PaleGreySky Posted January 5, 2011 Report Share Posted January 5, 2011 Yesterday evening I watched an interview with the SPL chief executive Neil Doncaster. He said that the SPL move to 16 or 18 teams is not financially viable, and that is why they are suggesting 10 teams. At one point, he describes a 16/18 team SPL as analogous to a 'smaller cake, cut into more slices', before continuing on to explain that it involves dividing money between more teams. I have heard he recently incentivised the 10 team SPL to the second tier teams who would be in the 'SPL 2' by stating that the TV money, or whatever other SPL money, would be passed down to the SPL 2 as well. Add these two together, and you get him suggesting that the reason for 10 team leagues is so the money is divided between fewer teams, then incentivising the very same 10 team league by suggesting the teams discluded from it will be given money. This, to me, makes it crystal clear that this IS purely to do with keeping the money for fewer, bigger teams. 88% of Scottish football fans (stat from the BBC) don't want a 10 team league. It probably won't get voted through, but the fact it's being considered is disgusting. Dundee Utd have hit it right on the nail - the fans don't want it, so don't do it. I think it's time there was some sort of public display of disapproval for this. More banners at game etc. If anyone has any spare bedsheets, maybe saturday's cup game would be a good start? Not sure if I'm going cos of interviews and exams, but if I was, I would make a banner and stick it right behind the goals. 'LEAGUE EXPANSION, NOT EXCLUSION' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven H Posted January 5, 2011 Report Share Posted January 5, 2011 Yesterday evening I watched an interview with the SPL chief executive Neil Doncaster. He said that the SPL move to 16 or 18 teams is not financially viable, and that is why they are suggesting 10 teams. At one point, he describes a 16/18 team SPL as analogous to a 'smaller cake, cut into more slices', before continuing on to explain that it involves dividing money between more teams. I have heard he recently incentivised the 10 team SPL to the second tier teams who would be in the 'SPL 2' by stating that the TV money, or whatever other SPL money, would be passed down to the SPL 2 as well. Add these two together, and you get him suggesting that the reason for 10 team leagues is so the money is divided between fewer teams, then incentivising the very same 10 team league by suggesting the teams discluded from it will be given money. This, to me, makes it crystal clear that this IS purely to do with keeping the money for fewer, bigger teams. 88% of Scottish football fans (stat from the BBC) don't want a 10 team league. It probably won't get voted through, but the fact it's being considered is disgusting. Dundee Utd have hit it right on the nail - the fans don't want it, so don't do it. I think it's time there was some sort of public display of disapproval for this. More banners at game etc. If anyone has any spare bedsheets, maybe saturday's cup game would be a good start? Not sure if I'm going cos of interviews and exams, but if I was, I would make a banner and stick it right behind the goals. 'LEAGUE EXPANSION, NOT EXCLUSION' Someone on P&B who appears to have done his homework suggests SPL 2 will pay for itself because "The top 2 positions get the same money as the 11th + 12th in SPL do just now... The rest see increased incomes by merit of keeping the Annual Settlement £££, Irn-Bru, BBC Alba, the League Cup (now SPL Cup), and so on, to themselves". So, whatever the parachute payment would be currently + the money paid for finishing 11th in the SPL at present + sponsorship monies + TV money from SPL1 and SFL (Alba) + SPL Cup monies + whatever SPL save in payments to SFL (currently that payment is somewhere in the region of £1.5m but the SPL want to reduce it because the SFL will effectively be 8 teams lighter...and the 8 biggest too). That equates to a better financial future for Clubs like ourselves...but it aint that much of an improvement and cetainly not enough to justify these changes going through imo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaleGreySky Posted January 5, 2011 Author Report Share Posted January 5, 2011 The 8 biggest teams which leave the SFL for this arrangement, making the SFL payments smaller, get added to the amount of teams the SPL would be liable to provide a share to, though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven H Posted January 5, 2011 Report Share Posted January 5, 2011 The 8 biggest teams which leave the SFL for this arrangement, making the SFL payments smaller, get added to the amount of teams the SPL would be liable to provide a share to, though. You, but say that payment is reduced from £1.5m to £750k with the other £750k added to the 'SPL2 Pot', then add in the payments currently made to SPL Clubs finishing 11th and 12th (another £500/750k ?). That in itself divided 10 ways is more than 1st division Clubs currently get to split is it not? Then throw in the other money (sponsorship, tv (possibly) and SPL Cup) and you can kinda see the financial attraction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duntocher jag Posted January 5, 2011 Report Share Posted January 5, 2011 I think the spl should be made into an 18 team league (old firm wont go for it it means only to old firm games a season guarenteed) then have a 16 or 18 team 1st division then split the 2nd division into regions south and north and these could include juinor, highland league and east of scotland teams. also there is room for a 3-4 week winter break in jan or over the festive period but i love xmas football and keep the cups the way they are. There are so many more teams outside the sfl and quite a few them get bigger crowds than second and third division games and i think there should be some sort of change in scottish football. examples of leagues could be SPL Partick Thistle Celtic Rangers Aberdeen Dundee Untied Hearts Hibs Motherwell Kilmarnock Inverness St Johnstone St Mirren Hamilton Falkirk Dunfermline Dundee Raith Rovers Queen of the south First division or spl 2 Ross county Stirling Albion Morton Cowdenbeath Livingston Brechin City Ayr Airdrie Alloa Forfar East fife Peterhead Stenhousemuir Dumbarton Clyde arbroath Stranrear Albion rovers Second division (south) Annan Queens Park East Stirling Berwick Rangers Clydebank Pollok Spartans Whitehill Welfare Linlithgow Arthurlie Kilbirnie Girvan Secon division (North) Montrose Elgin city Huntly Cove Rangers Tayport Devronvale Lochee Utd Buckie thistle Forres Mechanics Nairn county Carnoustie Dundee north end Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paddy Thistle Posted January 5, 2011 Report Share Posted January 5, 2011 What's killing the game is playing the same teams 4 times a season, I've got to be honest I am fed up seeing the same teams week in week out. Before I would seldom miss a game unless due to work or holiday commmitments now I'm finding myself starting to pick and choose away games. I know many others that are now doing the same yet if we were playing different teams each week, we would be going. Fans are treated with contempt, From decisions to host world cups in Qatar, The Celtic cup fiasco where they change the dates to suit SKY, leaving fans with useless flight bookings and hotel bookings to the current shambolic utterings of the SPL for a 10 team league just show how out of touch they are. Football is dying a death and its down to the authorities at all levels, they do not listen to what the customer wants. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven H Posted January 5, 2011 Report Share Posted January 5, 2011 What's killing the game is playing the same teams 4 times a season, I've got to be honest I am fed up seeing the same teams week in week out. Before I would seldom miss a game unless due to work or holiday commmitments now I'm finding myself starting to pick and choose away games. I know many others that are now doing the same yet if we were playing different teams each week, we would be going. That's only half the problem tho, the bigger issue imo is the cut-throat leagues we have. It's the league set-ups that prevent the blooding of youths and this has been my biggest disappointment so far this season. We effectively sit 5th but 2 nad results and suddenly we're bottom, not the best time to be blooding youngsters when it was what the majority of us were looking forward to this season. Bigger leagues not only removes the 4 (or 6 in some cases) games a season against the same opposition but it would allow clubs some breathing space to develop youth players...which would also benefit the national team in the future. But as usual money talks, and not even MORE money, just a different way of spreading SOME of the money already coming into the game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lady-isobel-barnett Posted January 5, 2011 Report Share Posted January 5, 2011 What's killing the game is playing the same teams 4 times a season, I've got to be honest I am fed up seeing the same teams week in week out. That's only half the problem tho, the bigger issue imo is the cut-throat leagues we have. It's the league set-ups that prevent the blooding of youths and this has been my biggest disappointment so far this season. We effectively sit 5th but 2 nad results and suddenly we're bottom, not the best time to be blooding youngsters when it was what the majority of us were looking forward to this season. Bigger leagues not only removes the 4 (or 6 in some cases) games a season against the same opposition but it would allow clubs some breathing space to develop youth players...which would also benefit the national team in the future. But as usual money talks, and not even MORE money, just a different way of spreading SOME of the money already coming into the game. Hardly worth arguing against your points, Steven, but I think Paddy T's far more representative of the real beef against 10 club leagues. I don't envisage larger leagues would have much of a mid league cushion where clubs could feel easier blooding youngsters. Any new larger league set up will have to counter the increased likelihood of "meaningless games". Measures in place would probably be along the lines of play off places (top and bottom) or even cash or seeding initiatives based on final place in league. Much as I want to see younger Jags players introduced sooner rather than later I would prefer to see any larger league every bit as competitive as the current set ups. The tedium of playing other clubs a minimum of 4 times a season is undoubtedly the principal reason for scrapping the status quo. btw limiting every club to a squad of say 16 players over the age of 21 with no restriction on the number of players below that age would be a far more effective way of bringing in youngsters to first team football. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beep0608 Posted January 5, 2011 Report Share Posted January 5, 2011 That's only half the problem tho, the bigger issue imo is the cut-throat leagues we have. It's the league set-ups that prevent the blooding of youths and this has been my biggest disappointment so far this season. We effectively sit 5th but 2 nad results and suddenly we're bottom, not the best time to be blooding youngsters when it was what the majority of us were looking forward to this season. Bigger leagues not only removes the 4 (or 6 in some cases) games a season against the same opposition but it would allow clubs some breathing space to develop youth players...which would also benefit the national team in the future. But as usual money talks, and not even MORE money, just a different way of spreading SOME of the money already coming into the game. I was about to raise a new topic titled THAT FUD DONCASTER but this will do. I've just been listening to more of his keech, most of which does not make sense, but once in a while he's honest, like 5 minutes ago when he plainly stated that effectively all that matters is 4 Old Firm games as well as 4 Hibs v Hearts games. That's it. The big ugly tail that wags the dog that Scottish football has become. Listening to him talk about slicing an imaginary cake into thinner slices, then looking at his ugly mug, makes me realise that he knows and cares much more about cakes than our football. What gets me especially is how he refuses to even consider other options. If this is not voted for then nothing happens at all. The status quo is close financially to a 10/10 so why could more monet not be spread around the lower leagues with the existing structure? No way says Neil Doomcaster. He makes vague hints and promises about tv deals, and says that staying where we are or expanding does not work, then says finance should not control things. His arguments are full of holes and contradictions but he has his agenda and is not moving from it. He's infuriating to listen to. Right now, it's obvious that the league is NOT going to expand, that he has talked the likes of Walter Smithers out of it, but he suggested strongly that a team in the middle of the 1st division would stand to earn about £350k compared to about £70k as of now, so, guess what? I doubt it will happen but now I'd accept it, if these figures could be trusted, and I doubt that even more. I certainly don't trust that tw*t. We've been promised a brighter future by our management. Are they basing that upon these suggestions? Hmmm, I wonder. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven H Posted January 5, 2011 Report Share Posted January 5, 2011 Hardly worth arguing against your points, Steven, but I think Paddy T's far more representative of the real beef against 10 club leagues. I don't envisage larger leagues would have much of a mid league cushion where clubs could feel easier blooding youngsters. Any new larger league set up will have to counter the increased likelihood of "meaningless games". Measures in place would probably be along the lines of play off places (top and bottom) or even cash or seeding initiatives based on final place in league. Much as I want to see younger Jags players introduced sooner rather than later I would prefer to see any larger league every bit as competitive as the current set ups. The tedium of playing other clubs a minimum of 4 times a season is undoubtedly the principal reason for scrapping the status quo. btw limiting every club to a squad of say 16 players over the age of 21 with no restriction on the number of players below that age would be a far more effective way of bringing in youngsters to first team football. I think they both go hand in hand really, cant promote the youths in the current environment and can't keep the fans happy with this 'playing the same teams 4 times a season at least. I discussed an idea on here a while ago and have posted it on P&B today...might as well copy it again. I see it as 'radical' with some problems that would need to be ironed out...anyway:- Simply put, a top league of 16 (play each team twice home and away) = 30 games. Keep the split (a pain but a necessary evil in this scenario) where the top 8 play the bottom 8 = 7 more games. 37 games in total and the OF still have 3 games...maybe have an OF cup (maybe even make it out of lumps of jobby) to kick start the season in a similar way to the EPL season starting with the Charity/Community Shield thingy. Here's where it starts to get complicated because the obvious flaw is in where the post-split games are played. I'd suggest the team with the better record in the initial 2 games gets the post-split game at their ground. So say St Mirren and Dunfermline are in the bottom 8 and St Mirren had an overall advantage over Pars (like a 2 legged cup tie scenario) then the match would be a home one for St Mirren. HOWEVER all the post-split gates would be split between the teams in the same way cup tie gates are. Rangers and Celtic would likely have 6 of the 7 post-split games at their own middens (with the other being at Ibrox or Parkhead between the 2), so there's a healthy wad going to the away Club in those games and the OF can have 6/7 lots of hospitality to help boost their coffers and compensate for the loss in gate money (which wouldn't really be a loss anyway if they have 6/7 home games on the trot). Even Clubs in the bottom half would attract a fair crowd if relegation was a serious threat, I haven't checked for figures in this scenario, but I believe Killie and Falkirk saw their crowds increase (particularly in the games against each other) at the tail end of last season. Clubs sell season tickets based on the initial 30 games (well the 15 home ones anyway) and the post-split games are pay at the gate for everyone. Maybe Im over-simplifying it, and there are some loopholes that would need to be closed, but this scenario would appear to benefit everyone. Taking this idea further, I would have the bottom 2 relegated automatically with the team finishing in 14th playing a 2 leg play off with the team finishing 3rd in Div 1. My overall thinking behind this idea is that it benefits everyone and provides a platform where clubs can get rid of the 'let's not lose this' mentality and bring back the 'let's go win this game' attitude. We (Thistle) have a number of talented youngsters at the CLub but we can't blood them because the spectre of relegation is only a bad run of results away (I'm sure it's the same for every other Club of similar stature). This sort of thing would help Clubs to develop their youth players, which in turn should benefit the national team in future years, but the scenario on the table now just makes achieving this so much harder. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaggernaut Posted January 6, 2011 Report Share Posted January 6, 2011 I think they both go hand in hand really, cant promote the youths in the current environment and can't keep the fans happy with this 'playing the same teams 4 times a season at least. I discussed an idea on here a while ago and have posted it on P&B today...might as well copy it again. I see it as 'radical' with some problems that would need to be ironed out...anyway:- Simply put, a top league of 16 (play each team twice home and away) = 30 games. Keep the split (a pain but a necessary evil in this scenario) where the top 8 play the bottom 8 = 7 more games. 37 games in total and the OF still have 3 games...maybe have an OF cup (maybe even make it out of lumps of jobby) to kick start the season in a similar way to the EPL season starting with the Charity/Community Shield thingy. Here's where it starts to get complicated because the obvious flaw is in where the post-split games are played. I'd suggest the team with the better record in the initial 2 games gets the post-split game at their ground. So say St Mirren and Dunfermline are in the bottom 8 and St Mirren had an overall advantage over Pars (like a 2 legged cup tie scenario) then the match would be a home one for St Mirren. HOWEVER all the post-split gates would be split between the teams in the same way cup tie gates are. Rangers and Celtic would likely have 6 of the 7 post-split games at their own middens (with the other being at Ibrox or Parkhead between the 2), so there's a healthy wad going to the away Club in those games and the OF can have 6/7 lots of hospitality to help boost their coffers and compensate for the loss in gate money (which wouldn't really be a loss anyway if they have 6/7 home games on the trot). Even Clubs in the bottom half would attract a fair crowd if relegation was a serious threat, I haven't checked for figures in this scenario, but I believe Killie and Falkirk saw their crowds increase (particularly in the games against each other) at the tail end of last season. Clubs sell season tickets based on the initial 30 games (well the 15 home ones anyway) and the post-split games are pay at the gate for everyone. Maybe Im over-simplifying it, and there are some loopholes that would need to be closed, but this scenario would appear to benefit everyone. Taking this idea further, I would have the bottom 2 relegated automatically with the team finishing in 14th playing a 2 leg play off with the team finishing 3rd in Div 1. My overall thinking behind this idea is that it benefits everyone and provides a platform where clubs can get rid of the 'let's not lose this' mentality and bring back the 'let's go win this game' attitude. We (Thistle) have a number of talented youngsters at the CLub but we can't blood them because the spectre of relegation is only a bad run of results away (I'm sure it's the same for every other Club of similar stature). This sort of thing would help Clubs to develop their youth players, which in turn should benefit the national team in future years, but the scenario on the table now just makes achieving this so much harder. Those ideas are certainly no crazier than what Doncaster is proposing. In fact, they have a lot going for them, imo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lanarkjag Posted January 6, 2011 Report Share Posted January 6, 2011 Those ideas are certainly no crazier than what Doncaster is proposing. In fact, they have a lot going for them, imo. I tend to agree with you. These ideas at least are trying to look at things in a new and radical way. The basic premiss is there, I'm sure the fine details could be worked out. Pie in the sky i know, but what about an NFL style season? A 20 (even 16 or 18) team SPL split into 4 "conferences" of 5 based on location or seedings. Each team in the SPL plays each other twice (38, 30 or 34 matches depending on numbers) and those in the conference home and away (another 8 or 6 games depending on the size of the conference). Using the traditional points teams compete in their own conference with say the top two in each group going forward to playoffs for the championship. This would mean at least 4 if not 5 ugly sisters matches each season (although I could see complaints from the other clubs). Relegation decided by playoffs, 1st in the lower division getting automatic promotion then the bottom side of each conference (4 + 3 playoff spots from the 1st). Teams from the SPL play-off to a final (loser qualifies each time for automatic relegation). Remaining 3 clubs then play the SFL sides home and away in a straight promotion relegation battle. eg (*denotes loser) SPL 1* v SPL 2 SPL 3 v SPL 4* SPL 1 v SPL 4* SPL4 automatically Relegated Platoffs at neutral venues SFL 1 v SPL 3* SFL 2* v SPL 2 SFL 3 v SPL 1* SPL 3 and SPL 1 relegated. No promotion for SFL 2 Now that is radical! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaggernaut Posted January 6, 2011 Report Share Posted January 6, 2011 (edited) What Doncaster and his supporters seem to be ignoring is that their radical blueprint for improving everything about football in Scotland is simply to turn the clock back 15 years to when we previously had a 10-team top league and a play-off spot for an additional relegation/promotion result. If my memory serves me right, that format was ditched immediately after we got relegated through the play-off (the only team to have done so), because teams were already terrified of dropping out. So it was changed to being only the very weakest (i.e. last) team that went down. Things became worse when they again engineered another two teams for the SPL but retained the one-relegation-place-only rule. I see that the St Johnstone chairman, his team having spent what, 15 years or so trying to get to the SPL, is now against a bigger league. Having survived for a couple of years in the SPL, he now thinks that his team is safe as one of the elite. This was exactly Yorkston's view a few years ago when he was crying out for the need for relegation but an elitist league. Now, down in the wilderness with the rest of us, the Dunfermline chairman is bleating on about the need for a bigger league! You can be sure that St Johnstone and ICT would think the same way after another couple of seasons in the 2nd tier or worse. These wild swings in chairmen's views really reflect the short-term, gravy train view of those that happen at the time to be in the SPL. Of course none of this addresses the sheer drudgery of the 4-times-or-more per season format of 10- or 12-team leagues. They say that up to 90% of SPL teams' supporters want bigger leagues. Well, it's about time that those fans took pre-emptive action and announced their intention to boycott matches until they get what they want. It's no good SFL teams doing it, as we have no influence whatsoever on whoever happens to be in the SPL during any season. It needs to come from the likes of St Mirren, Hamilton, Dundee Utd, Killie etc. Edited January 6, 2011 by Jaggernaut Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaleGreySky Posted January 6, 2011 Author Report Share Posted January 6, 2011 He's also got really, really shit hair that looks like it belongs on a pre-pubescent bam from the waterproof jackets cloakroom queue out of Archaos unders at 9.30pm on a saturday. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uberteeb Posted January 6, 2011 Report Share Posted January 6, 2011 In this mornings paper the chairmen of Dundee United, Killie and ICT have all come out against it. So assuming that the vote in a couple of weeks time returns a "naw" verdict I take it that's the end of the line in terms of reconstruction seen as they have already decided bigger leagues are a non-starter? It is incomprehensible that they want to implement something that almost all fans are against, the only reason appearing to be that Sky find it easier to flog their sports packages with 4 old firm games on rather than 2. Rupert Murdoch should undertake a comprehensive study of all Sky Sports subscribers to establish just how few people list "SPL football" or "Old Firm games" as their main reason (or even their top 5 reaons) for subscribing. Every season ticket holder for every club in the country should also be sent some kind of survey. It would no doubt show just how many people would go to more games if their team only played them once at home and once away. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balloch Jag Posted January 6, 2011 Report Share Posted January 6, 2011 I think the spl should be made into an 18 team league (old firm wont go for it it means only to old firm games a season guarenteed) then have a 16 or 18 team 1st division then split the 2nd division into regions south and north and these could include juinor, highland league and east of scotland teams. also there is room for a 3-4 week winter break in jan or over the festive period but i love xmas football and keep the cups the way they are. There are so many more teams outside the sfl and quite a few them get bigger crowds than second and third division games and i think there should be some sort of change in scottish football. examples of leagues could be SPL Partick Thistle Celtic Rangers Aberdeen Dundee Untied Hearts Hibs Motherwell Kilmarnock Inverness St Johnstone St Mirren Hamilton Falkirk Dunfermline Dundee Raith Rovers Queen of the south First division or spl 2 Ross county Stirling Albion Morton Cowdenbeath Livingston Brechin City Ayr Airdrie Alloa Forfar East fife Peterhead Stenhousemuir Dumbarton Clyde arbroath Stranrear Albion rovers Second division (south) Annan Queens Park East Stirling Berwick Rangers Clydebank Pollok Spartans Whitehill Welfare Linlithgow Arthurlie Kilbirnie Girvan Secon division (North) Montrose Elgin city Huntly Cove Rangers Tayport Devronvale Lochee Utd Buckie thistle Forres Mechanics Nairn county Carnoustie Dundee north end what u been smoking ? theres 42 teams an 18 and two 12s simple. No point in the north south pish what happens when teams go up and down ? Theres no anbition in Scottish Football, success costs money and unless we bit the bullet for the next few years the money cominh in from sponsers sky etc is going to be small anyway A larger league allows the opportunity to develop players plus making it more attractive to the fans. The quality in the first division is good and am not just saying that as a thistle fan. I cant think of a team that has gone up and come straight back down can you ? ICT imo were not the best team in the league last season despite winning they hardly improved and have gone on to be one of the best teams in the league, StJ a solid performer, Hamilton the year before did well up until this season. Top 18 play each other twice a season Home and Away Divison 1 league of 12 follow the setup of the spl including split Divison 2 league of 12 follow the setup of the spl including split The playoff structure included the same as it is jsut now between divison 2 and divsion 1 Introduce a playoff into the top tier involvig 17 and 2 3 and 4. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaleGreySky Posted January 6, 2011 Author Report Share Posted January 6, 2011 "It's imperative that we bring more money in, we get the best players that we can afford and that fans see more exciting football." Does Doncaster actually understand football? It's not made exciting by 'good' players. It's made exciting by new experiences, diversity and novelty. He says we want more bigger games and playoffs. How about Rangers v Celtic 36 times a season in a two team division, then a playoff between 1st and 2nd to decide who wins the league? Thought not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Collins Out! Posted January 6, 2011 Report Share Posted January 6, 2011 Scotland is not the size of Brazil or the USA. We don't need regional leagues. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lady-isobel-barnett Posted January 6, 2011 Report Share Posted January 6, 2011 Scotland is not the size of Brazil or the USA. We don't need regional leagues. Try telling that to the Stranraer chairman whose club travels to Elgin on Jan 22nd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven H Posted January 6, 2011 Report Share Posted January 6, 2011 Those ideas are certainly no crazier than what Doncaster is proposing. In fact, they have a lot going for them, imo. There are some obvious flaws in the idea, like the Police may not be too pleased with 14 games in 7 weeks that will attract crowds in excess of 40,000 taking place in Glasgow. That can be worked out tho, maybe neutral venues for post split games. There's also the chance that a team could throw a game to ensure their post split match v an OF team takes place at one of the big grounds...but this offers so much more than the current proposals and shows Doncaster that a 16 team league is viable with a wee bit of 'outside the box thinking' from these guys 'who know best'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Blutarsky Posted January 6, 2011 Report Share Posted January 6, 2011 (edited) TV deals and sponsorship aside, the financial projections appear to assume growth or at least stability in revenue from supporters paying to watch matches in the proposed spl's 1 & 2. arguably there might well be an increase in the first year or two, probably as long as there is some novelty value around the play-offs. imo, in the medium to longer term two 10 team leagues will result in supporters turning their back on the game in very significant numbers, across the board. 88% not being in favour of the proposals supports this. next up, broadcasters and sponsors are no longer interested since fewer people are actually turning up to watch the games. i've no doubt, the inevitable death of the scottish game will be brought forward a few years if or when this proposal is implemented. Edited January 6, 2011 by John Blutarsky Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaleGreySky Posted January 6, 2011 Author Report Share Posted January 6, 2011 Scotland is not the size of Brazil or the USA. We don't need regional leagues. I'm sorry, but that's such a stupid thing to say. If you found a team in the USA or Brazil with a support and revenue the size of Stranraer, Elgin or Albion Rovers (250-300 paying £8-10), I bet you'd find they play in a division that only spreads over a county or district the size of strathclyde or grampian etc. Why not give smallers clubs every opportunity to spend their income on football rather than travel costs for what is still an unexciting prospect (Stranraer v Elgin). Costs like travel and accomodation for teams are reflected in the prices the few fans have to pay to watch these teams, and are a big part of why we pay £17 to watch nil-nil draws in 50% of the last 6 games. It makes sense for division 2 and 3 to be regional. Clyde, Dumbarton, Airdire and Queens Park and Montrose, Arbroath, Brechin and Forfar instead of Berwick v Peterhead. Lower costs + bigger crowds = better atmospheres, better facilities, better football, fewer cancellations AND COMMON SENSE. The West and east Superleagues at Junior level are flourishing. Maybe we can learn something, considering the teams in the SFL at D2 and D3 level are not any bigger. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norgethistle Posted January 6, 2011 Report Share Posted January 6, 2011 Expect the ticket prices to come up too, as its now SPL not SFL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaleGreySky Posted January 6, 2011 Author Report Share Posted January 6, 2011 I was hoping that the only good thing to come out of this, assuming we ge this £350,000 Doncaster has indicated we'll get, might be that ticket prices come down as a result of other income. Seriously, does anyone else hate his hair? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Blutarsky Posted January 6, 2011 Report Share Posted January 6, 2011 The West and east Superleagues at Junior level are flourishing. in part due to supporters defecting from the jags and other senior clubs. i suspect a few folk on this forum know 3 or 4 former regulars who follow the juniors now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.