Mr Scruff Posted January 9, 2013 Report Share Posted January 9, 2013 How does it add interest in the first part of the season ? At the start of the season: - In the top 12 they're playing a. for points to win the league and European spots (the points don't get zeroed after 22 games) and b. to avoid being in the bottom 4. Every game would count. - In the bottom 12 they're playing a. to be in the top 4 and b. to avoid having a poor start sufficient to make relegation at the end of 36 games a possitibility (the bottom 8's league results aren't zeroed either). So a lot to play for. If we're safely in the top 4 at this stage then having the potential to build for a real push in the second half of the season (with 4 spots available for the top spot) is yet another advantage. But it would keep competition for those spots high rather than just a couple for the end of the season. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redandyellowallover Posted January 9, 2013 Report Share Posted January 9, 2013 Only the SPL could come up with an idea whereby it's a distinct possibility that there would be no relegation from the top tier. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crazy davie Posted January 9, 2013 Report Share Posted January 9, 2013 Sevco are against it, so I'm all for it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twinny Posted January 9, 2013 Report Share Posted January 9, 2013 Exactly, in the SPL in the bottom 6 teams, only one has played their 22 out of 22 games... County have 2 games to play to get up to speed! In the first, look at Livingston, who already have 3 games in hand... games that could move them into the top 4 and have them sitting in a top 4 split position. and thats before we even hit the bad weather period! And both the SPLs A and B would need to finish at the same time so that the SPLs 1, 2 and 3 can begin - however the lower 12 will most likely be involved in cups in earlier rounds that leads to the position we are in now where the SPL has played four or five odd games more than the SFL. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G SUS Posted January 9, 2013 Report Share Posted January 9, 2013 These new proposals are stupid. The fact we, as fans, have been given such vague reasoning shows how much they value our opinion. The top 18 idea was also, in my opinion, stupid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twinny Posted January 9, 2013 Report Share Posted January 9, 2013 These new proposals are stupid. The fact we, as fans, have been given such vague reasoning shows how much they value our opinion. The top 18 idea was also, in my opinion, stupid. It was 16 wasn't it, and if it is one or the other though? There might not be 'enough quality' for 18 teams, however a top 16 would include the current top 12, us Morton and Dunfermline and whoever finishes top of the rest. These three teams would at least match whats on offer from Dundee, Ross County, St Mirren, et. al. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G SUS Posted January 9, 2013 Report Share Posted January 9, 2013 (edited) It was 16 wasn't it, and if it is one or the other though? There might not be 'enough quality' for 18 teams, however a top 16 would include the current top 12, us Morton and Dunfermline and whoever finishes top of the rest. These three teams would at least match whats on offer from Dundee, Ross County, St Mirren, et. al. I meant the top 18 idea that other supporter have suggested(flipping the current proposals). The bottom league of 18 will destroy teams(from the current proposals). I, personally, favour 3 divisions of 14. Top 6 bottom 8 split. 3 down, 3 up. Slip in playoffs for the lower division. I'd keep the status quo, ahead of this "12-12" "8-8-8" split scenario, with a second relegation place added to the SPL. Edited January 9, 2013 by G SUS Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vladimir Putin Posted January 9, 2013 Report Share Posted January 9, 2013 It was 16 wasn't it, and if it is one or the other though? There might not be 'enough quality' for 18 teams, however a top 16 would include the current top 12, us Morton and Dunfermline and whoever finishes top of the rest. These three teams would at least match whats on offer from Dundee, Ross County, St Mirren, et. al. Not necessarily. Dundee are out of their depth this season and haven't been able to match St Mirren et. al. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
potty trained Posted January 9, 2013 Report Share Posted January 9, 2013 Not necessarily. Dundee are out of their depth this season and haven't been able to match St Mirren et. al. out of context thats because they got in at the last minute after spending a pre season budgeting for first division survival, never mind SPL survival! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weebaldie Posted January 9, 2013 Report Share Posted January 9, 2013 The magic number in this proposal is 8, the number of post-split top tier berths to potentially accomodate the Gruesome Twosome (maybe as soon as next season?) plus the 'Sleazy Six', the cabal that is Aberdeen, Dundee U, Hearts, Hibs, Motherwell and Kilmarnock, who have ducked and dived through relegation avoidance, financial mis-management, ground criteria and ground sharing rule changes (using PTFC as a patsy), and of course overturning a democratic vote that should have kept us in the SPL in 2004. They may have to work a bit harder to achieve finishing 3rd to 8th before the split, but it's all about the opportunity for all six of them to have 4 home games a season against Glasgow's two newest professional football teams (founded 1888 and 2012!). All other clubs are considered make-weights by the above 2+6. In case anyone's forgotten, interesting reminder of the SPL ground criteria & sharing debacle from a Caley website:- http://caleyjags.com/s/s.htm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vladimir Putin Posted January 9, 2013 Report Share Posted January 9, 2013 out of context thats because they got in at the last minute after spending a pre season budgeting for first division survival, never mind SPL survival! No, the post said that Thistle, Morton and Dunfermline (two of whom will still be in the First next year) would at least match St Mirren et. al, and I don't think that's necessarily true. Dundee were the second best First Division team and last year and can't do it now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
potty trained Posted January 9, 2013 Report Share Posted January 9, 2013 No, the post said that Thistle, Morton and Dunfermline (two of whom will still be in the First next year) would at least match St Mirren et. al, and I don't think that's necessarily true. Dundee were the second best First Division team and last year and can't do it now. and the reason they can't do it is because they spent 90% of the close season preparing a budget and working in the transfer market building a squad that would survive in the first division against first division teams. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twinny Posted January 9, 2013 Report Share Posted January 9, 2013 I meant the top 18 idea that other supporter have suggested(flipping the current proposals). The bottom league of 18 will destroy teams(from the current proposals). Why will it destroy these teams? The teams at the top end of that league will be competing for promotion to the second tier as they are now and the teams at the bottom end will be happily plodding along as they do now. out of context thats because they got in at the last minute after spending a pre season budgeting for first division survival, never mind SPL survival! This. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juan Kerr Posted January 9, 2013 Report Share Posted January 9, 2013 Sevco are against it, so I'm all for it. Since hearing that the abomination think's the idea is an abomination, I've begun to warm to it myself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juan Kerr Posted January 9, 2013 Report Share Posted January 9, 2013 Not necessarily. Dundee are out of their depth this season and haven't been able to match St Mirren et. al. That's all part of the SPL plan. For years teams there have only needed to be slightly better than one awful team each season to keep on the gravy train (gravy train of course being a relative term). Within a couple of seasons of the start of a 16 or 18 team league, with proper promotion/relegation in place, you'd very quickly see a levelling of the quality in the bottom half of the top league IMO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vladimir Putin Posted January 9, 2013 Report Share Posted January 9, 2013 and the reason they can't do it is because they spent 90% of the close season preparing a budget and working in the transfer market building a squad that would survive in the first division against first division teams. They already had a squad that was the second best in the First Division the previous year, and it hasn't been good enough to compete against the worst SPL teams, which is what they would have had to do under the system being proposed, which involves the best of the First competing against the worst of the SPL. And as for Thistle and Morton, how many years have they spend combined in the top league in the past 30 years? Juan Kerr might be right and they would adjust in the long term, but I don't think there's any basis for assuming they would 'at least' be as good as St Mirren etc in the short term. On the other thread there is a discussion involving the Thistle squad being dismantled regardless of whether we go up or not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G SUS Posted January 9, 2013 Report Share Posted January 9, 2013 Why will it destroy these teams? The teams at the top end of that league will be competing for promotion to the second tier as they are now and the teams at the bottom end will be happily plodding along as they do now. With no relegation and only one guarenteed promotion slot(as suggested on the Radio last night, not sure if 100% true), then that'd be at least 16 teams who are playing each other over and over again. There would, of course, be years where two teams will go up and new ones will replace them, but the liklihood, in my opinion, is that the better teams in SFL2(currently) would be the only ones in a position to challenge. For teams like Clyde and Stirling Albion they wouldnt be able to financially challenge the top end of the league, fans would drift away(I know they are already), and there would be apathy amongst teams who have no chance of going for the title, with no relegation threat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twinny Posted January 9, 2013 Report Share Posted January 9, 2013 With no relegation and only one guarenteed promotion slot(as suggested on the Radio last night, not sure if 100% true), then that'd be at least 16 teams who are playing each other over and over again. There would, of course, be years where two teams will go up and new ones will replace them, but the liklihood, in my opinion, is that the better teams in SFL2(currently) would be the only ones in a position to challenge. For teams like Clyde and Stirling Albion they wouldnt be able to financially challenge the top end of the league, fans would drift away(I know they are already), and there would be apathy amongst teams who have no chance of going for the title, with no relegation threat. I know little about the promotion relegation plans for below SPL3, but I'd hope there would be at least two automatic spots coming up from the 18 team league plus a play off of some sort. I suppose it is still all about preservation than ambition so it probably is just one spot. Also, was there not talk of introducing a pyramid structure too, has that been thrown out too? Just to be clear, I'm not in favour of the proposal. I think there are ways that some of it could be made to work though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norgethistle Posted January 9, 2013 Report Share Posted January 9, 2013 Why will it destroy these teams? Well from January when the split happens after 8 teams have zero to play for, they can't even influence promotion Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrD Posted January 9, 2013 Report Share Posted January 9, 2013 (edited) Good to see charles greene stating that rangers will seek to leave scottish football if such proposals go through. I guess in this case as they are bottom tier, they may be in a state more conducive to moving down to the lower tiers of english football. Would be good if they done that and set a precedent for other forward thinking clubs to do the same. I'd be hoping that we would be of such a set of clubs. In greene we trust... Edited January 9, 2013 by mrD Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Milo Posted January 9, 2013 Report Share Posted January 9, 2013 Sevco are against it, so I'm all for it. Apparently "the Rangers" intend to pull out of Scottish football completely if these proposals go ahead. Hmmmmmm! It really puts you in a bit of a quandary, doesn't it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G SUS Posted January 9, 2013 Report Share Posted January 9, 2013 Rangers are just making loud noises because they don't get a vote. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stillresigned Posted January 9, 2013 Report Share Posted January 9, 2013 As usual, those who administer football in this country have made a dog's breakfast of both coming uo with this so-called revollution.. With their usual firm grasp of PR messrswith Doncaster and Reagan have managed to once again put football supporters backs up, into the bargain. To be honest experience has taught me to expect very little and to accept any positive outcomes as a happy bonus. Unlike the Rangers issue during the summer it is not a relatively straightforward point of principle. Quite frankly despite my own prediliction for a sixteen team top tier, I do not see it as a reason for stopping going to games. As for Charlie Boy, I'm afraid Green's statement is meant for the ears of the more unreflecting members of his own support. Presumably those who still encounter difficulty with the concept that the earth is not quite flat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scotty Posted January 9, 2013 Report Share Posted January 9, 2013 I'm no good at the maths in these things but if the standard bearers for the 12-12-18 system really want it to be exciting, then why don't the divisions each play one another home and away, then the top six can play each other a couple of times with European places at stake so they all start again at zero points. The next six and the top six from the next two divisions play each other home and away with four promotion and relegation places and the bottom twelve play for their share of the league money? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twinny Posted January 9, 2013 Report Share Posted January 9, 2013 Well from January when the split happens after 8 teams have zero to play for, they can't even influence promotion My post that you quoted is talking about the 18 team league below that. 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.