Pyramid Leagues Superthread

[Chuck Berry]

Still silence from FoH

[Footballfirst]

38 minutes ago, Chuck Berry said:

Still silence from FoH

Don't expect anything.

 

The FOH Board and membership adopted a "hands off" approach to anything to do with the club, bar the reserved matters of a name change, colour change or the sale of Tynecastle. That in itself was beyond the initial intention to adopt an "arms length" approach to day to day operations only.

 

The creation of a conference league could not be classed as "day to day operations", but will not be consulted upon either by Hearts or FOH.

 

Hearts has fan ownership in name only, despite the £15m+ in donations.

Edited June 1, 2023 by Footballfirst

[db211833]

6 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

Don't expect anything.

 

The FOH Board and membership adopted a "hands off" approach to anything to do with the club, bar the reserved matters of a name change, colour change or the sale of Tynecastle. That in itself was beyond the initial intention to adopt an "arms length" approach to day to day operations only.

 

The creation of a conference league could not be classed as "day to day operations", but will not be consulted upon either by Hearts or FOH.

 

Hearts has fan ownership in name only, despite the £15m+ in donations.

Thank goodness 

[Chuck Berry]

4 hours ago, Footballfirst said:

Don't expect anything.

 

The FOH Board and membership adopted a "hands off" approach to anything to do with the club, bar the reserved matters of a name change, colour change or the sale of Tynecastle. That in itself was beyond the initial intention to adopt an "arms length" approach to day to day operations only.

 

The creation of a conference league could not be classed as "day to day operations", but will not be consulted upon either by Hearts or FOH.

 

Hearts has fan ownership in name only, despite the £15m+ in donations.

 

The last sentence says it all, and I'll be considering whether to continue with contributions or not.

 

The FoH ownership is an opportunity to consult the fan base on an ad-hoc basis for issues that crop up from time-to-time that don't really fall under day-to-day running of club, in this case the proposed Conference and the change to the set-up of the Pyramid. The fact they have no intention of doing so, despite other fan owned clubs doing it, is a case of give us your money and STFU.

[WheatfieldWarrior]

35 minutes ago, Chuck Berry said:

 

The last sentence says it all, and I'll be considering whether to continue with contributions or not.

 

The FoH ownership is an opportunity to consult the fan base on an ad-hoc basis for issues that crop up from time-to-time that don't really fall under day-to-day running of club, in this case the proposed Conference and the change to the set-up of the Pyramid. The fact they have no intention of doing so, despite other fan owned clubs doing it, is a case of give us your money and STFU.

 

My take is I'm happy with the FoH being as light touch as possible - I don't see the point in my contributions going into paying wages for someone to listen to me. I'd rather it went into youth development, the filling in the corners fund, paying off the new main stand or whatever.

[Mikey1874]

Whether we play against Lowland and Highland League clubs and what league that happens to be in is a matter for the club.

 

People already with agendas and grievances are the ones complaining. 

[part_time_jambo]

8 hours ago, Chuck Berry said:

 

The last sentence says it all, and I'll be considering whether to continue with contributions or not.

 

The FoH ownership is an opportunity to consult the fan base on an ad-hoc basis for issues that crop up from time-to-time that don't really fall under day-to-day running of club, in this case the proposed Conference and the change to the set-up of the Pyramid. The fact they have no intention of doing so, despite other fan owned clubs doing it, is a case of give us your money and STFU.

Imagine buying 51% of a business and being told how to run it by a minority shareholder.

[Sooks]

Some one organise a vote on automatic relegation and promotion between League 2 , The Lowland and Highland League , East of Scotland / West of Scotland League ect . Purely so I can enjoy watching so many self righteous and vocal owners and board members of so many wee clubs trying to argue for and against things on conflicting positions of moral high ground

 

On the Conference its self , I think it looks a shit set up , but barely care as long as our B team have some where to play . If all the greedy SPL and SFL clubs had not voted to scrap the reserve league years ago , then we would not be in this situation , but they wanted to spend every penny on the first team instead 

 

In no mood to listen to the hypocritical whining from most of these arseholes though

[Sooks]

See when they first implemented the pyramid , or at least started talking about it ? I thought it was a great idea . A chance for clubs to find a level that suits them , ambition being set against stagnation and apathy . Did not take long for interference though . I just find it absolutely hilarious that people are painting this current proposed monstrosity as against sporting integrity ect . Where were they when teams were demoted with games still to play ? Where were they when there was a chance to restructure the league divisions to make them fairer ? Where were they when it was announced there would be no automatic promotion or relegation between the bottom of the SPFL and the Highland and Lowland Leagues ? Dress their self preservation and selfishness up any way they please , none of them actually give a flying **** about sporting integrity 

[Sooks]

15 minutes ago, part_time_jambo said:

Imagine buying 51% of a business and being told how to run it by a minority shareholder.

We have a board that make these decisions on our behalf . We have representation as major shareholders , oh and we own more than 51 % of Hearts , where did that figure come from 

[Dazo]

23 minutes ago, part_time_jambo said:

Imagine buying 51% of a business and being told how to run it by a minority shareholder.

Unless you want to be a sole trader that’s how businesses who employ people to run the business work. 

[Sooks]

14 hours ago, Footballfirst said:

Don't expect anything.

 

The FOH Board and membership adopted a "hands off" approach to anything to do with the club, bar the reserved matters of a name change, colour change or the sale of Tynecastle. That in itself was beyond the initial intention to adopt an "arms length" approach to day to day operations only.

 

The creation of a conference league could not be classed as "day to day operations", but will not be consulted upon either by Hearts or FOH.

 

Hearts has fan ownership in name only, despite the £15m+ in donations.

When did we stop being owners ? This is news to me ? We all democratically voted on this model , and it was a land slide . Would you prefer we went against the majority decision 

 

14 hours ago, db211833 said:

Thank goodness 

This

[DETTY29]

Is next stage looking for the Conference League to be part of any tv deal.

 

For 4 OF B team games, you know what you need, a small league set up?

 

(Haven't read the proposals as to whether it's play each other 2,3,4 times)

[Footballfirst]

1 hour ago, DETTY29 said:

Is next stage looking for the Conference League to be part of any tv deal.

 

For 4 OF B team games, you know what you need, a small league set up?

 

(Haven't read the proposals as to whether it's play each other 2,3,4 times)

It is four times a season.  There will be no TV deal involved. It is financed solely by the entry fees of the B teams. The OF will believe that they will get their money back from the OF games themselves as they will move them to Celtic Park and Ibrox.  Recent games between the pair in the LL have attracted 5k-9k.  There will be no such income stream for Hearts.

[Chuck Berry]

9 hours ago, Mikey1874 said:

Whether we play against Lowland and Highland League clubs and what league that happens to be in is a matter for the club.

 

People already with agendas and grievances are the ones complaining. 

 

Another SPFL club, Ayr United, now consulting with fans, probably the 6th or 7th SPFL club to do so following Motherwell (the oldest fan owned club).  Yet we, as Scotland's largest fan owned club and aren't slow to tell anyone that, have said absolutely zero. It's not a good look.

[Chuck Berry]

1 hour ago, Sooks said:

Some one organise a vote on automatic relegation and promotion between League 2 , The Lowland and Highland League , East of Scotland / West of Scotland League ect . Purely so I can enjoy watching so many self righteous and vocal owners and board members of so many wee clubs trying to argue for and against things on conflicting positions of moral high ground

 

On the Conference its self , I think it looks a shit set up , but barely care as long as our B team have some where to play . If all the greedy SPL and SFL clubs had not voted to scrap the reserve league years ago , then we would not be in this situation , but they wanted to spend every penny on the first team instead 

 

In no mood to listen to the hypocritical whining from most of these arseholes though

 

This has nothing to do with what happened to Hearts and in fact, if you cared about how the SFA/SPFL treat our game and clubs, then the shoehorning of a Conference into the Pyramid should be a concern. It has similarities to the Sevco thing a decade ago, and the Covid relegations/promotions.

 

It's bordering on the corrupt and the 230+ clubs who will be affected had absolutely nothing to do with how the Hearts situation was handled.

[Chuck Berry]

1 hour ago, Sooks said:

When did we stop being owners ? This is news to me ? We all democratically voted on this model , and it was a land slide . Would you prefer we went against the majority decision

 

A hands-off approach is the correct way in day-to-day circumstances, however there is always going to be situations that occur where fans should at least be consulted on opinion.  This is one. Covid was another had it happened under FoH ownership.

[davemclaren]

56 minutes ago, Chuck Berry said:

 

A hands-off approach is the correct way in day-to-day circumstances, however there is always going to be situations that occur where fans should at least be consulted on opinion.  This is one. Covid was another had it happened under FoH ownership.

The items on which FoH members would be directly consulted on were documented and agreed by a significant majority.  This isn't one of them.
 

Going by the numbers of contributors to the topic in this thread I'm unconvinced there is much real interest in it and most will be happy to to leave the club to decide.  

[Footballfirst]

 

[TrueJambo]

Again why is the argument on improving youth development because we're apparently behind in, however national team playing in top tournaments, in the top division of Nations League, just use the same youth development policy that our current national players went through it seems to have worked, the fact FoH haven't spoke up is ridiculous, clubs that aren't fan owned are being consulted we own our club we all have the same opinion of conference League so statement should be announced it would end the proposals as this new league is all dependent on OF and hearts b teams

[Footballfirst]

1 hour ago, davemclaren said:

The items on which FoH members would be directly consulted on were documented and agreed by a significant majority.  This isn't one of them.
 

Going by the numbers of contributors to the topic in this thread I'm unconvinced there is much real interest in it and most will be happy to to leave the club to decide.  

Agreed.

 

However, there is nothing to stop the club or FOH from canvassing the views of supporters or members on any issue.

 

You are correct about the level of interest in the "B Team" given the attendances at the games, even when they didn't clash with first team games.

[jock _turd]

4 hours ago, Sooks said:

We have a board that make these decisions on our behalf . We have representation as major shareholders , oh and we own more than 51 % of Hearts , where did that figure come from 

Maybe he is confusing what Hearts did with what Hibs spectacularly failed to do ?

[Mikey1874]

Obviously other clubs fans including the campaigners against this are slagging Hearts. And saying why does fan owned club not consult.

 

They miss the point. For Hearts this isn't about the Conference League.  It's about having a B team. Which is an entirely football decision same as picking the team. 

 

The Lowland League B team invite isn't confirmed longer term. And although this is a shite proposal it's all we've been given to play a B team. Why should Hearts care about the effect on other clubs. There isn't a recent history of other clubs caring about each other including of course the closed shop Lowland League.

 

Hopefully it won't go ahead if all the clubs saying they are voting against are representative of views.  But it isn't something to slag Foundation of Hearts about. 

Edited June 2, 2023 by Mikey1874

[Boof]

Heart of Midlothian Football Club: owned by fans, run by professionals.

 

Works for me.

[davemclaren]

25 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

Agreed.

 

However, there is nothing to stop the club or FOH from canvassing the views of supporters or members on any issue.

 

You are correct about the level of interest in the "B Team" given the attendances at the games, even when they didn't clash with first team games.

I agree there is nothing to stop the club or FoH doing that. I fear some would be wanting consulted over lots of stuff so I can understand their reticence to set a precedent and do it over something that is relatively trivial to the business 

[Batistuta87]

I'm not all that clued up on this conference league thing but why not just have a Reserves league completely separate from any pyramid like we've always done? Seems to me that developing youngsters would be better done in that kind of environment as opposed to playing them against a bunch of part time footballers playing for Open Goal FC and the like. 

 

[Footballfirst]

Falkirk also to vote no to the Conference League

 

[Chuck Berry]

6 hours ago, davemclaren said:

The items on which FoH members would be directly consulted on were documented and agreed by a significant majority.  This isn't one of them.
 

Going by the numbers of contributors to the topic in this thread I'm unconvinced there is much real interest in it and most will be happy to to leave the club to decide.  

 

Any sort of relationship such as this has to react to unexpected circumstances, this is one of them.  Would it really actually hurt if FoH consulted with fans on this issue and fed that back to the board?

 

The actual administration of FoH leaves a lot to be desired, and feedback on JKB is not very solid ground to base opinion.

[Chuck Berry]

3 hours ago, Footballfirst said:

Falkirk also to vote no to the Conference League

 

 

Good to see Partick & Falkirk consulting with their fan base on such an issue. Pity Hearts can't do likewise.

Edited June 2, 2023 by Chuck Berry

[davemclaren]

8 minutes ago, Chuck Berry said:

 

Any sort of relationship such as this has to react to unexpected circumstances, this is one of them.  Would it really actually hurt if FoH consulted with fans on this issue and fed that back to the board?

 

The actual administration of FoH leaves a lot to be desired, and feedback on JKB is not very solid ground to base opinion.

Businesses continually face unexpected circumstances and they don't consult their shareholders/members on them. Directors are elected to the board to make those decisions. 

[Heartsfth]

Will never happen but they should just merge leagues 1 and 2 and put the Conference League below that. Nobody worse off and the chance to move a few Lowland and Highland League teams up to free the logjam a bit.

[Sooks]

Just now, Heartsfth said:

Will never happen but they should just merge leagues 1 and 2 and put the Conference League below that. Nobody worse off and the chance to move a few Lowland and Highland League teams up to free the logjam a bit.

That would be my preferred option . Merge Prem and Champ but put bottom two in to a merged League 1 and 2 . Regionalised under that . Automatic two promotions between every level , and two play off spots too 

[Hungry hippo]

52 minutes ago, Chuck Berry said:

 

Good to see Partick & Falkirk consulting with their fan base on such an issue. Pity Hearts can't do likewise.

 

Those clubs have nothing to lose by opening up on the reasons for the strategy but I strongly suspect we are trying to negotiate something that would ideally be an alternative to a Conference League for our B team.

 

Making info like that available to us FoH members (and then inevitably publicly) would mean that the club would massively reduce the club's negotiating position. 

 

IMO it is correct that we appoint a board (which includes FoH reps) that acts in the interest of the club without consulting members on issues such as this.

 

I'd add that I'm definitely against the current Conference League proposal.

[Footballfirst]

37 minutes ago, Sooks said:

That would be my preferred option . Merge Prem and Champ but put bottom two in to a merged League 1 and 2 . Regionalised under that . Automatic two promotions between every level , and two play off spots too 

I would go

Tier 1 - 12  (no chance of getting the OF to change, although I would prefer 16)

Tier 2 - 16 (current Champ + 6 from L1)

Tier 3 - 3 x 16 (regionalised North, East and West - 4 from L1, 10 from L2, half HL, most LL)

Tier 4 - 3 x 16 (regionalised North, East and West -  bottom half HL/NR Prem, EOS & WOS Prem)

Tier 5 - Feeder leagues including NR D1/NCL, EOS D1, WOS D1/SOS

Tier 6 - Feeder leagues to EOS and WOS

 

Most teams (including those regionalised) would move closer to the promised land of tier 2.

 

Tier 3 would look something like below:

Edited June 2, 2023 by Footballfirst

[Sooks]

6 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

I would go

Tier 1 - 12  (no chance of getting the OF to change, although I would prefer 16)

Tier 2 - 16 (current Champ + 6 from L1)

Tier 3 - 3 x 16 (regionalised North, East and West - 4 from L1, 10 from L2, half HL, most LL)

Tier 4 - 3 x 16 (regionalised North, East and West -  bottom half HL/NR Prem, EOS & WOS Prem)

Tier 5 - Feeder leagues including NR D1/NCL, EOS D1, WOS D1/SOS

Tier 6 - Feeder leagues to EOS and WOS

 

Most teams (including those regionalised) would move closer to the promised land of tier 2.

 

Tier 3 would look something like below:

I like a lot of that but I detest the split and the old firm x 4 . I do not want any thing that includes that 

[merseyjambo]

8 hours ago, Footballfirst said:

It is four times a season.  There will be no TV deal involved. It is financed solely by the entry fees of the B teams. The OF will believe that they will get their money back from the OF games themselves as they will move them to Celtic Park and Ibrox.  Recent games between the pair in the LL have attracted 5k-9k.  There will be no such income stream for Hearts.

Might not involve a TV deal yet Sky seem determined to show any OF game possible, so I suspect that there may be something coming into play for those games.

[RobboM]

Dumbarton are next to reject the Conference. Interesting as they are an L2 team andthe Conference is aimed at securing their votes. Surely dead in the water now?
 

 

[Footballfirst]

4 minutes ago, RobboM said:

Dumbarton are next to reject the Conference. Interesting as they are an L2 team andthe Conference is aimed at securing their votes. Surely dead in the water now?
 

I can see the resolution being pulled before the AGM, if nothing else to save face for Maxwell, Petrie and Mulraney.

[Chuck Berry]

4 hours ago, davemclaren said:

Businesses continually face unexpected circumstances and they don't consult their shareholders/members on them. Directors are elected to the board to make those decisions. 

 

Erm......yes they absolutely do!   but this is a wholly different dynamic, the whole picture of fan ownership is just that, fans having a say in the way their club is run - within accepted parameters covering day-to-day issues.

 

Those parameters never cover every eventuality, and as other clubs are showing, it's not a big deal to consult once in a while particularly on an issue affecting the whole game.

 

So again, what harm would it have done for FoH to have consulted members, and taken that to a board meeting? the answer is none.

[Chuck Berry]

3 hours ago, Hungry hippo said:

 

Those clubs have nothing to lose by opening up on the reasons for the strategy but I strongly suspect we are trying to negotiate something that would ideally be an alternative to a Conference League for our B team.

 

Making info like that available to us FoH members (and then inevitably publicly) would mean that the club would massively reduce the club's negotiating position. 

 

IMO it is correct that we appoint a board (which includes FoH reps) that acts in the interest of the club without consulting members on issues such as this.

 

I'd add that I'm definitely against the current Conference League proposal.

 

The B team is already accepted into the Lowland League for next season. There is no negotiations.

 

When the Conference is booted into touch, that should open up further discussion involving the whole Pyramid.  It won't be a behind closed doors stitch-up that the SFA/OF concocted to push this nonsense through.

[Chuck Berry]

1 hour ago, Footballfirst said:

I can see the resolution being pulled before the AGM, if nothing else to save face for Maxwell, Petrie and Mulraney.

 

Petrie is going anyway, and Maxwell needs to consider his position.

[Flimsy]

3 hours ago, Footballfirst said:

I would go

Tier 1 - 12  (no chance of getting the OF to change, although I would prefer 16)

Tier 2 - 16 (current Champ + 6 from L1)

Tier 3 - 3 x 16 (regionalised North, East and West - 4 from L1, 10 from L2, half HL, most LL)

Tier 4 - 3 x 16 (regionalised North, East and West -  bottom half HL/NR Prem, EOS & WOS Prem)

Tier 5 - Feeder leagues including NR D1/NCL, EOS D1, WOS D1/SOS

Tier 6 - Feeder leagues to EOS and WOS

 

Most teams (including those regionalised) would move closer to the promised land of tier 2.

 

Tier 3 would look something like below:

This proposal is a winner for every club in Scotland all the way down the pyramid as long as money filters down to tier 3. I'd suggest sending this to the SFA and SPFL to ask for their comments. I doubt you'd hear back, but it would be interesting to hear their feedback if they did.

[Jarhead]

3 hours ago, Footballfirst said:

I would go

Tier 1 - 12  (no chance of getting the OF to change, although I would prefer 16)

Tier 2 - 16 (current Champ + 6 from L1)

Tier 3 - 3 x 16 (regionalised North, East and West - 4 from L1, 10 from L2, half HL, most LL)

Tier 4 - 3 x 16 (regionalised North, East and West -  bottom half HL/NR Prem, EOS & WOS Prem)

Tier 5 - Feeder leagues including NR D1/NCL, EOS D1, WOS D1/SOS

Tier 6 - Feeder leagues to EOS and WOS

 

Most teams (including those regionalised) would move closer to the promised land of tier 2.

 

Tier 3 would look something like below:

You certainly got me thinking when you posted your league structure proposal earlier in this thread and I’ve got to admit that I like the gist of your idea. 
I would like to see the top tier expanded but I think you are right in pointing out that there are 4 reasons why that won’t be allowed!

I think that tier 2 should probably be 18 teams if 3 teams were to be relegated. 
The 3 regional leagues above actually look stronger than either of the present versions of the LL and HL. Looking at the teams in League 1 East, I feel that would actually help our B team players more than a traditional reserve league as there would be real jeopardy and they would have to be on it every week. 

[Footballfirst]

4 minutes ago, Flimsy said:

This proposal is a winner for every club in Scotland all the way down the pyramid as long as money filters down to tier 3. I'd suggest sending this to the SFA and SPFL to ask for their comments. I doubt you'd hear back, but it would be interesting to hear their feedback if they did.

I had a look at the money situation when I started looking at the permutations.

 

It would take £2.4m to provide a guarantee of £50k to all of the clubs in Tier 3. That is roughly what Club 42 receives. I would also make it a flat payment for everyone and allow a league sponsor to provide merit payments.  At the moment none of the HL or LL sides get any payment so it would be a boost to all of them.  There would be a relatively small loss to the 14 SPFL sides who would be regionalised. That could be overcome with a modest parachute payment for a season or two, which would not cost the earth as it would be in addition to the £50k guarantee.

 

I would then take it a step further and provide a guaranteed £20k to the 48 clubs at Tier 4,  all of whom currently get zilch. That would cost £960k a season.

 

For an outlay of £3.5m (£2.4 to tier 3, £960k plus £140k parachute payments) you would then have 82 clubs all gaining a good amount of new cash, with the 14 newly regionalised clubs being compensated for their "loss".

 

Can the SPFL afford £3.5m? Well the new Sky TV deal is reported to be worth £35m, so for 10% of the deal, 96 clubs can be given a share.  The remaining £31.5m (90%) can then be distributed to the 28 Premiership and new Championship clubs.  That £31.5m is still more than what is currently shared between the current 42 SPFL clubs, so no-one needs to lose out in cash terms.   

 

[Mikey1874]

The fundamental problem here is that the TV deal and other marketing isn't good enough to give all clubs enough money to run reserve teams. 

 

Different angles and agendas. Hopefully a turning point if this collapses.

[Footballfirst]

43 minutes ago, Jarhead said:

You certainly got me thinking when you posted your league structure proposal earlier in this thread and I’ve got to admit that I like the gist of your idea. 
I would like to see the top tier expanded but I think you are right in pointing out that there are 4 reasons why that won’t be allowed!

I think that tier 2 should probably be 18 teams if 3 teams were to be relegated. 
The 3 regional leagues above actually look stronger than either of the present versions of the LL and HL. Looking at the teams in League 1 East, I feel that would actually help our B team players more than a traditional reserve league as there would be real jeopardy and they would have to be on it every week. 

Promotion/relegation is another area I looked at. I started with the simple principle that the winner of any league should be promoted automatically.

 

Promotion/ relegation between Tier 1 and 2 would ideally be 2 up / 2 down, but you could build in play-offs.  I don't like the current series of two legged playoffs which provides a huge advantage to the highest ranked club. Just go with a two legged semi and a one off final at a neutral ground (as in England) 

 

The norm for 16 team leagues in the current lower pyramid (Tiers 6, 7, 8, 9) is that 3 teams are relegated/ promoted, which provides for good ventilation and opportunities to get back up should you go down.  That would fit in with my 3 regional leagues proposal, with each of the regional champions from tier 3 being promoted to Tier 2. 

 

There is a caveat however, in that which region the 3 teams relegated from Tier 2 would end up.  In theory you could have all 3 being from the same region.  In order to accommodate that, then you would have to adjust the number of relegation places between Tier 3 and 4 for that region from 3 to a maximum of 5.  You may think that is excessive for a 16 team league, but there have been similar precedents in the pyramid, e.g. the WOS Prem relegated 7 of 20 teams in 2021/22 following Covid. They also relegated 6 teams from 19 this season from WOS D3 to D4.

 

 

Such a situation is unlikely to be repeated as you would soon run out of teams from your region in Tier 2. The could also be a bonus 4th promotion place from tier 4 to tier 3 if no-one was relegated to your region from Tier 2.

 

 

It would be better to deal with this anomaly at Tier 3 to avoid knock on impacts lower down the pyramid.

 

Additionally, I would place a ceiling for the B Teams at Tier 3, although they could be relegated.

 

Edit: For completeness, an example Tier 4 set up based on the current meritocracy.

 

I think that the above provides a fair and equitable solution for most clubs.

 

 

 

Edited June 2, 2023 by Footballfirst

[Flimsy]

27 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

I had a look at the money situation when I started looking at the permutations.

 

It would take £2.4m to provide a guarantee of £50k to all of the clubs in Tier 3. That is roughly what Club 42 receives. I would also make it a flat payment for everyone and allow a league sponsor to provide merit payments.  At the moment none of the HL or LL sides get any payment so it would be a boost to all of them.  There would be a relatively small loss to the 14 SPFL sides who would be regionalised. That could be overcome with a modest parachute payment for a season or two, which would not cost the earth as it would be in addition to the £50k guarantee.

 

I would then take it a step further and provide a guaranteed £20k to the 48 clubs at Tier 4,  all of whom currently get zilch. That would cost £960k a season.

 

For an outlay of £3.5m (£2.4 to tier 3, £960k plus £140k parachute payments) you would then have 82 clubs all gaining a good amount of new cash, with the 14 newly regionalised clubs being compensated for their "loss".

 

Can the SPFL afford £3.5m? Well the new Sky TV deal is reported to be worth £35m, so for 10% of the deal, 96 clubs can be given a share.  The remaining £31.5m (90%) can then be distributed to the 28 Premiership and new Championship clubs.  That £31.5m is still more than what is currently shared between the current 42 SPFL clubs, so no-one needs to lose out in cash terms.   

 

Excellent work. I would go a bit differently with 18 teams in the Championship and 10 teams in each region at tier 3, but the principle of regionalising from tier 3 down is a no brainer, as is separating East and West. While I'm not a fan of the Old Firm and Hearts paying for their places in the pyramid as it looks like a bribe, it does make sense as a way of spreading money down the leagues. It might also encourage other top tier teams to join the pyramid. I've no problem in principle with B teams in the pyramid as its common across continental Europe.

[Footballfirst]

11 minutes ago, Flimsy said:

Excellent work. I would go a bit differently with 18 teams in the Championship and 10 teams in each region at tier 3, but the principle of regionalising from tier 3 down is a no brainer, as is separating East and West. While I'm not a fan of the Old Firm and Hearts paying for their places in the pyramid as it looks like a bribe, it does make sense as a way of spreading money down the leagues. It might also encourage other top tier teams to join the pyramid. I've no problem in principle with B teams in the pyramid as its common across continental Europe.

I'm flexible about the number of teams in the championship, but I wouldn't go for 10 team leagues at tier 3 as they are too repetitive with 4 games against the same 9 other teams.  I would also want to encourage "ventilation", which you can't do as rapidly with smaller leagues.

Edited June 2, 2023 by Footballfirst

[part_time_jambo]

23 hours ago, Sooks said:

We have a board that make these decisions on our behalf . We have representation as major shareholders , oh and we own more than 51 % of Hearts , where did that figure come from 

I was talking about any business, not Hearts.

[Sooks]

28 minutes ago, part_time_jambo said:

I was talking about any business, not Hearts.

I was under the impression most businesses our size also have a board to run their affairs . I cant think of many where it is the shareholders that do it