hebridean jag Posted March 2, 2011 Report Share Posted March 2, 2011 Can we forego the wish lists and put the `Dear Santa, I think there should be 2 leagues of `.....where they belong and that`s in the bin with those letters from Nigeria telling you that you`re getting squillions of pounds. Â It`s an exercise in futility and a waste of everyone`s time. Â Read between the lines what Doncaster is saying.... Â Yes, everyone (including himself) would like bigger leagues but the league`s main income stream (which is satellite television) have signed a contractual agreement and shelled out big bucks (comparatively)in order to provide their audience with 4 OF games and to a lesser extent 4 Edinburgh derbies. As a makeweight they televise OF away matches and even an occasional match between two of the diddy teams. That`s what they`ve signed up for and the broadcaster`s have made it clear that if they want to make top dollar at the next negotiations then those games will have to be guaranteed. Â I don`t like it any more than anyone else but THAT`S HOW IT IS. Â Try to accept something. Sky and ESPN could`nt give a toss about ANY league from ANY country. They are only interested in their schedule and their viewing figures. The OF games give them a huge audience share and that`s why they want four of them a season. Scotland does not have enough of a population or enough satellite suscribers to allow our league to make demands. Games have to be shown which attract viewers from outwith our country. Like it or not that`s the OF games. If the indigineous league and it`s supporters don`t like it, tough. Â As I`ve said earlier, our only concern is if we as a club win or lose financialy. Submiiting wee wish lists are a waste of everyone`s time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lady-isobel-barnett Posted March 2, 2011 Report Share Posted March 2, 2011 As I`ve said earlier, our only concern is if we as a club win or lose financialy. Don't believe you'll get a clear answer to that, hj. As I said before all we'll hear about is the quick fix money not whether it's sustainable over a longer term. For instance has anyone seen any clarification about the proposed SPL2 league of 12 clubs? Is the proposal to play 11 teams 4 times each? If so would punters be expected to pay over 20% extra for a season ticket? Is anyone seriously suggesting, given the current financial climate, that overall attendances will increase with 8 more league games a season? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lenziejag2 Posted March 2, 2011 Report Share Posted March 2, 2011 Don't believe you'll get a clear answer to that, hj. As I said before all we'll hear about is the quick fix money not whether it's sustainable over a longer term. For instance has anyone seen any clarification about the proposed SPL2 league of 12 clubs? Is the proposal to play 11 teams 4 times each? If so would punters be expected to pay over 20% extra for a season ticket? Is anyone seriously suggesting, given the current financial climate, that overall attendances will increase with 8 more league games a season? Yes, m'Lady, that's precisely why I keep arguing for letting the SPL have their 10-team league, so that the rest of us can have 2 SFL divisions of 16 clubs. I repeat, play each team home and away (none of the boring 4 x everybody nonsense!), add in the various Cup games, two-up/two-down, play-offs as well if you like, and the punters could well be attracted back! In order to do this, the SFL clubs need to make a lot more NOISE! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lenziejag2 Posted March 4, 2011 Report Share Posted March 4, 2011 Yes, m'Lady, that's precisely why I keep arguing for letting the SPL have their 10-team league, so that the rest of us can have 2 SFL divisions of 16 clubs. I repeat, play each team home and away (none of the boring 4 x everybody nonsense!), add in the various Cup games, two-up/two-down, play-offs as well if you like, and the punters could well be attracted back! In order to do this, the SFL clubs need to make a lot more NOISE! In view of this week's OF debacle, it is now all the more urgent for the SFL clubs to make more NOISE for a sensible 2 divisions x 16 clubs structure. Could we perhaps start by making more NOISE in this regard on this forum, please? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaggernaut Posted March 4, 2011 Report Share Posted March 4, 2011 (edited) In view of this week's OF debacle, it is now all the more urgent for the SFL clubs to make more NOISE for a sensible 2 divisions x 16 clubs structure. Could we perhaps start by making more NOISE in this regard on this forum, please? I don't feel especially insightful this morning, but in what way is the OF cr*p pertinent to the (sensible) desire for 2x16-team SFL leagues? Edited March 4, 2011 by Jaggernaut Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lenziejag2 Posted March 4, 2011 Report Share Posted March 4, 2011 I don't feel especially insightful this morning, but in what way is the OF cr*p pertinent to the (sensible) desire for 2x16-team SFL leagues? Fair question JN! My concern is that the real punters (us!) will be better served if we steer clear - for the foreseeable future - of the OF and their pals and concentrate on generating interesting football in a 2x16-team SFL structure which will (hopefully) get more punters back through the turnstiles. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaggernaut Posted March 4, 2011 Report Share Posted March 4, 2011 Fair question JN! My concern is that the real punters (us!) will be better served if we steer clear - for the foreseeable future - of the OF and their pals and concentrate on generating interesting football in a 2x16-team SFL structure which will (hopefully) get more punters back through the turnstiles. Agreed. Â Unfortunately, I fear the old "any publicity is good publicity" for these two festering scabs. The media must already be drooling at the next brainless frenzy in a couple of weeks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sigesige00 Posted March 4, 2011 Report Share Posted March 4, 2011 Fair question JN! My concern is that the real punters (us!) will be better served if we steer clear - for the foreseeable future - of the OF and their pals and concentrate on generating interesting football in a 2x16-team SFL structure which will (hopefully) get more punters back through the turnstiles. Â No! The new SFL needs 3 divisions, 48 teams. 6 new clubs should be invited. Cove Rangers, Spartans, Preston Athletic, Edinburgh City, and other 2 clubs. And, of course, relegation from the SFL must be introduced. The bottom team of the SFL 3rd Division should face the winners of the East of Scotland League, West of Scotland League, and Highland League. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaggernaut Posted March 4, 2011 Report Share Posted March 4, 2011 No! The new SFL needs 3 divisions, 48 teams. 6 new clubs should be invited. Cove Rangers, Spartans, Preston Athletic, Edinburgh City, and other 2 clubs. And, of course, relegation from the SFL must be introduced. The bottom team of the SFL 3rd Division should face the winners of the East of Scotland League, West of Scotland League, and Highland League. What about Shetland??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sigesige00 Posted March 4, 2011 Report Share Posted March 4, 2011 What about Shetland??? Â Shetland should be accepted to the Highland League as a club team, and they must win the Highland League. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven H Posted March 4, 2011 Report Share Posted March 4, 2011 I don't feel especially insightful this morning, but in what way is the OF cr*p pertinent to the (sensible) desire for 2x16-team SFL leagues?  Less Old Firm games  I know, this is now what Sky/ESPN want, but it seems to be what EVERYONE ELSE outwith the ugly sisters wants. How many people 'claim' to support the OF yet have NEVER been to a game? Would this monopolisation of the football fanbase have happened if TV deals did not focus solely on those two teams? No. TV + Old Firm = Scottish football dying on it's arse!  Before people come on saying 'if it wasn't for TV money we'd be worse off', think back to when Scottish football was amongst the best in the world...no up themselves superstars, no TV money and crowds at smaller Clubs in Scotland were a good bit higher than they are now. Scottish football is depressing, and from one who has followed Thistle for 30 years that's quite a statement Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hebridean jag Posted March 4, 2011 Report Share Posted March 4, 2011 Less Old Firm games  I know, this is now what Sky/ESPN want, but it seems to be what EVERYONE ELSE outwith the ugly sisters wants. How many people 'claim' to support the OF yet have NEVER been to a game? Would this monopolisation of the football fanbase have happened if TV deals did not focus solely on those two teams? No. TV + Old Firm = Scottish football dying on it's arse!  Before people come on saying 'if it wasn't for TV money we'd be worse off', think back to when Scottish football was amongst the best in the world...no up themselves superstars, no TV money and crowds at smaller Clubs in Scotland were a good bit higher than they are now. Scottish football is depressing, and from one who has followed Thistle for 30 years that's quite a statement Agree with everything. But (and there`s always a but) it`s not realistic to hope for a return to a time when games were on the telly only very rarely and TV income was`nt a consideration.  The fact remains that SKY/ESPN pay out more for our games than they take in from suscribers in Scotland. Whilst it`s true that they use our games as `fillers` they know that they have a reasonable market for the OF games in other countries. That`s why they insist on 4 games between them.  In a perfect world we`d be able to make demands on programmers but the fact remains that Scottish Football`s only marketable commodity is the OF. Even the suggested SPL TV channel will still insist on 4 games because that`s all they`ll be able to sell on to other broadcasters.  If the broadcasters did walk away because their demands were`nt being met then think about the affect that would have on other sponsors and marketing. The money made from shirt sponsorship and trackside advertising would plummet to League of Ireland standards.  Remember though, SKY/ESPN do not care about any league in any country. It`s nothing personal. They could`nt care less if teams playing each other 4 times a season is slowly killing our game. Their only consideration is their schedule and profit margin. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lenziejag2 Posted March 7, 2011 Report Share Posted March 7, 2011 Agree with everything. But (and there`s always a but) it`s not realistic to hope for a return to a time when games were on the telly only very rarely and TV income was`nt a consideration. Â The fact remains that SKY/ESPN pay out more for our games than they take in from suscribers in Scotland. Whilst it`s true that they use our games as `fillers` they know that they have a reasonable market for the OF games in other countries. That`s why they insist on 4 games between them. Â In a perfect world we`d be able to make demands on programmers but the fact remains that Scottish Football`s only marketable commodity is the OF. Even the suggested SPL TV channel will still insist on 4 games because that`s all they`ll be able to sell on to other broadcasters. Â If the broadcasters did walk away because their demands were`nt being met then think about the affect that would have on other sponsors and marketing. The money made from shirt sponsorship and trackside advertising would plummet to League of Ireland standards. Â Remember though, SKY/ESPN do not care about any league in any country. It`s nothing personal. They could`nt care less if teams playing each other 4 times a season is slowly killing our game. Their only consideration is their schedule and profit margin. I too agree with everything! That's why we absolutely MUST let a 10-team SPL go off on their own sweet way. That will at last let us have a 2x16-team SFL for the teams that really matter - and who really care about football in Scotland! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lenziejag2 Posted March 8, 2011 Report Share Posted March 8, 2011 I too agree with everything! That's why we absolutely MUST let a 10-team SPL go off on their own sweet way. That will at last let us have a 2x16-team SFL for the teams that really matter - and who really care about football in Scotland! Given that the OF will now be absorbed in their jointly agreed anti-everything programmes, this is a good moment for the SFL to sneak in and set up a 2x16-team structure, whilst the "big boys" are otherwise engaged! C'mon the Jags! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vom Itorium Posted March 9, 2011 Report Share Posted March 9, 2011 Don't believe you'll get a clear answer to that, hj. As I said before all we'll hear about is the quick fix money not whether it's sustainable over a longer term. For instance has anyone seen any clarification about the proposed SPL2 league of 12 clubs? Is the proposal to play 11 teams 4 times each? If so would punters be expected to pay over 20% extra for a season ticket? Is anyone seriously suggesting, given the current financial climate, that overall attendances will increase with 8 more league games a season? The plan is for SPL2 to play 44 games. Then if they decide to even have a play-off, you play some more. The general thinking seemingly coming out of the SPL is that the current SFL clubs will go for this because more games means more income. The fans views? Well, who gives a ****... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crazy davie Posted March 9, 2011 Report Share Posted March 9, 2011 The plan is for SPL2 to play 44 games. Then if they decide to even have a play-off, you play some more. The general thinking seemingly coming out of the SPL is that the current SFL clubs will go for this because more games means more income. The fans views? Well, who gives a ****... I thought most clubs lost money on each game. Surely then the fewer games you've to play, the better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaggernaut Posted March 9, 2011 Report Share Posted March 9, 2011 Just in case anybody is already sick of the sight of Falkirk, we've got three games against them coming up within a 3-week period. Â Riveting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lady-isobel-barnett Posted March 9, 2011 Report Share Posted March 9, 2011 I thought most clubs lost money on each game. Surely then the fewer games you've to play, the better. With 36 league games as it is there's too many rearranged midweek fixture and that's where profit is eroded. All that would happen with 44 games is more midweek re-scheduling. Anyway if more games meant more profit the SFL could have at anytime re-introduced mini leagues into the League Cup. 5 clubs to a mini league section would create 8 guaranteed games. Add in the status quo of 36 league games and it would be much the same. Even the inept SFL would have done something like that ages ago if they thought there was money in it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twinny Posted March 9, 2011 Author Report Share Posted March 9, 2011 I love the idea of 2x16 team SFL leagues, however would 30 games be enough? Many folk talk about regional league cup group stages to offset this reduction in league games, another idea I like, but it seems the majority of fans don't turn up for league cup matches, and group matches against div 2 and div 3 clubs might not be the most inspiring. Â Problem number two is, with a 10 team league there will only be one relegation spot, perhaps a play-off, wouldn't 16 teams competing for one or two places render the majority of the competition meaningless? There needs to be an incentive to finish higher up the league, even if it means finishing 7th instead of 8th. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaggernaut Posted March 9, 2011 Report Share Posted March 9, 2011 How about this random idea: the problem is that there are already too many matches, not too few! The repetitiveness of the league is finally causing more and more people to simply not go. Â So, Â how about having teams play each other only twice in the league, regardless of the size of the league. But, double the admission price! This not only means that there could easily be a winter shut-down, but also that each game would be much more of an event (or a non-event, but even so it would be more of an occasion). And the enthusiasm among fans might return after a Dec-Feb break. Â It wouldn't cost fans any more in the long run, but might even increase income from hospitality, catering, etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juan Kerr Posted March 9, 2011 Report Share Posted March 9, 2011 I love the idea of 2x16 team SFL leagues, however would 30 games be enough? Many folk talk about regional league cup group stages to offset this reduction in league games, another idea I like, but it seems the majority of fans don't turn up for league cup matches, and group matches against div 2 and div 3 clubs might not be the most inspiring. Â I heard the fat twat Doncaster using this league cup argument too, completely missing the point IMO that the reason fans don't turn up for league cup matches is the distinct possibility that it'll be the 5th (or perhaps even 6th or 7th) time they'll see that team that season. If you only regularly platy teams twice a season the cup competitions become more of a novelty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven H Posted March 9, 2011 Report Share Posted March 9, 2011 (edited) I love the idea of 2x16 team SFL leagues, however would 30 games be enough? Many folk talk about regional league cup group stages to offset this reduction in league games, another idea I like, but it seems the majority of fans don't turn up for league cup matches, and group matches against div 2 and div 3 clubs might not be the most inspiring. Â Problem number two is, with a 10 team league there will only be one relegation spot, perhaps a play-off, wouldn't 16 teams competing for one or two places render the majority of the competition meaningless? There needs to be an incentive to finish higher up the league, even if it means finishing 7th instead of 8th. First of all @ Hebridean Jag, I agree with your but, BUT it's a sad state of affairs...how did football ever survive without tv money . Â @ Twinny. I am still unmoved from my thoughts regarding a 16 team league (SPL or SFL). A 16 team league with a split after 30 game would give 37 games. The 3rd game between the sides is played at the home of the team with the best aggregate score over the original 2 league games (or at a mutually agreed nuetral venue). The gate money from the 3rd league game gets split between the 2 Clubs in a similar manner to the Cup competitions (but id suggest a 70/30 split in favour of the home team). Â Maybe Im blinded by my own opinion but I can't see a better solution out there in terms of attempting to have some sort of middle ground that helps clubs, the football on display for us punters and might just satify Sky/ESPN if they were only losing 1 Old Firm game. This idea would also mean EVERY game means something because the extra home game could have a major influence on the positions teams will finish (4 or 5 home games in the final 7 games would be a huge advantage). Anyway I could go on forever about this one so I'll shut up...for now. Edited March 9, 2011 by Steven H Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lenziejag2 Posted March 13, 2011 Report Share Posted March 13, 2011 OK - this topic has gone quiet for long enough! We must get it back to the top of the forum list. Let the SPL float off as a 10-team glory-hunting TV-funded economic exercise. What we need is for the voice of the real punters to be heard loud and clear in Scotland! That means a 2x16-team SFL structure, home and away once against each of the other 15 teams, 2 up/2 down, plus play-offs - and I am not averse to the idea of a split plus 7 more games along the lines suggested by the previous correspondent. Let's go for it! But above all, let's make a lot of NOISE about where the REAL football is happening in Scotland! C'mon the Jags! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sigesige00 Posted March 13, 2011 Report Share Posted March 13, 2011 The name of the reunified league should be ASLS (Association Football League of Scotland), in order to avoid confusion. THe ASLS should have 48 clubs, 3 divisions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaggernaut Posted March 13, 2011 Report Share Posted March 13, 2011 The name of the reunified league should be ASLS (Association Football League of Scotland), in order to avoid confusion. THe ASLS should have 48 clubs, 3 divisions. No doubt the ASLs at the SFL will do zilch. 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.