Norman Posted January 22, 2013 Report Share Posted January 22, 2013 Dundee United captain Jon Daly is not enthused about the proposals to reform Scottish football. Teams in the top two leagues of 12 would play each other twice, then the leagues would split into three sections of eight for a further 14 matches. "I don't know whether I'm a fan of the eight-eight-eight split," said Daly. "I don't feel it gives you a good crack of the whip. If you have a poor start to the season you can find yourself fighting relegation." BBC Link So teams that currently play poorly in their first 22 games of the season and find themselves in the bottom four have no threat of relegation whatsoever? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G SUS Posted January 23, 2013 Report Share Posted January 23, 2013 So teams that currently play poorly in their first 22 games of the season and find themselves in the bottom four have no threat of relegation whatsoever? The team in 9th has DOUBLE the points of the team in 12th currently. I'd say they are safe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twinny Posted January 23, 2013 Report Share Posted January 23, 2013 The team in 9th has DOUBLE the points of the team in 12th currently. I'd say they are safe. In other years you'd have a much closer to normal distribution of points. Dundee are a massive outlier and their position is explainable by the fast-track promotion due to the situation on the south side. I'm sure there have been seasons that the team in 9th have still had to fight relegation with four/five games to go (but I doubt they have ever been relegated and can't be bothered looking at the stats). If a team finishes 9th in the proposed top league, they should easily finish top half in the clausura. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simoncordiner Posted January 23, 2013 Report Share Posted January 23, 2013 They should award some points based on your position in the league before the split. There should to be an incentive to be top of the pile of four. Something like: SPL 9th = 3 pts SPL 10th = 2pts SPL 11th = 1 pt SPL 12th = 0 pts First div 1st = 3 pts First div 2nd = 2 pts First div 3rd = 1 pt First div 4th = 0 pts Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lady-isobel-barnett Posted January 23, 2013 Report Share Posted January 23, 2013 (edited) Two points. Sevco excluded you very rarely hear 3rd Div clubs banging on about reconstruction. It's fair to conclude they're happy with the status quo. With no relegation from the 3rd a league of 10 clubs is about the right size. Also these leagues of 12-12-18, 14-14-14 or whatever all start off on the basis that the ugly sisters play each other 4 times a season. If that's got to be it still shouldn't mean every other club has got to play each other 3 or 4 times. So what would be so wrong with a 14-18-10 set up? That of course is on the presumption that there's an automatic two up two down promotion/relegation and play offs (probably 3rd bottom in with 3rd, 4th & 5th). Despite its numbers I wouldn't envisage many clubs in the middle league having many meaningless games. Edited January 23, 2013 by lady-isobel-barnett Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G SUS Posted January 24, 2013 Report Share Posted January 24, 2013 In other years you'd have a much closer to normal distribution of points. Dundee are a massive outlier and their position is explainable by the fast-track promotion due to the situation on the south side. I'm sure there have been seasons that the team in 9th have still had to fight relegation with four/five games to go (but I doubt they have ever been relegated and can't be bothered looking at the stats). If a team finishes 9th in the proposed top league, they should easily finish top half in the clausura. There was an 11 point gap(albeit bottom had 2 games in hand) after 22 games last year. The gap has only got bigger by 2 points this season. I'd still say they were, relatively, safe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jagfox Posted January 28, 2013 Report Share Posted January 28, 2013 SPL agree to 12-12-18 at meeting today. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guy Incognito Posted January 28, 2013 Report Share Posted January 28, 2013 SPL agree to 12-12-18 at meeting today. I think it was inevitable as soon as it was proposed. Ach well, let's just hope that the splits liven things up a bit - personally, I hae ma doubts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twinny Posted January 28, 2013 Report Share Posted January 28, 2013 Oh dear. Though I guess the league structure is secondary to the distribution of money, which many of us have been ignoring because of the ridiculous structure proposed. Is the 12-12-18 proposed from next season or from the following season? Has there been any indication of the actual split of prizemoney/sponsorship? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lenziejag Posted January 28, 2013 Report Share Posted January 28, 2013 What happened to Dundee Utd and others objections from last week ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yoda-jag Posted January 28, 2013 Report Share Posted January 28, 2013 Oh dear. Though I guess the league structure is secondary to the distribution of money, which many of us have been ignoring because of the ridiculous structure proposed. Is the 12-12-18 proposed from next season or from the following season? Has there been any indication of the actual split of prizemoney/sponsorship? The plans will be put in place for next season if ratified by Scottish Football League clubs at a meeting on Thursday. What happened to Dundee Utd and others objections from last week ? They've got rid of Houston and getting Jackie (and no doubt, half our team by next season), so feel secure they will challenge for title next season, instead of doing their best to avoid being in bottom 4. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twinny Posted January 28, 2013 Report Share Posted January 28, 2013 The plans will be put in place for next season if ratified by Scottish Football League clubs at a meeting on Thursday. But does that mean the 12-12-18 will be in place or just that the model will be ready for teams to be promoted/relegated to the correct leagues within the new set up for the following season? It's pretty late on (over 20 games into this season) for clubs in divisions 2 and 3 not to have any idea whether final league position will mean anything at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jagfox Posted January 28, 2013 Report Share Posted January 28, 2013 The talk has been for the changes to start from the outset of next season, hence the wailing and gnashing of teeth from over Govan way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buchanio Posted January 28, 2013 Report Share Posted January 28, 2013 12 12 18 was always going to go through with the self preserving top tier. Lets see how the Sfl will vote. 17 sfl teams will be delighted with the assurred revenue the ugly sister will bring to the bottom tier. in my view its been planned and statiscally worked through to be a stitch up...! 14 14 14 was never given a chance as that would have diluted the revenues of the top 12 and added brown stains to the underpants of the the bottom shite of the spl. The bottom 4 clubs in the Spl will fancy their chances against the top 4 of sfl1 and there could possibly mean no promotion each year. Progress or what...? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yoda-jag Posted January 28, 2013 Report Share Posted January 28, 2013 The plans will be put in place for next season if ratified by Scottish Football League clubs at a meeting on Thursday. But does that mean the 12-12-18 will be in place or just that the model will be ready for teams to be promoted/relegated to the correct leagues within the new set up for the following season? It's pretty late on (over 20 games into this season) for clubs in divisions 2 and 3 not to have any idea whether final league position will mean anything at all. 12-12-18 in place for season 2013//14. Add in stupid splits and making a nonsense of the scottish game, and this could be the end of the end for scottish football for me. As buchanio alludes to , progress or what....? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lady-isobel-barnett Posted January 28, 2013 Report Share Posted January 28, 2013 Sadly in reality the SFL will be voting to amalgamate the SPL & SFL or to retain the status quo. The pitfalls of this stupid league set up will be secondary. The only way I can see the SFL voting against would be if the SPL offer requires that proposed league structure to be in place for a lengthy number of seasons. If as I presume it's a case of take it or leave it then I imagine full time SFL clubs will accept 12-12-18 under the knowledge that they can scrap it soon than later. Totally crazy business. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twinny Posted January 28, 2013 Report Share Posted January 28, 2013 The bottom 4 clubs in the Spl will fancy their chances against the top 4 of sfl1 and there could possibly mean no promotion each year. I know I'm selective quoting, but I don't think this is a major issue. Some years might see no difference, some years might see three or four new teams enter the league. I'm sure that the current top three in div1 would end up in the SPL1 the following season if this structure was in place now. Looking at Wikipedia, the Austrian set up never resulted in no teams being promoted (finishing positions of promoted second league teams in brackets): 1992-93: One team promoted (4) 1991-92: Three teams promoted (2,3,4) 1990-91: One team promoted (1) 1989-90: One team promoted (4) 1988-89: Two teams promoted (3,4) 1987-88: Two teams promoted (3,4) 1986-87: One team promoted (1) 1985-86: Three teams promoted (1,2,3) I'd say if this is the result, the promotion/relegation is better than what we currently have. Even if there was one year in four where no team was promoted. Whilst I don't think this is the best system, I think it is worth trying for a few years then re-evaluating it. Constant reorganisation can hurt the league by destroying whatever brand it has, or it can inject interest if done properly. The problem is that we need experts agreeing on the best way forward for the national game, not bald men fighting over a comb. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G SUS Posted January 28, 2013 Report Share Posted January 28, 2013 Looking at Wikipedia, the Austrian set up never resulted in no teams being promoted (finishing positions of promoted second league teams in brackets): It did in Switzerland though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crazy davie Posted January 28, 2013 Report Share Posted January 28, 2013 Yeehah!!!!! Sevco in the bottom tier next season!!! Thankyou God. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twinny Posted January 28, 2013 Report Share Posted January 28, 2013 It did in Switzerland though. They got rid of the set up in 2003. The seasons where no team was relegated were 1988-89, 1990-91, 1993-94 and 1994-95; every other season from 1987-88 to 2002-03 at least one team was promoted. It was a bit funny until 1992 as only the top league was national, meaning that in the second half of the season clubs from the top league involved in the playoff were playing clubs they should have had a great advantage over (two going in to each division of eight, with top two from each being promoted). I'm not saying an 8-4 split will work, all I'm saying is that lack of relegation/promotion is not the reason it won't work. Switzerland clearly didn't get rid of the system for that reason, they had promotion/relegation in the final eight seasons it was used. They (and Austria) did get rid of it for some other reason though, and I wonder if anyone from the SPL, SFL or SFA have asked them. However I fear they don't have the answer either, as they both switched to smaller leagues because they wanted more games against the big teams Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G SUS Posted January 28, 2013 Report Share Posted January 28, 2013 They got rid of the set up in 2003. The seasons where no team was relegated were 1988-89, 1990-91, 1993-94 and 1994-95; every other season from 1987-88 to 2002-03 at least one team was promoted. It still happened though. It'd be misleading to say that this system has never resulted in no relegation. They (and Austria) did get rid of it for some other reason though, they both switched to smaller leagues because they wanted more games against the big teams Bingo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twinny Posted January 28, 2013 Report Share Posted January 28, 2013 It still happened though. It'd be misleading to say that this system has never resulted in no relegation. Bingo The top eight were already getting four games against the big teams, so that's not the reason it was changed. That's the reason it wasn't changed to a 16-20 team league. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G SUS Posted January 28, 2013 Report Share Posted January 28, 2013 The top eight were already getting four games against the big teams, so that's not the reason it was changed. That's the reason it wasn't changed to a 16-20 team league. But how many times was the top 8 the same? More clubs wanted to play games against the big sides so they went back to the 10 team league. “In Austria, it didn't work. The reality was, everyone wanted four games against our two big clubs – Austria Vienna and Rapid Vienna. “When you created three leagues, only six clubs had games against those two. It created a financial disparity. Attendances were not as high when those teams weren't coming to town to play.” Source: http://sport.stv.tv/football/clubs/aberdeen/201526-spl-reconstruction-plans-identical-to-really-boring-austrian-experiment/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twinny Posted January 28, 2013 Report Share Posted January 28, 2013 But how many times was the top 8 the same? More clubs wanted to play games against the big sides so they went back to the 10 team league. [/size][/font][/color] Source: http://sport.stv.tv/...ian-experiment/ I don't see what difference having just eight teams rather than six teams playing them actually makes. Yes more teams wanted games against the big teams, but that's only part of it. The main point he made was that it was boring and teams had even more meaningless matches under that system. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G SUS Posted January 28, 2013 Report Share Posted January 28, 2013 I don't see what difference having just eight teams rather than six teams playing them actually makes. Yes more teams wanted games against the big teams, but that's only part of it. The main point he made was that it was boring and teams had even more meaningless matches under that system. It's self greed. Eight teams getting more big games consistently, than six teams(which change from season to season) getting them. The "meaningless games" only apply to the very bottom of the 8(in the top section) and the very top of the 8(in the bottom section). The rest have something to play for, dependant on relegation places. 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.