Reconstruction: Deal or No Deal

[Buffalo Bill]

I'm offering you a 16 team SPL.

 

Heart of Midlothian, Rank Gers, Ra Sellik, Hubbers, Cod Heids, Arabs, FY Well, St Celtic, St Johnstone, Dundee, Plastic Whistle, Plastic Livi, Killie, Hamilton Accies, ICT and Dunfermline 0.

 

We play eachother once home, once away; meaning that games v the Old Firm and Hubs will actually be something of an event worth waiting for. Less is more, if you like.

 

Meanwhile, if we get in a decent manager, Hearts will take care of the 'rest', meaning good times in the pub after.

 

 

Deal?

 

 

Or No Deal.

 

 

 

Buffalo Bill

 

.

[Ryan Gosling]

Top 5 in division 1 plus 11 in the SPL and you have a deal.

[Ray Winstone]

Doesnt seem too bad to be honest.

 

Would certainly make it a lot more interesting for supporters.

 

Anything would be better than the joke for a Premier League we have at the moment.

[Ryan Gosling]

Only problem is not enough games.

[The Old Tolbooth]

Deal for me, but could we go back to mini leagues for the league cup to make up more fixtures?

[Buffalo Bill]

Top 5 in division 1 plus 11 in the SPL and you have a deal.

 

Of course, but regarding the '11' SPL clubs.

 

I take it you want rid of 'Flair Football', right?

 

 

Buffalo Bill

 

.

[Buffalo Bill]

Only problem is not enough games.

 

See John Mitchell's post.

 

 

Make the League Cup 'mini sections', and then team can decide exactly how they'd like to play the 'Diddy Cup'.

 

 

30 league games is fairly standard across Europe though isn't it?

 

 

Buffalo Bill

 

.

[Ray Winstone]

See John Mitchell's post.

 

 

Make the League Cup 'mini sections', and then team can decide exactly how they'd like to play the 'Diddy Cup'.

 

 

30 league games is fairly standard across Europe though isn't it?

 

 

Buffalo Bill

 

.

 

Having a 30 game season might also allow for a winter shutdown again!

 

Which would certainly be an end to this seasons farce over the winter months.

[magicTs]

Deal. Doubt it will happen again anytime soon but it would give us a much better chance of competing for a league title when we have a good team once every decade or so.

[Ibrahim Tall]

Deal, could always add in a winter shutdown with there being less games aswell.

 

Would help in preventing the current fixture ****** up repeating itself.

[Only a Game]

Dundee utd, Aberdeen, Inverness, Falkirk Motherwell and anyone else in the SPL at the time they are asked will NEVER EVER vote for re-construction that sees them potentially losing home games against the Old Firm and the associated revenue that comes with a capacity crowd at home.

 

Without the support of those clubs and the financial advantages being there for those sorts of clubs league re-construction is dead in the water.

[Ibrahim Tall]

_

[JamboJen]

Absolutely deal.

 

The thing I've noticed recently when watching match of the day is now that it's getting to the end of the season a lot of players are swapping shirts with each other because they may only ever get two chances to play against the likes of Ronaldo, Fabregas and Torres in their entire careers.

 

Obviously the same isn't applicable to Scotland but it wouldn't happen in England if they played each other 4 times.

 

Killie have been tam kite this season and are still nowhere near being relegated, even without Gretna's points deduction. There is no change in the SPL because one **** poor team always falls away at the start of the season and even a fightback - a la Dunfermline last season - doesn't really worry the teams above them.

 

We need more competition which can only come from a bigger league.

 

Will the chairmen ever go for it? Eh, no. Your Killies, Falkirks and St Mirrens aren't going to give up half of their OF gate receipts.

[Buffalo Bill]

I forgot to add Falkirk to my list.

 

 

They can have St Mhirren's place, just in case there's a league decider.

 

 

Buffalo Bill

 

.

[ToadKiller Dog]

Deal two leagues of 16 with regional leagues under that with a play off to the 2nd league.

A visit of the old firm once each is more than enough for me.You could conceivably win the league with out beating the uglies that gives the other 14 some balance back against there resources.

[Boris]

I think UEFA have a mond that a 30 game leaguse season wouldn;t be enough.

 

I like your thinking, but would make it an 18 team league giving 34 games, or even 20 giving 38.

[davemclaren]

Ideal is an 18 team league giving 34 games but no-one wants to give up their home games with the OF, and for us with Hibs. Best bet is a 10 team league again imo.

[Buffalo Bill]

I think UEFA have a mond that a 30 game leaguse season wouldn;t be enough.

 

I like your thinking, but would make it an 18 team league giving 34 games, or even 20 giving 38.

 

Fair doos, Boris lad.

 

I'm calling up Raith Rovers and Queen of the South.

 

 

Buffalo Bill

 

.

[Ray Winstone]

Fair doos, Boris lad.

 

I'm calling up Raith Rovers and Queen of the South.

 

 

Buffalo Bill

 

.

 

Raith Rovers would be properly crap in a top league!

[blairdin]

Deal.

 

But OAG has identified the problem.

 

Dundee utd, Aberdeen, Inverness, Falkirk Motherwell and anyone else in the SPL at the time they are asked will NEVER EVER vote for re-construction that sees them potentially losing home games against the Old Firm and the associated revenue that comes with a capacity crowd at home.

 

Without the support of those clubs and the financial advantages being there for those sorts of clubs league re-construction is dead in the water.

[portobellojambo1]

I'm offering you a 16 team SPL.

 

Heart of Midlothian, Rank Gers, Ra Sellik, Hubbers, Cod Heids, Arabs, FY Well, St Celtic, St Johnstone, Dundee, Plastic Whistle, Plastic Livi, Killie, Hamilton Accies, ICT and Dunfermline 0.

 

We play eachother once home, once away; meaning that games v the Old Firm and Hubs will actually be something of an event worth waiting for. Less is more, if you like.

 

Meanwhile, if we get in a decent manager, Hearts will take care of the 'rest', meaning good times in the pub after.

 

 

Deal?

 

 

Or No Deal.

 

 

 

Buffalo Bill

 

.

 

Absolute deal BB, would love to get back to a situation where clubs play each other twice a season on league duty.

 

And as John Mitchell has said (didn't actually realise how old he was, League Cup Sections went out about 40 years ago ) the CIS Cup format could be altered to make up additional games, or the top division could even be extended to 18 teams.

 

But I think OaG is spot on, for too many clubs the income from games versus the OF means more to them than spreading funds about amongst other clubs, so getting them to vote against the status quo could be a big problem, although possibly not insurmountable if a little bit of thought is put into it by the authorities.

 

(I suppose in theory most of these smaller clubs have a limited capacity for away fans anyway, and if the league became more competitive clubs like ourselves, Aberdeen, dare I even say Hibs, may increase their travelling supports so it might not be such a big thing for some of them. 2,000 fans from any visiting club will generate the same amount of income).

[Alan_R]

We need bigger leagues in Scotland. All the best leagues in the world have large divisions. It would certainly make the league more competitive.

 

Ive never understood why we dont do this. As to move the top teams for each division would not be too difficult. The likes of Linlithgow rose and other non league teams are easily good enough for acceptance into 3rd division which is amateur at best anyway.

 

Even shaving off a division wouldnt be any worse than what we have.

[ToadKiller Dog]

The thing is most of the fans of clubs like The Arabs ,like aberdeen when asked would want a 16/18 team league its the owners that see the ? signs only and they are very short sighted but understandable for example dundee united are having there best season since ivan golacs cup win yet there support has stuck solid at a poor level..

[Statto]

If the league is going to be changed, there will have to be 36+ games or clubs won't agree to it, football is all about money these days, it doesn't matter what we fans think at the end of the day.

 

 

(But I'd deal)

[blackjambo]

Dundee utd, Aberdeen, Inverness, Falkirk Motherwell and anyone else in the SPL at the time they are asked will NEVER EVER vote for re-construction that sees them potentially losing home games against the Old Firm and the associated revenue that comes with a capacity crowd at home.

Without the support of those clubs and the financial advantages being there for those sorts of clubs league re-construction is dead in the water.

 

 

The thing is, since every OF away game is on Setanta, with the exception of games against Hearts (where they are restricted to 3 sections), there is very rarely a capacity crowd. A bigger crowd, granted - but rarely capacity. The most telling opposition would come from Setanta who love the four OF games a season for the large audience that they draw. Change something for the benefit of Scottish football rather than the OF? Not a chance.

[Buffalo Bill]

Raith Rovers would be properly crap in a top league!

 

 

I've always had a wee soft spot for Raith since a certain game played out in November 1994.

 

Plus it's not too far away if you can win the speed boat.

 

 

 

Buffalo Bill

 

.

[davemclaren]

The thing is, since every OF away game is on Setanta, with the exception of games against Hearts (where they are restricted to 3 sections), there is very rarely a capacity crowd. A bigger crowd, granted - but rarely capacity. The most telling opposition would come from Setanta who love the four OF games a season for the large audience that they draw. Change something for the benefit of Scottish football rather than the OF? Not a chance.

 

Good point.

[shaun.lawson]

16 teams? Non-starter, because a 30-game league season is not recognised by UEFA's statutes.

 

18 or 20 teams? Non-starters, because some of the scorelines involving the OF v strugglers would be absolutely ludicrous, not enough clubs will be able to get their stadia up to scratch, and current SPL clubs will never give up an extra home game v the uglies: it makes a huge difference to what they can take in, and hence, the players they can afford to sign. Expanding to 18 or 20 will mean a poorer quality league, and the gap to the big two will get even bigger. If you don't believe me, maybe you'd like to take a look at the pre-1975 league tables, converting them to three points for a win?

 

10 teams? Non-starter, because it encourages negative, fear factor football.

 

12 teams plus split? Unwieldy, and less than ideal - but implemented in order to persuade the SFL to allow a breakaway in the first place, and to offer the chance of extra home games v the OF. 12 teams playing each other four times equals a ridiculous 44-game season, way too much - so the only alternative was the split.

 

Solution? If you want expansion, the only feasible option (one which won't make the league more uncompetitive, and would stand a chance of being voted through) is a 14-team league, with clubs playing each other home and away, then splitting into a top 7 and bottom 7, and playing home and away again. 26 + 12 = 38, the amount of fixtures played in most major European leagues: it'd be fair, equable, would end the nonsense of some clubs playing 18 home games and 20 away, or an opponent away three times; and would provide a proper reward for finishing in the top half after 26 matches. As I see it, it's the only realistic alternative.

[Buffalo Bill]

16 teams? Non-starter, because a 30-game league season is not recognised by UEFA's statutes.

 

18 or 20 teams? Non-starters, because some of the scorelines involving the OF v strugglers would be absolutely ludicrous, not enough clubs will be able to get their stadia up to scratch, and current SPL clubs will never give up an extra home game v the uglies: it makes a huge difference to what they can take in, and hence, the players they can afford to sign. Expanding to 18 or 20 will mean a poorer quality league, and the gap to the big two will get even bigger. If you don't believe me, maybe you'd like to take a look at the pre-1975 league tables, converting them to three points for a win?

 

10 teams? Non-starter, because it encourages negative, fear factor football.

 

12 teams plus split? Unwieldy, and less than ideal - but implemented in order to persuade the SFL to allow a breakaway in the first place, and to offer the chance of extra home games v the OF. 12 teams playing each other four times equals a ridiculous 44-game season, way too much - so the only alternative was the split.

 

Solution? If you want expansion, the only feasible option (one which won't make the league more uncompetitive, and would stand a chance of being voted through) is a 14-team league, with clubs playing each other home and away, then splitting into a top 7 and bottom 7, and playing home and away again. 26 + 12 = 38, the amount of fixtures played in most major European leagues: it'd be fair, equable, would end the nonsense of some clubs playing 18 home games and 20 away, or an opponent away three times; and would provide a proper reward for finishing in the top half after 26 matches. As I see it, it's the only realistic alternative.

 

Shaun,

 

Just one point re stadia.

 

I don't think that's an issue anymore, with the 10,000 seater rule relaxed?

 

Buffalo Bill

 

.

[Ray Winstone]

I've always had a wee soft spot for Raith since a certain game played out in November 1994.

 

Plus it's not too far away if you can win the speed boat.

 

 

 

Buffalo Bill

 

.

 

I won it the day they had a mini metro!

 

No speedboat for me.

[bishop1874]

16 teams? Non-starter, because a 30-game league season is not recognised by UEFA's statutes.

 

18 or 20 teams? Non-starters, because some of the scorelines involving the OF v strugglers would be absolutely ludicrous, not enough clubs will be able to get their stadia up to scratch, and current SPL clubs will never give up an extra home game v the uglies: it makes a huge difference to what they can take in, and hence, the players they can afford to sign. Expanding to 18 or 20 will mean a poorer quality league, and the gap to the big two will get even bigger. If you don't believe me, maybe you'd like to take a look at the pre-1975 league tables, converting them to three points for a win?

 

10 teams? Non-starter, because it encourages negative, fear factor football.

 

12 teams plus split? Unwieldy, and less than ideal - but implemented in order to persuade the SFL to allow a breakaway in the first place, and to offer the chance of extra home games v the OF. 12 teams playing each other four times equals a ridiculous 44-game season, way too much - so the only alternative was the split.

 

Solution? If you want expansion, the only feasible option (one which won't make the league more uncompetitive, and would stand a chance of being voted through) is a 14-team league, with clubs playing each other home and away, then splitting into a top 7 and bottom 7, and playing home and away again. 26 + 12 = 38, the amount of fixtures played in most major European leagues: it'd be fair, equable, would end the nonsense of some clubs playing 18 home games and 20 away, or an opponent away three times; and would provide a proper reward for finishing in the top half after 26 matches. As I see it, it's the only realistic alternative.

 

would probably be the best thing to do

[shaun.lawson]

Shaun,

 

Just one point re stadia.

 

I don't think that's an issue anymore, with the 10,000 seater rule relaxed?

 

Buffalo Bill

 

.

 

Except that this season's events have actually vindicated the initial rule. I was appalled when Falkirk were denied promotion, and they tried to do it to ICT too - so the SPL relaxed the requirements, and allowed newly promoted clubs to groundshare. Oops! I can see it becoming a requirement again - and the bottom line is, clubs currently struggling in the First Division or doing well in the Second are nowhere near big enough to hold their own in an expanded top flight. It'd just make the SPL an even bigger laughing stock than it is now.

[davemclaren]

16 teams? Non-starter, because a 30-game league season is not recognised by UEFA's statutes.

 

18 or 20 teams? Non-starters, because some of the scorelines involving the OF v strugglers would be absolutely ludicrous, not enough clubs will be able to get their stadia up to scratch, and current SPL clubs will never give up an extra home game v the uglies: it makes a huge difference to what they can take in, and hence, the players they can afford to sign. Expanding to 18 or 20 will mean a poorer quality league, and the gap to the big two will get even bigger. If you don't believe me, maybe you'd like to take a look at the pre-1975 league tables, converting them to three points for a win?

 

10 teams? Non-starter, because it encourages negative, fear factor football.

 

12 teams plus split? Unwieldy, and less than ideal - but implemented in order to persuade the SFL to allow a breakaway in the first place, and to offer the chance of extra home games v the OF. 12 teams playing each other four times equals a ridiculous 44-game season, way too much - so the only alternative was the split.

 

Solution? If you want expansion, the only feasible option (one which won't make the league more uncompetitive, and would stand a chance of being voted through) is a 14-team league, with clubs playing each other home and away, then splitting into a top 7 and bottom 7, and playing home and away again. 26 + 12 = 38, the amount of fixtures played in most major European leagues: it'd be fair, equable, would end the nonsense of some clubs playing 18 home games and 20 away, or an opponent away three times; and would provide a proper reward for finishing in the top half after 26 matches. As I see it, it's the only realistic alternative.

 

Personally, I still think a country the size of Scotland should stick to a 10 team league playing each other 4 times. That's what the SPL would have been if the originators hadn't been scared of a legal battle with the SFL.

[DETTY29]

BB

 

Being born in Dumfries I have a vested interest. But why isn't Queen of the South on the list. Scottish Cup finalists; the only real team in any part of the south of Scotland; this year, ahead of a few teams in the league you mention.

 

FFS Livvy, mini wannabe weedgie bigots. Apart from the jambo element naturally.

[Buffalo Bill]

Except that this season's events have actually vindicated the initial rule. I was appalled when Falkirk were denied promotion, and they tried to do it to ICT too - so the SPL relaxed the requirements, and allowed newly promoted clubs to groundshare. Oops! I can see it becoming a requirement again - and the bottom line is, clubs currently struggling in the First Division or doing well in the Second are nowhere near big enough to hold their own in an expanded top flight. It'd just make the SPL an even bigger laughing stock than it is now.

 

The likes of St Johnstone have shown recently that they could compete against the Old Firm and Queens took four of Aberdeen at Hampden.

 

Ok, so Rangers and Celtic would win the majority of games, but don't they do so already?

 

And say if a strong Hearts team emerged; well by the same rule, we could take care of the 'fodder', and challenge the Old Firm.

 

Buffalo Bill

 

.

[Ulysses]

Personally, I still think a country the size of Scotland should stick to a 10 team league playing each other 4 times. That's what the SPL would have been if the originators hadn't been scared of a legal battle with the SFL.

 

Austria (population 8.2 million) has a 10-team league, 36 games.

 

Denmark (population 5.5 million) has a 12-team league, 33 games.

 

Switzerland (population 7.6 million) has a 10-team league, 36 games.

[Buffalo Bill]

BB

 

Being born in Dumfries I have a vested interest. But why isn't Queen of the South on the list. Scottish Cup finalists; the only real team in any part of the south of Scotland; this year, ahead of a few teams in the league you mention.

 

FFS Livvy, mini wannabe weedgie bigots. Apart from the jambo element naturally.

 

Please see post #18.

 

Buffalo Bill

 

.

[Eldar Hadzimehmedovic]

16 teams? Non-starter, because a 30-game league season is not recognised by UEFA's statutes.

 

18 or 20 teams? Non-starters, because some of the scorelines involving the OF v strugglers would be absolutely ludicrous, not enough clubs will be able to get their stadia up to scratch, and current SPL clubs will never give up an extra home game v the uglies: it makes a huge difference to what they can take in, and hence, the players they can afford to sign. Expanding to 18 or 20 will mean a poorer quality league, and the gap to the big two will get even bigger. If you don't believe me, maybe you'd like to take a look at the pre-1975 league tables, converting them to three points for a win?

 

10 teams? Non-starter, because it encourages negative, fear factor football.

 

12 teams plus split? Unwieldy, and less than ideal - but implemented in order to persuade the SFL to allow a breakaway in the first place, and to offer the chance of extra home games v the OF. 12 teams playing each other four times equals a ridiculous 44-game season, way too much - so the only alternative was the split.

 

Solution? If you want expansion, the only feasible option (one which won't make the league more uncompetitive, and would stand a chance of being voted through) is a 14-team league, with clubs playing each other home and away, then splitting into a top 7 and bottom 7, and playing home and away again. 26 + 12 = 38, the amount of fixtures played in most major European leagues: it'd be fair, equable, would end the nonsense of some clubs playing 18 home games and 20 away, or an opponent away three times; and would provide a proper reward for finishing in the top half after 26 matches. As I see it, it's the only realistic alternative.

 

 

The Old Firm dishing out humpings to smaller teams shouldn't be a reason for not reconstructing. If that happens, it happens. Hopefully, eventually, as the smaller teams became used to their surroundings it wouldn't happen as often. In fact, Clyde and St Johnstone (both have humbled the OF in the cups in the last three years) would argue it may not happen now!

 

An 18 team league would revolutionise Scottish football. Any team that found itself the best-of-the-rest would have a much better chance of hanging in with the Old Firm with having to only play them four times a season. In 1997/98 we finished a measly seven points behind Celtic and only took about three from a possible 24 against the OF. If we had only played two against Rangers and two against Celtic, chances are we would have won the league.

 

Also, we can knock the "too many meaningless games" mantra on the head. The Scottish league season provides roughly four meaningful league games each season anyway. Indeed, it could be argued that, by freeing themselves of the fear factor, established SPL teams like Aberdeen, Dundee Utd, Motherwell, us, Hibs etc. would be far more likely to improve the style of football and give more youngsters a game.

 

The knock-on effect for the smaller teams would be astronomical. Right now a team like, say, East Stirling has nothing to play for, ever. They need to plough through three divisions to get to the Premier. Why should they invest in youth players when there is so little to play for? Two 18-team leagues would mean teams like that just having to sneak one promotion and they will have matches against the OF, us and Hibs the very next season. How much of an incentive is that for teams languishing in Scotland's nether regions to buck up their ideas?

 

As for stadiums, I'm a bit of a traditionalist there - if your ground is safe, it should be allowed, whether it holds 1000, 10,000 or 100,000 people.

 

As far as I can see, there is no football reason for not having two 18-team leagues.

 

But you're right, the one stumbling block - and it's probably an insurmountable one, is the self-interest and greed of the TV companies and club chairmen.

[davemclaren]

The reasons why the 10 team premier league was formed in the 70s have not changed imo. There were too many meaningless games and clubs ( like Hearts, Hibs, Motherwell etc.. ) had no repercussions facing them for mediocrity or worse.

[Eldar Hadzimehmedovic]

The reasons why the 10 team premier league was formed in the 70s have not changed imo. There were too many meaningless games and clubs ( like Hearts, Hibs, Motherwell etc.. ) had no repercussions facing them for mediocrity or worse.

 

But these meaningless games have allowed us to bring through Glen and Robinson. A few years ago they allowed Hibs to develop Riordan, Brown, Thomson and Whittaker.

 

The cut-throat nature of the ten-team Scottish Premier, I think, contributed enormously to the dearth of Scottish talent over most of the past 30 years. It's only in these post-TV bust years that they are beginning to come back. It's probably not a coincidence that it was about the late 70s that Scottish players stopped being picked up by English Prem sides.

[WestCoastJambo2]

16 teams? Non-starter, because a 30-game league season is not recognised by UEFA's statutes.

 

18 or 20 teams? Non-starters, because some of the scorelines involving the OF v strugglers would be absolutely ludicrous, not enough clubs will be able to get their stadia up to scratch, and current SPL clubs will never give up an extra home game v the uglies: it makes a huge difference to what they can take in, and hence, the players they can afford to sign. Expanding to 18 or 20 will mean a poorer quality league, and the gap to the big two will get even bigger. If you don't believe me, maybe you'd like to take a look at the pre-1975 league tables, converting them to three points for a win?

 

10 teams? Non-starter, because it encourages negative, fear factor football.

 

12 teams plus split? Unwieldy, and less than ideal - but implemented in order to persuade the SFL to allow a breakaway in the first place, and to offer the chance of extra home games v the OF. 12 teams playing each other four times equals a ridiculous 44-game season, way too much - so the only alternative was the split.

 

Solution? If you want expansion, the only feasible option (one which won't make the league more uncompetitive, and would stand a chance of being voted through) is a 14-team league, with clubs playing each other home and away, then splitting into a top 7 and bottom 7, and playing home and away again. 26 + 12 = 38, the amount of fixtures played in most major European leagues: it'd be fair, equable, would end the nonsense of some clubs playing 18 home games and 20 away, or an opponent away three times; and would provide a proper reward for finishing in the top half after 26 matches. As I see it, it's the only realistic alternative.

 

I think you are totally off course, firstly Portugal and Greece both have 30 games a season with 16 teams. Secondly, with our ridiculous setup at the moment some teams only get one game at home against the OF like St Mirren who havnt even played their rangers home game yet. And lastly, we need to completely eradicate the idea of a split as it is totally ludicrous with us having more points than Aberdeen but being below them.

 

The best solution is for 16 team league which as BB says gives more meaning to fixtures and also frees up time for possible winter break due to our poor climate which destroys the pitches and causes embarrassing fixture pile ups.

[Buffalo Bill]

St Johnstone played Rangers (I think) seven times (?) in season 98/99.

 

The league is awful.

 

A big league just sounds so much better. Even if we were mid-table.

 

 

Buffalo Bill

 

.

[shaun.lawson]

I think you are totally off course, firstly Portugal and Greece both have 30 games a season with 16 teams. Secondly, with our ridiculous setup at the moment some teams only get one game at home against the OF like St Mirren who havnt even played their rangers home game yet. And lastly, we need to completely eradicate the idea of a split as it is totally ludicrous with us having more points than Aberdeen but being below them.

 

The best solution is for 16 team league which as BB says gives more meaning to fixtures and also frees up time for possible winter break due to our poor climate which destroys the pitches and causes embarrassing fixture pile ups.

 

I just checked, and you're quite right. I still think 30 games is way too few though: too big a jump down from 38 matches, too much of a financial loss over a season, and, I strongly believe, most fans won't stomach it anyway. British footballing culture is geared towards the club game: personally, I don't like it, as it puts us at a major disadvantage at international level, but I don't think fans would have it any other way.

[shaun.lawson]

The likes of St Johnstone have shown recently that they could compete against the Old Firm and Queens took four of Aberdeen at Hampden.

 

Ok, so Rangers and Celtic would win the majority of games, but don't they do so already?

 

And say if a strong Hearts team emerged; well by the same rule, we could take care of the 'fodder', and challenge the Old Firm.

 

Buffalo Bill

 

.

 

They can compete in one-off games, sure. Championship clubs can compete with and beat Premiership sides in FA Cup ties too. But over a whole season, they struggle horribly - as I believe a number of smaller clubs would in an expanded league.

 

And in such a league, I think clubs like ourselves would find it easier to end up 3rd or 4th, but harder to bridge the gap to the OF. Our best hope would be to find some intermediate position between the big two and the rest - but I don't believe a club our size will ever have the squad strength needed to compete with the OF over a whole season, in a post-Bosman, CL oriented world.

[shaun.lawson]

Personally, I still think a country the size of Scotland should stick to a 10 team league playing each other 4 times. That's what the SPL would have been if the originators hadn't been scared of a legal battle with the SFL.

 

I always liked the 10-team setup myself. I'm convinced, though, that it encourages negativity: essentially, eight clubs would start out each season aiming to avoid relegation. If a manager was more ambitious, sooner or later, his club would fall flat on its face, as we did in 1998/9.

[Ryan Gosling]

The main problem with the SPL is it's far too safe and therefore stale.

 

12 teams with the split, two automatic relegations and a play-off. THEN we'd get some interesting football.

[shaun.lawson]

The Old Firm dishing out humpings to smaller teams shouldn't be a reason for not reconstructing. If that happens, it happens. Hopefully, eventually, as the smaller teams became used to their surroundings it wouldn't happen as often. In fact, Clyde and St Johnstone (both have humbled the OF in the cups in the last three years) would argue it may not happen now!

 

An 18 team league would revolutionise Scottish football. Any team that found itself the best-of-the-rest would have a much better chance of hanging in with the Old Firm with having to only play them four times a season. In 1997/98 we finished a measly seven points behind Celtic and only took about three from a possible 24 against the OF. If we had only played two against Rangers and two against Celtic, chances are we would have won the league.

 

Also, we can knock the "too many meaningless games" mantra on the head. The Scottish league season provides roughly four meaningful league games each season anyway. Indeed, it could be argued that, by freeing themselves of the fear factor, established SPL teams like Aberdeen, Dundee Utd, Motherwell, us, Hibs etc. would be far more likely to improve the style of football and give more youngsters a game.

 

The knock-on effect for the smaller teams would be astronomical. Right now a team like, say, East Stirling has nothing to play for, ever. They need to plough through three divisions to get to the Premier. Why should they invest in youth players when there is so little to play for? Two 18-team leagues would mean teams like that just having to sneak one promotion and they will have matches against the OF, us and Hibs the very next season. How much of an incentive is that for teams languishing in Scotland's nether regions to buck up their ideas?

 

As for stadiums, I'm a bit of a traditionalist there - if your ground is safe, it should be allowed, whether it holds 1000, 10,000 or 100,000 people.

 

As far as I can see, there is no football reason for not having two 18-team leagues.

 

But you're right, the one stumbling block - and it's probably an insurmountable one, is the self-interest and greed of the TV companies and club chairmen.

 

Greed and self-interest, Eldar? Hmm. Remind me of that one next time a fan of any club demands the chairman put his hand in his pocket to sign a player. How do you suppose this can be done without money? And isn't it the responsibility of any club chairman to do his utmost to maximise productivity and turnover, so increasing the calibre of player his team can attract?

 

Yet instead, you're advocating that middle ranking clubs such as Hearts should voluntarily put ourselves at a disadvantage when compared with our European competitors. Less games v the OF = less money = poorer quality players = less chance of doing anything in continental competition. Sorry, but I'm certain that's what would happen. Paradoxical though it might sound, the existence of the OF allows middle ranking clubs, some with fanbases which wouldn't be out of place in League Two, to punch above their weight in relative terms: if you don't believe me, just check out the accounts of these clubs, factoring in gates against the OF, before taking them out. The difference took my breath away when I first appreciated it some years ago.

 

In terms of expanding the horizons of much smaller Scottish clubs: well, bear in mind that I don't believe domestic football setups will continue in their present form for much longer anyway. The utterly predictable group stages in the CL have led to a super elite emerging - and you can bet your bottom dollar they, because they also have a commercial responsibility to make their clubs as financially viable as possible, will break away into a Super League before much longer.

 

It's perfectly possible Celtic and Rangers might continue playing a reserve side in what remains of the SPL and Scottish Cup - but when (not if, I strongly suspect) it happens, then all sorts of clubs could aspire to one day winning the Scottish title. There'd be power bases in Edinburgh, Aberdeen and Dundee - but plenty of others may enjoy their own day in the sun too: albeit in a league which would receive barely any media coverage, and would struggle to attract sponsorship, meaning a great deal of downsizing on all our parts.

[neobis]

d current SPL clubs will never give up an extra home game v the uglies: it makes a huge difference to what they can take in,

 

100% correct hence why the teams will never vote for this. Simple. Clubs are a business, and businesses need money.

[vegas-voss]

An 18 team league would be great but i see the point others are saying about clubs not going for it but surely after a season or two and without the need of fear football, the league could attract better tv sponsorship to help offset the loss of 2 Old Firm games.I think you would start to see alot better young players come through from all clubs aswell which can only be good.The crowds in the Spl are a joke sometimes even the games involving the Old Firm very few are sellouts.

[Charlie-Brown]

The Old Firm dishing out humpings to smaller teams shouldn't be a reason for not reconstructing. If that happens, it happens. Hopefully, eventually, as the smaller teams became used to their surroundings it wouldn't happen as often. In fact, Clyde and St Johnstone (both have humbled the OF in the cups in the last three years) would argue it may not happen now!

 

An 18 team league would revolutionise Scottish football. Any team that found itself the best-of-the-rest would have a much better chance of hanging in with the Old Firm with having to only play them four times a season. In 1997/98 we finished a measly seven points behind Celtic and only took about three from a possible 24 against the OF. If we had only played two against Rangers and two against Celtic, chances are we would have won the league.

 

Also, we can knock the "too many meaningless games" mantra on the head. The Scottish league season provides roughly four meaningful league games each season anyway. Indeed, it could be argued that, by freeing themselves of the fear factor, established SPL teams like Aberdeen, Dundee Utd, Motherwell, us, Hibs etc. would be far more likely to improve the style of football and give more youngsters a game.

 

The knock-on effect for the smaller teams would be astronomical. Right now a team like, say, East Stirling has nothing to play for, ever. They need to plough through three divisions to get to the Premier. Why should they invest in youth players when there is so little to play for? Two 18-team leagues would mean teams like that just having to sneak one promotion and they will have matches against the OF, us and Hibs the very next season. How much of an incentive is that for teams languishing in Scotland's nether regions to buck up their ideas?

 

As for stadiums, I'm a bit of a traditionalist there - if your ground is safe, it should be allowed, whether it holds 1000, 10,000 or 100,000 people.

 

As far as I can see, there is no football reason for not having two 18-team leagues.

 

But you're right, the one stumbling block - and it's probably an insurmountable one, is the self-interest and greed of the TV companies and club chairmen.

 

I agree with this 18 teams 34 games or 20 teams 38 games (as currently) would be the best options.

 

How does every other major european countries (about 20) manage to have big leagues ie 16-20 teams and not complain about too many meaningless matches or major clubs destroying the minnows (and every league has dominant clubs who monopolise).....England has 7 Big Leagues in their pyramid but you never hear anyone from the conference to the premiership complaining their leagues have too many meaningless matches.

 

Small leagues have helped ruin most of scotland big-to-medium size clubs with all of them having suffered the loss of finance & crowds that relegation brings and the closed shop SPL has exacerbated this.....it's not good.