twinny Posted February 25, 2011 Report Share Posted February 25, 2011 Link. Good news on the face of it, but it seems to be the first step behind the move to a 10-12 structure rather than the current 12-10. Hopefully it would not mean closing the door behind the SFL1/SPL2 league, as the body would contain all 42 clubs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crazy davie Posted February 25, 2011 Report Share Posted February 25, 2011 Link. Good news on the face of it, but it seems to be the first step behind the move to a 10-12 structure rather than the current 12-10. Hopefully it would not mean closing the door behind the SFL1/SPL2 league, as the body would contain all 42 clubs. If they hadn't split in the fckn first place they wouldn't now need to merge. What a joke. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lenziejag2 Posted February 25, 2011 Report Share Posted February 25, 2011 I'm going to propose a new tactic. If Doncaster and his pals are so mkeen on having a 10-team SPL, let them have it! That still leaves 32 teams - and they would go very tidily into two leagues of 16. I am confident this would work - with two up/two down, play-offs as well if you fancy that, and a divisional league cup for each of the two SFL divisions (16 is the ideal number for any knock-out competition!), plus the ALBA Challenge Cup (which would have 32 participants - also ideal), Scottish Cup, and CIS Cup - thereby providing plenty of games for everybody without the pain of the current "four times against everybody" formula. How do folks react? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vom Itorium Posted February 25, 2011 Report Share Posted February 25, 2011 (edited) If they hadn't split in the fckn first place they wouldn't now need to merge. What a joke. It's ridiculous ain't it? Every brainwave these clowns have come up with have either been in place already or have been talked about. 10 team SPL- seen it, done it, didn't work and bored the tits of fans. SPL TV- Talked about it didn't do it, would probably make an arse of it. SPL/SFL merger- Been there, done it, they changed it and now want to return to it. This whole thing stinks and it's looking increasingly likely that the turkeys will vote for Xmas and we'll be left with even worse than what we have. SPL teams could now end up facing each other NINE times under this pish proposal. Four times in the league, twice in the Scottish Cup if it goes to a replay, once in the Co-op Cup and twice in an SPL play-off semi. If that's progress and what the fans want then the game is well and truly fecked. Edited February 25, 2011 by Vom Itorium Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sigesige00 Posted February 26, 2011 Report Share Posted February 26, 2011 Yes the SPL and SFL must merger. The SPL did nothing about raising the level of Scottish football. The new SFL should invite 6 clubs and become 48 clubs (3 Divisions). And relegation from the SFL is necessary, of course. I hope that Cove Rangers, Edinburgh City, and Shetland will play in the SFL. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaggernaut Posted February 26, 2011 Report Share Posted February 26, 2011 I'm going to propose a new tactic. If Doncaster and his pals are so mkeen on having a 10-team SPL, let them have it! That still leaves 32 teams - and they would go very tidily into two leagues of 16. I am confident this would work - with two up/two down, play-offs as well if you fancy that, and a divisional league cup for each of the two SFL divisions (16 is the ideal number for any knock-out competition!), plus the ALBA Challenge Cup (which would have 32 participants - also ideal), Scottish Cup, and CIS Cup - thereby providing plenty of games for everybody without the pain of the current "four times against everybody" formula. How do folks react? Far far far too sensible and popular with the punters, I'm afraid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
javeajag Posted February 26, 2011 Report Share Posted February 26, 2011 Far far far too sensible and popular with the punters, I'm afraid. Or how about we have an old firm league where they can ply each other every fortnight ?and give the rest of us some peace ... Meanwhile we can have two leagues of c16, a meritocratic structure below that , summer football and let them fester in their own history! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lenziejag2 Posted February 27, 2011 Report Share Posted February 27, 2011 Far far far too sensible and popular with the punters, I'm afraid. Strategically, I would suggest that this topic is far too important for us to let it go "off the boil". If we can keep this topic somewhere near the topic of the forum list, then there would be grounds to hope that a groundswell of popular punter opinion could divert some attention towards what is GOOD for SFL clubs, rather than what generates CASH for SPL clubs. Are there more comments out there? Great day out in the Dingwall sunshine yesterday! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beep0608 Posted February 27, 2011 Report Share Posted February 27, 2011 (edited) Or how about we have an old firm league where they can ply each other every fortnight ?and give the rest of us some peace ... Meanwhile we can have two leagues of c16, a meritocratic structure below that , summer football and let them fester in their own history! Just seeing that fat tw*t Doncaster makes me want to........arrrrgh..... I read that some top cop wants Old Firm games banned altogether because of the violence surrounding them. As if. Wouldn't mind though. I remember once waiting at Partick Underground, en route to Firhill, desperately hoping that I'd avoid the first of them leaving Ibrox after a midday Ugly Sisters match, and hitting the underground before I got to St Georges Cross safely. Just about made it, but I remember when I didn't once. Walking onto a carriage full of Rangers fans with my Jags scarf got me more attention than I really wanted. Take it a stage further, do away with them altogether......as if. Dream on..... Anyway, that apart, let them bring this change in as it's the only show in town and might just give us a few more vital pennies in the short term. Then it will obviously not work and we'll discuss it yet again, but for now, give us the fokkin money! Edited February 27, 2011 by beep0608 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hebridean jag Posted February 27, 2011 Report Share Posted February 27, 2011 There`s only one response to the proposals...........will we make or lose income from the proposed changes? Anything else is a total irrelevance and not worthy of discussion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lady-isobel-barnett Posted February 27, 2011 Report Share Posted February 27, 2011 There`s only one response to the proposals...........will we make or lose income from the proposed changes? Anything else is a total irrelevance and not worthy of discussion. Agree, but I'm still worried we'll go down this route for a quick money fix. Most of us know or at least suspect that the small league set ups, which fly in the face of what fans want, is unsustainable. Imo all we're getting presented with is a catch22. Well strictly speaking not a catch22 but Football needs Fans & TV, Fans need larger leagues, TV require smaller leagues and as I say not really a catch22 but just as unfathomable. My gut feeling is we'll go down the SPL/Doncaster road for a quick financial fix. A season or so down the line we'll be back where we are now. TV will have lost interest or more likely devalued their interest. Meantime fans will have continued to drift away due in no small way to the repetitive tedium of the small league system. I suppose, as I've complete contempt for the SFL, I should be in favour of amalgamation. Plus we can hardly call the SPL the "self preservation league" if they preside over all 42 clubs. I just fear that the changes prescribed offer not one modicum of a long term cure. Back to where I agree with HJ. Beggars can't be choosers so if given the choice we'll go for it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MerryHell Posted February 27, 2011 Report Share Posted February 27, 2011 This is a lot of BS. So the SPL have a vote between the 12 of them in March on the future size of the top league (empirically speaking) and then they decide to merge with the SFL, meaning it's all our problem to sort out the mess. Why not merge first and give us all a say? It's just bo//ocks. The majority of Scottish Football is against their/McLeish's proposals, yet we are going to be shouldered with the resposibility of making it work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lenziejag2 Posted February 28, 2011 Report Share Posted February 28, 2011 Strategically, I would suggest that this topic is far too important for us to let it go "off the boil". If we can keep this topic somewhere near the topic of the forum list, then there would be grounds to hope that a groundswell of popular punter opinion could divert some attention towards what is GOOD for SFL clubs, rather than what generates CASH for SPL clubs. Are there more comments out there? Great day out in the Dingwall sunshine yesterday! Doncaster's latest pronouncements [see BBC Scotland report] suggest that he is already thinking in "post-merger with SFL" terms. This is VERY worrying! Surely the 30 [soon to be 32] SFL clubs need to be making a lot more noise about their own futures in a structure with two 16-club divisions! The 'Doncaster solution' is only of any attraction to SPL clubs. It won't bring any riches to SFL clubs, who are the net majority in Scotland! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vom Itorium Posted February 28, 2011 Report Share Posted February 28, 2011 Doncaster's latest pronouncements [see BBC Scotland report] suggest that he is already thinking in "post-merger with SFL" terms. This is VERY worrying! Surely the 30 [soon to be 32] SFL clubs need to be making a lot more noise about their own futures in a structure with two 16-club divisions! The 'Doncaster solution' is only of any attraction to SPL clubs. It won't bring any riches to SFL clubs, who are the net majority in Scotland! I'd imagine with the way this clown is talking that the SFL clubs are onboard with this plan now. If not then he really is the Todger Mitchell of his era! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lady-isobel-barnett Posted March 1, 2011 Report Share Posted March 1, 2011 Doncaster's latest pronouncements [see BBC Scotland report] suggest that he is already thinking in "post-merger with SFL" terms. This is VERY worrying! Surely the 30 [soon to be 32] SFL clubs need to be making a lot more noise about their own futures in a structure with two 16-club divisions! The 'Doncaster solution' is only of any attraction to SPL clubs. It won't bring any riches to SFL clubs, who are the net majority in Scotland! If the SFL were thinking of two larger leagues instead of three pitiful divisions of 10 I'd be more concerned about all this. Just about anyone and their granny agrees that three bodies running Scottish football is too many. The SPL by definition are a breakaway outfit so they'll not be for disbanding and the SFA are the legislative body. So if any lot have to disappear it'll have to be the SFL. I for one wouldn't shed any tears over the loss of the SFL who are by far the least competent of the three incompetent organisations. From a Jags point of view we've more in common, least while we remain a full time club, with the SPL than with much of the SFL. If the status quo is to remain we will in no time at all have more in common with the likes of Albion Rovers & Stenhousemuir than we'll have with St Johnstone and ICT. I remain completely against the repetitive small leagues of 10 or 12 teams but very much in favour of a single organisation for our leagues. In any case I believe it's almost beyond comprehension that any replacement could be as inept as the SFL/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Willjag Posted March 1, 2011 Members Report Share Posted March 1, 2011 They were saying on Radio Scotland on Saturday that there's a bit of resistance from the current 2nd and 3rd Division Clubs because although the 1st Division Clubs stand to gain £250k per year, the 2nd and 3rd division Clubs will lose £5k per year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lady-isobel-barnett Posted March 1, 2011 Report Share Posted March 1, 2011 Re reading my late night rant I seem to come across as unsympathetic towards SFL clubs further down the pecking order than ourselves. That wasn't my intention, it's the SFL as an institution rather than individual clubs that appalls me. Most of the clubs below us run their finances a lot better than us but that's largely to do with the fact they've rarely or never tried to operate outside their comfort zone. Call it lack of ambition or plain realism it doesn't matter but, thru sheer numbers of these clubs within the SFL, they've stifled at every opportunity any prospect of opening up the leagues. It's all very well us harping on about the SPL only allowing one club to join it by promotion every season but that's one more than the SFL allow. It then stands to reason that with no exit (ie some sort of pyramid system) a larger bottom division may not have the same appeal as the idea of larger leagues do elsewhere. That imo is mainly why we're stuck with three divisions of ten. In defence of this we're told by a mystery 3rd Div chairman the other week that he detects no real appetite from non senior clubs wishing to join the SFL. That might be so, tho' I seriously doubt it, but that's still no excuse for operating a closed shop. The opportunity for successful non senior clubs to join the SFL should always be in place. My main gripes re the SFL are twofold. Firstly this tail wag the dog-pro status quo-3 leagues of ten attitude that more or less guarantees the maximum amount of tedium for us fans. Secondly the SFL's inability to sail it's own ship with even the slightest modicum of professionalism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lenziejag2 Posted March 1, 2011 Report Share Posted March 1, 2011 Doncaster's latest pronouncements [see BBC Scotland report] suggest that he is already thinking in "post-merger with SFL" terms. This is VERY worrying! Surely the 30 [soon to be 32] SFL clubs need to be making a lot more noise about their own futures in a structure with two 16-club divisions! The 'Doncaster solution' is only of any attraction to SPL clubs. It won't bring any riches to SFL clubs, who are the net majority in Scotland! And now Doncaster wants the season to start on July 23rd! He probably doesn't know that that date is slap-bang in the middle of the Glasgow Fair! And he probably hasn't thought about when all the pre-season games are going to need to be scheduled to take place. I doubt whether there will even be time for the new grass to grow between one season and the next. PLEASE, can we have some real punters making the decisions that matter? Let them have their 10-club SPL with pots of (potential) cash if that's what they want. But, PLEASE, let's have two divisions of 16 clubs in the SFL. And yes, by all means, let's have a merit-based pyramid structure below that. It occurs to me that Clyde would probably be the first club to be 'elected out' ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Willjag Posted March 1, 2011 Members Report Share Posted March 1, 2011 Nothing wrong with a 23rd July start to the season. Hope it gets earlier every season until it starts in March and ends December. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rid Skwerr Posted March 2, 2011 Report Share Posted March 2, 2011 Nothing wrong with a 23rd July start to the season. Hope it gets earlier every season until it starts in March and ends December. Amen, brother. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crazy davie Posted March 2, 2011 Report Share Posted March 2, 2011 Nothing wrong with a 23rd July start to the season. Hope it gets earlier every season until it starts in March and ends December. Yeah - I'm starting to "warm" to the idea of summer football. hahahhahahahaha - I'm so funny...!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlgarveJag Posted March 2, 2011 Report Share Posted March 2, 2011 QUOTE The SPL chief executive conceded that most football fans, and many players and managers, would prefer a larger top flight. "I think there is no doubt that, if you ask most supporters what they prefer, a bigger league playing once home and away is what they would want," he said. END QUOTE How many businesses survive that so blatantly ignore the wishes of their customers? Are these people listening to the verbal diarrhea that they they espouse? It is no wonder that attendances continue to fall; never mind Catch 22, the lunatics are running the asylum. Idiots! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaggernaut Posted March 2, 2011 Report Share Posted March 2, 2011 QUOTE The SPL chief executive conceded that most football fans, and many players and managers, would prefer a larger top flight. "I think there is no doubt that, if you ask most supporters what they prefer, a bigger league playing once home and away is what they would want," he said. END QUOTE How many businesses survive that so blatantly ignore the wishes of their customers? Are these people listening to the verbal diarrhea that they they espouse? It is no wonder that attendances continue to fall; never mind Catch 22, the lunatics are running the asylum. Idiots! Correct. If it comes down to SPL sides playing in front of totally empty stadia, rather than 75% empty stadia as in most cases now, then they'll do it as long as the tv money is the be all and end all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yoda-jag Posted March 2, 2011 Report Share Posted March 2, 2011 (edited) QUOTE The SPL chief executive conceded that most football fans, and many players and managers, would prefer a larger top flight. "I think there is no doubt that, if you ask most supporters what they prefer, a bigger league playing once home and away is what they would want," he said. END QUOTE How many businesses survive that so blatantly ignore the wishes of their customers? Are these people listening to the verbal diarrhea that they they espouse? It is no wonder that attendances continue to fall; never mind Catch 22, the lunatics are running the asylum. Idiots! Correct. If it comes down to SPL sides playing in front of totally empty stadia, rather than 75% empty stadia as in most cases now, then they'll do it as long as the tv money is the be all and end all. Both spot on posts. AND Numpty Doncaster finshes his latest blog with: "It will help teams in European competition and is therefore good for the UEFA coefficient. It will reduce fixture congestion and the number of unpopular winter mid-week games later in the season. It will boost clubs' incomes and increase the value of SPL games to broadcasters. And it's what fans tell us they want." Oh the irony. Edited March 2, 2011 by yoda-jag Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sigesige00 Posted March 2, 2011 Report Share Posted March 2, 2011 SFL should be 3 divisions/48 teams. New 6 teams would be invited -- Cove Rangers, Spartan, Edinburgh City, etc. I hope that Shetland FC (Shetland Football Association should be reorganised as a club) would play in the SFL. 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.