Me Bungo Pony

I would have taken half a page to make that point . I agree 100%. I would also add that a more open and competitive larger league, resulting in potentially bigger gates, may actually prove more attractive to Sky/ESPN. That's my "assumption" anyway .... which is just as valid as Doncaster's "assumption" that a 10 team league will convince them to part with more cash .

There's an assumption here that 'Well wont drop out the top 10. They almost certainly will at some point. And what happens then? All of a sudden we don't have 4 OF games to bolster the coffers but have Dumbarton and Brechin instead. The 10/10 scenario does not solve the financial problems if your in the second 10 though the teams that are voting this through appear to be doing so on the assumption they will always be in the top 10 and so wont have to worry about that. The sums don't add up if the pot stays the same, the top 10 get more money than they currently do while the SPL is expanded to 20 teams. It is nonsense unless the whole proposal is predicated on an assumption that the TV companies will automatically want to pay more for a 10 team top division. Basically, the whole 10/10 nonsense falls apart unless the TV companies do come up with more cash. Without that guarentee, anybody outwith the OF who votes for it could be cutting their own throat .... especially if the fans stay away as they are increasingly likely to do.

It's because it is a backward step to a set up we know failed miserably before. It is a step so clearly made in the interests of an elite, championed by a guy who has little knowledge of Scottish football and in direct opposition to the wishes of the fans, who are the lifeblood of the clubs and game itself, that it has finally sickened many people.

I can only assume you are either too young to remember the 10 team SPL or too old to remember clearly how driech, repetitive, uncompetitive and destructive it was. Playing teams 4 times exagerates the gap in quality between them. If you lose 1 and draw 1 against the OF in a 16 team league you get a 3pt gap. If you lose 3 and draw 1 in a 10 team league you get a 9pt difference. Therefore, you get what we had with the old 10 team SPL .... the OF miles away at the top, a bunch of teams in the middle whose places were more or less decided by November and 1 or 2 teams ensconced at the bottom by the end of August (often 1 pretty much certain of relegation by December). Contrary to the beliefs of those supporting the 10 team proposal, few are interested in attending relegation "battles" until the last day (though only if there is any hope of salvation) and nobody is interested in broadcasting them . Too often the 10 team SPL was more of a progression than a competition which was why it had to be changed to make it more interesting. The current 12 team set up is not good but it is a definite improvement on what was in place before. There is clear movement up and down the division with several teams still with plenty to play for towards the end of the season. Not the Championship of course. The financial set up and still having to play the OF 4 times ensures that will never happen. If we want a simple and sustainably competitive top flight, with teams at least having the illusion of being able to compete for the Championship, it needs to be 16 with all the TV revenue distributed evenly between all 16 teams. With an even distribution of TV cash only the OF lose out substantially while all the rest would barely notice it. Those who have bought the idea that a new 10/10(12 ) set up will somehow generate more cash for 20 (22 ) teams than the same pot does for 12 have a few very hard sums to explain. Especially as we are led to believe the top 10 will have more money . It doesn't add up and I can only assume their figures are based on their own assumptions about what Sky/ESPN will pay for the dross a 10 team division will throw up. In other words, they are baring their arse to the fans views while holding out the begging bowl to the TV companies with no guarentees what-so-ever of any extra money from them. I think they will be disappointed but, by then, it will be too late and Scottish football will be as good as dead. In short, I remember the old 10 team league and how sh*te it was; I don't buy the financial arguments for it as they appear to be assumptions rather than fact; too many teams backing the proposal appear to assume they will always be in the top 10 when history proves they will not; 16 teams with a top flight only Lge Cup consisting of 4x4 seeded groups playing each other twice and Summer football is the way forward. Finally, if they go for this 10 team set-up, I wont be paying any cash to watch it. Stuff them and their TV money .

Doncaster wants the detractors of his wee plan to put up or shut up and accept his is the only sensible way forward. When I say "sensible", obviously I really mean the one that bests suits the OF. Well, I'll put up; (1) A top flight of 16 teams playing each other twice. (2) A new League Cup for top flight only comprising of 4x4 seeded groups playing each other twice (QF-SF-F to follow) to give 36 guarenteed games. (3) TV money to be divvied up equally between ALL clubs (only OF would lose out here ... boo hoo) (4) All "prize money" to be divvied up equally between ALL clubs at the start of the season (obviously not "prize money" any more and the OF would be unhappy .... again, boo hoo). (5) Summer football. This gives an opportunity to sell it to media when they have little else to show football-wise and will also save clubs a fortune in heating, electricity (esp floodlights) and largely pointless undersoil heating (what's the point of it when the pitch is fine but the infrastructure round about it is ice-bound). The non-OF teams would gain and save a fortune out of all that. There may be a complaint about what happens during World/European Cups but if a Winter break is feasible then so is an "International Tournament" break. At least we would know exactly when (down to the individual game) that will happen and need only apply to the group games (plus WC last 16) which would be about 2-3 weeks. The OF would also scream blue (and green) murder over it but I don't really care. They could also scupper it by being the only clubs in Scotland to vote against it but hey-ho .... the other clubs can do the same to their selfish 10/10 proposal and hopefully they will .

If you have a rejigged League Cup involving ONLY the Top Flight in 4x4 seeded groups, as outlined before, you get a further 55 games (48 group games + QF,SF,F) added to the mix. This gives a 16 team division 295 guarenteed games and more much needed entertainment for Sky/ESPN to broadcast.

I remember a proposal, backed by the same arguments being put forward by Doncaster, that involved a 6 team SPL consisting solely of Rangers, Celtic, Aberdeen, Hearts, Hibs and United . They would play each other 6 times. It was said it provide competitive football that the TV companies would want to show. This current 10 team proposal is just as much mince as that one was.

Exactly .

The standard all over the world is better now but there are still bad games and bad teams. I have no doubt that the OF and any club that is lucky enough to remain in SPL1 for a sustained period will benefit financially from this proposal (everyone else will suffer badly) but that will not guarentee entertainment. Some of the worst games I have watched from England recently involved the big six .... they cancelled each other out. Some of the best games involved lesser opposition against a top team. A 16 team league wouldn't guarentee entertaining football but we all know a 10 team division definitely wont .... because we've been there before .

It all depends who you are playing. Chairmen, like St Johnstone's, who are apparently all for this 10/10 farce have convinced themselves that they will always be in SPL1 playing 4 home games against the OF. For them, this makes "financial sense". However, having looked at the list of teams who would make up SPL2 if it was instigated today printed in the Sun, how much "financial sense" does it make when those 4 OF home games are replaced by Cowdenbeath and QotS? Where is the sense in arguing a 16 team league would mean slicing the financial cake too thin when the proposal is to create a "20" team SPL1 and 2 ? It only makes sense if the SPL2 clubs are given a tiny slice of the financial action with the bulk being retained by the SPL1 teams. As no-one outside the OF can guarentee SPL1 status, financially disastrous relegation becomes an ever present fear .... or even a never ending nightmare for all those who fail to get promoted. Turkeys voting for Xmas has been used a lot to describe teams like 'Well backing this plan and it is bang on the "money" (pardon my French ). I don't buy the financial necessity for this. If the TV money were split evenly amongst a 16 team league, instead of the OF pocketing over 40% of it between them as happens now, the non-OF teams would not lose a penny. At the moment, non-OF teams get about 6% of the TV revenue; splitting the money evenly in a 16 team league would leave them with 6.25%. Of course, the OF would scream bloody murder about it and block it at every turn, but it would at least put the real reasons for this 10/10 nonsense out in the open. That is, ensuring the OF get even more money and sod everybody else . As for the supposed loss of games .... just another red herring in the campaign to muddy the waters and convince people "there is only one way". As I have said before on other threads, by replacing the current CIS/League Cup with a new (Top Flight only) competition comprising 4 seeded groups of 4 playing each other twice leading to a QF-SF-Final scenario easily makes up for this. It's not the only way of making it work. The much maligned Championship play-offs proposal would make up for "lost games" while also ensuring TV interest and (most likely) 4 OF games a season. As I said, "lost games" is a red herring. As for the argument a 10 team SPL1 would lead to more competition ..... b*llocks. We know it doesn't because we all saw it in action before and it was as dull as dishwater. The points made in other posts mirror my own in this respect so I wont re-iterate them now. Thay are all spot on. I could go on but, in short, I'm not a fan of the 10/10 proposal ... in case anyone was in any doubt .

Ermmm .... 27000 is perhaps a little ambitious for a club who can only really hope for 8-9000 even for the biggest of games (like the Odense Europa game earlier this season). Agreed. Though it would mean the club having to stump up all the cash with there being no seed money from the sale of Fir Park. It would also be preferable (IMO) to level the pitch at the same time, as well as moving the playing surface a couple of yards West, to increase the potential capacity of a new East Stand. This would require an expensive relaying of the pitch though .... again . It's all about the money unfortunately. This is where it ties in with the potential re-organisation of the game. If the league expands to 16, it may be worthwhile investing a few £m in the likliehood the club would have a sustained access to the revenue from playing in the top flight. If it is reduced to 10 though, the chances of being able to invest in the stadium and retain top flight status are much, much slimmer and could be disastrous. Unfortunately, those in power in Scottish Football are far more interested in maximising the OF's revenues than what's best for the likes of Motherwell. So it looks like the club may have to take a massive risk to upgrade the ground or do nothing and watch the stadium slowly fall apart around it in a 10 team league .

Decided to be positive about it all and went for the "Good Choice" option. I've heard the relatively poor showing at Bradford was not all down to him as, contrary to what someone previously said, he had virtually nothing to spend. What Bradford had were the biggest crowds in English League 2, not the biggest budget. With those crowds coming courtesy of very cheap season tickets and entry prices .... great for atmosphere but not for revenue. I'll hope for the best .

I'm deafened by it .

But who says it's "historical"? In over 40 years of supporting 'Well I'd never heard the term until that Off The Ball radio programme dubbed us the Dossers a few short years back. Only then did it start to proliferate. Prior to that, it was always the Steelmen or 'Well going back into the mists of history. Even my dad, Lanarkshire born and bred, getting on for 80 and having gone to see the team in the halcyon days of the 50s and early 60s, has never heard the term Dossers to describe 'Well fans. Anyway, I'm off for a snooze .

Uncle Phil made over 200 appearances for 'Well but barely scratched 90 for Celtic. However, blighted as Scottish football is by the OF, he will forever be remembered as a Celtic player. It is a sad commentary on the plight of Scottish football and Scottish society. See above .

Coz it looks sh*te .

Should a book be run on McCall doing a fantastic job at 'Well only for him to pip McCoist for the Ibrox job when StWalter wanders off to the bide-a-wee home for retired currant buns ?

I thought the term "Dossers" was as a result of an Off The Ball competition to find a nick name for 'Well fans. I've been a 'Well fan since about 1970 and never heard the term used by anyone to describe 'Well fans before that programme. I believe it was meant to imply people from Lanarkshire were workshy benefit cheats. As such, I've never really liked it. It may have been used to slag off fans of various clubs over the years as a general Scots insult but I don't think it has always been a 'Well only tag.

Joking aside, the fact we have 2 decent stands (though some believe even they are past their sell buy date) could possibly allow the club to stay at Fir Park. Demolishing the current East Stand and moving the playing surface a couple of yards West "could" allow a new stand to be built there that could hold 3-3500 with a steeper incline and access from the base of the stand such as happens in the Cooper Stand. The POD could be demolished and replaced with a building that ran the full length of the pitch, had a few token rows of seats for fans, a row of executive boxes and housed all the usual paraphanalia associated with a football club (dressing rooms, hospitality, board room, TV cameras, media, etc). If it were possible, would it not be cheaper than a complete new build? It would give us a capacity of around 10-11,000 in 3 stands ... 75-8500 without the top tier of the South Stand. Just a thought.

It's all one big conspiracy dontcha know ?

Being an excellent teacher doesn't necessarily mean you will be excellent headmaster material. There is a HUGE difference in duties and responsibilities between Youth Development and Manager. George Young didn't have a lot of time to assess and change things. It wasn't even his remit really. He was just there to keep things ticking over until the new boss took over. Given the rather threadbare squad we have and a run of games that could not have been tougher, I think it is unfair to criticise him for a failure to drastically alter the line-up. Throw in the cloud hovering over Fir Park by Brown's unseemly departure, I doubt anyone else could have done any better under such circumstances. The praise he is due is not for the sterling performances of the team while he was temporarily in charge (which obviously didn't materialise) but for simply taking on the job when it would clearly have been easier to decline and let someone else take the flak.

It was just the back wall I was thinking on curving rather than the whole stand and I wasn't envisioning any "corner seats", only "straight runs", but I take your points on the increased costs involved. I wasn't aware of that sort of thing. However, in the interests of having an "impressive stadium" that might enhance the image of the club for prospective players and supporters, I still think two tiers might be worth the extra expense (it's all fantasy after all). IMO anyway . I hope your tongue was well and truly in your cheek there. How cr*p would our stadium and reputation be if all we had was a stand at each end of the pitch? We'd be a laughing stock .

This mirrors my thoughts exactly. If we ignore the fact there is no money to build a new stadium at present, only building two fairly large stands makes financial and aesthetic sense. It is cheaper to maintain as well as to build and requires less land for it's footprint. It doesn't have to be as soulless as Douglas Park or the Falkirk Stadium (not so much now) are. By splitting the stands into two tiers, with 2500 on the bottom tier and 2-2500 on the top tier, separated by a row of executive boxes, they would be pretty impressive structures. Curving the back of the stands a la Bolton's Reebok stadium would give them more character than the standard "cookie cutter" stands that we see elsewhere. "High walls" could be put in close behind each goal to highlight the fact the ground is meant to only have two stands and counter the loss of atmosphere that can happen with wide open spaces. Stick a scoreboard on one and a large club crest on the other to break up the blankness. If the cameras were put high in the "away" stand, TV would give the impression of a well supported team as a 4-5000 seater stand fills up with 4-5000 'Well fans. Well, that's my pipe dream anyway. With the slow degradation of Fir Park it is something I have thought about from time to time . However, without money, it will remain a pipe dream along with any other plans put forward by the likes of us or even those with responsibility at the club. At the very least, it will require the housing market to bounce back substantially to make the land Fir Park sits on worth selling. So not soon then . On a plus point though, didn't the pitch look good ?

I thought it was a 10-2 vote nowadays. If so, the OF can bleat and moan all they like. If the other 10 want it they'll just have to lump it. Or go join one of the leagues that they are always threatening to go to ... but who don't want them .

I think if you offered Sky/ESPN the chance of a 12 game spectacular at the end of the season involving Man Utd, Chelsea, Arsenal and Liverpool they would have your hand off before you knew it . And I wouldn't write it off as something that could never happen in England. The Premiership was pretty much as stale as the SPL until Man City and Spurs got some money behind them. Arsenal, Man Utd and Chelsea have had the title sewn up between them for nigh on 20 years and attendances are falling among the "spear-carriers" of the division. Sunderland used to get 50,000 a game. Recently they have been lucky to get 30,000 and it is a similar story for many other clubs. There may be a clamour for more competition there soon as well .... maybe . With regard to your point about broadcasters being "more interested in meaningful or high profile games throughout the season as opposed to one big orgasm of exciting football at the end"; the whole point about play-offs is that there would be a lot more meaningful games throughout the season involving many teams, vying for the top four slots, which would then culminate in an exciting tourney at the end. Going by previous seasons and the ups and downs of form, I would estimate that over half the teams in a 16 team division would still be in with a reasonable shout at a play-off spot at New Year and therefore a shot at the Championship. As opposed to only the OF in the current set-up if you're lucky. And sometimes the title is all sewn up bar the shouting by then. That may be "fair" but it is not even remotely exciting and leads to virtually all but relegation battles being meaningless for almost the entire season. That is killing the game. Calling play-offs "gimmickry" just undermines the concept without actually addressing the issues it raises. Like instantly going for the "conspiracy" or "racist" word when some-one raises an uncomfortable issue concerning politics. I haven't heard a reasoned argument against play-offs yet bar the "fairness" one. But football is a sport not an examination. It's about entertainment not statistical correctness. Americans, Australians and even other sports in Europe realise this and wouldn't even countenance a set-up such as we have in Scotland. If the NFL, NBA or Aussie Rules were to bin their play-offs and instigate a "fairer" play-everyone-home-and-away system, the stands would empty and broadcast money dry up. Play-offs are not a "gimmick". It is a tried and tested system that works all over the world, increasing competition, excitement and season-long meaningful fixtures that interests broadcasters greatly. Thanks Martin. The promotion/relegation bit is a bit difficult to describe but is a relatively simple concept once you get past the words . I came up with this years ago when it was still a 40 team league which is why I went with a 14-10-16 split. The promotion/relegation bit becomes simpler with a 16-10-16 split with the 42 team league we currently have. It would just mean 2 teams being automatically promoted while the 2 relegation groups would consist solely of SPL teams with 2 being relegated. The second tier would not then have to fit in 36 games when the SPL only had to play 26 . With a 16 team SPL with play-offs, teams would get 36 games (30 regular season + 6 play-off) for the top 4 and 35/6 games (30 regular season + 5/6 play-off) for the remaining 12. With the stale, mind numbingly boring and retrograde 10 team SPL option being touted by Doncaster/McLeish, teams would also have 36 games. So there is no real difference there. Its all about thinking outside the box and that is one thing the SPL and OF can never be accused of. Hopefully the rather large number of SPL clubs backing play-offs may be able to force the issue . I'm not expecting it though.