cjptfc Posted September 23, 2011 Report Share Posted September 23, 2011 Daily Record I normally agree that big Pressley talks pish and is a bit of a moaner. However, on this matter he is spot on in my opinion, Brian Reid the same. The league chiefs have ar.sed about with 14, 16 team suggestions, maybe 20 is the way ahead. It can't go on the way it is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fatha bacon Posted September 23, 2011 Report Share Posted September 23, 2011 no chance 16 or 2o. teams wouldnt allow the tv cash to be diluted that much. 14 team is reasonable. i reckon we could take points off the bottom 6, maybe gub sellick or the h*ns. u gotta dream. thats why we support the jags Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twinny Posted September 23, 2011 Report Share Posted September 23, 2011 Daily Record I normally agree that big Pressley talks pish and is a bit of a moaner. However, on this matter he is spot on in my opinion, Brian Reid the same. The league chiefs have ar.sed about with 14, 16 team suggestions, maybe 20 is the way ahead. It can't go on the way it is. Whilst some of the reasoning is pants (i.e. lower division teams beating SPL teams suggests that the SPL should be bigger; when English Championship and occasionally League One sides beat Premier League teams do they bleat on about a 40 team league?), I do agree with the sentiments regarding TV money. As clubs become over-reliant on that they increasingly wouldn't be able to handle relegation The levels of debt of some of the perennial SPL clubs is ridiculous and Killie for example would be doomed if they were to be relegated and not bounce straight back up. I don't think that increasing the size of the league will necessarily increase crowds at the top end, but would probably help clubs in the middle and lower end which is a good thing. I'd actually like to see (or not see) SPL games banned from TV and make clubs reliant on gate money. The quality would maybe drop in the first instance but crowds would definitely increase and perhaps glory hunting would decrease. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cjptfc Posted September 23, 2011 Author Report Share Posted September 23, 2011 The major point I think is that the game is stale. They are so worried about keeping the TV money in the game to sustain what they have (which is getting worse) that the quality, excitement comes 2nd in importance. Crowds would increase I feel. Supporters have drifted from the Scottish game not just because its expensive, but because its boring. Playing, for example, Hearts at home followed by Ayr Utd away would be quite interesting, especially if we only played each team twice a season. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lindau Posted September 23, 2011 Report Share Posted September 23, 2011 Hats off to Pressley and Reid. Its not gonna happen but I agree 100% with what they are saying Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Julie Ann Posted September 23, 2011 Report Share Posted September 23, 2011 these calls for league reconstruction by clubs like falkirk and hamilton, while holding significant merit for football as a whole, are a red herring. lets be honest here, if thistle were in the spl there's no way we'd be pushing for reconstruction. it was said as much last night that we'd go where the money is and that's exactly the same for falkirk and hamilton. did either of these clubs shout about a 20 team league when they were benefitting from the increased incomes that the spl brought them? if they did i apologies but i'd suggest "did they ****" is nearer the mark. david beattie said last night that the 10 team spl would have brought more moeny to lower league teams and he also said that we'd be at the front of the queue if an spl2 ever came about. if falkirk or hamilton (or us) or morton or whoever wins this league wait and see if they keep pushing for a 20 team league. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lady-isobel-barnett Posted September 23, 2011 Report Share Posted September 23, 2011 Should maybe be in the "Board night" thread as reconstruction or rather non reconstruction was talked about last night. I might have picked up David Beattie wrong but if the 10SPL1/12SPL2 had gone thru we'd have been £250K(?) better off. Like most of us he ridiculed the 11 out of 12 clubs voting for a 10 club set up (Xmas and turkeys). He said not unnaturally he was in favour of an SPL2 as was planned but acknowledged it's not necessarily what the fans want. SPL league size seems to be now off the agenda but I thought there was a growing following for introducing play offs with a second promotion spot to the SPL up for grabs. If that came about league reconstruction would then be in the hands of SFL. A 1st Div league could then be expanded and if necessary the SFL run League Cup sectionalised to make up games. As far as I see the only two drawbacks holding back SFL reconstruction are there's only one club promoted to the SFL and to a lesser extent the closed shop barring any semblance of a pyramid system. Does anyone believe tho' that if that second promotion spot was made available the SFL would have the gumption to reconstruct its own leagues? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cjptfc Posted September 23, 2011 Author Report Share Posted September 23, 2011 these calls for league reconstruction by clubs like falkirk and hamilton, while holding significant merit for football as a whole, are a red herring. lets be honest here, if thistle were in the spl there's no way we'd be pushing for reconstruction. it was said as much last night that we'd go where the money is and that's exactly the same for falkirk and hamilton. did either of these clubs shout about a 20 team league when they were benefitting from the increased incomes that the spl brought them? if they did i apologies but i'd suggest "did they ****" is nearer the mark. david beattie said last night that the 10 team spl would have brought more moeny to lower league teams and he also said that we'd be at the front of the queue if an spl2 ever came about. if falkirk or hamilton (or us) or morton or whoever wins this league wait and see if they keep pushing for a 20 team league. I thought most of the clubs calling for reconstruction are in the SPL? Dundee Utd, Hearts etc?? You keep mentioning money, and although the money is a major factor, most of the points raised by Reid and Pressley were to do with boredom and staleness an the game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Julie Ann Posted September 23, 2011 Report Share Posted September 23, 2011 I thought most of the clubs calling for reconstruction are in the SPL? Dundee Utd, Hearts etc?? You keep mentioning money, and although the money is a major factor, most of the points raised by Reid and Pressley were to do with boredom and staleness an the game. and that's why i said for football as a whole it could be good but followed that up by saying its a red herring because for clubs to survive they need as much money as they can get. david beattie said as much last night. i stand by my opinion that if falkirk or hamilton were in the spl neither reid or pressley would be saying this. incidentally, i'm not saying i wouldn't want to see reconstruction merely pointing out that when the cash is in your pocket you don't want give it away. something about turkeys and christmas? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vom Itorium Posted September 23, 2011 Report Share Posted September 23, 2011 Pressley is a fud... February - 10 teams is the way forward Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaggy Posted September 23, 2011 Report Share Posted September 23, 2011 Pressley is a fud... February - 10 teams is the way forward :lol: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lenziejag2 Posted September 23, 2011 Report Share Posted September 23, 2011 Should maybe be in the "Board night" thread as reconstruction or rather non reconstruction was talked about last night. I might have picked up David Beattie wrong but if the 10SPL1/12SPL2 had gone thru we'd have been £250K(?) better off. Like most of us he ridiculed the 11 out of 12 clubs voting for a 10 club set up (Xmas and turkeys). He said not unnaturally he was in favour of an SPL2 as was planned but acknowledged it's not necessarily what the fans want. SPL league size seems to be now off the agenda but I thought there was a growing following for introducing play offs with a second promotion spot to the SPL up for grabs. If that came about league reconstruction would then be in the hands of SFL. A 1st Div league could then be expanded and if necessary the SFL run League Cup sectionalised to make up games. As far as I see the only two drawbacks holding back SFL reconstruction are there's only one club promoted to the SFL and to a lesser extent the closed shop barring any semblance of a pyramid system. Does anyone believe tho' that if that second promotion spot was made available the SFL would have the gumption to reconstruct its own leagues? As was emphasised last night, no SPL club is going to vote for its own demotion - so you can fairly assume that the "greedy 12" will stay as they are. To surmount staleness and boredom in the SFL, please let's have: 2 x 16-team leagues (thereby offering Spartans, Deveronvale, Gala Fairydean or whoever the chance to join the fun), playing each other home and away ONCE (30 games), plus a divisional knock-out cup (for which 16 is the ideal number), the Ramsdens Cup, the Scottish Cup, two up/two down into the SPL and down to SFL2 (thereby guaranteeing a turnover every season of 25% of the teams in SFL1 - no staleness or boredom there!), a recognition that more SFL teams will need to operate as part-time outfits, and - realistically - the genuine likelihood that more bodies will come through the turnstiles when the whole SFL thing is more competitive and varied (and even more likely if admission costs can be trimmed!). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
read'n'yell Posted September 23, 2011 Report Share Posted September 23, 2011 Regarding the tv money I was under the impression it is a subscribe service to ESPN for the year to watch football. Now if there are fans of 20 teams involved in the SPL then that will increase the amount of people willing to subscribe - making ESPN more money. I appreciate a lot of money they make is through advertisement during games which is based on viewer ratings but I really don't think their ratings would drop outwith the two less old firm games. The extra subscribers would, over the season, cancel this out or even increase ratings with the extra interest of only seeing each team a few times on TV. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JAGZ1876 Posted September 23, 2011 Report Share Posted September 23, 2011 As was emphasised last night, no SPL club is going to vote for its own demotion - so you can fairly assume that the "greedy 12" will stay as they are. To surmount staleness and boredom in the SFL, please let's have: 2 x 16-team leagues (thereby offering Spartans, Deveronvale, Gala Fairydean or whoever the chance to join the fun), playing each other home and away ONCE (30 games), plus a divisional knock-out cup (for which 16 is the ideal number), the Ramsdens Cup, the Scottish Cup, two up/two down into the SPL and down to SFL2 (thereby guaranteeing a turnover every season of 25% of the teams in SFL1 - no staleness or boredom there!), a recognition that more SFL teams will need to operate as part-time outfits, and - realistically - the genuine likelihood that more bodies will come through the turnstiles when the whole SFL thing is more competitive and varied (and even more likely if admission costs can be trimmed!). I couldn't agree more lenziejag2, i wrote to the SFL about five years ago asking them to increase the leagues size's to do away with the boring four games a season, same old face's scenario, sad to say i'm still waiting for a reply. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Bunny Posted September 23, 2011 Report Share Posted September 23, 2011 I couldn't agree more lenziejag2, i wrote to the SFL about five years ago asking them to increase the leagues size's to do away with the boring four games a season, same old face's scenario, sad to say i'm still waiting for a reply. No one seems to have thought that the reason for the original 10-team league in the SPL (12 at the moment) is that they wanted extra games against the OF, money from which supposedly more than makes up for the boredom of 4 games against same opponents and high price factor. But the SFL has never had this reason to have such small leagues - apart from the argument a tight league leads to more excitement. We've seen down the years this often doesn't happen. It's having teams able to produce decent teams and afford the risk of playing more open football that creates excitement. In current financial climate (and let's face it financial climate for football in Scotland hasn't been good for more than a decade anyway outside the OF) the danger of relegation could easily put clubs out of business and that isn't good for football. One things that could be done is use some TV money to subsidise a gate price reduction - but we'd probably need a better TV deal to be able to do that to an extent where it would have a significant effect - The worry is we may have already reached a stage when solutions suggested may be too late to prevent the downward trend. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lenziejag2 Posted September 23, 2011 Report Share Posted September 23, 2011 I couldn't agree more lenziejag2, i wrote to the SFL about five years ago asking them to increase the leagues size's to do away with the boring four games a season, same old face's scenario, sad to say i'm still waiting for a reply. Thanks, JAGZ1876. I should also have added the League Cup of course, and I reckon that gives a guaranteed minimum of 34 games per club. They could ALL be on the season ticket - that would get the bodies in! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
falklandal1 Posted September 23, 2011 Report Share Posted September 23, 2011 Thanks, JAGZ1876. I should also have added the League Cup of course, and I reckon that gives a guaranteed minimum of 34 games per club. They could ALL be on the season ticket - that would get the bodies in! yep,that seems like a positive bit of thinking,that said,probably jack s**t will happen unfortuneately Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twinny Posted September 23, 2011 Report Share Posted September 23, 2011 No one seems to have thought that the reason for the original 10-team league in the SPL (12 at the moment) is that they wanted extra games against the OF, money from which supposedly more than makes up for the boredom of 4 games against same opponents and high price factor. Back then the majority of clubs sold out home games against the OF, so four home games a season with them meant lots of money and increased TV money. Now attendance figures against the OF aren't much higher than against others and don't justify the 3-4 times a season, and although the TV money is still there, I'm not sure it will be for long. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yoda-jag Posted November 1, 2011 Report Share Posted November 1, 2011 Yorkston backs a 16 or 18 team league. "I think we need a bigger league," he added. "There would be more balanced teams. Celtic and Rangers have their own agendas. They've made it clear they want to leave. "But you can't keep talking the league down as they are. They're talking about wanting out of it, about the thing being grim, but it's what you make of it. "A lot of us would be happier with a bigger league with less money each. There are huge gaps between the Premier League and the First Division. "Rather than a million pounds in the Premier League, we'd probably be happier with £600,000 in a 16 or 18-team league." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaggernaut Posted November 1, 2011 Report Share Posted November 1, 2011 Interesting though that Pressley states that the Top 20 should be limited to clubs with two things: permanent training facilities, and an "academy". What a coincidence, that's two things that Falkirk FC has (though they rent Stirling Uni). Presumably we wouldn't qualify on the basis of no permanent training place. Time to transform the bing! I'd love to go back to an 18-team 1st division. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thistle4tw Posted November 1, 2011 Report Share Posted November 1, 2011 no chance 16 or 2o. teams wouldnt allow the tv cash to be diluted that much. 14 team is reasonable. i reckon we could take points off the bottom 6, maybe gub sellick or the h*ns. u gotta dream. thats why we support the jags 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.