League Reconstruction

[potty trained]

 

 

The kind of breathing space we had in the last Motherwell game? You really think it would be positive to significantly increase the number of games with nothing to play for? It seems to get a lot of support, but I don't understand it. I can only see crowds dwindling if that came about.

 

Why would they dwindle?

[Mr Bunny]

The kind of breathing space we had in the last Motherwell game? You really think it would be positive to significantly increase the number of games with nothing to play for? It seems to get a lot of support, but I don't understand it. I can only see crowds dwindling if that came about.

 

At the moment none of the top clubs would want this - Doncaster came out with a 16 team league suggestion back in May and the clubs pretty much ignored him. As you say the problem is the dead middle games. What can you do? A mini-cup with a cup final for 1+2 of the middle 6? Prizes for the most goals scored? Any ideas.

 

Doncaster obviously is incapable of thinking of any plan to improve the league without forcing Rangers into the top division. Now would you put money on them getting promoted with their present squad? So he wants a bigger league. I'm not sure I'm against it long term but it's too early and they need to think of a genuine answer to the problem you raised.

[allyo]

 

 

Why would they dwindle?

 

Because people are more likely to turn up for meaningful games. You don't think it's obvious?

[potty trained]

 

 

Because people are more likely to turn up for meaningful games. You don't think it's obvious?

 

so in the current set up, you are not necessarily for us being safe, as early as possible, as crowds would drop?

 

On the flip side, having a larger league doesn't mean safety earlier and more meaningless games. We could still be in a relegation fight.

 

And to extend it further, what makes it meaningless? If we can blood youth earlier that allows them to grow and become future stars, is that meaningless?

 

If we are safe earlier and can play creative football, without fear, is that meaningless?

 

 

 

So just to confirm, if last season had been a 34 game, 18 team league, we are safe with 8 to play, resulting in Lindsay, McDaid etc all getting much needed game time, that resulted in them proving their credentials and therefore saving us searching for players this summer... You'd be against this, as those games would have been meaningless?

[allyo]

 

 

so in the current set up, you are not necessarily for us being safe, as early as possible, as crowds would drop?

 

On the flip side, having a larger league doesn't mean safety earlier and more meaningless games. We could still be in a relegation fight.

 

And to extend it further, what makes it meaningless? If we can blood youth earlier that allows them to grow and become future stars, is that meaningless?

 

If we are safe earlier and can play creative football, without fear, is that meaningless?

 

 

 

So just to confirm, if last season had been a 34 game, 18 team league, we are safe with 8 to play, resulting in Lindsay, McDaid etc all getting much needed game time, that resulted in them proving their credentials and therefore saving us searching for players this summer... You'd be against this, as those games would have been meaningless?

 

Twisty twisty.

 

I'm for us ensuring safety as early as possible because I want us to be a premier league team. That's as obvious as my statement that you get lower crowds for games with nothing at stake.

 

I don't want us to be a premier team at all costs though. You could argue that a 30 team top league would virtually guarantee premier league every season, but I assume you wouldn't argue that it's a good idea.

 

And everyone knows what I mean by meaningless. But for some reason you're pretending not to, focussing on the wording and picking holes. But more accurately you could say games with little at stake. There are very few in the current set up, because of the way the split works. In an 18 game league there could be loads.

 

And I know that giving young players a chance to play is a positive. Why should I be "against this", as you suggest? I just don't think it offsets the negatives.

Edited July 7, 2015 by allyo

[yoda-jag]

there's also the flipside or questions over whether crowds would drop or rise in an eighteen team league.

 

there is the argument that if we end up safe early, but not challenging for any euro spot or on a cup run, crowds would go down in tail end of season.

 

while that is a possible scenario, it is by no means guaranteed.

 

so if we weren't playing "meaningless games", and we're involved in some sort of battle right to end of season, the argument that crowds would stay relatively consistent (or even rise towards end of season) would be a reasonable one to make.

 

then there is the aspect of playing each team in league only twice. we already know some supporters pick and choose their games ..... both home and away. in a scenario where supporters knew they would only be able to see any given team just the once and away each season, surely that would reduce the number who say "already seen that team at home (or away), so won't bother again.". similarly, supporters won't at start of season look at fixtures and see we are playing a certain opponent in (for example) november and april, and decide "i'll go to the game in the better weather month". it will be that one game (for home and away fixtures) or not at all that season. and for away supports, i can only see it resulting in a rise of away supports, as you have the one option only. and if all clubs sort out reciprocal price arrangements for season ticket holders for example, that can only see further increases in numbers (if not revenue), which can only make for a better atmosphere at every game.

 

 

 

but, no expansion of league just to shoehorn a club that has no history of playing in the top league.

doncaster can take a running jump off a cliff.

that's not how it should work. no more pandering to the sectarian bigoted pound.

 

 

eta ..... there's also the valid argument that games in the first two thirds of the season (at least) could see an upturn in numbers attending, as they aren't "meaningless" (and for one game only option i mentioned earlier), so even if attendances tailed off near the end, that shortfall would have been cancelled out or exceeded by higher crowds august to march at least.

Edited July 7, 2015 by yoda-jag

[allyo]

I'm interested in the argument about playing teams too often. It gets brought up a lot, and it does seem that it has some influence on people. But personally, when going along to Firhill, I couldn't care less who the opposition is. I hardly even watch them. So it doesn't work for me.

 

And while I can see people picking and choosing away games, the club size coming in (QOS, Raith Rovers etc) aren't really likely to provide a major boost.

[yoda-jag]

I'm interested in the argument about playing teams too often. It gets brought up a lot, and it does seem that it has some influence on people. But personally, when going along to Firhill, I couldn't care less who the opposition is. I hardly even watch them. So it doesn't work for me.

 

And while I can see people picking and choosing away games, the club size coming in (QOS, Raith Rovers etc) aren't really likely to provide a major boost.

 

for home games, i'm much same as you, in i go to see thistle, but know not everyone is same.

 

as for away supports visiting firhill, it wasn't so much any additional teams in league i was referring to, more like the aberdeens, motherwell, two dundee teams, hearts, killie and so on. i get to as many away games as i can each season, but there is instances i look at fixtures and think, "been there a few months ago, will leave it til next season", and know there are others who do same or similar. two treks to aberdeen? or one a season? same with ross, caley and some others. if i only had the option of one away trip per team, i reckon i'd try make more away games in total a season. if that's replicated across clubs supporters bases, and from speaking with both thistle and opposing teams supporters that's the general view that they'd be same as me, then that can only result in clubs supporters travelling in greater numbers. not stating away crowds will double or anything remotely near that (or a "major boost" as you term it), but cannot envisage how away supports would decline, for any club.

 

more supporters in ground = better atmosphere. that's surely got to be a good thing, even if it is even only as low as a few hundred combined of home and away supporters overall for some games.

Edited July 7, 2015 by yoda-jag

[lady-isobel-barnett]

I'm interested in the argument about playing teams too often. It gets brought up a lot, and it does seem that it has some influence on people. But personally, when going along to Firhill, I couldn't care less who the opposition is. I hardly even watch them. So it doesn't work for me.

 

And while I can see people picking and choosing away games, the club size coming in (QOS, Raith Rovers etc) aren't really likely to provide a major boost.

 

Just about any fan/ex fan I talk to is of the opinion that the sheer repetition of fixtures is the major factor, or most certainly one of the major factors, that folk are drifting away from Scottish football. I don't want to twist above comment but I think visits from QoS, Raith Rovers could provide a major boost. Not from the away fans, but Jags fans who are more likely to turn up to watch fresh opposition.

 

Said before that last season we played only 12 different teams in all competitions over 43 games. We had a good season yet home attendances suffered. Just perhaps the tedium of seeing the usual suspects quite so often played a part in the downturn at the gate. For certain repetition of fixtures didn't help.

[allyo]

 

 

Just about any fan/ex fan I talk to is of the opinion that the sheer repetition of fixtures is the major factor, or most certainly one of the major factors, that folk are drifting away from Scottish football. I don't want to twist above comment but I think visits from QoS, Raith Rovers could provide a major boost. Not from the away fans, but Jags fans who are more likely to turn up to watch fresh opposition.

 

Said before that last season we played only 12 different teams in all competitions over 43 games. We had a good season yet home attendances suffered. Just perhaps the tedium of seeing the usual suspects quite so often played a part in the downturn at the gate. For certain repetition of fixtures didn't help.

 

I'm not arguing against it, because I do hear people say it all the time and accept I'm in the minority. As I say, just isn't something that makes any difference to me.

 

Regarding Yoda's point, I can see why people will look for different away days, therefore a higher proportion will visit when only travelling once. I suppose my point is that a high proportion of Raith Rovers fans isn't necessarily a bigger number than a low proportion of Aberdeen fans.

 

Anyway, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that more variety would be a bad thing, just that I think the smaller league provides more intense competition to the end of the season, which I think would be a bigger factor.

Edited July 7, 2015 by allyo

[jagfaelivi]

How about accepting the eighteen team league but really going for extra points for scoring goals and defending?

 

Example - you win 2-0 at home so you get your 3 points + 2 points for your two goals + one point for not conceding a goal at home. Away from home your 2-0 win would get an extra point for not conceding away from home. And maybe an extra point for an away win?

 

Haven't a clue what this would have done in recent seasons but surely it would make for more attacking football? A 2-2 home draw would get three points for the home team and three + one extra for the away team.

 

I'm sure somebody could go through a recent season and work out what differences there would have been in final positions. A big win would shoot you up the league - our 5-0 against the Accies last season would have gleaned eight points!, and, I'm sure the Saints of Perth would not have done really well at all with their failure to score goals.

 

The excitement would be in the fact that you could really move up the table by being positive and fans would remain excited and keen to go to matches because their team could really move from week to week.

 

Shoot me down but it is an idea and there would not be an incentive to sit in and go for a 0-0 because only one goal would get four points for the away team and maybe even one more for an away win.

 

What do you think?

[Duke Gekantawa]

 

Anyway, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that more variety would be a bad thing, just that I think the smaller league provides more intense competition to the end of the season, which I think would be a bigger factor.

 

I don't agree. It's not the size of the leagues which determines the level of competition, but the closeness of standard of the member teams (or at least a decent proportion of them). A 10 or 12 team league could have 2 absolute duffers (as nearly happened this season) and one team far better resourced than the others (as is the case here) resulting in a large number of mainly meaningless games. By contrast, the 18 league EPL had a very close finish at the bottom, with about a third of the league still in danger with only 3 or so games to go.

 

We're never going to have competition at the top end, but I believe a larger number of similarly resourced teams in the league below this could increase competition at the bottom end.

[Jag]

 

 

I don't agree. It's not the size of the leagues which determines the level of competition, but the closeness of standard of the member teams (or at least a decent proportion of them). A 10 or 12 team league could have 2 absolute duffers (as nearly happened this season) and one team far better resourced than the others (as is the case here) resulting in a large number of mainly meaningless games. By contrast, the 18 league EPL had a very close finish at the bottom, with about a third of the league still in danger with only 3 or so games to go.

 

We're never going to have competition at the top end, but I believe a larger number of similarly resourced teams in the league below this could increase competition at the bottom end.

I actually think it could increase competition at the top end as well. For example, if Aberdeen had a really strong team one season and were beating most teams, as were Celtic, then it could come down to games against each other. With Celtic favourites to win these games most times, it would be in Aberdeen's favour only playing them twice.

 

I've been saying for years the league needs to increase. I would possibly favour a 16 team league though and increase anount of cup games e.g. home and away league cup or sections.

 

Another option to remain competitive and not have as many 'meaningless' games would be to still have the ridiculous split. Play 30 games then split in to top eight/bottom eight. Would be unfair that some teams would play others twice at home and once away mind you.

 

I fully agree with Yoda and the away games senario. I'm convinced more fans would travel if only one trip per season. I also don't think there is such a thing as a meaningless game.

 

When Scottish football was at it's peak we had an 18 team top division. There is too much pressure placed on survival in a smaller league. A larger league would see a lot more home grown talent getting the chance to develop, which would only be good for our game and the national team.

 

Just take a step back and have look at what we are doing as a club ourselves now. Three seasons ago we had a young, exciting team, made up of mainly Scottish players. Now we are scouring the lower leagues of England for our squad in order to remain competitive in the top league. I'm sure in a larger league with slightly less chance of relegation that a Declan McDaid may get his opportunity ahead of a David Amoo.

 

I'm not for one minute saying that McDaid is better than Amoo or he is the finished article but my question is how do these types of players reach their potential if they cannot be afforded a run in the team? We haven't done so with any player in last two seasons and I can't see it happening this year either.

[Jaggernaut]

 

 

I'm not for one minute saying that McDaid is better than Amoo or he is the finished article but my question is how do these types of players reach their potential if they cannot be afforded a run in the team? We haven't done so with any player in last two seasons and I can't see it happening this year either.

 

Point taken there. The fear factor about surviving in the top division means that our "youngsters" are likely to be well into their 20s before (if ever) they become 1st team regulars. Other top division teams are bringing them in considerably younger and mostly doing no worse than we are.

Edited July 8, 2015 by Jaggernaut

[The Prince of Kadriorg]

Point taken there. The fear factor about surviving in the top division means that our "youngsters" are likely to be well into their 20s before (if ever) they become 1st team regulars. Other top division teams are bringing them in considerably younger and mostly doing no worse than we are.

How much of that is due to the fact that we are only in the early stages of having a youth development again after years of neglect on that front?

 

Firstly this means that we are not yet one of the preferred choices at which the most promising youngsters look to start (hopefully our improvement on the field, developing reputation for attractive football and for favouring youth over the same old journeymen has-beens will make this gradually change but it wont happen immediately).

 

Secondly it will be a few more years yet before the entirely home grown kids reach the age where they are likely to threaten the first team (the younger fringe first team players that are coming out of the Jaggy Academy at the moment clearly didn't start out with us since we didn't have a meaningful youth set up when they would have been starting out in organised boys/youth football).

 

The combination of these two factors should mean that in future we will have more players ready for first team football at an earlier age than we currently have (if this does not happen down the line then your original point may be valid but I think it is really too early in the process to criticise us for not having a team full of teens)

[Firhillista]

From 1890 until 1975 Scottish football had a top division of either 18 or 16 clubs. Over this period we had the largest crowds attending games ever seen, including achieving huge world record one-off gates for some individual games, notable successes for Scottish teams in Europe and, arguably, we produced the best Scottish players to have graced the game. I accept that the size of the top division wasn't the defining factor in all of this, but it does seem to me to have made a significant contribution. I've never understood the idea of ' meaningless matches'. If Thistle are playing, and it doesn't matter who or where, it certainly means something to me and most other Thistle fans. (It's a bit like the whole 'matchday experience' thing - the only question I have about my matchday experience is, 'Did we win?') The introduction of the original Premier League was sold to that fans on the basis that it would provide genuine competition with the stranglehold of Rangers and Celtic on the game in Scotland being broken. How did that work out?

[Jag]

 

How much of that is due to the fact that we are only in the early stages of having a youth development again after years of neglect on that front?

 

Firstly this means that we are not yet one of the preferred choices at which the most promising youngsters look to start (hopefully our improvement on the field, developing reputation for attractive football and for favouring youth over the same old journeymen has-beens will make this gradually change but it wont happen immediately).

 

Secondly it will be a few more years yet before the entirely home grown kids reach the age where they are likely to threaten the first team (the younger fringe first team players that are coming out of the Jaggy Academy at the moment clearly didn't start out with us since we didn't have a meaningful youth set up when they would have been starting out in organised boys/youth football).

 

The combination of these two factors should mean that in future we will have more players ready for first team football at an earlier age than we currently have (if this does not happen down the line then your original point may be valid but I think it is really too early in the process to criticise us for not having a team full of teens)

I see exactly where you're coming from but I don't think anyone is looking for a team full of teens. I also don't think anyone is being overly critical, it just seems to be the way it is.

 

If I was to start being critical or play devils advocate if you like I would ask you this - Do you think if Jackie McNamara was still our manager we would have more young players in our starting line up? Purely hypothetical I know, but as much as I am a fan of Archie, I was also a fan of McNamara and his willingness to give youth a chance.

 

For all we know Archie is desperate to get the youngsters in but is under so much pressure to keep his job that he doesn't want to take the risk.

 

Having a bigger league would increase the chances of him being able to, if he so desires.

[The Prince of Kadriorg]

I see exactly where you're coming from but I don't think anyone is looking for a team full of teens. I also don't think anyone is being overly critical, it just seems to be the way it is.

 

If I was to start being critical or play devils advocate if you like I would ask you this - Do you think if Jackie McNamara was still our manager we would have more young players in our starting line up? Purely hypothetical I know, but as much as I am a fan of Archie, I was also a fan of McNamara and his willingness to give youth a chance.

 

For all we know Archie is desperate to get the youngsters in but is under so much pressure to keep his job that he doesn't want to take the risk.

 

Having a bigger league would increase the chances of him being able to, if he so desires.

Yeah I was heading slightly towards hyperbole with the "team full of teens" line.

 

To play devil's advocate back at you do you think that although we'd almost certainly be playing a larger number of younger players if McNamara was still the manager we'd also be playing them in a Thistle team that was still in the second tier of Scottish football due to McNamara's inability to show any tactical flexibility if plan A wasn't working or put out a team that could consistently win a decent amount of away games at that level.

 

I'm inclined to think that the additional element of pragmatism that Archie brings to the manager's job is partially responsible for less opportunities for players straight out of our youth development setup but that this is also combined with the factors described in my previous message about our youth development still being a work in progress and, also, with the higher quality threshold required for a player to be suitable for the first team associated with being in the top division rather than the one below it.

 

No dispute that the current league set up is a hindrance rather than a help to giving youth a chance.

[Dick Dastardly]

I think that Maxi summed it up pretty well when he was talking about summer football. The current system is broken, so we need to try something different, not because we know they will work, but because they might work.

 

Something has to change, and this might work.

[Jaggernaut]

How much of that is due to the fact that we are only in the early stages of having a youth development again after years of neglect on that front?

 

Firstly this means that we are not yet one of the preferred choices at which the most promising youngsters look to start (hopefully our improvement on the field, developing reputation for attractive football and for favouring youth over the same old journeymen has-beens will make this gradually change but it wont happen immediately).

 

Secondly it will be a few more years yet before the entirely home grown kids reach the age where they are likely to threaten the first team (the younger fringe first team players that are coming out of the Jaggy Academy at the moment clearly didn't start out with us since we didn't have a meaningful youth set up when they would have been starting out in organised boys/youth football).

 

The combination of these two factors should mean that in future we will have more players ready for first team football at an earlier age than we currently have (if this does not happen down the line then your original point may be valid but I think it is really too early in the process to criticise us for not having a team full of teens)

 

That all makes good sense.

[oneteaminglasgow]

I've not read the whole thread so sorry if I'm going over old ground but thought I'd give my thoughts on re-construction.

 

18 is too big a top division for a country with just 42 senior teams. This is my main issue. Having just 12 allows for some clubs of an actual decent stature (Falkirk, St Mirren etc) to be playing in the second tier. If these teams were to be moved to the top flight, we would be left with a massive gap in standard between the divisions and a stranglehold of finances between the top clubs, which can only harm the game overall as far as I'm concerned. You'd be left with maybe one or two full time teams in the second tier, who in all likelihood would always win the division and therefore you'd see the same few clubs (probably including ourselves) just yo-yoing up and down between the two every few seasons.

 

It would, as I've seen mentioned, also create more "meaningless" games. The idea of having nothing to play for with months left in a season bores me hugely. This is one of the things that the current system is generally very good for. Most teams still have quite a lot to play for coming into the final few weeks of the season.

 

The youth thing is a bit of a red herring as well. Clubs are able to bring through youth if they so desire. Dundee United have done it, Hamilton have done it, St Mirren have done it, Kilmarnock have done it etc. Even we do it to an extent. Declan McDaid, David Wilson, Dale Keenan - all played a part this season in a number of games. The problem with us is that our youngsters, in the main, simply aren't ready. There's no point in playing someone who isn't ready for the division just for the sake of "bringing through youngsters". It doesn't help them particularly, and it doesn't help us. Just the other week, Archie mentioned 4 young players who he feels are ready to play a part (McDaid, Wilson, Lindsay and Leyden) so it can quite clearly be done, the youngsters just need to be up to the standard required.

 

I'm not averse to reconstruction, and indeed the introduction of the relegation playoffs have been great (both finals have provided comedy gold so far), but 18 is simply far too many.

 

Summer football, however, is a dreadful idea, and a non-starter. There's a guy on p&b who illustrates that for it to work with the current Scottish season you'd need to be playing from January to December anyway, thus negating the whole point of it, and the fact that a number of the supposed "benefits" don't really stand up to much scrutiny.

[oneteaminglasgow]

I've not read the whole thread so sorry if I'm going over old ground but thought I'd give my thoughts on re-construction.

 

18 is too big a top division for a country with just 42 senior teams. This is my main issue. Having just 12 allows for some clubs of an actual decent stature (Falkirk, St Mirren etc) to be playing in the second tier. If these teams were to be moved to the top flight, we would be left with a massive gap in standard between the divisions and a stranglehold of finances between the top clubs, which can only harm the game overall as far as I'm concerned. You'd be left with maybe one or two full time teams in the second tier, who in all likelihood would always win the division and therefore you'd see the same few clubs (probably including ourselves) just yo-yoing up and down between the two every few seasons.

 

It would, as I've seen mentioned, also create more "meaningless" games. The idea of having nothing to play for with months left in a season bores me hugely. This is one of the things that the current system is generally very good for. Most teams still have quite a lot to play for coming into the final few weeks of the season.

 

The youth thing is a bit of a red herring as well. Clubs are able to bring through youth if they so desire. Dundee United have done it, Hamilton have done it, St Mirren have done it, Kilmarnock have done it etc. Even we do it to an extent. Declan McDaid, David Wilson, Dale Keenan - all played a part this season in a number of games. The problem with us is that our youngsters, in the main, simply aren't ready. There's no point in playing someone who isn't ready for the division just for the sake of "bringing through youngsters". It doesn't help them particularly, and it doesn't help us. Just the other week, Archie mentioned 4 young players who he feels are ready to play a part (McDaid, Wilson, Lindsay and Leyden) so it can quite clearly be done, the youngsters just need to be up to the standard required.

 

I'm not averse to reconstruction, and indeed the introduction of the relegation playoffs have been great (both finals have provided comedy gold so far), but 18 is simply far too many.

 

Summer football, however, is a dreadful idea, and a non-starter. There's a guy on p&b who illustrates that for it to work with the current Scottish season you'd need to be playing from January to December anyway, thus negating the whole point of it, and the fact that a number of the supposed "benefits" don't really stand up to much scrutiny.

[Lambies Lost Doo]

I genuinely liked the 12-12-18 split to 8-8-8 model that was proposed. From searches here are details

 

http://www.tictactic.co.uk/the-value-of-scottish-football-12-12-18-reconstruction/

 

http://m.stv.tv/sport/football/clubs/aberdeen/209239-explained-how-the-scottish-football-league-reconstruction-model-would-work/

[yoda-jag]

no thanks lld

[ChewinGumMacaroonBaaaz]

The focus is too top heavy. Another symptom of having the old firm franchise to contend with. The arguments " we need a strong rangers and celtic, competing in europe", "we need a strong aberdeen, D.u., hibs hearts, pushing the old firm" , " we should all support all clubs representing us in europe for the sake of the co-efficient" .... Cart before horse P!SH.

 

We need a strong domestic league. And that means a system that improves the standing and potential success of all clubs and increasing interest and competition across the board.

 

I don't know that an 18 team top league will be successfull in that. Are we really admitting defeat, that the old firm will ever be toppled, that the best we can aspire to is being a respectable "feeder" club producing young talent?

 

Given the recent history of the sevco/hibs/hearts saga, and the interest that has brought and relative competitiveness and success of clubs like our own, falkirk, QoS, Hamilton, St.J, Inverness & Ross c. and the fact that there are clubs with historical decent supports recently playing in "league one", dumfermline, ayr, morton, airdrie... i reckon we must look to how we can perpetuate the benefit of having "bigger" clubs mixing it up with the "diddies", offer greater opportunity for graduating between these two labels, and recognise that the league as a whole has not been best served by the top clubs attempting to emulate an english style break-away.

 

I'd suggest, in short, that the pyrimid system should kick in immediately below the top division. A premier league fed by two divisions, maybe an east/west divide but i'd propose a draw to select who plays who and competes in which 2nd tier table, a move which would alter the monotony of the the status quo and garner interest and speculation, rumour and discussion pre-season.

 

Both 2nd level division champs promoted and play-offs between 2nd.3rd,4th of each for a 3rd place in the top tier.

 

I'd also propose a re-think and return to the initial stages of the league cup involing group stages. This ain't quaint nostalgia, this was stopped prior to my time. Seeded so that lower league clubs would be garaunteed at least one fixture per season against a team that might bring a decent following, but also giving "bigger" clubs a platform to trial new talent in first team action.

 

The real problem with our league has been protectionism. It's cowardly, but also understandable. Yes the fallout from dropping from prem to first is serious, but the way the authorities and clubs have tackled it has been to limit the chances of it happening. One up one down, only recently being replaced with the current play off system. BUT, this by consequence adds to the problem, in that it not only limits one's chances of relegation but also limits ones chances of promotion. Should your club have one bad season, it could be sentanced to several in the relative wilderness even despite relative league success.

 

More promotion and relegation is the key, I would venture to promote. And no submission to the bully boy antics of the old firm.

 

Edited July 8, 2015 by ChewinGumMacaroonBaaaz