best leagues in the world all have bigger leagues, it would allow the bleeding of youngsters more as well, as I think clubs would take a chance if they are not in trouble.

I also don't think it's a coincidence that Scotland had some good national sides, and qualified for tournaments when we had bigger leagues.

If had my way, id promote the top 6 from the championship, and keep what we have, and keep doing it down the ladder, until we reach the bottom, then ask for new teams from juniors etc to apply to fill the gaps.

If they couldn't get enough teams to fill the gaps, id go down the colt route to fill it up.

There are not too many meaningless games today....well, anyway compared to what there would be in a bigger league....most games can affect something in the league. It’s not about being good sized clubs...it’s about games that have no relevance on championships, Europe, splits or relegation...Will never happen anyway - most they will go for,I reckon, is 14 with a split...


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Bristolhibby]

Does the English Premiership have “meaningless games”?

J

[chippy]

The main arguments against a 16/18 team league are: 1) Meaningless games 2) lack of competition 3) lower crowds 4) not enough good teams 5) too small a country 6) lower value tv deal 7) less home games Vs old firm 8) 2nd tier too weak to produce competitive promoted clubs.

Points 1,2,4,8. Come off it the current set up is not competitive for the title. Barely has been since the early days of the 10 team league with the great Dundee United and Aberdeen teams, I would argue that most of the players in that era started off in the 18 team format. The only competition for clubs outside the old firm is for relegation or the odd European place. The focus of clubs on relegation has I believe been instrumental in stopping clubs playing young Scots. The top 10 or 12 set up suits the old firm who can carry large well paid squads of higher quality and pick off the better players in other clubs when it suits. This reduces the chances of other clubs getting closer to them. Evidence is clear over the last 35 years ,


Points 3,5,6 7
We have good crowds for a small country, Pros and cons having 8 games Vs old firm.. Makes games less special, some fans stay away, sectarian atmosphere among others. These days I don’t think fewer games Vs old firm would be very damaging to Hibs, Hearts , Aberdeen as we all have good nos of season ticket holders, etc.. Also less games Vs old firm makes it more likely to have a winning run and I would strongly argue play more open football and play younger Scots . More likely to get closer to old firm
Point 8 I find this the oddest . Some want a smalll premier league so you can have a strong 2nd tier . Talk about shooting yourself in both feet and the head. This just makes the whole thing a relegation shoot out outside the old firm, We need as many of our strong clubs in the premier as possible. So now that would mean United, ICT, Dundee and Ayr in a 16 team. Sure we will have yo yo clubs , good every league had them.
KEY POINT
What is missing from any of the pro small league arguments is the effect on the development of Scottish talent . Is there not a link between our decline as a football power and our league structure? In the old 18 team league we produced great teams and loads of quality players . European cup and cup winners, semi finalists . Great runs in Europe,. Great teams qualified for 74 and 78 World Cup.
This should be a key plank in any restructure but you never hear of it.

SOLUTION
An historic compromise that integrates expanded and small leagues
A 16 team premier that splits after 30 similar to Belgium ( they don’t do too badly)
The splits can be tweaked to suit Scotland but I kinda like a Top 4, middle 8 in 2 groups and a bottom 4. Bottom 4 play home and away and 1 or 2 get relegated. Top 4 , home and away for title and Euro places . Middle 8 in 2 groups . Winner overall of group play off wins 5th Euro place.
Yes there are some teams played 4 times but not many, keeps interest to season end, Why not?

[weecounty hibby]

League reconstruction should be looked at but not for next season as a knee jerk reaction. It needs proper planning and proper execution. Not just doing it and flying into it half cocked. You can see already even on here the different suggestions so how the **** do we expect to get one implemented in the next 3/4 months when you have 42 clubs with different agendas. Finish the league's as they are, plan for reconstruction if it is indeed necessary and not just a quick fix to prevent hearts, Dundee, ICT and PTFC moaning too much, because that is exactly what it looks like

[Danderhall Hibs]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Does the English Premiership have “meaningless games”?

J

There will be less as they have more European spots available so you’re a bit lower down the table before you’re classed as meaningless.

Looking at the current table the likes of Everton v Crystal Palace or Burnley v Southampton are pretty meaningless. If they had the same European spots as us - anyone playing from below Man U down to Southampton would be playing for nothing other than win bonuses.

[chippy]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

League reconstruction should be looked at but not for next season as a knee jerk reaction. It needs proper planning and proper execution. Not just doing it and flying into it half cocked. You can see already even on here the different suggestions so how the **** do we expect to get one implemented in the next 3/4 months when you have 42 clubs with different agendas. Finish the league's as they are, plan for reconstruction if it is indeed necessary and not just a quick fix to prevent hearts, Dundee, ICT and PTFC moaning too much, because that is exactly what it looks like

We’ve got 3/4 months that’s plenty time to discuss , consult , plan and implement. Reconstruction is always in the background .Also it resolves promotion and relegation issues. What else are we gonna be doing in this time ?

[weecounty hibby]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

We’ve got 3/4 months that’s plenty time to discuss , consult , plan and implement. Reconstruction is always in the background .Also it resolves promotion and relegation issues. What else are we gonna be doing in this time ?

That's total nonsense that it's always in the background. It's not been mentioned for ages. It is a knee jerk reaction and will not end well. 3/4 months is not plenty time at all. 42 clubs in the senior leagues, lowland league, Highland league, multiple sponsors, multiple TV companies to all deal with.

[Wakeyhibee]

I think we will see a couple more votes fail. And if Sevco do actually have any evidence of SPFl impropriety then I reconstruction will be cobbled together to suit as many as possible to get it through.

3 leagues of 14

No relegations (sadly)

Split at some configuration after 2 rounds to guarantee 4 OF games for TV. 2-4 extra games

No change in prize money splits so 13th in Prem gets what it would coming top of championship.

And mad though it might seem given the time restrictions possibly even a truncated pre season playoff to decide the extra promotion. The is Scottish Football after all.

Then a switch back to status quo following season with 3 down one up and playoffs is the trade off.

You've now got Jambos, Partick, Falkirk etc on board.

TV deal wont really be affected

[Danderhall Hibs]

If the 14 team league is such a good idea why do folk only want it for one season?

[Wakeyhibee]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

If the 14 team league is such a good idea why do folk only want it for one season?

Whilst I would like to see a bigger league, my post was what I think might happen. Long term the clubs are all short sighted and will vote for now/cash.

One season in my view is a waste of time but it might be required to get enough clubs on board on how to go forward.

[weecounty hibby]

The thing is that most clubs are on board and the ones who aren't are 100% only looking after themselves and are not in the least bit interested in whats best for everyone

[bigwheel]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

The main arguments against a 16/18 team league are: 1) Meaningless games 2) lack of competition 3) lower crowds 4) not enough good teams 5) too small a country 6) lower value tv deal 7) less home games Vs old firm 8) 2nd tier too weak to produce competitive promoted clubs.

Points 1,2,4,8. Come off it the current set up is not competitive for the title. Barely has been since the early days of the 10 team league with the great Dundee United and Aberdeen teams, I would argue that most of the players in that era started off in the 18 team format. The only competition for clubs outside the old firm is for relegation or the odd European place. The focus of clubs on relegation has I believe been instrumental in stopping clubs playing young Scots. The top 10 or 12 set up suits the old firm who can carry large well paid squads of higher quality and pick off the better players in other clubs when it suits. This reduces the chances of other clubs getting closer to them. Evidence is clear over the last 35 years ,


Points 3,5,6 7
We have good crowds for a small country, Pros and cons having 8 games Vs old firm.. Makes games less special, some fans stay away, sectarian atmosphere among others. These days I don’t think fewer games Vs old firm would be very damaging to Hibs, Hearts , Aberdeen as we all have good nos of season ticket holders, etc.. Also less games Vs old firm makes it more likely to have a winning run and I would strongly argue play more open football and play younger Scots . More likely to get closer to old firm
Point 8 I find this the oddest . Some want a smalll premier league so you can have a strong 2nd tier . Talk about shooting yourself in both feet and the head. This just makes the whole thing a relegation shoot out outside the old firm, We need as many of our strong clubs in the premier as possible. So now that would mean United, ICT, Dundee and Ayr in a 16 team. Sure we will have yo yo clubs , good every league had them.
KEY POINT
What is missing from any of the pro small league arguments is the effect on the development of Scottish talent . Is there not a link between our decline as a football power and our league structure? In the old 18 team league we produced great teams and loads of quality players . European cup and cup winners, semi finalists . Great runs in Europe,. Great teams qualified for 74 and 78 World Cup.
This should be a key plank in any restructure but you never hear of it.

SOLUTION
An historic compromise that integrates expanded and small leagues
A 16 team premier that splits after 30 similar to Belgium ( they don’t do too badly)
The splits can be tweaked to suit Scotland but I kinda like a Top 4, middle 8 in 2 groups and a bottom 4. Bottom 4 play home and away and 1 or 2 get relegated. Top 4 , home and away for title and Euro places . Middle 8 in 2 groups . Winner overall of group play off wins 5th Euro place.
Yes there are some teams played 4 times but not many, keeps interest to season end, Why not?

Some Interesting points on here.

Bosman ruling and money distribution is a much bigger factor in lack of title competition, that the league size. There is nothing that a bigger league will do to change that.. Want to make it more competitive - have a more equal money distribution with max salaries , then we may have more like the 70s and 80s.....

The youth dev points are interesting...football was a national passion in the 70s..kids out playing from dusk until dawn....I suspect the change in this is the biggest factor for lack of talent emerging ..and also likely the over coaching at a young age...

I like our league. Most games can affect big outcomes. This years league was a big example. Rangers with an outside chance. European battle still hot. Top six not certain for us. Relegation battle still highly active....if you put 4-6 more teams in the mix the tension reduces.

Yes, perhaps teams can give youth more a chance in that model - but perhaps also at the cost of more meaningful games.

Tough one..but I like the current set up.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Eyrie]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

SOLUTION
An historic compromise that integrates expanded and small leagues
A 16 team premier that splits after 30 similar to Belgium ( they don’t do too badly)
The splits can be tweaked to suit Scotland but I kinda like a Top 4, middle 8 in 2 groups and a bottom 4. Bottom 4 play home and away and 1 or 2 get relegated. Top 4 , home and away for title and Euro places . Middle 8 in 2 groups . Winner overall of group play off wins 5th Euro place.
Yes there are some teams played 4 times but not many, keeps interest to season end, Why not?

We have four European places at present, one of which goes to the winners of the Scottish Cup.

Under that scenario it would be better to finish fifth and play in Europe than make the top four only to finish third or fourth and miss out on Europe. It's unnecessarily complicated and leaves teams in the third group (and potentially those at the bottom of the top two groups, or top of the bottom group) with nothing to play for.

[FilipinoHibs]

The big problem is the Sky deal. They want a guaranteed 4 old firm games a season. For 14 you could play each other twice then post split play each other twice again - 6/8 split.

[Ozyhibby]

Not a single model above puts more money into the top clubs. In fact they all result in less money for the top clubs. They can therefore be discounted as being a non starter when it comes to a vote requiring 11 out of 12 teams in favour.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Since452]

How about a 10 team league and we relegate Hearts and Hamilton. More money for the top clubs and get rid of two diddy teams. Job done.

[where'stheslope]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

If the 14 team league is such a good idea why do folk only want it for one season?

Its mainly proposed as a one off, to help get us out of lockdown and as know one kinows when that is likely to happen it could be a restricted season next time.
The way some are talking, football will be ready to go in August, not a chance of that, it will be nearer the end of the year or early next year till things settle.

[Ozyhibby]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

How about a 10 team league and we relegate Hearts and Hamilton. More money for the top clubs and get rid of two diddy teams. Job done.

Dundee Utd might be a bit p’ed off.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CockneyRebel]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

There will be less as they have more European spots available so you’re a bit lower down the table before you’re classed as meaningless.

Looking at the current table the likes of Everton v Crystal Palace or Burnley v Southampton are pretty meaningless. If they had the same European spots as us - anyone playing from below Man U down to Southampton would be playing for nothing other than win bonuses.

They would, more importantly, be playing for final position payments which involves considerable sums.

[Ozyhibby]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Its mainly proposed as a one off, to help get us out of lockdown and as know one kinows when that is likely to happen it could be a restricted season next time.
The way some are talking, football will be ready to go in August, not a chance of that, it will be nearer the end of the year or early next year till things settle.

If it’s not ready for an August kick off then there is likely to be no European footy next season either so there will be lots of midweek slots freed up to allow the league to finish.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Danderhall Hibs]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Dundee Utd might be a bit p’ed off.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

3 down and 1 up then?

[Danderhall Hibs]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

They would, more importantly, be playing for final position payments which involves considerable sums.

Are we talking Premiership or EPL here?

[Wakeyhibee]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Not a single model above puts more money into the top clubs. In fact they all result in less money for the top clubs. They can therefore be discounted as being a non starter when it comes to a vote requiring 11 out of 12 teams in favour.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No team will get more money from any deal, if anything they're all gonna take a hit from this season. If this gets protracted some may go to the wall.

I can only see Sevco voting against, after cash their agenda is different from everyone elses in that they will anything to stop, delay or devalue this season's title.

[RoYO!]

As the title states- no to reconstruction. I'm yet to see any model that makes me think differently.