fizoxy Posted January 5, 2011 Report Share Posted January 5, 2011 A 10 team league = more teams playing like Hamilton. Hardly going to have SKY TV battering on the door to get a piece of the action. The best thing to happen to our club was to hit rock bottom in the admin days. The Scottish game needs the same, no more patch up jobs. Hanging on to the coat tails of the OF is killing the game and we need to accept that and support them in getting them to fuck. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steelboy Posted January 5, 2011 Report Share Posted January 5, 2011 A 10 team league = more teams playing like Hamilton. Hardly going to have SKY TV battering on the door to get a piece of the action. would it not be less teams playing like hamilton? accies play the way do because they can't afford to sign players who can compete by any other means. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperCC Posted January 5, 2011 Report Share Posted January 5, 2011 Too many threads going on the same subject but felt it was worth cross posting here as the more I think about it the more I feel the debate shouldn't be about just the size of the league but I thought they were looking at a complete shake-up of football at all levels!! Posted the response below in the other thread re a response from leanne and to the following comment: Time the rest of Scottish football resigned, set up our own league and invited the Old Firm on the terms of the rest of Scottish Football. Fuck them they actually need us more than we need them and the sooner we and the rest of the spineless teams in the SPL realised this the better. Wouldn't actually take much as Clubs would just have to agree to either disband or resign from the SPL (subject to contracted notice period etc.) and reapply to join the SFL who would receive them with open arms and I believe would also happily look at their own management and governance structure to ensure fair play to all. There are two many organisations SPL, SFA, SFL SJFL or whatever its called, etc and really its a radical shake up of Scottish football that's needed from top to bottom with maybe only a single organisation with directorates for the National teams (all levels) and club football (both professional and junior). Save a fortune and all working to a single strategy thru a single nominated management board. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lobey_Dosser Posted January 5, 2011 Report Share Posted January 5, 2011 i love a bit of a conspiracy theory so... has anyone considered that this is all a bit of a ruse so we can keep the status quo and continue on with the 12 teams and the split? the spl will look as if they have tried to restructure the league but were thawrted, the fans will feel they beat the ten team league and then it can all be put to bed for a while and we can get on the structure we have with less moaning. Far from a conspiracy theory, this outcome has always been an odds on favourite. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juan Kerse Posted January 5, 2011 Report Share Posted January 5, 2011 So when we last had an 18 team league..........was it any good?!?!?! Yes more teams won the league outwith the Old Firm and there were less Old Firm domination, other teams finishing second etc.. Look it up. How do you propose to organise a 16 team league? Play each other twice? 30 Games? Hmmmm Eh, yes. With the games meaning more as teams will be able to mount a title challenge I am sure we can live with 'only' 30 games. In the NFL they only have a 16 team league regular season and the fans are chomping at the bit for every game, less is more, as they say... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay Posted January 5, 2011 Report Share Posted January 5, 2011 So the two main problems with a 16 team league appear to be the scare stories of a £1,000,000 loss per club, and only having 30 games a season. Let's take the 30 matches thing first. If it's really that big a deal, why not just bring back the old-style league cup with groups at the start of the season to add a guaranteed number of games? As for the £1,000,000 loss claim - who knows if it's true. Maybe it is. And if it is... so? I would much rather have a competative 16 team league full of young Scottish players at clubs with wage caps and other financial measures brought in to keep things in check, than a 10 team league of overpaid shite. If clubs all lost £1,000,000 each and dealt with it properly, then I fail to really see the difference. The only problem would be when these Scottish sides then failed to compete regularly in Europe... oh wait. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steelboy Posted January 5, 2011 Report Share Posted January 5, 2011 Yes more teams won the league outwith the Old Firm and there were less Old Firm domination, other teams finishing second etc.. Look it up. Eh, yes. With the games meaning more as teams will be able to mount a title challenge I am sure we can live with 'only' 30 games. In the NFL they only have a 16 team league regular season and the fans are chomping at the bit for every game, less is more, as they say... the old firm won the title in each of the last ten 18 team seasons. it wasn't league restructuring that caused old firm domination. it's down to money, the same as every other league. the nfl isn't a good comparison. it's a monopoly, there are only 32 pro teams in a country of 300 million, the average ticket is 50 quid, it's also probably not physically safe to play more games. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richie Posted January 5, 2011 Report Share Posted January 5, 2011 As for the £1,000,000 loss claim - who knows if it's true. Maybe it is. And if it is... so? I would much rather have a competative 16 team league full of young Scottish players at clubs with wage caps and other financial measures brought in to keep things in check, than a 10 team league of overpaid shite. If clubs all lost £1,000,000 each and dealt with it properly, then I fail to really see the difference. The only problem would be when these Scottish sides then failed to compete regularly in Europe... oh wait. Agree. What happened to becoming more self-sufficient etc. The 10 team league idea all revolves around tv money. This is basically encouraging clubs to continue to be overly reliant on tv money, which is part of the problem which got us here (Setanta etc). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burn_Broomfield Posted January 5, 2011 Report Share Posted January 5, 2011 Currently with the 12-team SPL there are 38 match-days on each of which there are 6 matches played. This gives a total of 228 games. Or 228 opportunities for the league sponsors, advertisers, etc to get their brand across. A 16-team SPL (basic home and away format without play-offs) will have 30 match-days where 8 games will be played, giving a total of 240 games. A 10-team SPL (again, simple format, everyone plays each other 4 times) will have 36 match-days of 5 games each, giving a total of 180 games. Are they seriously saying sponsors will pay more money for fewer games? ie. considerably fewer chances for their logos to be seen, which is after all what sponsors are paying for. Neil Doncaster said it would cost each club £1m for a 16-team league, but if I was Clydesdale Bank I'd be telling the SPL that if you're playing 21% fewer games a season (48 less than currently), you're getting your sponsorship money cut by 21% because my brand won't be seen as often. Will Sky make up the difference? I'm clearly missing something Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steelboy Posted January 5, 2011 Report Share Posted January 5, 2011 I'm clearly missing something not every match is of equal value. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burn_Broomfield Posted January 5, 2011 Report Share Posted January 5, 2011 not every match is of equal value. Sponsorship fees don't change match by match. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richie Posted January 5, 2011 Report Share Posted January 5, 2011 As someone on P+B just stated... something doesn't add up. Doncaster is suggesting EACH team will lose £1M in a 16 team league. The current deal is only worth £13M per season (£65m over 5 seasons) in a 12 team league, with the o/f taking a bigger proportion than of the money the rest. The only answer I can suggest which would support his claim is that he meant £1m over 5 years, but we are already mid-way through the deal anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juan Kerse Posted January 5, 2011 Report Share Posted January 5, 2011 Currently with the 12-team SPL there are 38 match-days on each of which there are 6 matches played. This gives a total of 228 games. Or 228 opportunities for the league sponsors, advertisers, etc to get their brand across. A 16-team SPL (basic home and away format without play-offs) will have 30 match-days where 8 games will be played, giving a total of 240 games. A 10-team SPL (again, simple format, everyone plays each other 4 times) will have 36 match-days of 5 games each, giving a total of 180 games. Are they seriously saying sponsors will pay more money for fewer games? ie. considerably fewer chances for their logos to be seen, which is after all what sponsors are paying for. Neil Doncaster said it would cost each club £1m for a 16-team league, but if I was Clydesdale Bank I'd be telling the SPL that if you're playing 21% fewer games a season (48 less than currently), you're getting your sponsorship money cut by 21% because my brand won't be seen as often. Will Sky make up the difference? I'm clearly missing something Great post Cloudy and something I hadn't even thought of. This '£1,000,000 Loss' is clearly a scare tactic by Doncaster. And even if clubs do lose money, as I and Jay and others have said - who gives a fuck? If the SPL becomes a breeding ground for teenagers on a few hundred a week in preperation for the English leagues then fine. (not far off it anyway) The fact that there are less 'hard' games for most of the clubs will allow this to work AND offer a great chance for the 'bigger' SPL sides to amass points and challenge the Old Firm - as they have less games against them and each other. Add to that there is less repetition and more fans interest. And as someone else said, if clubs, fans all want a bigger league then it really is easy, resign from the SPL, tell the OF to bolt and run to the SFL - they will easily reshuffle and fire up 2 big fuck off leagues of 20 if we want them to. But that is pipe dream stuff, as magic as it would be! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juan Kerse Posted January 5, 2011 Report Share Posted January 5, 2011 the old firm won the title in each of the last ten 18 team seasons. and they have won the title in the last 20 odd of 10/12 team seasons. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Diggle Posted January 5, 2011 Report Share Posted January 5, 2011 What's stunning about this whole affair is the lack of imagination and foresight. Couple that with our own clubs part in the steering committee - dearie fuckin me! Even if we were to be extremely generous they should all be shot for their lack of consultation and the absolutely chronic packaging and selling of this proposal. There are hints that there are money distribution enhancements in there - however they've been so poorly explained it's unbelievable. So a league of 16 provides too few games does it? Well you used a split to tailor the number of games in a 12 - could we not have a split in a 16 or 18. Suicide is the only word I can come up with to descrive it accurately Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steelboy Posted January 5, 2011 Report Share Posted January 5, 2011 Sponsorship fees don't change match by match. they're not paid out match by match. it's the value of the whole package and a package that maximises old firm and edinburgh derby matches adds value. 16 games that are currently sfl1 fixtures won't. So a league of 16 provides too few games does it? Well you used a split to tailor the number of games in a 12 - could we not have a split in a 16 or 18. there is no split that could fix a 16 team league. 18 teams is too many, to have an 18 team league you need at least 24 teams capable of playing in the top division. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 5, 2011 Report Share Posted January 5, 2011 Thats the thing that absolutely rips me about this. Its the complete and total laco of imagination being shown. Put in perspective, I'm 22 years old, a recent graduate, I've got a whack of interesting experience and I reckon that given some time and money, I could put together a solution that wouldn't please all (seems unlikely) but a damn sight more interesting and creative. But instead of this, we've got a complete inability to see beyond the obvious, unimaginative and lifeless. A lack of conviction or bravery to do something different, something new. Instead just a patronising pat on the head and an insistance that 'we know best, just go along with it.'. Sorry, I pay my money and support Scottish football as best I can at all times. I think i deserve my view as a collective voice in this process, given that without fans who support the game, whats the point? The club charter has a part about communicating with the fans, as i imagine all clubs do, when was this done? Will it be done? Or will be again be expected to follow without questioning it. This whole thing stinks. I'm not questioning the abilities of those who run the club, as I assume they're doing it as they're more than capable of doing so, but given that the whole process is being done behind closed doors without any communication or justification just leads to even more questioning and frustration amongst fans. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Diggle Posted January 5, 2011 Report Share Posted January 5, 2011 they're not paid out match by match. it's the value of the whole package and a package that maximises old firm and edinburgh derby matches adds value. 16 games that are currently sfl1 fixtures won't. there is no split that could fix a 16 team league. 18 teams is too many, to have an 18 team league you need at least 24 teams capable of playing in the top division. 2 x 15 = 30 plus 1 x 7 = 37 - thats one game more than 4 x 9 =36 And instead of the farce we have now where the black magic smoke and mirrors fixture committee go away and knit a shreddies post split fixture list we have it mapped out befor the season starts so every team knows where they stand. If you finish first - you play team 2, 5 and 7 away plus 3,4 6 aqnd 8 at home How fuckin difficult is something like that. Move back to sharing gates more evemly and hay presto shares in Andrex go down Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steelboy Posted January 5, 2011 Report Share Posted January 5, 2011 2 x 15 = 30 plus 1 x 7 = 37 - thats one game more than 4 x 9 =36 And instead of the farce we have now where the black magic smoke and mirrors fixture committee go away and knit a shreddies post split fixture list we have it mapped out befor the season starts so every team knows where they stand. If you finish first - you play team 2, 5 and 7 away plus 3,4 6 aqnd 8 at home How fuckin difficult is something like that. Move back to sharing gates more evemly and hay presto shares in Andrex go down that would obviously work but i doubt the old firm would ever agree to it with the champions league cash being at stake. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Diggle Posted January 5, 2011 Report Share Posted January 5, 2011 that would obviously work but i doubt the old firm would ever agree to it with the champions league cash being at stake. I think though - if you develop the ideas around that it could eventually take shape. Them numbers were off the top of my thick baldy napper. Just think what hawf of a dozen of us could come up with if they asked us to form a focus group? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steelboy Posted January 5, 2011 Report Share Posted January 5, 2011 i still think what we've got is a pretty decent set up. for all the moaning about the top six it's given us something to aim for and a definite sense of achievement when we get it and disapointment if we don't which is what the game should be about. if you add a play off between 11th and 2nd in div 1 it would be ideal. we just need to keep a couple of things in mind (i) we're a small country (28th most populous in uefa). even although it doesn't seem like it our european achievements and attendances are very good. (ii) we're mortgaged to the hilt. 6 of the 10 best supported teams in the country are up to their necks in debt. we're relatively ok because boyle put his own money in but there are other clubs who are going to be paying for the madness at the turn of century for a long time and are limited in what they can do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juan Kerse Posted January 5, 2011 Report Share Posted January 5, 2011 2 x 15 = 30 plus 1 x 7 = 37 - thats one game more than 4 x 9 =36 And instead of the farce we have now where the black magic smoke and mirrors fixture committee go away and knit a shreddies post split fixture list we have it mapped out befor the season starts so every team knows where they stand. If you finish first - you play team 2, 5 and 7 away plus 3,4 6 aqnd 8 at home How fuckin difficult is something like that. Move back to sharing gates more evemly and hay presto shares in Andrex go down I have thought about a 1 game round split in a 16 before, but if you are first at the split you get say 2, 4,6 at home, 3, 5 , 7 and 8 away. The key being you deserve to get your closest rivals (i.e. 2nd) at home. Otherwise the Old Firm, if finishing 1/2 couldn't argue as the 'leader' gets the home game. You could perhaps sort it so that everyone at least plays the 'rival' below them at home. Anyway, it crucially gives more games for clubs and SKY, less 'hard' games than playing big teams 4 times so more title challengers plus the sweetner of an extra Old Firm game than just 2x15 rounds for some clubs and TV money. And SKY don't give a shit where the Old Firm/Edinburgh Derby is played. Nice wee solution this Steve but clearly it makes too much fucking sense for Scottish Football. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weeyin Posted January 5, 2011 Report Share Posted January 5, 2011 I have thought about a 1 game round split in a 16 before, but if you are first at the split you get say 2, 4,6 at home, 3, 5 , 7 and 8 away. The key being you deserve to get your closest rivals (i.e. 2nd) at home. Otherwise the Old Firm, if finishing 1/2 couldn't argue as the 'leader' gets the home game. You could perhaps sort it so that everyone at least plays the 'rival' below them at home.Alternatively: 14 team league. Pre-split all 14 play home and away = 26 games. Post split, play home and away = 12 games (including, most likely another 2 OF). It would mean a week off for each team after the split, but it solves a few problems in regard to playing an odd number of games after the split. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juan Kerse Posted January 5, 2011 Report Share Posted January 5, 2011 Alternatively: 14 team league. Pre-split all 14 play home and away = 26 games. Post split, play home and away = 12 games (including, most likely another 2 OF). It would mean a week off for each team after the split, but it solves a few problems in regard to playing an odd number of games after the split. It does but it goes back to playing some teams 4 times. It also involves any budding title challenger having to go to Glasgow 4 times which offers little to no chance of sustaining a challenge. Repetitveness and competitiveness are the two main issues. A 14 team league does little to solve either. A 16 team league addresses both. The 7 game split proposal makes it commercially viable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Me Bungo Pony Posted January 5, 2011 Report Share Posted January 5, 2011 Currently with the 12-team SPL there are 38 match-days on each of which there are 6 matches played. This gives a total of 228 games. Or 228 opportunities for the league sponsors, advertisers, etc to get their brand across. A 16-team SPL (basic home and away format without play-offs) will have 30 match-days where 8 games will be played, giving a total of 240 games. A 10-team SPL (again, simple format, everyone plays each other 4 times) will have 36 match-days of 5 games each, giving a total of 180 games. Are they seriously saying sponsors will pay more money for fewer games? ie. considerably fewer chances for their logos to be seen, which is after all what sponsors are paying for. Neil Doncaster said it would cost each club £1m for a 16-team league, but if I was Clydesdale Bank I'd be telling the SPL that if you're playing 21% fewer games a season (48 less than currently), you're getting your sponsorship money cut by 21% because my brand won't be seen as often. Will Sky make up the difference? I'm clearly missing something 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. 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.