Scottish Premier League Reconstruction - 14 Team SPL?

***barcahibs*** · 21-10-2010 12:12 AM

For me the issue with the SPL as it stands is boredom. Playing each other 4-6 times a season is ludicrous, by the time we're playing Kilmarnock for the 4th time in a season I'm starting to lose the will to live.

I don't get the idea of meaningless games personally, all Hibs games have meaning so I don't get that arguement against large leagues. I don't follow Hibs to watch them win the league (or I'd have given up a long time ago), I follow them to watch them play football.

I'd go for a 16 team league playing each other twice. 16 teams would be the optimum number for me as I don't think the Scottish game could support 18 top flight teams and still have a meaningful first division. 16 team first division as well and then split into regions below that.

Playing each team only once home and away would add interest IMO. Most fans only go to home games so would therefore only have one chance to see each team. This could add impetus for people to actually go to games. Generally most teams will have something vaguely interesting going for them that might tempt people along to see them. it would also make rivalries much more intense.

Make up the shortfall in games with a 32 team league cup split into seeded 4 team sections, as described by others above. This gives you another 6 guaranteed games leaving you a minimum of 36 games a season, 18 home 18 away.

Split all tv monies equally (or ditch the Sky deal altogether).

Then move it to the Summer.

**alanhall69** · 21-10-2010 07:51 AM

new league of 14 ok if you finish in top 6 .season ticket should be same price for top 6 or bottom 8 as always cost more for old firm and **** .
would like to see league cup played this way bottom 21 teams get home draw v top 21 . gives smaller teams some gate money early in season and hope it helps them to bring players on.
or even better british league cup .this would put some life back in the cup ..

***blackpoolhibs*** · 21-10-2010 09:06 AM

Originally Posted by barcahibs

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

For me the issue with the SPL as it stands is boredom. Playing each other 4-6 times a season is ludicrous, by the time we're playing Kilmarnock for the 4th time in a season I'm starting to lose the will to live.

I don't get the idea of meaningless games personally, all Hibs games have meaning so I don't get that arguement against large leagues. I don't follow Hibs to watch them win the league (or I'd have given up a long time ago), I follow them to watch them play football.

I'd go for a 16 team league playing each other twice. 16 teams would be the optimum number for me as I don't think the Scottish game could support 18 top flight teams and still have a meaningful first division. 16 team first division as well and then split into regions below that.

Playing each team only once home and away would add interest IMO. Most fans only go to home games so would therefore only have one chance to see each team. This could add impetus for people to actually go to games. Generally most teams will have something vaguely interesting going for them that might tempt people along to see them. it would also make rivalries much more intense.

Make up the shortfall in games with a 32 team league cup split into seeded 4 team sections, as described by others above. This gives you another 6 guaranteed games leaving you a minimum of 36 games a season, 18 home 18 away.

Split all tv monies equally (or ditch the Sky deal altogether).

Then move it to the Summer.

This.

***dangermouse*** · 21-10-2010 10:22 AM

Originally Posted by barcahibs

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

For me the issue with the SPL as it stands is boredom. Playing each other 4-6 times a season is ludicrous, by the time we're playing Kilmarnock for the 4th time in a season I'm starting to lose the will to live.

I don't get the idea of meaningless games personally, all Hibs games have meaning so I don't get that arguement against large leagues. I don't follow Hibs to watch them win the league (or I'd have given up a long time ago), I follow them to watch them play football.

I'd go for a 16 team league playing each other twice. 16 teams would be the optimum number for me as I don't think the Scottish game could support 18 top flight teams and still have a meaningful first division. 16 team first division as well and then split into regions below that.

Playing each team only once home and away would add interest IMO. Most fans only go to home games so would therefore only have one chance to see each team. This could add impetus for people to actually go to games. Generally most teams will have something vaguely interesting going for them that might tempt people along to see them. it would also make rivalries much more intense.

Make up the shortfall in games with a 32 team league cup split into seeded 4 team sections, as described by others above. This gives you another 6 guaranteed games leaving you a minimum of 36 games a season, 18 home 18 away.

Split all tv monies equally (or ditch the Sky deal altogether).

Then move it to the Summer.

This is by far the most sensible suggestion yet (although no mention of relegation). I'd go for 2 up 2 down automatically then 13th & 14th in SPL v 3rd and 4th in SFL fighting it out for the final place in the league.

**~~Speedway~~** · 21-10-2010 10:29 AM

Ultimately I think, that moving to a 14 team league structure would allow more clubs a taste of the top division than are currently permitted.

**TheEastTerrace** · 21-10-2010 10:56 AM

It does really make one stop and think about the people who are the key decision makers for the sport in this country. We had the PR spin for change from the SPL, the football phone-in 'parliamentary debate', and the promise of consultation with the fans. What do they trot out?

Drum roll please....

Adding two more teams and implementing, and I didn't think this was possible by the way, an even more ludicrous league split mechanism. That, after spending time and money consulting with fans and clubs, is what they come back with? If that's the case, let's have the memorial now, because Scottish Football is dead in the water. It doesn't even touch the surface of what is wrong with the sport in this country.

Bravo to the powerbrokers.

**Joe Baker II** · 21-10-2010 04:03 PM

Originally Posted by David@EasterRoad

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

The only teams that want to play each other 4 times a season are the Old firm.

What is your evidence for this?

***SRHibs*** · 21-10-2010 04:05 PM

Originally Posted by bighairyfaeleith

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

Why do they consistently choose the most ridiculous option every time.

To make it look like they're doing a proper restructure while making sure that the OF retain their dominance and still play each other a ridiculous amount of times each season.