Yet More League Reconstruction Proposed

[Lin1876]

The SPL have put forward their plans for league reconstruction: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/20384809

 

Basically, it's two divisions of 12, which essentially becomes 3 divisions of 8 mid-season. The top 8 SPL teams play each other another twice, the bottom 4 of the SPL and top 4 of the SPL 2 play each other home and away with the top four going into the SPL the following season, while the bottom eight of the SPL 2 play each other home and away again.

 

If we can't get people to agree on a 16-team SPL, this would be my second choice. It adds some variety for teams like us, and will probably give everyone something to play for towards the end of the season.

 

Thoughts?

[read'n'yell]

This doesn't solve any of the inherent problems in the current set up. All this does is get a higher rotation of the poorer clubs between 1st and 2nd tier. With a split of eight it will be detrimental to the quality of football at the start of the campaign as clubs scrape for points to avoid the playoff. While after the split (14 of 36 games) there will be nothing for most teams to play for in the top split. While clubs in the bottom split will again be fighting for their life. We need a structure that actively encourages youth development and teams to play positive football. A larger league is the only option. Anything else is change for the sake of change.

 

Interestingly I find myself agreeing with most Rangers statements at the moment. McCoist in the paper saying the sfl proposal is good and that the SFA should take over reconstruction. Its the only way to get a structure that benefits the Scottish game and not just 5 or 6 clubs. Surely the SFA provides the licenses so it would be easy to enforce a change. If the clubs broke away they couldn't compete in Europe.

 

This whole topic takes one step forward and two steps back. Largely due to the SPL morons. If Aberdeen hadn't backed Celtic in the voting structure vote a month back then we would be in the middle of reconstruction. I hope they enjoy their two/three years of being one of Scotlands bigger clubs because when Rangers are back in the SPL Aberdeen will again be forgotten.

[scottymagoo]

Adherence to 4 Old Firm games a season is going to prevent any meaningful change, instead of what everybody knows is the answer i.e. the same structure used in every major league in europe that has worked perfectly well for over a century we get stupidity with everbody playing each other 4 times a season and when that doesn't work we follow it with more stupidity with the SPL splitting 3/4 of the way through the season and now that hasn't worked they suggest even more stupidity with leagues now splitting and merging halfway through the season. Other countries will be looking at us and laughing.

[scotty]

This is just another straw grasping exercise by the SPL who are seeing their power slipping away. When will they realise that the answer is not signing up for four home old-firm fixtures a season or some of the crumbs left over from the R*ng*rs/C*lt*c TV deal.

We need one body running football in this country. That could even be split in two. One to oversee the rules, international and youth set up and another to run the commercial side ie the leagues.

Those leagues need to organised to get the best product on the park for the fans. For me that means larger divisions, playing each other once home and once away in the season, enough promotion and relegation to make playing competitively throughout the season worthwhile and TV deals which benefit the whole of Scottish football and are not there to give a couple of teams a big pay-off every season or to schedule games to fill in blank slots in a TV schedule.

We should be starting from the premise that we need to scrap the SPL, SFL and the SFA and start again with the best minds from all three organisations and bin the rest!

[Garscube Road End]

This is just another straw grasping exercise by the SPL who are seeing their power slipping away. When will they realise that the answer is not signing up for four home old-firm fixtures a season or some of the crumbs left over from the R*ng*rs/C*lt*c TV deal.

We need one body running football in this country. That could even be split in two. One to oversee the rules, international and youth set up and another to run the commercial side ie the leagues.

Those leagues need to organised to get the best product on the park for the fans. For me that means larger divisions, playing each other once home and once away in the season, enough promotion and relegation to make playing competitively throughout the season worthwhile and TV deals which benefit the whole of Scottish football and are not there to give a couple of teams a big pay-off every season or to schedule games to fill in blank slots in a TV schedule.

We should be starting from the premise that we need to scrap the SPL, SFL and the SFA and start again with the best minds from all three organisations and bin the rest!

 

Are there any MINDS in any of these organisation?? SPL You have Doncaster and Petrie -- SFA you have Regan and Ogilvie -- SFL you have Longmuir and Ballantyne(Airdrie H*n) GOD help us all!!

[butler5171]

This is the SPL still trying to tell everyone else what to do and still keep control. This was rejected by all SFL clubs in the summer. Why did they abandon plans for play offs when the SFL clubs rejected their plans to parachute Rangers into League One. If they were a good idea before what changed.............oh yes they didn`t get their own way. I for one will not go to football if this outrageous self serving organisation gets their way. I hope Thistle will reject this out of hand.

Edited November 18, 2012 by butler5171

[lady-isobel-barnett]

Are there any MINDS in any of these organisation?? SPL You have Doncaster and Petrie -- SFA you have Regan and Ogilvie -- SFL you have Longmuir and Ballantyne(Airdrie H*n) GOD help us all!!

Scary. Not of course that there's anything to suggest they're corrupt, biased or incompetent.

[Mr Bunny]

Scary. Not of course that there's anything to suggest they're corrupt, biased or incompetent.

 

No not to suggest it.

[G SUS]

It's really quite simple.

 

We should have a 14 team top league. Everyone plays each other twice, home and away - 26 games.

 

The league then splits into 6/8. Each players each other twice, home and away - 10 games for the top 6 14 games for the bottom 8.

 

4 OF games for TV - Sorted

More income for the teams in the bottom half - Sorted through two extra games.

 

Have 2 up and 2 down - Winners and runners up. - Sorted

 

The second division should have a league of 16, playing each other twice home and away.

 

Below that another league of 16 before descending into regionals.

[potty trained]

No disrespect G Sus but the only thing right with that idea is the league sizes.

[G SUS]

No disrespect G Sus but the only thing right with that idea is the league sizes.

 

What's so wrong with it?

 

It fit's every "real life" criteria:

 

TV deal - 4 OF games a season(assuming Rangers will end up being top 6 with regularity in 5 years time)

Cuts out the uneven home/away fixtures we have currently with the split.

Allows extra home games for the bottom half teams, thus offsetting the "lack of big teams" coming.

Fewer games in the top half of the league allow for extended European runs. I.E. The schedule is not as "heavy".

[potty trained]

It's really quite simple.

 

We should have a 14 team top league. Everyone plays each other twice, home and away - 26 games.

 

The league then splits into 6/8. Each players each other twice, home and away - 10 games for the top 6 14 games for the bottom 8.

 

4 OF games for TV - Sorted

More income for the teams in the bottom half - Sorted through two extra games.

 

Have 2 up and 2 down - Winners and runners up. - Sorted

 

The second division should have a league of 16, playing each other twice home and away.

 

Below that another league of 16 before descending into regionals.

 

I dont like the split idea, never have. By the way, you know how this sport is based on winning, and being the best. be the best and you will be rewarded? well, if you are the best of a bad bunch, we will isolate you from the good teams... and if you are the best of the bad bunch? your reward will be avoiding relegation every year. This idea would see 8 teams playing, with the only concern, avoiding 2 relegation places. The split would probably take place at the end of January! Even if you split it the other way, with 8 playing to win euro slots and the bottom 6 playing to avoid relegation. It's still too much, too early in the season to force upon a team...

 

You are suggesting that the second teir only play 30 games a season?

 

This idea would see the second and third tier finish 6 weeks before the top half of the SPL, and potentially 10 weeks before the bottom half of the top tier.

 

You suggest 3 leagues of 14/16/16... thats 4 extra teams to be admitted in to the league in the one go?

 

The regional thing i styill dont understand.

 

Its fine in the first season... but how do you get promoted from it or relegated to it? what happens if every season an east of scotland team finishes bottom of the third tier.... where are they relegated to? how could they be replaced by a team from the west of scotland?

[twinny]

 

Its fine in the first season... but how do you get promoted from it or relegated to it? what happens if every season an east of scotland team finishes bottom of the third tier.... where are they relegated to? how could they be replaced by a team from the west of scotland?

 

Whilst I agree with your other points, I thought I'd reply to this one.

 

In England teams playing in upper regional tiers can sometimes end up playing in the north one season then the south the next, the lines are drawn based on the teams who are in the league. So if southern teams kept being relegated with northern teams earning promotion, teams in the midlands currently playing in the south would move to the northern leagues. It is annoying having to switch leagues, one of which may be stronger than the other, but it would even out over time.

[G SUS]

I dont like the split idea, never have. By the way, you know how this sport is based on winning, and being the best. be the best and you will be rewarded? well, if you are the best of a bad bunch, we will isolate you from the good teams... and if you are the best of the bad bunch? your reward will be avoiding relegation every year. This idea would see 8 teams playing, with the only concern, avoiding 2 relegation places. The split would probably take place at the end of January! Even if you split it the other way, with 8 playing to win euro slots and the bottom 6 playing to avoid relegation. It's still too much, too early in the season to force upon a team...

 

If you are the best team then you'll still win the league. Splits work. They generate excitement. If you aren't good enough to get in the top 6 to play the "best/big" teams then you get another two home games to play, so you can make a bit more money, and hopefully sustain a push for the top 6 the following year. Putting the split the other way around would just make the rich richer. It also, if you work on the realistic assumption that Rangers will soon be pushing for the SPL title, makes the TV Deal more lucrative by guarenteeing 4 OF derbies. The split would happen a little earlier, probably mid-march, but given that'll allow more games to be played in better weather in early spring over a longer period of time. We could even have a winter break if we wished.

 

You are suggesting that the second teir only play 30 games a season?

 

Yes.

 

This idea would see the second and third tier finish 6 weeks before the top half of the SPL, and potentially 10 weeks before the bottom half of the top tier.

 

Not necessarily. I didn't claim i had a schedule planned for it, just that it was an idea. If i have time i will produce one, but the system would fulfil every complaint we have with the system now.

 

You suggest 3 leagues of 14/16/16... thats 4 extra teams to be admitted in to the league in the one go?

 

Yes. Ideally, we'd all come under the one umbrella. Merging into the one central body. Teams like Spartans, Edinburgh City, Cove Rangers, Deveronvale, Buckie Thistle want to come into the league structure. Teams would be invited in, if they were not good enough they'd be relegated

 

The regional thing i styill dont understand.

 

Leagues below this would likely be current junior/amateur teams. Regionalising the leagues allows 1. More local derbies to be played generating more interest and 2. The travelling distances to be substantially reduced, saving costs to a minimum. This would help clubs to run year on year as they wouldn't have too many trips over 1.5/2 hours.

 

Its fine in the first season... but how do you get promoted from it or relegated to it? what happens if every season an east of scotland team finishes bottom of the third tier.... where are they relegated to? how could they be replaced by a team from the west of scotland?

 

Twinny explains it perfectly. It works very well in England, a bigger country, why can't it work here?

[twinny]

Twinny explains it perfectly. It works very well in England, a bigger country, why can't it work here?

 

Carrying on arguing with myself, the junior/highland teams are skewed geographically and would mean much more travelling for eastern/northern teams, particularly after a few years of redrawing the borders between leagues following relegations. For example in the challenge cup first round we can see teams from the Stirling area sit in the west and face Stranraer or in the east and face Peterhead. This isn't such a big issue in England where the teams are more evenly spread throughout the country.

 

The best bet would be to have a highland league, an east of Scotland league and a west of Scotland league and this would make the transition easier as we already have this, don't we? The West of Scotland I imagine is much larger so could contain two or three divisions. The winners of the top division from each region would play off for a league place and replace the bottom placed league team (either with or without a play off, this detail is unimportant).

[potty trained]

If you are the best team then you'll still win the league. Splits work. They generate excitement. If you aren't good enough to get in the top 6 to play the "best/big" teams then you get another two home games to play, so you can make a bit more money, and hopefully sustain a push for the top 6 the following year. Putting the split the other way around would just make the rich richer. It also, if you work on the realistic assumption that Rangers will soon be pushing for the SPL title, makes the TV Deal more lucrative by guarenteeing 4 OF derbies. The split would happen a little earlier, probably mid-march, but given that'll allow more games to be played in better weather in early spring over a longer period of time. We could even have a winter break if we wished.

 

 

 

Yes.

 

 

 

Not necessarily. I didn't claim i had a schedule planned for it, just that it was an idea. If i have time i will produce one, but the system would fulfil every complaint we have with the system now.

 

 

 

Yes. Ideally, we'd all come under the one umbrella. Merging into the one central body. Teams like Spartans, Edinburgh City, Cove Rangers, Deveronvale, Buckie Thistle want to come into the league structure. Teams would be invited in, if they were not good enough they'd be relegated

 

 

 

Leagues below this would likely be current junior/amateur teams. Regionalising the leagues allows 1. More local derbies to be played generating more interest and 2. The travelling distances to be substantially reduced, saving costs to a minimum. This would help clubs to run year on year as they wouldn't have too many trips over 1.5/2 hours.

 

 

 

Twinny explains it perfectly. It works very well in England, a bigger country, why can't it work here?

 

Cheers....

 

How do you suggest the second and third tier generate money from the loss of income they will be up against in your structure?

 

say thistle for example... imagine we arent good enough to get into the top league.... how do you suggest we cover the loss of income that only having 15 home games would bring?

 

Only having 15 home games lowers turn over, therefore lowers budgets... surely playing squad, youth structure, many non playing aspects would take a huge hit... do you forsee many clubs closing down, unable to run as a business or service debt, when they might only have 15 opportunities to generate any income, in one season?

[lady-isobel-barnett]

Odds re league reconstruction.....quite short

Odds re those incompetents coming up with something sensible.....considerably longer.

Odds re most fans finding the changes favourable, if only for the novelty factor.... somewhere in between.

[bell]

any TV deal that relies on four OF matches a season can get to f***. years of pandering to the ugly sisters is what's caused the stagnation of Scottish football, and any reconstruction has to address that issue directly and not just be a workaround to get things back how they were in 2010.

 

what's needed is a league setup of three tiers of 14, playing each other twice a season, 2-up-2-down with playoffs, a pyramid system for Junior progression and a fair distribution of TV monies. if Sky pay less overall to the top tier for tv rights, but it's distributed evenly, it won't affect the income of most of the teams involved.

[potty trained]

any TV deal that relies on four OF matches a season can get to f***. years of pandering to the ugly sisters is what's caused the stagnation of Scottish football, and any reconstruction has to address that issue directly and not just be a workaround to get things back how they were in 2010.

 

what's needed is a league setup of three tiers of 14, playing each other twice a season, 2-up-2-down with playoffs, a pyramid system for Junior progression and a fair distribution of TV monies. if Sky pay less overall to the top tier for tv rights, but it's distributed evenly, it won't affect the income of most of the teams involved.

 

Christ, and you want all the clubs in Scotland to survive on 13 home games a season!

 

Has anyone got a suggestion that wont see the death of our game!

[bell]

Christ, and you want all the clubs in Scotland to survive on 13 home games a season!

yes, that's exactly what i want. 13 homes games maximum, so obviously no cup games whatsoever, and the playoffs i mentioned won't actually take place either. obviously.

[twinny]

yes, that's exactly what i want. 13 homes games maximum, so obviously no cup games whatsoever, and the playoffs i mentioned won't actually take place either. obviously.

 

Cup games only provide games for those who progress in the cup competitions, so for each cup half the teams only play one game and for half of those these will be away. Playoffs only provide games for a handful of teams.

 

So far, the best option being proposed is the SPL's 2*12 with 8-4 split. This is far from ideal. We can sit here and propose systems all day year long and it's not going to matter in the slightest. Leagues of 18 or 20 are best in my opinion, this will never be accepted though.

[potty trained]

yes, that's exactly what i want. 13 homes games maximum, so obviously no cup games whatsoever, and the playoffs i mentioned won't actually take place either. obviously.

 

Cup games, no security, you might get drawn away... play offs you might not be bad enough, or good enough to be in a play off place.

 

It remains, the majority of teams will only be able to generate business to maintain the club, or service the debt via 13 home games?

 

sorry, but that is madness.

[potty trained]

Cup games only provide games for those who progress in the cup competitions, so for each cup half the teams only play one game and for half of those these will be away. Playoffs only provide games for a handful of teams.

 

So far, the best option being proposed is the SPL's 2*12 with 8-4 split. This is far from ideal. We can sit here and propose systems all day year long and it's not going to matter in the slightest. Leagues of 18 or 20 are best in my opinion, this will never be accepted though.

 

regarding the SPL idea.... you realise that you could go on forever, and the new season could see the same teams starting in the top league as the season before?

 

Does their suggestion mean that a team starting in the SPL, is 9th at the split.... then could win the first division?

 

How many SPL teams would be willing to give up on the current failed structure.... if the option put forward to them means finishing in the bottom 4 after playing each other home and away, sees you spend the second half of the season, playing against lower league teams, with a travelling support of 200? How could an SPL team possibly budget for the season ahead!

[jagsman411971]

Level 1 - Premier 18 teams, bottom 2 relegated, 3rd bottom into play-off

 

Level 2 - Championship 18 teams, top 2 promoted, 3rd 4th and 5th into play-off, bottom 2 relegated, 3rd bottom into play-off

 

Level 3 - Conference 18 teams, top 2 promoted, 3rd 4th and 5th into play-off, bottom 2 relegated, 3rd and 4th bottom into play-off

 

Level 4 - Conference North/South, 2 divisions of 12/14/16/18 teams, 2 winners promoted, 2nd 3rd and 4th from each division go into play-off with 1 team from conference

 

This is what we should have. We should forget about trying to accommodate everyone and focus on trying to improve the whole game. This is not a quick fix, and neither should it be. If there was a quick fix, I'm sure even the idiots in charge would have found it by now. It could take up to 10 years before we see the results that we are looking for, but I can guarantee that if we end up with some of the suggestions being banded about by the SPL/SFL/SFA, at the end of those 10 years, we will be back here asking the same questions we are now.

 

We should also not be looking at something that we could employ straight away. Give everyone a couple of years notice of any changes, so that they can adjust their budgets to suit the possibility of playing fewer games.

[twinny]

regarding the SPL idea.... you realise that you could go on forever, and the new season could see the same teams starting in the top league as the season before?

 

Does their suggestion mean that a team starting in the SPL, is 9th at the split.... then could win the first division?

 

How many SPL teams would be willing to give up on the current failed structure.... if the option put forward to them means finishing in the bottom 4 after playing each other home and away, sees you spend the second half of the season, playing against lower league teams, with a travelling support of 200? How could an SPL team possibly budget for the season ahead!

 

Point 1: That's possible, but not very likely.

 

Point 2: Any team entering the SPL B can win it. I can't see what is wrong with this.

 

Point 3: Clubs can (and really should!) budget for the worst case scenario. SPL away crowds aren't really that much higher than in our division, are they? Yes the clubs at the lower end of the current SFL1 have poor followings, but Dunfermline and Thistle are currently bringing more away fans than bottom end SPL clubs. These bottom four SPL1 teams would have a better chance of winning matches in the second half of the season, and might therefore attract more home fans.