Reconstruction: Deal or No Deal

[Charlie-Brown]

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.

 

That part is simply not true - the renaissance of the national team and our clubs in europe is a direct result of less money in the game forcing more chances being given to younger (cheaper) home produced players at most SPL clubs in the last 5 years - which the OF bought up but that a separate issue....any less money didn't mean less quality or less eurpoean competitiveness in the medium term - if anything the reverse was true.

[Charlie-Brown]

The recently agreed changes to the Champions League & UEFA Cup and the G14 changing the nature of it's membership should mean that any prospect of a european elite breakaway is off the agenda for 5-10 years anyway - also there is little appetite for it in the big countries - with the English, Spanish, Germans & Italians major clubs preferring to play their traditional rivals as their bread & butter - they already dominate the european competitions & receive most of the revenue so they don't need change - it is only tier 2 countries like Scotland, Netherlands, Greece etc where the bigger clubs want to be part of something more lucrative but the Premiership, La Liga, Series A & Budesliga already provide this for their major clubs.

[shaun.lawson]

The recently agreed changes to the Champions League & UEFA Cup and the G14 changing the nature of it's membership should mean that any prospect of a european elite breakaway is off the agenda for 5-10 years anyway - also there is little appetite for it in the big countries - with the English, Spanish, Germans & Italians major clubs preferring to play their traditional rivals as their bread & butter - they already dominate the european competitions & receive most of the revenue so they don't need change - it is only tier 2 countries like Scotland, Netherlands, Greece etc where the bigger clubs want to be part of something more lucrative but the Premiership, La Liga, Series A & Budesliga already provide this for their major clubs.

 

Sorry Charlie, but they don't. Financially, the Bundesliga and Serie A are falling further and further behind the EPL - so it's not just a problem for the OF, PSV, Lyon and Porto: you can now add to this group all German clubs except Bayern (and them as well, before much longer); and all Italian clubs apart from the Big Three (but please note their results in Europe this season). I think the standard in Italy is shocking when compared with a decade or 15 years ago: Roma are the weakest (presumed) runners-up I can ever recall, but that's what happens when money starts disappearing from any league.

[jkato]

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

 

.

 

Sorry, Bill,

 

NO DEAL

[Charlie-Brown]

Sorry Charlie, but they don't. Financially, the Bundesliga and Serie A are falling further and further behind the EPL - so it's not just a problem for the OF, PSV, Lyon and Porto: you can now add to this group all German clubs except Bayern (and them as well, before much longer); and all Italian clubs apart from the Big Three (but please note their results in Europe this season). I think the standard in Italy is shocking when compared with a decade or 15 years ago: Roma are the weakest (presumed) runners-up I can ever recall, but that's what happens when money starts disappearing from any league.

 

These things are true but there is no evidence to suggest the italians or germans or the french want to abandon their national leagues.

[cosanostra]

Not enough games.

 

Too many crap teams who are going to be steam rollered.

 

I like the possibility of 4 league derbies, 4 OF games etc every season.

 

Definitely no deal.

[shaun.lawson]

That part is simply not true - the renaissance of the national team and our clubs in europe is a direct result of less money in the game forcing more chances being given to younger (cheaper) home produced players at most SPL clubs in the last 5 years - which the OF bought up but that a separate issue....any less money didn't mean less quality or less eurpoean competitiveness in the medium term - if anything the reverse was true.

 

Fair enough, the above example is certainly true. But as a general rule, a country's success in Europe has a clear correlation with the wealth of its domestic league: Rangers and Celtic might be spending a lot less than they used to, but that's because almost everyone across Europe are spending less. And they, as huge clubs with large international supports, are able to cope. But if you take even more money away from everyone outwith the OF - well, I don't anticipate the consequences being particularly pretty, I'm afraid.

[Charlie-Brown]

There is still big money pouring into Series A, Bundesliga, Le Championnat - it is just the exeptional / massive deals that the Premiership & La Liga got that makes them 'relatively' poorer by comparison.

[Charlie-Brown]

Fair enough, the above example is certainly true. But as a general rule, a country's success in Europe has a clear correlation with the wealth of its domestic league: Rangers and Celtic might be spending a lot less than they used to, but that's because almost everyone across Europe are spending less. And they, as huge clubs with large international supports, are able to cope. But if you take even more money away from everyone outwith the OF - well, I don't anticipate the consequences being particularly pretty, I'm afraid.

 

The loss of the Sky deal 5 years ago did take massive amounts out of our game - short term it forced high indebted clubs into administration so financially it was not good but football-wise we have prospered since and even Aberdeen who have little or no money made a much better european impact.

[shaun.lawson]

There is still big money pouring into Series A, Bundesliga, Le Championnat - it is just the exeptional / massive deals that the Premiership & La Liga got that makes them 'relatively' poorer by comparison.

 

I was watching Five's coverage of Inter-Cagliari earlier (Laura Esposto: mamma mia!), and couldn't help noting that all the afternoon's games kicked off at the same time. This is as it should be, of course - but no wonder they're falling behind, if so few games are moved for television each week. It's a dog eat dog world, sadly - and if Inter, Milan and Juve aren't getting in on the massive deals enjoyed by Man Utd, Chelsea, Arsenal, Liverpool, Real and Barca, it's only a matter of time before they do something about it.

[Ray Winstone]

I was watching Five's coverage of Inter-Cagliari earlier (Laura Esposto: mamma mia!), and couldn't help noting that all the afternoon's games kicked off at the same time. This is as it should be, of course - but no wonder they're falling behind, if so few games are moved for television each week. It's a dog eat dog world, sadly - and if Inter, Milan and Juve aren't getting in on the massive deals enjoyed by Man Utd, Chelsea, Arsenal, Liverpool, Real and Barca, it's only a matter of time before they do something about it.

 

Thats quite odd because Italian clubs main source of revenue is still pretty lucrative TV deals.

 

In Italy they dont get anywhere near the amount of prize money they get in the Premiership and their attendances can be quite bad.

[Charlie-Brown]

There can only ever be change if the giant clubs (all of them - not just some) genuinely want change - the English & Spanish have no reason or desire to change - apart from knock out stages few CL games sell out yet many domestic games do - the biggest clubs & Leagues are happiest with the status quo now that they have reached agreement, compromise & understanding with UEFA.

[John Montgomery]

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.

 

However theses games at the moment are only the last few games of the season but, with a bigger league, for some teams the meaningless games could start earlier and possibly in January.

 

I think a bigger league will come partly because peolple like myself who can remember the old first division in the late sixties/early seventies are becoming a minority. An illustration of that is in the late sixties I was in my teens now I am in my late fifties. Probably fans younger than fifty cant remember the old leagues and some just over fifty will have vague memories.

 

Times may have changed as far as fans attending matches which have no real meaning. I hope so if the league is going to change. However a lot is made of the league being a two horse race. Any new teams coming into the league would be beaten every time by Rangers and Celtic and if not their fans and the press would want to know why not. So unless Hearts Hibs Aberdeen etc. also beat these teams every time the gap would increase. If we did beat these teams every time, as we would have to do to keep up with Rangers and Celtic, this would at some point create a big gap in the league.

 

However having said all this I do not know the answer but without having examined it exactly I think Shaun Lawsons proposal seems to come close. Again however with a split there are always criticisms because although you are not playing the same teams a team having more points than a team above it in the league creates criticism.

 

As said however because of age I am probably becoming part of a minority and therfore I think there will be a bigger league. When? I don't know.

[Charlie-Brown]

However theses games at the moment are only the last few games of the season but, with a bigger league, for some teams the meaningless games could start earlier and possibly in January.

 

I think a bigger league will come partly because peolple like myself who can remember the old first division in the late sixties/early seventies are becoming a minority. An illustration of that is in the late sixties I was in my teens now I am in my late fifties. Probably fans younger than fifty cant remember the old leagues and some just over fifty will have vague memories.

 

Times may have changed as far as fans attending matches which have no real meaning. I hope so if the league is going to change. However a lot is made of the league being a two horse race. Any new teams coming into the league would be beaten every time by Rangers and Celtic and if not their fans and the press would want to know why not. So unless Hearts Hibs Aberdeen etc. also beat these teams every time the gap would increase. If we did beat these teams every time, as we would have to do to keep up with Rangers and Celtic, this would at some point create a big gap in the league.

 

However having said all this I do not know the answer but without having examined it exactly I think Shaun Lawsons proposal seems to come close. Again however with a split there are always criticisms because although you are not playing the same teams a team having more points than a team above it in the league creates criticism.

 

As said however because of age I am probably becoming part of a minority and therfore I think there will be a bigger league. When? I don't know.

 

I caught the last season of the bigger SFL leagues although I was very very young at the time and saw games v Dundee Utd & Ayr Utd at Tynie and I don't think they were any less attended than they were a few years later in the SPL - but my question which nobody can answer is England have 7 BIG leagues with 18+ teams per league (Premiership, 3 Football Leagues + 3 Conference divisions) yet their game is vibrant from top to bottom and I never hear any complaints of too many meaningless matches at any level of english league football - on saturday evening I watched Weymouth v Altrincham in the Conference Blue Square Premier League on Setanta and it seemed no worse a level than some SPL I've seen this season.

[Only a Game]

The key to overcoming the financial aspects of any sucessful re-construction IMO is to reduce the number of meaningless games towards the end of the season, keeping the fans interested right up to the last few games, not just the fans of a few clubs, but as many as possible.

 

A 16 team league has the opposite effect. Once your safe from relegation but cant win the league or get into Europe, if your not still in either of the cups then your season is finished. In a 16 team league this could happen for maybe 6 teams as early as January.

 

How about retaining a 12 team league but instead of splitting it in two split in 3.

 

After playing each other 3 times the top four play each other, points are zeroed but the team who finished top gets advantages like playing all their top 4 games at home. The second team gets 2 at home and one away, the third team gets one at home and two away and the 4th team gets all three away. You apply this to every other section in the split.

 

The top four are all guaranteed European football and have a chance of winning the league or advancing themselves to the Champions league.

 

The middle 4 either play for the last UEFA cup place (if we ever get 5 places back) or they play for some kind of tangible advantage for the following season. Lets say a 5 point bonus just for arguements sake.

 

The bottom 4 play for relegation of course.

 

Clearly this would need some work in terms of balancing the numbers of home and away games but this could easily be done by a central pool of revenue from all the play off games, redistributed to compensate those teams who had significantly less home games but obviosuly weighted in favour of those who attract the biggest attendances (its a simple excel spreadsheet job to work it out).

 

Celtic and Rangers of course would never go for this system as it stands but I think it has some merit.

[Dr Ian Malcolm]

The key to overcoming the financial aspects of any sucessful re-construction IMO is to reduce the number of meaningless games towards the end of the season, keeping the fans interested right up to the last few games, not just the fans of a few clubs, but as many as possible.

 

A 16 team league has the opposite effect. Once your safe from relegation but cant win the league or get into Europe, if your not still in either of the cups then your season is finished. In a 16 team league this could happen for maybe 6 teams as early as January.

 

How about retaining a 12 team league but instead of splitting it in two split in 3.

 

After playing each other 3 times the top four play each other, points are zeroed but the team who finished top gets advantages like playing all their top 4 games at home. The second team gets 2 at home and one away, the third team gets one at home and two away and the 4th team gets all three away. You apply this to every other section in the split.

 

The top four are all guaranteed European football and have a chance of winning the league or advancing themselves to the Champions league.

 

The middle 4 either play for the last UEFA cup place (if we ever get 5 places back) or they play for some kind of tangible advantage for the following season. Lets say a 5 point bonus just for arguements sake.

 

The bottom 4 play for relegation of course.

 

Clearly this would need some work in terms of balancing the numbers of home and away games but this could easily be done by a central pool of revenue from all the play off games, redistributed to compensate those teams who had significantly less home games but obviosuly weighted in favour of those who attract the biggest attendances (its a simple excel spreadsheet job to work it out).

 

Celtic and Rangers of course would never go for this system as it stands but I think it has some merit.

 

The fact that the team finishing with the most points doesn't win the league puts mee (and probably many others) right off that scenario - we'd end up with an Americanised system where we're having play-offs to decide everything - renders the whole league system before hand a bit pointless.

 

You're never going to totally avoid meaningless games - it happens for some clubs. 16 team league with three going down, three coming up form a similarly sized second league. 4th botoom could then face the fourth top of the lower league in a play-off, thats your bottom four/five possibly 6 with something to play for.

 

If Scotland ends up with an extra Uefa Cup spot (I don't know how far away from this we are in terms of the coeficcient, then 3rd takes one automatically along with the cup winners, with the last spot being decided via play-off between 4th/5thal la Holland with their champions league place. If the cup winners also qualify for Europe though their league position, 4th gets an automatic plave and 6th and sixth play for the last Euro Spot. Thats potentially another five or six sides with something to play for. You can never guarantee a close league table, but with Ourselves, Hibs, Dundee Utd and Aberdeen usually much of a muchness in the SPL, along with Motherwell if they keep things up, theres enough teams there to keep it competative.

 

Another factor would be more opportunities for local derbies - St.Mirren Morton, Motherwell Hamilton, the Dundee derby plus St Johnstone, and Falkirk Dunfermline (not quite local but a rivalry) - thats far more games that could draw a good crowd, could be justified as category A and therefore go someway to making up for the lost OF home fixture.

[Flimsy]

To the last couple of posters who mentioned this, Scotland will have 5 European places as soon as 2009/10.

 

I have always been an advocate of a smaller league (my preference is 10 teams) as we are a small country. My objection to a larger league is the familiar line of too few fixtures (16 teams) or too many meaningless games and poor quality (18/20 teams). If we were to have a larger league the SPL would have to come up with a play-off system that allows potential for meaningful football for as long as possible. For instance -

 

20 team league (38 games)

 

Top 2 in Champions League

3rd in UEFA Cup

4th -7th play-off for UEFA Cup place (two places if no qualifier from Cup)

3 teams relegated plus one more in a relegation play-off

 

Some posters have mentioned extending the league cup to group stages again. To me this is a non-starter as the league cup is a dead duck as it stands. If the SFA don't give the league cup winners a UEFA Cup place when Scotland gets it's extra UEFA Cup spot next year they should just scrap the tournament.

[boabyarsebiscuit]

The fact that the team finishing with the most points doesn't win the league puts mee (and probably many others) right off that scenario - we'd end up with an Americanised system where we're having play-offs to decide everything - renders the whole league system before hand a bit pointless.

 

Correct. Just like Liverpool treat the Premier League as a qualifier for the CL and give up on ever winning their domestic League title (and with a squad as good as theirs they should be pushing for the title, not playing for 4th)

[sked21]

Deal.

 

Except I would say an 18 team league or a 16 team league with play-offs for relegation and Europe. ie Like they do in Eredivise.

 

But would have it:

 

Winners of the league get Champions League.

Then positions 2-5 play-off for the 2nd Champions League spot with the runners-up going into the Uefa Cup.

 

The bottom place goes down. Then 2nd bottom plays off with 2nd in Diviosn one to see who goes down or stays up.

 

It would never happen because of the Old Firm and Gordon Smith wanting the best teams in Europe.

[Boozyuzi]

20 team league (38 games)

 

Top 2 in Champions League

3rd in UEFA Cup

4th -7th play-off for UEFA Cup place (two places if no qualifier from Cup)

3 teams relegated plus one more in a relegation play-off

 

That's what I would do except I would only have an 18 team league (34 games) and I would have 2 relegated plus one in a play-off.

 

I predict that the Old Firm will start pushing for us to get back to a 10 team league though as that would mean 2 less domestic fixtures for them + it will be the end of the split + more chance of a winter break + their players will be more rested to play in the ever expanding UEFA competitions and internationals.

[hearts_crazy]

16 team league, but also Rangers and Celtic to feck off elsewhere and you have a deal.

 

To be honest I'm not particularly fussed, but the split is the most ridiculous nonsense ever shat upon any league in the World, it has to go

[Horse]

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.

 

 

 

 

 

Ross County and Raith Rovers would be better than Livingston.

[Mysterion]

I would take a 14 team league.

 

Play each other 3 times a season - 2 home, 1 away. The season after would rotate as appropriate.

 

Relegate at least 3 teams per season.

 

More midweek matches earlier in the season.

 

It would/could make things interesting ?????

[Flimsy]

I've given a 14 team league some thought in the past and shaun.lawson's proposal for the 26 game split is decent, however, my way of getting past the inequality of having 39 league matches is to have a 40th fixture, the New Year derby. I know this is barmier than the current set-up but it would give everyone the same number of home and away games, the fixtures would be known at the start of the season, the return of the popular New Year derby and therefore a guaranteed 4 games against your local rivals. The negatives are that Rangers and Celtic would be unhappy at having to play each other as their 40th game while Motherwell would be playing Hamilton for instance, but the Old Firm can go and feck themselves frankly. I sent this to the SPL for a laugh a few months ago and they replied that there were no plans to change the current set-up.

[Buffalo Bill]

 

I like the possibility of 4 league derbies, 4 OF games etc every season.

 

Definitely no deal.

 

 

It's all a matter of preference, but to me, the thought of playing once home and once away each season makes each of these games a real 'event', something to look forward to.

 

I just feel we dilute the sense of occasion by playing eachother (sometimes) at least four times a season.

 

I really don't agree with team getting "steamrollered" either. If Hamilton were in an 18 team SPL, they'd have as big a budget and fanbase as the likes of St Mirren and Motherwell who can 'compete' with the Old Firm without being embarrased.

 

I think there is a fear of the 'mid-table' here, but surely team would want to win games and finish as high up the league as possible? Each game is there to be played, attended and won.

 

Of course it won't happen: but I'd love it if it did.

 

Buffalo Bill

 

.

[Mysterion]

It's all a matter of preference, but to me, the thought of playing once home and once away each season makes each of these games a real 'event', something to look forward to.

 

I just feel we dilute the sense of occasion by playing eachother (sometimes) at least four times a season.

 

Twice a year makes some of the games like cup finals - i'd rather go to 'Tic Park or Ibrox once a year knowing this is our only chance to get one over on them.

 

I think other teams may do the same - potentially driving competition to a higher standard.

[Eldar Hadzimehmedovic]

It's all a matter of preference, but to me, the thought of playing once home and once away each season makes each of these games a real 'event', something to look forward to.

 

I just feel we dilute the sense of occasion by playing eachother (sometimes) at least four times a season.

 

I really don't agree with team getting "steamrollered" either. If Hamilton were in an 18 team SPL, they'd have as big a budget and fanbase as the likes of St Mirren and Motherwell who can 'compete' with the Old Firm without being embarrased.

 

I think there is a fear of the 'mid-table' here, but surely team would want to win games and finish as high up the league as possible? Each game is there to be played, attended and won.

 

Of course it won't happen: but I'd love it if it did.

 

Buffalo Bill

 

.

 

This bit is bang on. I simply don't buy the "too many meaningless games" mantra at all. Almost every league in Europe has two or three teams who can win the league and a group of anything up to a dozen who yo-yo between top and second divisions. That wouldn't change. In my 23 years of supporting Hearts I've seen one title challenge, four half-hearted attempts that were usually over by Christmas and one proper relegation battle. In 23 years I think I've seen no more than 20 truly meaningful league matches. How would that be any different?

[Flimsy]

This bit is bang on. I simply don't buy the "too many meaningless games" mantra at all. Almost every league in Europe has two or three teams who can win the league and a group of anything up to a dozen who yo-yo between top and second divisions. That wouldn't change. In my 23 years of supporting Hearts I've seen one title challenge, four half-hearted attempts that were usually over by Christmas and one proper relegation battle. In 23 years I think I've seen no more than 20 truly meaningful league matches. How would that be any different?

 

I totally disagree, in the last 23 years I have only seen about 20 meaningless matches and many of them have been this season. In nearly every season we have been going for European qualification or struggling against relegation right up to the last couple of games, 1984/85 and 1988/89 are the only exceptions I can think of.

[Eldar Hadzimehmedovic]

I totally disagree, in the last 23 years I have only seen about 20 meaningless matches and many of them have been this season. In nearly every season we have been going for European qualification or struggling against relegation right up to the last couple of games, 1984/85 and 1988/89 are the only exceptions I can think of.

 

I suppose it depends what you mean by "meaningful". I wasn't including matches pushing for Europe in that. But it would still be the same five or six teams pushing for UEFA places however many teams were in the league, no?

[Del1812]

I'd be inclined to deal but would like to hold out for the possbility of an 18-20 team league.

[Flimsy]

I suppose it depends what you mean by "meaningful". I wasn't including matches pushing for Europe in that. But it would still be the same five or six teams pushing for UEFA places however many teams were in the league, no?

 

I don't know how you cannot count matches pushing for Europe as meaningful, isn't that what we look forward to as Hearts fans, we've even made a song up about it! I agree that the same teams would be pushing for UEFA places and possibly more.

[WestCoastJambo2]

The key to overcoming the financial aspects of any sucessful re-construction IMO is to reduce the number of meaningless games towards the end of the season, keeping the fans interested right up to the last few games, not just the fans of a few clubs, but as many as possible.

 

A 16 team league has the opposite effect. Once your safe from relegation but cant win the league or get into Europe, if your not still in either of the cups then your season is finished. In a 16 team league this could happen for maybe 6 teams as early as January.

 

How about retaining a 12 team league but instead of splitting it in two split in 3.

 

After playing each other 3 times the top four play each other, points are zeroed but the team who finished top gets advantages like playing all their top 4 games at home. The second team gets 2 at home and one away, the third team gets one at home and two away and the 4th team gets all three away. You apply this to every other section in the split.

 

The top four are all guaranteed European football and have a chance of winning the league or advancing themselves to the Champions league.

 

The middle 4 either play for the last UEFA cup place (if we ever get 5 places back) or they play for some kind of tangible advantage for the following season. Lets say a 5 point bonus just for arguements sake.

 

The bottom 4 play for relegation of course.

 

Clearly this would need some work in terms of balancing the numbers of home and away games but this could easily be done by a central pool of revenue from all the play off games, redistributed to compensate those teams who had significantly less home games but obviosuly weighted in favour of those who attract the biggest attendances (its a simple excel spreadsheet job to work it out).

 

Celtic and Rangers of course would never go for this system as it stands but I think it has some merit.

 

Relegate 3 teams that will give them something to chew on.

[Frankenstein Jambo.]

The thing about this super-league is that all the teams that are enterd are all but guarenteed eurapean football every season and i couldn't see teams like Rangers, Celtic, PSV and even Liverpool risking losing that.

 

These teams benifit alot from money generated through eurapean football and they wont risk losing it.

 

There is also all the traveling teams would have to make, therefore there will never be a super-league

[Frankenstein Jambo.]

....but i do agree with you BB, we should have a bigger league.

[ecjambo]

Hearts, Rangers, Celtic, Hibs, Aberdeen, Motherwell, Dundee Utd, Falkirk, Kilmarnock, St Mirren, Inverness, Hamilton, St Johnstone, Dundee, Dunfermline and Livingston.

 

They would be my 16 teams to make up a new SPL. This issue has to be looked at by the SFA and SFL, we need a better league. 1 relegation and 1 play off at the end of the season. Teams must have 7,000 seater stadium or have plans in place to build one if wanting to achieve promotion. Have winetr break. Also help with league games off in run up to Scotland International matches.

 

Easy SFA. Lets get it started

[derjambo]

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).

 

As mentioned, the loss of 2 OF game revenues would be easily covered if the wee clubs were to put more effort into marketing themselves, and increasing their own spectator attendances for all home games.

Relying on the OF for small pennies when they come to visit???. It just shows how short sighted these club officials are.

Get serious - get successful - get bigger crowds due to your clubs ability to challenge for trophies.

STOP relying on the OF for petty handouts! Stand up to them and challenge.

[inside right]

Agree size of leagues then have a season when all present league teams play each other once to decide who gets in to which league.

[Pants Shaton]

12 teams playing each other 4 times is crushingly boring.

 

A 16 team league would restore the feeling that big games were an event.

 

Playing the Old Firm a total of 4 times may afford a third team (significantly better than the rest but not quite OF standard) the opportunity to sneak a couple of those games and split the Old Firm (or better).

[The People's Chimp]

DEAL - But better make it 18 teams.

 

The added bonus in an increased top league is that you would regenerate ALL of Scottish football. Increased attendance for the smaller clubs, the smaller clubs get the chance to go on a wee run of wins, again increasing attendance. More excitement as teams can geniunely challenge for the league or genuinely fear relegation. There are, in this scenario, only positives to take from this.

 

The "old firm revenue" is such a short sighted attitude for the likes of st mhidden, the sheep fanciers and so on to take. Do they not realise that if their team gets a few wins on the trot, they can attract more fans, can afford to play better football with a comfort zone beneath them etc.

 

Self interest is killing Scottish Football. It killed the chances of a Scottish team being on the UEFA cup, it killed dundee united's chances of making europe and it's been smothering our game for years.

[derjambo]

Tell me this, would Dundee, Kilmarnock, Dunfermline, Hibs, St Johnstone, Morton, Partick Thistle, have been able to reach the halcion hights of European football fame, had it not been for the larger 18 team divissions back in the old days?

I remember those times, and it was anything but boring.

Bob Shankly at Dundee, Willie Waddle at Killie, Jock Stein Pars, Connoly and Henry Hall in Perth, Hal Stewart's Morton, Dave Macparland with Thistle.

Me-thinks that the younger generation is ready to just give in to the O.F'ers!

[Jambro]

Without a doubt DEAL the SPL needs to be expanded.... it is purely based on money at the moment with the lesser teams having all the the power!

 

This sounds daft with the ugly sisters basically demanding what they want but it's teams like Killie, Falkirk, Aberdeen etc.. who rely on the possible 4 games a season against the old firm to keep them afloat they will never agree to dillute their share of this cash so we will be stuck with the idiotic setup we have just now...

[i8hibsh]

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

 

.

 

As long as the Old Firm are in it - NO DEAL!

[Flogel98]

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

 

Deal

[bil]

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

 

.

 

Isn't 34 or 38 more the norm????

[Snake Plissken]

18 team league would be much better.

 

I don't buy the meaningless games argument

 

I also do not care about the lack of quality of the league, we're a nation with a population less than that of London - we can't realistically have a league that will compare with England, Italy and Spain. So what if we have a few weak teams in the division?

 

If there were only 2 games against the Old Firm each then we'd have a much better chance of winning it when our once in a decade good team comes around.

[Buffalo Bill]

Isn't 34 or 38 more the norm????

 

I stand corrected on that point, mate. I think as someone said earlier in this thread, that Portugal and Greece are two of only a few who play as few as 30 g.p.s.

 

But even an 18 league would be great, with 34 games.

 

I know it won't happen, as clubs won't want to lose Old Firm trash income, but we only give them 2,000 seats as it is anyway.

 

I think we could challenge them. Only play them four times in all, and take care of the rest (ala 97/98) and we'd be right up there - providing we have a manager of course.

 

And even games v Rangers and Celtic would be 'events'; games you could spend a couple of weeks building up to. Likewise Hibs, and possibly Aberdeen.

 

Buffalo Bill

 

.

[Buffalo Bill]

 

I don't buy the meaningless games argument

 

.

 

 

Neither do I.

 

 

Hearts 3 Hamilton 0 either side of the pub?

 

 

Yes please, and make sure you put plenty of chilli sauce on that kebab.

 

 

Sounds like a day out to me.

 

 

Buffalo Bill

 

.

[jlo2]

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?

34 or 38 is more common.

 

34 match season (18 teams): Germany, Holland, Turkey, Belgium

 

38 match season (20 teams): Italy, England, France, Spain

 

32 match season (16 teams): Portugal, Greece, Sweden

 

Others appear to have fewer matches: Norway, Finland, Denmark.

 

The major leagues all have between 18 and 20 clubs.

[Buffalo Bill]

34 or 38 is more common.

 

34 match season (18 teams): Germany, Holland, Turkey, Belgium

 

38 match season (20 teams): Italy, England, France, Spain

 

32 match season (16 teams): Portugal, Greece, Sweden

 

Others appear to have fewer matches: Norway, Finland, Denmark.

 

The major leagues all have between 18 and 20 clubs.

 

Please see post #96.

 

 

Buffalo Bill

 

.