League Reconstruction

[Ember]

I was next to what I believe journalists would call "a senior figure within the SPL" at a dinner on Sunday, and his view was that 12 doesn't work due to the home/away thing, 14 doesn't work as a 6/8 split leaves 7th with 14 meaningless games, and 8/6 leaves 40 league games for the top sides plus cups and Europe.

 

Anything else breaches the TV deal (guarantee of 4 OF games required) so 10 is apparantly the answer, needs 11 votes but something (probably SPL2) will happen such that relegation will not mean financial oblivion. His view on transition year was that it should be 1 up, 3 down but 2 down with a play-off was the more likely outcome. Subsequent promotion/relegation would be one up, one down plus a play-off.

[Norwejag]

That is League Destruction, not League Reconstruction.

[PaleGreySky]

That's awful. Who gives if 7th have meaningless games? They have meaningless games without a split! Or, I know this might blow some minds, how about not having a split!?

[McKennan]

It's not a league, it's a hopeless attempt to give clubs something to do with their time while the Old Firm thrashes out the championship and rake in the growlies from their 'mandatory' four games a season.

 

I'd say I despair but I'm not that naive.

[Steven H]

I was next to what I believe journalists would call "a senior figure within the SPL" at a dinner on Sunday, and his view was that 12 doesn't work due to the home/away thing, 14 doesn't work as a 6/8 split leaves 7th with 14 meaningless games, and 8/6 leaves 40 league games for the top sides plus cups and Europe.

 

Anything else breaches the TV deal (guarantee of 4 OF games required) so 10 is apparantly the answer, needs 11 votes but something (probably SPL2) will happen such that relegation will not mean financial oblivion. His view on transition year was that it should be 1 up, 3 down but 2 down with a play-off was the more likely outcome. Subsequent promotion/relegation would be one up, one down plus a play-off.

 

When does the TV deal expire? I'd rather wait til then and have a league of 16/18 than have this shocking solution that will do nothing but add to the problems. Unless of course it is not the TV company who 'demand' 4 OF games and it's the OF themselves.

Edited November 16, 2010 by Steven H

[PaleGreySky]

Can we join the juniors?

[Allan Heron]

Anything that starts on the premise that we need to have four Old Firm games is fatally flawed.

 

No interest in doing anything that is in the interests of Scottish Football in case it might put their perks at risk

[johnnylambieslovechild]

Its about time every fan of every club who is fed up playing each other 4 times a season (before we even talk about cup games) got a petiton set up to show just how many CUSTOMERS are fed up.

[Ember]

When does the TV deal expire? I'd rather wait til then and have a league of 16/18 than have this shocking solution that will do nothing but add to the problems. Unless of course it is not the TV company who 'demand' 4 OF games and it's the OF themselves.

It's the TV companies that want 4 OF games and that isn't going to change with a new deal.

[Steven H]

It's the TV companies that want 4 OF games and that isn't going to change with a new deal.

 

Depends on the type of deal the Clubs will settle for, obviously the best more financially rewarding deal would involve 4 OF games, but the life of Scottish football is at stake here. Scottish football flourished before TV deals ruined it and it can do so again if Clubs stop trying to chase the money, I don't know how we're supposed to get there tho given the economic situation with almost every club in Scotland. Everyone is baw deep in debt and, while that remains, Clubs will always choose money over the best interests of football. Right it's bang yer heid aff the wa' time.

 

Edited November 16, 2010 by Steven H

[P-R]

Not totally surprising that the SPL would vote to just tinker with the edges of a farcical setup.

 

To keep the TV happy with those 4 OF games how about 18 team SPL 34 games a season. Top 2 (i.e. Rangers & Celtic) then play each other in a two legged championship playoff - sorted.

[jags365]

Not totally surprising that the SPL would vote to just tinker with the edges of a farcical setup.

 

To keep the TV happy with those 4 OF games how about 18 team SPL 34 games a season. Top 2 (i.e. Rangers & Celtic) then play each other in a two legged championship playoff - sorted.

Good idea, but the polis would boot that idea into touch. They work their erses off to avoid OF 'title deciders' as it is!

[Hot Shot]

Depends on the type of deal the Clubs will settle for, obviously the best more financially rewarding deal would involve 4 OF games, but the life of Scottish football is at stake here. Scottish football flourished before TV deals ruined it and it can do so again if Clubs stop trying to chase the money, I don't know how we're supposed to get there tho given the economic situation with almost every club in Scotland. Everyone is baw deep in debt and, while that remains, Clubs will always choose money over the best interests of football. Right it's bang yer heid aff the wa' time.

 

 

 

For some bizarre reason, the men making the decisions at the top of the TV companies assume 4 OF games is the more financially rewarding scenario, they fail to realise that by playing each other only once at home and once away each season will make other games far more attractive, granted at least one half of the OF would be involved in most of them but far more appealing that playing each other 4 times a season.

 

An example of what I mean is , at the moment ,say Hibs beat Rangers at Ibrox, like they just did last week, Rangers have 3 other times against Hibs to cancel that out, and also have the hope Celtic slip against Hibs to cancel it out too, if Hibs beat Rangers at Ibrox and Rangers only had one chance to cancel that out and had to go to Easter Road to do it, it would make for a more attractive fixture.

 

I realise that my reasoning is still very much Old Firm based scenarios and that league reconstruction is needed for alot more reasons, but from the point of view of TV companies, I think demanding 4 OF games a season is rather blinkered of them.

[Steven H]

Not totally surprising that the SPL would vote to just tinker with the edges of a farcical setup.

 

To keep the TV happy with those 4 OF games how about 18 team SPL 34 games a season. Top 2 (i.e. Rangers & Celtic) then play each other in a two legged championship playoff - sorted.

 

Or if they insist on the split, a 16 team league, play each other twice then top 8 and bottom 8 play each other. That's 1 game less for everyone and gives top 8 teams a 3rd shot at the OF (obviously they will get a 3rd league game). Then, like the Community/Charity/Whatever Shield in England, we could have a season opener between the ugly sisters (call it the Old Scum Trophy or whatever)...voila, 4 OF games and a league system that might just suit everyone

[Mad Mull Jag]

A better options is 2 professional/semi professional leagues of 12 teams

 

Each teams plays twice on a round robin basis - 24 games

 

The they split the leagues Top 6 play each other for the European places - 10 games

 

Bottom 6 join with top 6 of 2nd league (12 teams) split into 2 groups of 6 teams- 10 games

 

(top 3 in each group play in the top leage next year, bottom 3 go into Div2)

 

Bottom 6 in Div2 play off with the winners of the 4 reional leagues (North,West, East, South) in 2 groups- 8 games

 

top 3 in each group stay up bottom 4 get relegated to regional leagues.

 

4 OF games, everyone has everything to play for in the last 2 months of the season, max games 34 allows winter breaks as well

[Ember]

For some bizarre reason, the men making the decisions at the top of the TV companies assume 4 OF games is the more financially rewarding scenario, they fail to realise that by playing each other only once at home and once away each season will make other games far more attractive, granted at least one half of the OF would be involved in most of them but far more appealing that playing each other 4 times a season.

 

An example of what I mean is , at the moment ,say Hibs beat Rangers at Ibrox, like they just did last week, Rangers have 3 other times against Hibs to cancel that out, and also have the hope Celtic slip against Hibs to cancel it out too, if Hibs beat Rangers at Ibrox and Rangers only had one chance to cancel that out and had to go to Easter Road to do it, it would make for a more attractive fixture.

 

I realise that my reasoning is still very much Old Firm based scenarios and that league reconstruction is needed for alot more reasons, but from the point of view of TV companies, I think demanding 4 OF games a season is rather blinkered of them.

I know what you're getting at but it's the 4 games between Rangers and Celtic that they want.

[MMCF]

Tinkering at the edges while the thing goes down the tubes. You need to think different. So lets look to the good old US of A.

 

Six regionalised divisions with lots interdivisional play and more teams getting a shot to win a divisonal title. Then play-offs (Divisional winners and runners up) to decide who wins the overall championship. Oh a just to pander to the massive blue and green egos they can play in different divisions so that each of them can (perhaps) win something each year. And yes someteams will bite the dust but in your wildest dreams are team like Elgin and Berwick really all that viable. This is just an example

 

Saltire Division West Rangers St Mirren Thistle Morton Airdrie

Thistle Division West : Celtic Motherwell Kilmarnock Ayr Queen of the South

Saltire Division East : Hibs Hearts Falkirk Livingston

Thistle Division East : Dundee Utd Dundee (we can dream) Dunfermline RaithRovers St Johnstone

Saltire Division North : Inverness Ross Co. Aberdeen .....

 

Oh go have some fun. Make up your own leagues

 

Or just tell me its crap and go back to the same old stuff which will lead to ......O-B-L-V...

[Hot Shot]

I know what you're getting at but it's the 4 games between Rangers and Celtic that they want.

 

And therein lies the blinkered view, there is something better out there for them to sell, they just can't see it.

 

Appart from it making a better product for the TV companies to sell, god forbid it creates anything exciting like a closer run thing at the top of the league with someone other than the OF, or the truely unthinkable, one of them actually finishes 3rd.

[Dick Dastardly]

Why not have a top league of 2 teams where they play each other 4 times a season, with no relegation or promotion.

 

The rest can have 2 leagues of 16. Works for me.

[Watson Towers]

A better options is 2 professional/semi professional leagues of 12 teams

 

Each teams plays twice on a round robin basis - 24 games

 

The they split the leagues Top 6 play each other for the European places - 10 games

 

Bottom 6 join with top 6 of 2nd league (12 teams) split into 2 groups of 6 teams- 10 games

 

(top 3 in each group play in the top leage next year, bottom 3 go into Div2)

 

Bottom 6 in Div2 play off with the winners of the 4 reional leagues (North,West, East, South) in 2 groups- 8 games

 

top 3 in each group stay up bottom 4 get relegated to regional leagues.

 

4 OF games, everyone has everything to play for in the last 2 months of the season, max games 34 allows winter breaks as well

 

splendid. Gets my vote

[nylo]

2 up 2 down would instantly improve the game in scotland regardless of league numbers.

[MerryHell]

Why don't we just have one great big league, where everyone plays each other once over the course of a season, alternating home and away fixtures against each team yearly.

Over the course of two seasons we will have visited every senior league ground in Scotland.

Problem solved.

[crazy davie]

Two leagues of 18 teams each, with teams playing each other once at home and once away. No tv. If you want to see football - go to the game.

 

Rangers and Celtic in the Atlantic League.

[Junior]

Rangers and Celtic in the Atlantic

 

FYP

 

18 team top league , most fans want that and most managers appear to do so.

[yoda-jag]

18 team top league , most fans want that and most managers appear to do so.

 

Indeed. But will the powers-that-be and the self-preservation-suits listen, let alone entertain such a proposal or vote, and thus etch their names in history as the ones who helped save the scottish game (even if in the short-term, for some, it may = some cutbacks and costcutting, for the longer term good and increased competiveness and secured futures)?

 

Or will we end up remembering them as the ones who were complicit alongside other central chancers characters, with effectively killing off our clubs and national teams competiveness, due to their blind narrowminded short-termanism greed, that will if unchecked condemn us as a nation to eternal mediocrity and effective back-water oblivion?