Yet More League Reconstruction Proposed

[JeanieD]

The beauty of the League cup groups was that they could be both competitive but could also become "de facto" pre-season games. If a team started poorly then a few games might improve things-in theory. Also attendances were infinitely better than mind numbing "proper" pre-season friendlies against disinterested lower division English teams.

 

Perhaps my fondness for the sectional approach is based on a holiday in St Andrews in August 1971 when our section included East Fife, Raith Rovers and Arbroath - we did quite well in the League cup that year as I recall.

[lady-isobel-barnett]

There was a reason why the League Cup groups were ditched.

There was also a reason why leagues of 10 were first introduced in the early seventies. The reason then was so as other clubs would have a better chance of competing with the OF. Worked for a while but when home gates were no longer split that idea was redundant.

 

Seems to me the best way forward is to find a league structure where we only play once home and away (outside of any play offs). Once you've got that structure if short on home matches then you supplement the shortage by tweaking another competition. Mini leagues in a revamped league cup would be the most obvious way. With only one body running all competitions it's relatively easy to raise the status of the league cup.

At the moment we're only assured of 18.5 home games (one league cup tie gate split). A mini league of say 5 clubs and a 16 team league would assure 19 home games. (15 league and either 4 home or 8 split league cup matches).

[G SUS]

There was also a reason why leagues of 10 were first introduced in the early seventies. The reason then was so as other clubs would have a better chance of competing with the OF. Worked for a while but when home gates were no longer split that idea was redundant.

 

Seems to me the best way forward is to find a league structure where we only play once home and away (outside of any play offs). Once you've got that structure if short on home matches then you supplement the shortage by tweaking another competition. Mini leagues in a revamped league cup would be the most obvious way. With only one body running all competitions it's relatively easy to raise the status of the league cup.

At the moment we're only assured of 18.5 home games (one league cup tie gate split). A mini league of say 5 clubs and a 16 team league would assure 19 home games. (15 league and either 4 home or 8 split league cup matches).

 

If you're an SPL club, you no longer have 19 home league games + KO League Cup... now you get just 15 home league games + 6 games overall in a Sectional Cup where you halve gates.

[twinny]

If you're an SPL club, you no longer have 19 home league games + KO League Cup... now you get just 15 home league games + 6 games overall in a Sectional Cup where you halve gates.

 

Would St Mirren get higher gates in SPL games vs Ross County and Inverness or regional league cup section games against Thistle and other local teams?

[G SUS]

Would St Mirren get higher gates in SPL games vs Ross County and Inverness or regional league cup section games against Thistle and other local teams?

 

This season in the SPL St. Mirrens gates v ICT and R.C were 4,104 and 3,706.

Their League Cup tie against a local team(Ayr) with lower ticket prices was 2,306.

And against another local team(Hamilton) with lower ticket prices the crowd was 1,916.

 

In the beginning the gates for regional cup games would be higher, yes. But after 3-4 years with apathy of playing the same local teams constantly, it would get stale and drop down the poor gates that led to it being scrapped.

Edited November 20, 2012 by G SUS

[Eff Tee Ohh Eff]

The two words that crop up time and time again on fans forums discussing why Scottish football supporters want a change of league structure is boredom and repetition. The SPL proposal does nothing to address this complaint of the majority of fans in any way, shape or form. Unfortunately money has become the driving factor of the 12 SPL clubs voting to move this forward completely disregarding the appetite for complete structural change through the whole game. The self-preservation society strikes again and Doncaster looks set to secure his lucrative post for another few years in an organisation that is not fit for purpose. What happened to the revolution?

[Mr Bunny]

No. No. No.

 

There was a reason why the League Cup groups were ditched.

 

I'd always thought it was largely because of the formation of the premier league and all its extra games - and a check on Wiki seems to confirm this

 

 

Extra games when the Premier League was formed and expanded European competitions meant that by the early 1980s, its long-winded format, which involved group rounds played early on in the season leading to two-legged knock-out rounds similar to the modern UEFA Champions League, attracted much criticism.

 

In the mid-1980s the tournament was revamped to a shorter, single elimination knock-out style with a final played prior to Christmas, which provided the excitement of a cup final early in the season.

 

So it's not about it being that bad a format - basically it was ditched because it didn't suit the "big" clubs.

 

If we're having a complete overhaul with maybe leagues of fewer games a return to something like the old League cup format might be good. Perhaps not at the start of the season though: maybe a month or two in when a wee boost of a cup game might help some clubs (perhaps alternating with Saturday league games to prevent dead midweek games). I won't bother going beyond that, a serious proposal would need a lot more time but it shows there are options if you think about it.

 

One other thing - with us now having the Ramsden cup we have three cup finals - why not spread them throughout the year to keep a bit of interest?

Edited November 20, 2012 by Mr Bunny

[potty trained]

This season in the SPL St. Mirrens gates v ICT and R.C were 4,104 and 3,706.

Their League Cup tie against a local team(Ayr) with lower ticket prices was 2,306.

And against another local team(Hamilton) with lower ticket prices the crowd was 1,916.

 

In the beginning the gates for regional cup games would be higher, yes. But after 3-4 years with apathy of playing the same local teams constantly, it would get stale and drop down the poor gates that led to it being scrapped.

 

St Mirren have an ave home gate of 4000... On the back of that, here's the away attendance figures so far this season at NStMP.

 

Celtic 2434

Hibernian 959

Aberdeen 937

Hearts 829

Dundee Utd 573

Ayr Utd 339

Ross County 262

ICT 250

Hamilton 120

 

Similarly, here's what St Mirren have taken with them on the road:

 

Kilmarnock 979

Motherwell 729

Dundee 664

St Johnstone 540

Hibernian 416

Aberdeen 260

Edited November 20, 2012 by potty trained

[G SUS]

St Mirren have an ave home gate of 4000... On the back of that, here's the away attendance figures so far this season at NStMP.

 

Celtic 2434

Hibernian 959

Aberdeen 937

Hearts 829

Dundee Utd 573

Ayr Utd 339

Ross County 262

ICT 250

Hamilton 120

 

Similarly, here's what St Mirren have taken with them on the road:

 

Kilmarnock 979

Motherwell 729

Dundee 664

St Johnstone 540

Hibernian 416

Aberdeen 260

 

Which proves my point. They come out more for league games than cup games. It wouldn't do anything to improve the lack of cash, given the gates are split.

[G SUS]

I'd always thought it was largely because of the formation of the premier league and all its extra games - and a check on Wiki seems to confirm this

 

 

 

 

So it's not about it being that bad a format - basically it was ditched because it didn't suit the "big" clubs.

 

If we're having a complete overhaul with maybe leagues of fewer games a return to something like the old League cup format might be good. Perhaps not at the start of the season though: maybe a month or two in when a wee boost of a cup game might help some clubs (perhaps alternating with Saturday league games to prevent dead midweek games). I won't bother going beyond that, a serious proposal would need a lot more time but it shows there are options if you think about it.

 

One other thing - with us now having the Ramsden cup we have three cup finals - why not spread them throughout the year to keep a bit of interest?

 

If you have to change a cup format to suit a change in league structure then it shows the league structure to be fundamentally flawed. What happens when interest wanes off, which it would if we were keeping it "local" games. Do we change the league structure every 5 years then?

 

I agree with the moving of the LC final being ludicrous. It was better at the end of November.

[Lenziejag2]

It seems to me that: either (1) we keep it simple and accommodate the existing 42 clubs in 3 divisions of 14 (certainly 2 up/2 down) playing each other once home and away with some form of promotion/relegation split thereafter to "top up" the number of fixtures; or (2) we go for a more root-and-branch overhaul with 2 divisions of 18 (again 2 up/ 2 down, plus play-offs) [this would also meet UEFA's 34-fixture requirement], with a feeder pyramid structure beneath them. In any event, we need to reduce the three organising bodies to two. We should have the SFA as the governing/law-making body and the SFL as the league management body. The SPL needs to be scrapped!

[G SUS]

It seems to me that: either (1) we keep it simple and accommodate the existing 42 clubs in 3 divisions of 14 (certainly 2 up/2 down) playing each other once home and away with some form of promotion/relegation split thereafter to "top up" the number of fixtures; or (2) we go for a more root-and-branch overhaul with 2 divisions of 18 (again 2 up/ 2 down, plus play-offs) [this would also meet UEFA's 34-fixture requirement], with a feeder pyramid structure beneath them. In any event, we need to reduce the three organising bodies to two. We should have the SFA as the governing/law-making body and the SFL as the league management body. The SPL needs to be scrapped!

 

Two points.

 

1. When you say playoffs what do you mean? My objection to a league the size of 18 is that by February there will be a fair few clubs with nothing to play for, being too high up to be threatened by relegation and too low to push for promotion.

 

2. There is no UEFA "34 game" rule. Unless Sweden, Croatia and Portugal(three who instantly spring to mind) aren't part of UEFA...

[mgow]

UEFA "34 game" rule – my understanding was that, for a number of years now, UEFA was trying to persuade all its member countries so have a top league of 18 (hence 34 league matches). I always understood that 34 league games was seen as the maximum, not a minimum or set number.

 

The primary driver was to free up more slots for expanded European competitions. With the advent of the Europa league and now more Champions’ League groups, you could argue they have already got their expansion anyway.

 

Given that only 1 of the 5 major leagues conform (Germany 34 games); the other 4 all play 38 games (Italy, Spain, France & England). This suggests to me that this potential constraint is broadly irrelevant to any proposed restructure here in Scotland.

[mgow]

On the actual SPL proposal of 12+12, I would be wary of anything that puts more power (in the form of more member clubs) to that shower (while accepting that the other 2 bodies aren’t very good either).

 

For those in the middle 8 post the split: you are throwing away 22 games and bring promotion / relegation down to a 14 game sprint. Potential “meaningless games” are a factor of any league. While it is less likely to occur in the final 14 games (but if you lose your first 4 or 5 it might), I think we are equally as likely to get meaningless games within the 22 played in any new SPL2. As an example, take a look at the points gathered in the current SFL1 after 12 games (top 6): 26, 26, 22, 19, 19, 13. Ignoring the teams involved and looking just at the numbers, with 10 games until the split, I would reckon that probably only 5 teams have a realistic chance of a top 4 finish. The top 2 would look near certainties, so you have 3 teams playing for 2 spots and a whole host of near-meaningless games. Also, the prospect of gradually building a team to win the 2^nd top league and then using a that momentum to consolidate in the top league would be gone at a stroke. Instead, most of these “middle team”, which Thistle are most likely to end up, would spend most seasons in this group with no real ability to plan for a full season at a time. As a Thistle supporter, the reality of playing in the top league is one of numerous defeats and unjustifiable expense. However, it is exactly where I want us to be (judging by our house, even little things like the lack of a sticker collection outside of the SPL makes the fight against the OF harder). While the current set up of only 1 up is laughable, this proposal has gone too far the other way and actually makes wining promotion less special.

 

For those in the bottom 8 post the split: you do have the advantage I presume that points from the first 22 games can be carried over. That reduces the risk of meaningless games early on in the campaign, but unless your are planning to relegate 4 of the 8 (where to?), there quickly becomes little to play for once a couple of teams start to get detached at the bottom. No one would be fooled by the prospect of winning a trophy for effectively being the 5^th best team in your league.

 

In terms of the detail, what happens to the remaining 18 clubs in the SFL?

 

Overall, the SPL idea is all about preserving the notion that the top teams need to play each other 4 times to survive. However much razzmatazz or frippery they dress up the rest, these extended play-offs will only really work for the top 8.

[jagfox]

From post on p&b:

 

David Longmuir, Chief Executive of the Scottish Football League, is to present the SFL's league reconstruction proposals to Scottish football fans at two Supporters Direct Scotland (SDS) events.

 

 

 

The proposals, which were recently approved by the 30 SFL clubs, will be presented and discussed at the SDS Annual Conference (25th November) and at an event in Glasgow (26th November) both as part of the SDS 'Fans Parliament' initiative.

 

 

 

The Glasgow roadshow event in The Arches Theatre will also feature an illustrious panel of Tom Boyd, Pat Nevin and Gordon Smith. The event begins at 6pm and is open to all fans. Anyone wishing to attend are urged to register in advance by email to ‘[email protected] ’ with a note of the person attending’s name and date of birth. Entry is free. Full details of all events can be found at www.scottishfans.org.

 

 

 

David Longmuir said, “It has taken quite a bit of time to get our plan for a dynamic and simple change to Scottish Football in front of our clubs. I am delighted they have approved it and I now look forward to sharing the vision behind it with the fans at these two unique events."

 

 

 

The Annual Fans Conference is being held at the Falkirk Stadium on Sunday 25th November (9:30am start) and the full agenda is available by visiting www.scottishfans.org. The conference is open to all fans and tickets can be booked at a cost of £10 by visiting http://www.eventbrit...vent/4726622455 .

 

 

 

 

All fans are urged to come and have their say on the future of the game in Scotland.

 

 

[Lenziejag2]

I am grateful to fellow Jags fans for having responded swiftly to my earlier comments. Clearly, the "UEFA 34-game rule" is a non-event, and equally clearly 18-team divisions risk a goodly number of meaningless games later in any season. I am happy to revert to my 3 x 14 arrangement, with 2 up/2 down, 26 games on a home-and-away basis, plus some form of promotion/relegation split thereafter. Whatever the outcome, we really must get rid of the SPL layer of administration, and let the SFA + SFL get on with the job. Would be interested to hear how forum members would handle the split arrangements after the statutory 26 games. My ST book has 30 ticket stubs (thereby implying up to that number of potential league matches), so I would suggest that there is no obligation to go for a post-split further set of home-and-away matches, but just a fixed additional number. How about six? That would suit a straightforward 7/7 split, with no debate on who would have to play the greater number of home or away fixtures.

[yoda-jag]

The 12/12 then have a split just over halfway through season, is sheer stupidity and will lead to more longterm problems than solutions, and is yet another hamfisted attempt to pander to the bigotbrothers and the deluded view that without 4 Bigotfests a season, Scottish Football will die. The 12/12/split proposal and the Scottish Football will die without 4 Bigotfests a season stuck record argument is pathetic and until scottish Football as a whole realises this, we will get nowhere.

 

 

I accept that I'm no more than an old nostalgic, but give me the two divisions of 18, with a simple 34 games per team per season. Add to that two automatic promotions from the second tier (and two relegated, of course), plus a play off between 3rd top and 3rd bottom for the third promotion / relegation spot. Simples.

 

Maybe supplement that with a form of pyramid resulting in promotion to and relegation from the second tier. Ultimately, though, we'd have to reduce the overall number of teams from the present ridiculous 42 teams to 38. Furthermore, we have to bite the bullet and accept that the '4 OF league games a season' (if / when sevco make it back to base camp) malarkey must be consigned to the dustbin. If the resultant loss of Sky money means one or two casualties, then we'll simply get to the desired 38 team set-up that bit sooner.

 

The restoration of variety in the fixtures would see the return of at least some of the fans lost to the game since the OF became the chattels of Sky and the rest of Scottish football a tedious sideshow.

 

100% nail on head.

 

 

Two leagues of 16, play each other twice. Whack a group stage at the start of the League Cup to give teams some more games (localise it too) to give all teams a few extra games to mitigate the loss of three home league games. 2 down, 2 up, playoffs for third bottom, third, fourth and fifth - with a one-legged final at a suitable neutral venue. Simple as ****.

 

Below that you can have North and Central leagues - whatever setup you want, winner of both gets promoted and the two bottom teams in the First Division get relegated. Again, simple as ****.

 

Stop all this complicated bullshit.

 

Don't agree it should be 16, i advocate 2 leagues of 18, but am in full agreement for League Cup to revert to (regionalised) group stages, playing home and away - split them into groups of 10 teams (3 from top league, 3 from new 2nd tier, 2 from each of the 2 Regionalised leagues), and draw from each group of 10, two mini-leagues of 5 each season (thus ensuring its NOT the same 4 teams each season, but still maintains local derbies). Top 2 from each mini-league (14 in total), and 4 best 3rd placed teams, then play simple knockout rounds to final.

 

 

For those in the middle 8 post the split: you are throwing away 22 games and bring promotion / relegation down to a 14 game sprint. Potential “meaningless games” are a factor of any league. While it is less likely to occur in the final 14 games (but if you lose your first 4 or 5 it might), I think we are equally as likely to get meaningless games within the 22 played in any new SPL2. As an example, take a look at the points gathered in the current SFL1 after 12 games (top 6): 26, 26, 22, 19, 19, 13. Ignoring the teams involved and looking just at the numbers, with 10 games until the split, I would reckon that probably only 5 teams have a realistic chance of a top 4 finish. The top 2 would look near certainties, so you have 3 teams playing for 2 spots and a whole host of near-meaningless games. Also, the prospect of gradually building a team to win the 2^nd top league and then using a that momentum to consolidate in the top league would be gone at a stroke. Instead, most of these “middle team”, which Thistle are most likely to end up, would spend most seasons in this group with no real ability to plan for a full season at a time. As a Thistle supporter, the reality of playing in the top league is one of numerous defeats and unjustifiable expense. However, it is exactly where I want us to be (judging by our house, even little things like the lack of a sticker collection outside of the SPL makes the fight against the OF harder). While the current set up of only 1 up is laughable, this proposal has gone too far the other way and actually makes wining promotion less special.

 

For those in the bottom 8 post the split: you do have the advantage I presume that points from the first 22 games can be carried over. That reduces the risk of meaningless games early on in the campaign, but unless your are planning to relegate 4 of the 8 (where to?), there quickly becomes little to play for once a couple of teams start to get detached at the bottom. No one would be fooled by the prospect of winning a trophy for effectively being the 5^th best team in your league.

 

In terms of the detail, what happens to the remaining 18 clubs in the SFL?

 

Overall, the SPL idea is all about preserving the notion that the top teams need to play each other 4 times to survive. However much razzmatazz or frippery they dress up the rest, these extended play-offs will only really work for the top 8.

 

As i said at the start of my post, the 12/12, then split proposal is sheer stupidity and will lead to more longterm problems than solutions. The emblodened part in mgow's post is one of the longterm problems i foresee. Teams who start in the top league will have players on (mostly) season long contracts, equivalent to SPL wages, while teams in the 2nd tier who are wanting to be involved in the split league will probably be forced to push the boat out and pay salaries and season long contracts that are above average income for current SFL1 wages, to try ensure they are in the split league - and if they fail to get 'promotion' to the top league by finishing in the top half of the split league, they are back in the 2nd tier, having outlaid a higher wages cost, and quite possibly have had a worse income in gates than anticipated, thus increasing their debt. A potentially worse scenario would be for 2nd tier teams to increase their wage bill at start of season, aim for top 4 pre-split, and find themselves outside the top 4, and consigned to remainder of season playing in what would become 3rd tier for remainder of season, and even lower gates = an eve greater loss for the season. Either o both of these possibilities for teams in 2nd tier, repeated over a few seasons, could see clubs get deeper in debt, chasing and failing to get into the Top Tier, as well as failure to be in Top 8 by split, could be financially catastrophic for many. Clubs have a hard enough time budgetting for a full season, without the risk of higher wages and lower crowds in a league 5 months into a season.

 

As for the italiced part - i would very much doubt points from first 22 games would be carried forward - that would skew the league from outset and mean bottom 4 from top tier could be severely disadvantaged before a ball is kicked - i would presume the 12/12/split proposal would see the split league (middle tier only) would start from 0 points each - otherwise some teams could be relegated before a ball is kicked (22 games played, 14 to go, its quite arithmetically possible if mgow's assumption is correct!).

 

 

I repeat .... 18/18, then 2 regionalised leagues, with League Cup revamped to have mini-leagues of 5, is only way to go, the only thing that would save the continuing decline of Scottish Football and the increasing financial Black Hole that already exists and that will worsen if this 12/12/split pish is implemented.

[Mediocre Pundit]

I think 18/18 is too much (especially given how few full time teams we have in this country) and would stick with my 16/16 thought from earlier.

 

In terms of League Cup, yes, have eight groups of five teams - the teams from the two leagues of 16 plus the four best from North and Central Regional leagues. Play each team home and away throughout first half of season (up until Christmas) on a mixture of mid-week and Saturdays (as some Saturdays will be free due to less league games) and that way each team will get four more home games guaranteed with no need for split gates. They can put them on the season ticket too if they want which will also help with crowds. Top two teams go through to the knockout stages. Yes, some games will have crap crowds, but I'd imagine the ones that are vital to qualifying from a group will get a good turnout which could make up for it. After Christmas it can be quarters, semis and a final.

[MWM]

16 team SPL will kill the second tier.

[twinny]

I think 18/18 is too much (especially given how few full time teams we have in this country) and would stick with my 16/16 thought from earlier.

 

In terms of League Cup, yes, have eight groups of five teams - the teams from the two leagues of 16 plus the four best from North and Central Regional leagues. Play each team home and away throughout first half of season (up until Christmas) on a mixture of mid-week and Saturdays (as some Saturdays will be free due to less league games) and that way each team will get four more home games guaranteed with no need for split gates. They can put them on the season ticket too if they want which will also help with crowds. Top two teams go through to the knockout stages. Yes, some games will have crap crowds, but I'd imagine the ones that are vital to qualifying from a group will get a good turnout which could make up for it. After Christmas it can be quarters, semis and a final.

 

Whilst I like that, including only the top four from regional leagues and playing league cup games on Saturdays will fck up that regional league a little bit. That doesn't mean it isn't a good idea, just picking apart minor details. It might also make it more difficult for those with a shout at promotion to the national leagues to put together consistent runs and could distract them from the league.

[Duck snort]

I wish Doncaster would stop going about avoiding meaningless games. It's a total red herring. When was the last time you heard anyone complaining about meaningless games in England, Spain, Germany or Italy?

 

When are the SPL going to get it through their heads that fans are sick to death of seeing their team play the same opposition 4 times a season? They need to stop pandering to those that insist on 4 Old Firm games a season or we're never going to move forward.

[twinny]

I wish Doncaster would stop going about avoiding meaningless games. It's a total red herring. When was the last time you heard anyone complaining about meaningless games in England, Spain, Germany or Italy?

 

When are the SPL going to get it through their heads that fans are sick to death of seeing their team play the same opposition 4 times a season? They need to stop pandering to those that insist on 4 Old Firm games a season or we're never going to move forward.

 

This is it. When there are fewer teams in one league, you usually have the same range in points (the difference between the top point scorer and the bottom) as you would see in a bigger league. The SPL and Premiership tend to be skewed, but the range in last years First Division was 47, and in the Championship it was 43 after 36 games. Bearing this in mind there should be more teams within touching distance of the top teams and promotion spots in a larger league and more at risk of relegation.

[mgow]

As for the italiced part - i would very much doubt points from first 22 games would be carried forward - that would skew the league from outset and mean bottom 4 from top tier could be severely disadvantaged before a ball is kicked - i would presume the 12/12/split proposal would see the split league (middle tier only) would start from 0 points each - otherwise some teams could be relegated before a ball is kicked (22 games played, 14 to go, its quite arithmetically possible if mgow's assumption is correct!)..

 

For clarity, I was only suggesting that points could be carried forward for the Top 8 of 24 (teams 1 to 8 in SPL 1) and also the Bottom 8 of 24 (5 to 12 in SPL2) as their seasons will consist of playing the same teams as eachother all season (7 teams 4 times and 4 teams twice). The Middle 8 of 24 (teams 9 to 12 in SPL1 and teams 1 to 4 in SPL2) would of course have to start the post-split on 0 points.

 

A minor point against this proposal considering all its other flaws.

[Duck snort]

The Middle 8 of 24 (teams 9 to 12 in SPL1 and teams 1 to 4 in SPL2) would of course have to start the post-split on 0 points.

 

A minor point against this proposal considering all its other flaws.

 

This is a major point for me. The team that finishes top of the 2nd tier could be 20 points ahead of the team in 4th after 22 games, but when the 8 team league starts they're suddenly level again for the final 14 games. Ridiculous.

[twinny]

This is a major point for me. The team that finishes top of the 2nd tier could be 20 points ahead of the team in 4th after 22 games, but when the 8 team league starts they're suddenly level again for the final 14 games. Ridiculous.

 

It seems that's not 100% accurate, though the source of this picture is some guy on P&B. I don't know if that is the SPL's proposal for the points in the middle eight or just the guy who seems to have created it.