LarrysRightFoot Posted April 16, 2015 Share Posted April 16, 2015 Sorry if covered elsewhere but seriously what Doncaster and the rest do? Where do they get their ideas on how to run the game? The article below just highlights how inept those running the game are. I think the Scottish game could prosper with some proper governance - get Queen Ann in! http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/opinion/sport/michael-gannon-spfl-fixture-farce-5528557 On a related note - the split, whoever came up with it and who actually thought it was a good idea? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jamboinglasgow Posted April 16, 2015 Share Posted April 16, 2015 I dont think I would want Ann doing both the rebuilding job at Hearts and at the SPFL. But I would love to see her involved in the recruitment process for people who make a difference in their job at the top of the SPFL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LarrysRightFoot Posted April 16, 2015 Author Share Posted April 16, 2015 Yeh I don't want to lose her either. All I really meant was its amazing the difference in our club when you have someone who can think logically and also creatively at the helm. Imagine we had someone like that in charge of the game in Scotland? I really think we could turn our game into one to envy (given time). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Dan Posted April 16, 2015 Share Posted April 16, 2015 A devastating piece in the Daily Ranger there. I can't see these incompetents surviving much longer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stupid Sexy Flanders Posted April 16, 2015 Share Posted April 16, 2015 Sorry if covered elsewhere but seriously what Doncaster and the rest do? Where do they get their ideas on how to run the game? The article below just highlights how inept those running the game are. I think the Scottish game could prosper with some proper governance - get Queen Ann in! http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/opinion/sport/michael-gannon-spfl-fixture-farce-5528557 On a related note - the split, whoever came up with it and who actually thought it was a good idea? I'm going to be controversial here: I quite like the split. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jamboinglasgow Posted April 16, 2015 Share Posted April 16, 2015 I'm going to be controversial here: I quite like the split. I never really get the anger over it, can keep it interesting. The bottom six had a problem before but with play-offs it changed the dynamic therefore keeping it interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bilel Mohsni Posted April 16, 2015 Share Posted April 16, 2015 It's marginally better than what went before, but riddled with arseholes, and ambiguous rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BelgeJambo Posted April 16, 2015 Share Posted April 16, 2015 Clubs to unite and oust that idiot Dungcaster and his buddy Regan. You would think there would be a simple mechanism in place were the club's involved in play off fights sit down round a table and agree fixtures and dates while considering the supporters cos clearly Dungcaster doesn't. Get him out and give Barry Hearn a call Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LarrysRightFoot Posted April 16, 2015 Author Share Posted April 16, 2015 I'm going to be controversial here: I quite like the split.It's utterly pointless. The teams that compete for 6th place will either finish 5th or 6th because they are too far behind to make European place. Or they will finish 7th or 8th because they are to far ahead of the bottom 2. All you do is effectively end 4 or so teams season 5 games early. You also end up with the farcical situation that you can play a team 3 times away and 1 time at home (or vice versa). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redjambo Posted April 16, 2015 Share Posted April 16, 2015 It's utterly pointless. The teams that compete for 6th place will either finish 5th or 6th because they are too far behind to make European place. Or they will finish 7th or 8th because they are to far ahead of the bottom 2. All you do is effectively end 4 or so teams season 5 games early. You also end up with the farcical situation that you can play a team 3 times away and 1 time at home (or vice versa). Wasn't it devised though to create a more manageable 38-game league for 12 teams rather than a 44-game one, with the added benefit that it would create a bit more excitement for all those mid-table teams trying to beat the cut or not in the run-up to the split? It achieved these aims, despite being as quirky as hell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LarrysRightFoot Posted April 16, 2015 Author Share Posted April 16, 2015 Wasn't it devised though to create a more manageable 38-game league for 12 teams rather than a 44-game one, with the added benefit that it would create a bit more excitement for all those mid-table teams trying to beat the cut or not in the run-up to the split? It achieved these aims, despite being as quirky as hell. They tried to sell it as some nonsense like that but as I say it's pointless. If anything this season has proven a 16 team top flight could work in Scotland. The top 5 in the championship are premiership level (IMO). Some say 30 games isn't enough but other countries such as Portugal manage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mysterion Posted April 16, 2015 Share Posted April 16, 2015 They tried to sell it as some nonsense like that but as I say it's pointless. If anything this season has proven a 16 team top flight could work in Scotland. The top 5 in the championship are premiership level (IMO). Some say 30 games isn't enough but other countries such as Portugal manage. It's that age old thing of fans want one thing but chairmen will say "we need more games" to balance the books. I do believe regional mini leagues for the league cup can provide the extra games needed (and Derby games) to get crowds through the gates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redjambo Posted April 16, 2015 Share Posted April 16, 2015 They tried to sell it as some nonsense like that but as I say it's pointless. If anything this season has proven a 16 team top flight could work in Scotland. The top 5 in the championship are premiership level (IMO). Some say 30 games isn't enough but other countries such as Portugal manage. Scottish football teams generally earn a pittance from TV and commercial partners (thanks Neil! , and are dependant on money through the turnstyles. You would be hard-pressed to sell a 30-game league to SPFL clubs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fozzyonthefence Posted April 16, 2015 Share Posted April 16, 2015 It's utterly pointless. The teams that compete for 6th place will either finish 5th or 6th because they are too far behind to make European place. Or they will finish 7th or 8th because they are to far ahead of the bottom 2. All you do is effectively end 4 or so teams season 5 games early. You also end up with the farcical situation that you can play a team 3 times away and 1 time at home (or vice versa). Or some teams end up playing 18 home games and 20 away (Killie this season, I believe, which could effectively put them in the play offs) or vice versa. Utter farce but more worringly, the clubs actually voted for this. Doncaster still needs to fall on his own sword though, the guy is incompetent beyond belief. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colinmaroon Posted April 16, 2015 Share Posted April 16, 2015 Or some teams end up playing 18 home games and 20 away (Killie this season, I believe, which could effectively put them in the play offs) or vice versa. Utter farce but more worringly, the clubs actually voted for this. Doncaster still needs to fall on his own sword though, the guy is incompetent beyond belief. He would miss! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FarmerTweedy Posted April 17, 2015 Share Posted April 17, 2015 They tried to sell it as some nonsense like that but as I say it's pointless. If anything this season has proven a 16 team top flight could work in Scotland. The top 5 in the championship are premiership level (IMO). Some say 30 games isn't enough but other countries such as Portugal manage. This season hasn't proven any such thing! There's absolutely no evidence that clubs such as Partick, Inverness, Ross Co, Killie, etc or indeed even the likes of Hearts, could cope with the financial implications of going to a setup with only 15 home games per season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chester copperpot Posted April 17, 2015 Share Posted April 17, 2015 He would miss! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LarrysRightFoot Posted April 17, 2015 Author Share Posted April 17, 2015 This season hasn't proven any such thing! There's absolutely no evidence that clubs such as Partick, Inverness, Ross Co, Killie, etc or indeed even the likes of Hearts, could cope with the financial implications of going to a setup with only 15 home games per season. That may be true - I hadn't considered that. What I meant was ur has proven there are at least 17 teams within a certain level. Most of the previous arguments against 16 was we didn't have enough teams at a level to sustain it. I understand people being concerned with the financial implications. However, one thing is certain - the current set-up is terrible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LarrysRightFoot Posted April 17, 2015 Author Share Posted April 17, 2015 Or some teams end up playing 18 home games and 20 away (Killie this season, I believe, which could effectively put them in the play offs) or vice versa. Utter farce but more worringly, the clubs actually voted for this. Doncaster still needs to fall on his own sword though, the guy is incompetent beyond belief. highlights that 'sporting integrity' in central to this set-up doesn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unknown user Posted April 17, 2015 Share Posted April 17, 2015 They tried to sell it as some nonsense like that but as I say it's pointless. If anything this season has proven a 16 team top flight could work in Scotland. The top 5 in the championship are premiership level (IMO). Some say 30 games isn't enough but other countries such as Portugal manage. Don't Portugal have league sections in their cup competition to make up for it? The bottom line is that clubs don't want only 15 home games and 44 league games is too much. 10 teams gets boring, 12 means too many fixtures without a split and the top division teams don't want to give up OF home games so won't go for 16 or over cos that would be once each home and away. It's a compromise but it's really not that bad compared to south American competitions, I don't get why people are so angry about it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LarrysRightFoot Posted April 17, 2015 Author Share Posted April 17, 2015 It's almost like they have been reading this thread http://m.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/32348963 http://m.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/32340534 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Getintaethem Posted April 17, 2015 Share Posted April 17, 2015 There is a perfectly simple solution that sorts out the imbalance of games and still allows for a 38 game season. 14 team league. Each team play home and away twice (26 games), then split into top/ bottom 7. Each team in top/bottom 7 play home and away twice (14 games). Everybody plays an equal number of home/away fixtures, more top flight clubs, a far more sensible structure IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LarrysRightFoot Posted April 17, 2015 Author Share Posted April 17, 2015 Don't Portugal have league sections in their cup competition to make up for it? The bottom line is that clubs don't want only 15 home games and 44 league games is too much. 10 teams gets boring, 12 means too many fixtures without a split and the top division teams don't want to give up OF home games so won't go for 16 or over cos that would be once each home and away. It's a compromise but it's really not that bad compared to south American competitions, I don't get why people are so angry about it The South American systems are farcical. Yes it is not as bad as that but that doesn't mean our system/structure is good - it isn't. Could we not have 2 legged league cup tied or a group stage (I'd prefer a group stage). Also is there not talk of a cross border cup competition? That could solve the home game and income shortfall in one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 17, 2015 Share Posted April 17, 2015 There is a perfectly simple solution that sorts out the imbalance of games and still allows for a 38 game season. 14 team league. Each team play home and away twice (26 games), then split into top/ bottom 7. Each team in top/bottom 7 play home and away twice (14 games). Everybody plays an equal number of home/away fixtures, more top flight clubs, a far more sensible structure IMO. Is that not 40? What about just expanding one of the lower leagues already existing cups and including the top flight? Expand the league cup also and it should make up any shortfall Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bilel Mohsni Posted April 17, 2015 Share Posted April 17, 2015 It's almost like they have been reading this thread http://m.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/32348963 http://m.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/32340534 But... But... But... Meaningless fixtures! Dear god! Won't someone think about the "meaningless fixtures"! Some bloody fans don't even want to change the set up, what chance have we got? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pans Jambo Posted April 17, 2015 Share Posted April 17, 2015 Clubs to unite and oust that idiot Dungcaster and his buddy Regan. You would think there would be a simple mechanism in place were the club's involved in play off fights sit down round a table and agree fixtures and dates while considering the supporters cos clearly Dungcaster doesn't. Get him out and give Barry Hearn a call My worry would be that Doncaster goes and that dick Regan steps up. He needs to go as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bilel Mohsni Posted April 17, 2015 Share Posted April 17, 2015 My worry would be that Doncaster goes and that dick Regan steps up. He needs to go as well. Doubt he'd be allowed to run both organisations at the same time. We'd probably end up with some prick like Ogilvie or Petrie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pans Jambo Posted April 17, 2015 Share Posted April 17, 2015 Doubt he'd be allowed to run both organisations at the same time. We'd probably end up with some prick like Ogilvie or Petrie.Please don't... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redjambo Posted April 17, 2015 Share Posted April 17, 2015 There is a perfectly simple solution that sorts out the imbalance of games and still allows for a 38 game season. 14 team league. Each team play home and away twice (26 games), then split into top/ bottom 7. Each team in top/bottom 7 play home and away twice (14 games). Everybody plays an equal number of home/away fixtures, more top flight clubs, a far more sensible structure IMO. 12 games, shurely? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eddiepolio Posted April 17, 2015 Share Posted April 17, 2015 Just go to a top 20 like every other 'major' league in Europe. Simples. The fourth tier of English football has 24 teams and they seem to cope fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomaso Posted April 17, 2015 Share Posted April 17, 2015 Just remember that the TV broadcasters are desperate to get back to 4 OF games a season - hence the 12 team league. Money as we know will dictate this NOT the interests of the fans! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 17, 2015 Share Posted April 17, 2015 Just remember that the TV broadcasters are desperate to get back to 4 OF games a season - hence the 12 team league. Money as we know will dictate this NOT the interests of the fans! There's another side to that as well though, by reducing the amount of old firm games they would actually make them more lucrative and they could probably get a better deal for more money. Also means the broadcasters are more likely to look at other higher profile games they could show in the interim so games like the Dundee Derby, Edinburgh Derby and maybe fixtures like Aberdeen vs Inverness would receive more publicity/ television coverage. There's also the high probability (hot and cold balls anyone?) of old firm matches during the cups, which means there could still be 4 old firm games but 2 of those would have a higher profile because only one side can progress. Keeps the fans happy, makes the league more interesting and is likely to increase the interest in the game from broadcasters. The only problem is the self interest from some chairmen, they would have to revise how they market their product and it's unlikely that many of them would feel happy about extra work to encourage more supporters through the turnstiles to make up any shortfalls from the loss of the old firm playing them so many times. They might actually have to look after their own fanbases, God forbid! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redjambo Posted April 17, 2015 Share Posted April 17, 2015 There's another side to that as well though, by reducing the amount of old firm games they would actually make them more lucrative and they could probably get a better deal for more money. Also means the broadcasters are more likely to look at other higher profile games they could show in the interim so games like the Dundee Derby, Edinburgh Derby and maybe fixtures like Aberdeen vs Inverness would receive more publicity/ television coverage. There's also the high probability (hot and cold balls anyone?) of old firm matches during the cups, which means there could still be 4 old firm games but 2 of those would have a higher profile because only one side can progress. Keeps the fans happy, makes the league more interesting and is likely to increase the interest in the game from broadcasters. The only problem is the self interest from some chairmen, they would have to revise how they market their product and it's unlikely that many of them would feel happy about extra work to encourage more supporters through the turnstiles to make up any shortfalls from the loss of the old firm playing them so many times. They might actually have to look after their own fanbases, God forbid! Interesting logic. Why don't we just reduce the number of OF games to 1 or 0 then to make them even more lucrative? The reality is that, as long as Rangers and Celtic remain in Scottish football then TV doesn't really give two hoots about any other games. They only get decent viewing figures for OF games. As regards extra income from away OF fans, I'm not sure that it makes that much difference for the smaller clubs when averaged out over the season, particularly for those with smaller ground capacities, and once you incorporate the extra policing costs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doctor jambo Posted April 17, 2015 Share Posted April 17, 2015 Interesting logic. Why don't we just reduce the number of OF games to 1 or 0 then to make them even more lucrative? The reality is that, as long as Rangers and Celtic remain in Scottish football then TV doesn't really give two hoots about any other games. They only get decent viewing figures for OF games. As regards extra income from away OF fans, I'm not sure that it makes that much difference for the smaller clubs when averaged out over the season, particularly for those with smaller ground capacities, and once you incorporate the extra policing costs. When we were flying under Burley, our games on Setanta got higher viewing figures than the non derby OF games. Why? Because there was an interesting story unfolding and it was worth watching. Many people will not just watch football "because its on", but will tune in if something interesting is happening - you need the neutrals to watch other teams' games Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redjambo Posted April 17, 2015 Share Posted April 17, 2015 When we were flying under Burley, our games on Setanta got higher viewing figures than the non derby OF games. Why? Because there was an interesting story unfolding and it was worth watching. Many people will not just watch football "because its on", but will tune in if something interesting is happening - you need the neutrals to watch other teams' games I agree, my argument was that reducing the number of OF games (if Rangers ever make it back up to the Premiership ) from 4 to 2 would make no real difference except for a negative one in the eyes of the TV companies. However we'll need a sustained attack on a weaker OF to generate Burley era type interest. That's why I can't understand those people who would prefer Rangers to come up with us than Hibs. Celtic are already appearing weaker due to Rangers not being in the Premiership - we have a real opportunity to get in about them next season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weonly151 Posted April 17, 2015 Share Posted April 17, 2015 My ideal league would be 16 teams, play each other home and away and have a two legged 4 team league cup group stage to make up your 6 matches with the top 2 qualifying to the last 16 you could make the matches on a Saturday instead of a Wednesday to attract larger crowds and to make up for the lost matches that would be played in the league. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomaso Posted April 17, 2015 Share Posted April 17, 2015 There's another side to that as well though, by reducing the amount of old firm games they would actually make them more lucrative and they could probably get a better deal for more money. Also means the broadcasters are more likely to look at other higher profile games they could show in the interim so games like the Dundee Derby, Edinburgh Derby and maybe fixtures like Aberdeen vs Inverness would receive more publicity/ television coverage. There's also the high probability (hot and cold balls anyone?) of old firm matches during the cups, which means there could still be 4 old firm games but 2 of those would have a higher profile because only one side can progress. Keeps the fans happy, makes the league more interesting and is likely to increase the interest in the game from broadcasters. The only problem is the self interest from some chairmen, they would have to revise how they market their product and it's unlikely that many of them would feel happy about extra work to encourage more supporters through the turnstiles to make up any shortfalls from the loss of the old firm playing them so many times. They might actually have to look after their own fanbases, God forbid! Sorry mate I just do not think your logic stands up to scrutiny Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weonly151 Posted April 17, 2015 Share Posted April 17, 2015 I also think the league cup should have a rule that you have to include so many Scottish bred youngsters in the squad/starting 11. Think it would be good for development and one more point to make the league cup more competitive make a European spot available and take one away from the league Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Getintaethem Posted April 17, 2015 Share Posted April 17, 2015 Is that not 40? What about just expanding one of the lower leagues already existing cups and including the top flight? Expand the league cup also and it should make up any shortfall 12 games, shurely? Yes meant 12 games after split. 38 total. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LarrysRightFoot Posted April 17, 2015 Author Share Posted April 17, 2015 I also think the league cup should have a rule that you have to include so many Scottish bred youngsters in the squad/starting 11.That's a really good idea - we could call it the Scottish Cup! Seriously though I think that is a good idea. In general I think the 6+5 rule should be introduced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paolo Posted April 17, 2015 Share Posted April 17, 2015 There is a perfectly simple solution that sorts out the imbalance of games and still allows for a 38 game season. 14 team league. Each team play home and away twice (26 games), then split into top/ bottom 7. Each team in top/bottom 7 play home and away twice (14 games). Everybody plays an equal number of home/away fixtures, more top flight clubs, a far more sensible structure IMO. That is worse than the current set up. One team would be left without a game each week. This would mean that not all the last games would be played on the same day, never mind same time, which is exactly what we have been slagging Doncaster off for in the last 72 hours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FarmerTweedy Posted April 17, 2015 Share Posted April 17, 2015 There is a perfectly simple solution that sorts out the imbalance of games and still allows for a 38 game season. 14 team league. Each team play home and away twice (26 games), then split into top/ bottom 7. Each team in top/bottom 7 play home and away twice (14 games). Everybody plays an equal number of home/away fixtures, more top flight clubs, a far more sensible structure IMO. That's an awful setup. Two teams, one from each half, would be left idle every week after the split, and you couldn't possibly have everyone playing their final games at the same time. One possible option might be a top 6, bottom 8 split. That would give the top 6 36 games and bottom 8 40 games. This would seem unfair on the top 6 in financial terms, but they'd get more prize money, and generally higher crowds as playing against bigger teams, so would most likely be more than adequately compensated through that. The top 6 would also typically be likely to have longer cup runs on average. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FarmerTweedy Posted April 17, 2015 Share Posted April 17, 2015 Just go to a top 20 like every other 'major' league in Europe. Simples. The fourth tier of English football has 24 teams and they seem to cope fine. Scotland isn't a major league! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LarrysRightFoot Posted April 17, 2015 Author Share Posted April 17, 2015 Scotland isn't a major league! True. However we shouldn't be small minded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eddiepolio Posted April 17, 2015 Share Posted April 17, 2015 Scotland isn't a major league! That's the sort of small minded attitude that ends up negotiating the abysmal TV deal we've ended up with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redjambo Posted April 17, 2015 Share Posted April 17, 2015 That's the sort of small minded attitude that ends up negotiating the abysmal TV deal we've ended up with. There's a difference between being small-minded and being realistic. The abysmal TV deal was the result of lack of confidence, enthusiasm and positive attitude concerning the Scottish game rather than being due to small-mindedness. We are not a major league, that's just the reality of life. On one measure (http://www.uefa.com/memberassociations/uefarankings/country/index.html) we are the 23rd ranked European league. But we still deserve far more exposure and income for the good product we have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 17, 2015 Share Posted April 17, 2015 Sorry mate I just do not think your logic stands up to scrutiny Probably not but feel that reducing the games the old firm teams play against the same teams can only be a good thing IMO. I honestly think it would create more interest if they only played each other home and away as well. If both are challenging for a title then it adds more incentive for them to both try and win and because it's not as repetitive/ there isn't any certainty over them playing each other so many times I would imagine the TV companies would look to fill any blank spaces in their schedule (after the EPL etc) with our 'lesser' games. As you mentioned I don't imagine that does hold up well under scrutiny but it's only a positive outlook for what could otherwise be seen as a bleak/ headache situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
invernessjt Posted April 17, 2015 Share Posted April 17, 2015 Scotland isn't a major league!Neither's the 4th tier of English football. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adamski1874 Posted April 17, 2015 Share Posted April 17, 2015 My first ever post but can't keep quiet on this. The SPFL is an absolute disgrace. Love Queen Anne's public complaint today. Can we please have visible huge display of dis-satisfaction at rangers game "SPFL Corruption & Incompetence: Doncaster Out" Sky TV may even show it unless they love his incompetence so much so they can keep taking advantage of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Australis Posted April 17, 2015 Share Posted April 17, 2015 My first ever post but can't keep quiet on this. The SPFL is an absolute disgrace. Love Queen Anne's public complaint today. Can we please have visible huge display of dis-satisfaction at rangers game "SPFL Corruption & Incompetence: Doncaster Out" Sky TV may even show it unless they love his incompetence so much so they can keep taking advantage of it. I liked the idea I noticed on kickback a few days ago, where the fans of a club in Spain I think, threw tennis balls onto the park to show how unhappy they were. It looked amazing imagine all Scottish clubs doing that at the start of a game. There are not enough tennis balls in Scotland though I would imagine, and the fans would need to buy them first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.