League expansion

[LarrysRightFoot]

7 minutes ago, Hmfc1965 said:

Fair enough but the Fairs Cup IIRC was a bit of a standalone tournament?

Only one team from a city was allowed for example and I think Arsenal initially appeared in it as "London ".

I think ‘Fairs’ Cuo was a precursor to the the UEFA Cup and was limited to cities who held trade fairs 

[Footballfirst]

8 minutes ago, Hmfc1965 said:

Fair enough but the Fairs Cup IIRC was a bit of a standalone tournament?

Only one team from a city was allowed for example and I think Arsenal initially appeared in it as "London ".

You are correct to say that it started as a cup for cities.  London appeared in the first final and Birmingham in the next two.

 

It seems to have changed to qualifying by league position from 1964. It was replaced by the UEFA cup in 71/72.

[Byyy The Light]

42 minutes ago, Hmfc1965 said:

I use my experience of previous examples to inform what I think about future actions.

I see no evidence that an 19 team league would be any better now than it was then.

Well you are not looking very hard.

 

50 years, the game and the world has moved on. Weird how all the leagues in England function well and nobody stops attending games in January. It’s a bullshit argument. The reason everyone hated that set up is because Hearts were crap. 

 

How anyone can enjoy the current set up which isn’t even a proper league due to unbalanced fixtures I’ll never know.

 

 

[underwaterwoodwelder]

Turd.

[Rogue Daddy]

5 hours ago, Fozzyonthefence said:

 

These countries don’t have clubs the size of Airdrie, Morton, Raith playing in their top league though.   The playing each other 4 times is pretty pish but I’d rather have 4 games against Hibs than 2 against Morton and Airdrie.  But on the flip side I’d rather not have 8 against Rangers and Celtic or another 8 against Killie and Ross County. 
 

There’s some very big flaws with both the 18 and 12 team set ups.  I’m marginally in favour of trying 18 again but let’s not pretend this will solve the problems of Scottish football. 

Just had a Quick Look at Norways top league (2022). 16 team league, team with biggest capacity is Rosenberg 21,510, lowest capacity  Levermyr 3458. 
 

I think Scotland would return a better set of numbers compared to Norway. I also think we could comfortably support 16-20 professional teams in Scotland. So I don’t think it would be that ‘unworkable’.
 

All 240 games in the Norwegian top league are available to watch, live. According to Wikipedia, their 2017-2022 tv deal was worth 2.4 billion. What was our 5year mega deal worth that Dungcaster secured? 🧐

 

…not saying it’s the answer, but I would say it’s better than what’s on offer. Our game is sooo undersold it’s heartbreaking. How Dungcaster et al are still in a job, running our game, beggars belief. 
 

 

[upgotheheads]

2 hours ago, Hmfc1965 said:

No you don't. I'm 58 and remember what it was like.

 

You qualify as one of the older ones unfortunately, my estimate was approximate.

[upgotheheads]

1 hour ago, Bazzas right boot said:

No other leagues have a set up like ours. 

We don't need to reinvent anything, 

 

Playing each time 4 times is shite, no idea why anyone argues for that set up

 

 

 

Playing 4 times against decent teams is fine, Playing twice against against shite teams is 5h1te

[Fozzyonthefence]

4 hours ago, OTT said:

 

A 10 team league would be even worse. I think I'd chuck the towel in if we went to that. A complete regression. 

It wasn’t though.  It was much, much better than what we have now.  Probably the most competitive decade we’ve ever had.  Four different teams won the league in the 1980’s (would have been 5 but for Dens Park).  Compare that to the two team bore fest we have now.  
 

I’m not suggesting it would improve things now but it was a fairer league than the shitshow with a ridiculous split that we have now.   The financial discrepancy between the OF and the rest now is the biggest problem.  It wasn’t like that in the 1980’s. 
 

Back to point - the 12 team league is much worse than the 10 team league so not sure why you’d chuck the towel in.  This is the least competitive era Scottish football has ever had.  And most of that nearly 40 years has been under the 12 team format. 

[Hmfc1965]

28 minutes ago, upgotheheads said:

 

You qualify as one of the older ones unfortunately, my estimate was approximate.

I know!

[Fozzyonthefence]

1 hour ago, Rogue Daddy said:

Just had a Quick Look at Norways top league (2022). 16 team league, team with biggest capacity is Rosenberg 21,510, lowest capacity  Levermyr 3458. 
 

I think Scotland would return a better set of numbers compared to Norway. I also think we could comfortably support 16-20 professional teams in Scotland. So I don’t think it would be that ‘unworkable’.
 

All 240 games in the Norwegian top league are available to watch, live. According to Wikipedia, their 2017-2022 tv deal was worth 2.4 billion. What was our 5year mega deal worth that Dungcaster secured? 🧐

 

…not saying it’s the answer, but I would say it’s better than what’s on offer. Our game is sooo undersold it’s heartbreaking. How Dungcaster et al are still in a job, running our game, beggars belief. 
 

 

I wasn’t talking about Norway.  I was responding to a post referencing England, Germany, etc.  Huge countries with huge clubs and fan bases.  
 

Totally agree re Doncaster.  Embarrassment of a man.  And Scotland is the best supported league in Europe per head of capita - we should have a much better tv deal than them and the other Scandinavian countries. 

[Hmfc1965]

1 hour ago, Byyy The Light said:

Well you are not looking very hard.

 

50 years, the game and the world has moved on. Weird how all the leagues in England function well and nobody stops attending games in January. It’s a bullshit argument. The reason everyone hated that set up is because Hearts were crap. 

 

How anyone can enjoy the current set up which isn’t even a proper league due to unbalanced fixtures I’ll never know.

 

 

It's the reason the set up was especially difficult for Hearts.

Had we had the Hibs team of the early 70's it would have undoubtedly been more enjoyable.

But it doesn't change the fundamental fact: a lot of teams were stuck in the middle of the league with nothing to play for.

[Fozzyonthefence]

1 hour ago, Byyy The Light said:

Well you are not looking very hard.

 

50 years, the game and the world has moved on. Weird how all the leagues in England function well and nobody stops attending games in January. It’s a bullshit argument. The reason everyone hated that set up is because Hearts were crap. 

 

How anyone can enjoy the current set up which isn’t even a proper league due to unbalanced fixtures I’ll never know.

 

 

We didn’t get rid of the 18 team league because Hearts were crap (the last time we won the league it was 18 teams).  We got rid of it because it was boring.  Now it’s even more boring.  The number of teams in the league won’t stop a boring product being boring, 

[OTT]

1 minute ago, Fozzyonthefence said:

It wasn’t though.  It was much, much better than what we have now.  Probably the most competitive decade we’ve ever had.  Four different teams won the league in the 1980’s (would have been 5 but for Dens Park).  Compare that to the two team bore fest we have now.  
 

I’m not suggesting it would improve things now but it was a fairer league than the shitshow with a ridiculous split that we have now.   The financial discrepancy between the OF and the rest now is the biggest problem.  It wasn’t like that in the 1980’s. 
 

Back to point - the 12 team league is much worse than the 10 team league so not sure why you’d chuck the towel in.  This is the least competitive era Scottish football has ever had.  And most of that nearly 40 years has been under the 12 team format. 

 

Scottish football was a different beast then. Now with the modern era Rangers and Celtic have utterly dominated, and we need a league structure which means their closest competition aren't playing them 8 times a season. If we do that, then the gap should get cut and the league would begin to appear more competitive. We could get to a point where the OF games can be offset by doing well in the other games. If we hadn't needed to play the OF 8 times in 2006 or Aberdeen having to play Celtic 4 times in 2015, then its going down to the wire, and without that pressure, the challenging team may very well go all the way! The disruption to form that games against the OF every 6 or so matches is massive and cripples teams trying to pull together a winning run. 

 

10 teams seems every bit as awful, just with even less variety in teams played. 

 

I cannot fathom how anyone could argue for the maintenance of the status quo, or even going down to a 10 team league. That would be utterly chronic. 

 

I think Scottish football becomes more competitive by reducing the impact the OF can have on your season, which can only be by expanding the league. Going to 18 teams would reinvigorate Scottish football, and bring a freshness to it that has been absent by entire life (29). 

[Rudy T]

14 minutes ago, Fozzyonthefence said:

It wasn’t though.  It was much, much better than what we have now.  Probably the most competitive decade we’ve ever had.  Four different teams won the league in the 1980’s (would have been 5 but for Dens Park).  Compare that to the two team bore fest we have now.  
 

I’m not suggesting it would improve things now but it was a fairer league than the shitshow with a ridiculous split that we have now.   The financial discrepancy between the OF and the rest now is the biggest problem.  It wasn’t like that in the 1980’s. 
 

Back to point - the 12 team league is much worse than the 10 team league so not sure why you’d chuck the towel in.  This is the least competitive era Scottish football has ever had.  And most of that nearly 40 years has been under the 12 team format. 

This is why we desperately need change, this current set up is only serving the old firm. They get richer every season and gap continues to widen. But even they must face up to the reality that the rest of Europe is passing them by while they continue to scoop the majority of what scraps are available in this league. It’s amazing to me how many people still attend games in this country when there’s zero chance of winning the league. 
 

It’s not just a bigger top league we need we also need to limit our set up to two leagues, any thing below that is non-league and can compete to enter the 2nd division through a play off system.

 

Rebrand the whole thing, get individuals involved who know how to maximise the product and get rid of these charlatans currently filling their faces at Hampden. Not one of these guys care about our game, only their own pockets getting lined.

[Fozzyonthefence]

12 minutes ago, OTT said:

 

Scottish football was a different beast then. Now with the modern era Rangers and Celtic have utterly dominated, and we need a league structure which means their closest competition aren't playing them 8 times a season. If we do that, then the gap should get cut and the league would begin to appear more competitive. We could get to a point where the OF games can be offset by doing well in the other games. If we hadn't needed to play the OF 8 times in 2006 or Aberdeen having to play Celtic 4 times in 2015, then its going down to the wire, and without that pressure, the challenging team may very well go all the way! The disruption to form that games against the OF every 6 or so matches is massive and cripples teams trying to pull together a winning run. 

 

10 teams seems every bit as awful, just with even less variety in teams played. 

 

I cannot fathom how anyone could argue for the maintenance of the status quo, or even going down to a 10 team league. That would be utterly chronic. 

 

I think Scottish football becomes more competitive by reducing the impact the OF can have on your season, which can only be by expanding the league. Going to 18 teams would reinvigorate Scottish football, and bring a freshness to it that has been absent by entire life (29). 

Just playing Devil’s Advocate but we got rid of the 18 team league when Celtic won 9 in a row (when it should have been a competitive league, unlike now).  
 

As you say, you’re only 29 so you haven’t witnessed a competitive league with anyone other than Celtic or Rangers competing for the league. The 10 team league initially did work and was very, very competitive.  It wouldn’t work now but I’d still swap it for the cluster**** we have now.  At least you knew you were playing 18 games at home, 18 away and everyone twice at home, twice away.  What we have now is an embarrassment. 

[Fozzyonthefence]

32 minutes ago, Hmfc1965 said:

It's the reason the set up was especially difficult for Hearts.

Had we had the Hibs team of the early 70's it would have undoubtedly been more enjoyable.

But it doesn't change the fundamental fact: a lot of teams were stuck in the middle of the league with nothing to play for.

Didn’t the Hibs Harlem Globetrotters of the 1970s only win one League Cup?  Less than Callum Davidson won with St Johnstone?

 

Another Easter Road myth.

[LarrysRightFoot]

41 minutes ago, Fozzyonthefence said:

We didn’t get rid of the 18 team league because Hearts were crap (the last time we won the league it was 18 teams).  We got rid of it because it was boring.  Now it’s even more boring.  The number of teams in the league won’t stop a boring product being boring, 

It would help it be less boring as (in theory) teams should be more expansive - why can’t we attract young coaches who see the game differently e.g. O’Neill, De Zerbi, Iraola (obviously lower budget coaches) and give them a platform to start out/make a name? It would also provide more variety (it’s the spice of life). 
 

And as pointed out numerous times it wouldn’t be like the 70s when only 3 places meant something. 

[LarrysRightFoot]

26 minutes ago, Fozzyonthefence said:

Just playing Devil’s Advocate but we got rid of the 18 team league when Celtic won 9 in a row (when it should have been a competitive league, unlike now).  
 

As you say, you’re only 29 so you haven’t witnessed a competitive league with anyone other than Celtic or Rangers competing for the league. The 10 team league initially did work and was very, very competitive.  It wouldn’t work now but I’d still swap it for the cluster**** we have now.  At least you knew you were playing 18 games at home, 18 away and everyone twice at home, twice away.  What we have now is an embarrassment. 

We’ve had both Rangers and Celtic do 9 in a row in the x 4 a season format. 

[Percival King]

52 minutes ago, Rudy T said:

This is why we desperately need change, this current set up is only serving the old firm. They get richer every season and gap continues to widen. But even they must face up to the reality that the rest of Europe is passing them by while they continue to scoop the majority of what scraps are available in this league. It’s amazing to me how many people still attend games in this country when there’s zero chance of winning the league. 
 

It’s not just a bigger top league we need we also need to limit our set up to two leagues, any thing below that is non-league and can compete to enter the 2nd division through a play off system.

 

Rebrand the whole thing, get individuals involved who know how to maximise the product and get rid of these charlatans currently filling their faces at Hampden. Not one of these guys care about our game, only their own pockets getting lined.

One of the reasons why the league set up is unlikely to change is that it isn't just serving Celtic and The Rangers. It's probably serving some other teams well but, in some folks eyes,  for the wrong reasons but why would, for example, Ross County, who have pretty much no chance (or expectation) of winning the league vote to lose a home game or two as well as losing one or two televised home games against the uglies, plus lost home games against us, Aberdeen and Hibs and replace them with non-televised games against the likes of Raith, Partick, Ayr, Morton or, yes, maybe ICT? Most teams in most leagues around the world  have little (no) chance of winning their league but football still thrives and the fans still turn up. I don't watch Hearts in order to see them win the title, as much as I'd be ecstatic if that happened.

And why would teams vote to effectively expel themselves from the Scottish league, on the off chance that it might all give Hearts, Hibs and the remaining teams more chance of winning the league, but in reality, still very little chance. 

But I agree with most of your last paragraph. Maybe a controversial comment but perhaps a Barry Hearn type figure could improve things.

[Hmfc1965]

1 hour ago, Fozzyonthefence said:

Didn’t the Hibs Harlem Globetrotters of the 1970s only win one League Cup?  Less than Callum Davidson won with St Johnstone?

 

Another Easter Road myth.

Yes they did but they were second or third for a few years.

My point was the 18 team league seems more appealing if you're in that position.

They were only there because Tom Hart thre money at them, a fact few seem to want to remember.

[LarrysRightFoot]

5 minutes ago, Percival King said:

One of the reasons why the league set up is unlikely to change is that it isn't just serving Celtic and The Rangers. It's probably serving some other teams well but, in some folks eyes,  for the wrong reasons but why would, for example, Ross County, who have pretty much no chance (or expectation) of winning the league vote to lose a home game or two as well as losing one or two televised home games against the uglies, plus lost home games against us, Aberdeen and Hibs and replace them with non-televised games against the likes of Raith, Partick, Ayr, Morton or, yes, maybe ICT? Most teams in most leagues around the world  have little (no) chance of winning their league but football still thrives and the fans still turn up. I don't watch Hearts in order to see them win the title, as much as I'd be ecstatic if that happened.

And why would teams vote to effectively expel themselves from the Scottish league, on the off chance that it might all give Hearts, Hibs and the remaining teams more chance of winning the league, but in reality, still very little chance. 

But I agree with most of your last paragraph. Maybe a controversial comment but perhaps a Barry Hearn type figure could improve things.

Legislation needs to be passed to take the decisions out of the clubs hands. 
 

I always have and always will support Hearts and my burning desire is to see us win the league. 

[jr ewing]

33 minutes ago, Percival King said:

One of the reasons why the league set up is unlikely to change is that it isn't just serving Celtic and The Rangers. It's probably serving some other teams well but, in some folks eyes,  for the wrong reasons but why would, for example, Ross County, who have pretty much no chance (or expectation) of winning the league vote to lose a home game or two as well as losing one or two televised home games against the uglies, plus lost home games against us, Aberdeen and Hibs and replace them with non-televised games against the likes of Raith, Partick, Ayr, Morton or, yes, maybe ICT? Most teams in most leagues around the world  have little (no) chance of winning their league but football still thrives and the fans still turn up. I don't watch Hearts in order to see them win the title, as much as I'd be ecstatic if that happened.

And why would teams vote to effectively expel themselves from the Scottish league, on the off chance that it might all give Hearts, Hibs and the remaining teams more chance of winning the league, but in reality, still very little chance. 

But I agree with most of your last paragraph. Maybe a controversial comment but perhaps a Barry Hearn type figure could improve things.

Or a Sky deal similar to the EPL. Never going to happen though 😕 

[Percival King]

21 minutes ago, LarrysRightFoot said:

Legislation needs to be passed to take the decisions out of the clubs hands. 
 

I always have and always will support Hearts and my burning desire is to see us win the league. 

Sounds like you're suggesting politicians remove decision making from clubs, including Hearts, and either take that on themselves or appoint those who will, that could end badly.

I too always have and always will support Hearts but, over the 48 or 49 seasons I've been supporting them, with various league set ups, I've seen us really only get close to winning the league twice, and those were in 10 team leagues. 

 

[LarrysRightFoot]

19 minutes ago, Percival King said:

Sounds like you're suggesting politicians remove decision making from clubs, including Hearts, and either take that on themselves or appoint those who will, that could end badly.

I too always have and always will support Hearts but, over the 48 or 49 seasons I've been supporting them, with various league set ups, I've seen us really only get close to winning the league twice, and those were in 10 team leagues. 

 

You’ve only seen us in a x4 a season set up the same as me then so you don’t have anything to compare against. 
 

And yes I’m suggesting government involvement (but not them governing the game) - could it go wrong? Yes. However, I don’t think you could argue that our game and its governance haven’t been in reverse gear for decades. 

Edited January 7 by LarrysRightFoot

[OTT]

48 minutes ago, LarrysRightFoot said:

Legislation needs to be passed to take the decisions out of the clubs hands. 
 

I always have and always will support Hearts and my burning desire is to see us win the league. 

 

The whole structure of the SPFL is embarrassing. Its ran like a ****ing bowling club. Clubs shouldn't be voting on absolutely everything. I'm surprised there hasn't been a vote on the ****ing paper towel supplier... 

 

Clubs should get a single vote every couple of years to elect a league president who is responsible for steering the direction of the league - TV deals & Commercial agreements, league structure, marketing, development of the game etc. 

 

The league president candidates put forward a manifesto that form the basis of what clubs vote for. Think this would allow for better accountability and tests on how they are meeting their manifesto. 

 

I hate Neil Doncaster, I think he's a spineless weaselly piece of shit that has done nothing but take, take, take out of our game, whilst offering less than nothing back. He's utterly failed to do anything, but this bowling club set up prevents him doing very much and its too easy for him to continously put things back on the clubs knowing full well there won't be agreement. We need to move away from a committee mentality and more towards a single vision for the league. Sort of a, firmly go in one direction kind of move. Decisions like moving to summer football which would take us out of competing with the EPL for a large chunk of our season could be a good move that would open up a better bargaining position with Sky, or moving to an 18 team league because that is in the better long term interests of the league and its commercial viability. Restructuring the leagues to reduce the amount of teams in the professional set up. 

 

Its like Scottish football is just treading water whilst steadfastly refusing to make a single major decision which could lead to the betterment of the game at large. Its pathetic.

[Rudy T]

1 hour ago, Percival King said:

One of the reasons why the league set up is unlikely to change is that it isn't just serving Celtic and The Rangers. It's probably serving some other teams well but, in some folks eyes,  for the wrong reasons but why would, for example, Ross County, who have pretty much no chance (or expectation) of winning the league vote to lose a home game or two as well as losing one or two televised home games against the uglies, plus lost home games against us, Aberdeen and Hibs and replace them with non-televised games against the likes of Raith, Partick, Ayr, Morton or, yes, maybe ICT? Most teams in most leagues around the world  have little (no) chance of winning their league but football still thrives and the fans still turn up. I don't watch Hearts in order to see them win the title, as much as I'd be ecstatic if that happened.

And why would teams vote to effectively expel themselves from the Scottish league, on the off chance that it might all give Hearts, Hibs and the remaining teams more chance of winning the league, but in reality, still very little chance. 

But I agree with most of your last paragraph. Maybe a controversial comment but perhaps a Barry Hearn type figure could improve things.

It’s all linked though to getting rid of these wankers that run the league at the moment. With the promotion and marketing of our game by competent business people the lost revenue from the away stands would be replaced by sponsorship, TV revenue and prize money. Also a better product would see more fans return to the home stands at these smaller clubs. Look at Kilmarnock’s crowds when Clarke was there as an example. The fans are there but they pick and choose their games as the product is overpriced for the entertainment value. Also there’s lots of home fans who won’t go to games versus the old firm such is their experience of these games. Fill the home end and cut the away allocation, suddenly you have another advantage taken away from the OF.

[fila]

14 hours ago, BackOfTheNet said:

Cheers. Remember it’s not just the TV companies being pandered to, but short sighted club owners who think they rely on multiple games against the OF too.

 

Completely disagree. Teams would have longer spells without having to play one of the OF, having a chance to build momentum. They also have less pressure when it comes to possibility of relegation, meaning more scope to give youth a chance. And in particularly it means tactically teams can play with more freedom, knowing a defeat or two won’t get them the sack, more expansive attacking options could be deployed.
 

And on tactics, we’d have coaches that would have to prepare for playing 17 teams, 17 sets of tactics, 17 sets of different players, as opposed to 11 they currently do. Meaning we’d have better coaches rising to the top. (Would also mean more scope for giving coaches a chance rather than the current ‘jobs for the boys’ that currently infests Scottish football)

 Two teams would still be fighting it out for the title , with maybe another 4-5 teams fight,img it for the 3/4th spots. Diluting the OF games would also dilute the TV money , and for the majority of clubs this would not be replaced by increased gate money 

[fila]

14 hours ago, Hansel said:

It would increase the chances of a hearts or Aberdeen etc winning the league or finishing 2nd, as we would only play the rangers and celtic 4 times instead of 8. 

 

In Spain, La Liga is usually dominated by Real Madrid and Barcelona, but you also get an Athletico Madrid winning the league occasionally too. However, imagine La Liga had the same league structure as Scotland? A club like Athletico would then need to play Real and Barcelona 8 times a season making the chances of success much less likely. 

 

Do you think Leicester would have had their 2015 premiership win if they needed to play teams like Man City and Liverpool 4 times each? No chance!

 

 

 

I can’t see it breaking the OF dominance unfortunately. 

[BackOfTheNet]

7 minutes ago, fila said:

 Two teams would still be fighting it out for the title , with maybe another 4-5 teams fight,img it for the 3/4th spots. Diluting the OF games would also dilute the TV money , and for the majority of clubs this would not be replaced by increased gate money 

Initially, yes, two teams would still be fighting it out. But it teams only have 4 out of 34 games against the OF, they have every chance to build something, then you never know.

 

As for the rest, I’ve said repeatedly how an 18 team league would have 10 or 11 positions that would be worth fighting to get into or avoid. Even if the duopoly continues (initially) the league can still be more interesting and competitive in different ways.

[OTT]

11 minutes ago, fila said:

I can’t see it breaking the OF dominance unfortunately. 

 

Its not a reason not to try. If nothing else, a shake up of the league structure would bring a freshness that is sadly lacking. 

[Percival King]

25 minutes ago, LarrysRightFoot said:

You’ve only seen us in a x4 a season set up the same as me then so you don’t have anything to compare against. 
 

And yes I’m suggesting government involvement (but not them governing the game) - could it go wrong? Yes. However, I don’t think you could argue that our game and its governance haven’t been in reverse gear for decades. 

I've been watching Hearts since since 1974 so I have seen Hearts in 10, 12 and 18 team top leagues. 

I don't think either of us feel the games is well run, or has been for years, the difficult part is what we do to make it better. Maybe changing the league size and changing where power is held are solutions but I don't think there's  simple, single solution. And the self interest doesn't help.

[Percival King]

27 minutes ago, Rudy T said:

It’s all linked though to getting rid of these wankers that run the league at the moment. With the promotion and marketing of our game by competent business people the lost revenue from the away stands would be replaced by sponsorship, TV revenue and prize money. Also a better product would see more fans return to the home stands at these smaller clubs. Look at Kilmarnock’s crowds when Clarke was there as an example. The fans are there but they pick and choose their games as the product is overpriced for the entertainment value. Also there’s lots of home fans who won’t go to games versus the old firm such is their experience of these games. Fill the home end and cut the away allocation, suddenly you have another advantage taken away from the OF.

I think you, me and many others are in a similar place on this. We support Hearts despite, and not because of, the league set up and how our game is run and our low opinion of those in charge. But we still support our clubs because that's what we do. As I've mentioned elsewhere, the really difficult part is identifying, agreeing and implementing what needs to be done to fix it. 

[ri Alban]

Maybe only having 2 Derbies per season, would make them more valuable to sell. 

[Libertarian]

20 hours ago, kingantti1874 said:

I don’t think crowds would be up for Motherwell v Morton tbh. We may well take 5k but we will only be visiting once, as will Aberdeen and Hibs. They will go from 10 home games against the big 5 to 5z. 

 

Putting aside fact that the chances of it ever happening are zero I wouldn’t think gates would improve for a lot of clubs. 

I would love to see a bigger league of 16 or 18, however it's never going to happen. A compromise would be to extend the league to 14, play one another twice (26 games) then split top 8 bottom 6 (40 & 36 games). 

[davemclaren]

6 hours ago, ri Alban said:

Maybe only having 2 Derbies per season, would make them more valuable to sell. 

To who, given stadiums are at capacity anyway? 

[Hansel]

8 hours ago, fila said:

I can’t see it breaking the OF dominance unfortunately. 

Not saying it would break OF dominance but reckon there would be the odd occasion where a team outside OF might win the league or get 2nd spot. 

 

That's all we can hope for

[colinmaroon]

17 hours ago, Byyy The Light said:

It’s complete nonsense. Others have made a great job of explaining the reasons so I’ll not go over it all again.

 

 

Using the world as it was in 1970 as a gauge of how it would work now, over 50 years later is absolutely mental. 

Good grief!  Some people cannot see the wood for the trees.  At no point was I saying that those days could directly apply as was.  I would have thought you would have read my posts minus your kneeler reaction.

 

I was.making the point that if there was the change we want, Doncaster's priority will be the Uglies/SKY and undue attention will be paid to the rest. Has that man done anything that wasn't in the interest of these two. Financially the gap will widen.  If the split is done away with THAT could lead to more games where teams are neither in fear of relegation or Europe. Nothing as bad as the old days but with genuine creative thinking, the SPFL could come up with a formula. Say even setting awards for league positions that are substantial.

[colinmaroon]

16 hours ago, LarrysRightFoot said:

I’m probably missing something/somethings going above my head but I’m not sure what you mean. 
 

I was trying to say in pre 1975 there was 3 meaningful leagues places to play for or avoid - champions and 2 relegation places. 
 

Now there would be potentially up to 8 - up to 5 European places and 3 relegation/relegation playoff places (which would my preferred amount ) 

 

OK. Notwithstanding you figures that leaves 7 teams.  They, of course, have nothing to play for.  Extreme example St Mirren v Celtic 5 0 in 1986.  St Liedown, they couldn't be arsed, 6 fouls they gave away. Usually they end up cannon fodder. All I was saying is I am a witness to these games  I was there.  I was not suggesting we would get like for like but that the track record of Doncaster guarantees Uglies/Sky will be his priority. More money will be required, better deals where it feeds past the Uglies.  Perhaps as simple as moremoney for league positions. Sectionalised league with certain positions getting  "winners" bonus etc.

[John Findlay]

Biggest change that crippled Scottish football the most. Was ending the sharing of gate money for league games.

Keeping all gate money from home games in today's environment only suits two teams. That's because one stadium has a capacity 40,000 more than 10 of its rivals in the league, the other 30,000 more.

That is a huge financial advantage.

[LarrysRightFoot]

19 minutes ago, colinmaroon said:

 

OK. Notwithstanding you figures that leaves 7 teams.  They, of course, have nothing to play for.  Extreme example St Mirren v Celtic 5 0 in 1986.  St Liedown, they couldn't be arsed, 6 fouls they gave away. Usually they end up cannon fodder. All I was saying is I am a witness to these games  I was there.  I was not suggesting we would get like for like but that the track record of Doncaster guarantees Uglies/Sky will be his priority. More money will be required, better deals where it feeds past the Uglies.  Perhaps as simple as moremoney for league positions. Sectionalised league with certain positions getting  "winners" bonus etc.

I think there should be a blank sheet of paper and all proposals should be considered - personally I wouldn’t want anything too complex though (at present for example I can’t get my head round the new CL format). 
 

I appreciate you witnessed the old set up but I don’t think it can be argued the current set up is stale and monotonous than what was going on 50 years ago - as Davie Martindale says teams know each other inside out. 
 

Re the 7 teams comment - in reality it’s unlikely to be 7 teams playing for nothing for any great length of time - what I mean is, if 5th was a European spot you’d maybe have teams down to 7th still competing for it to near the end of the season. Same with relegation, the teams just above the trap door might not be safe until the last game.  
 

Also my personal preference would be a 16 team league. 

Edited January 8 by LarrysRightFoot

[LarrysRightFoot]

10 hours ago, Percival King said:

I've been watching Hearts since since 1974 so I have seen Hearts in 10, 12 and 18 team top leagues. 

I don't think either of us feel the games is well run, or has been for years, the difficult part is what we do to make it better. Maybe changing the league size and changing where power is held are solutions but I don't think there's  simple, single solution. And the self interest doesn't help.

100% agree with this bit. I wish those currently in charge of the game could see a revamp - literally a reset and start from scratch approach- as an opportunity, not a reason to get defensive as that approach will always be to our detriment. 

Edited January 8 by LarrysRightFoot

[colinmaroon]

46 minutes ago, LarrysRightFoot said:

I think there should be a blank sheet of paper and all proposals should be considered - personally I wouldn’t want anything too complex though (at present for example I can’t get my head round the new CL format). 
 

I appreciate you witnessed the old set up but I don’t think it can be argued the current set up is stale and monotonous than what was going on 50 years ago - as Davie Martindale says teams know each other inside out. 
 

Re the 7 teams comment - in reality it’s unlikely to be 7 teams playing for nothing for any great length of time - what I mean is, if 5th was a European spot you’d maybe have teams down to 7th still competing for it to near the end of the season. Same with relegation, the teams just above the trap door might not be safe until the last game.  
 

Also my personal preference would be a 16 team league. 

 

I agree 16 teams but with a real shakeup and bring in someone else/team with marketing and real sport experience to be involved in brainstorming best overall plan that really changes things.  All this will depend if we have Sharia law, of course.

 

 

[Nookie Bear]

13 hours ago, Rudy T said:

This is why we desperately need change, this current set up is only serving the old firm. They get richer every season and gap continues to widen. But even they must face up to the reality that the rest of Europe is passing them by while they continue to scoop the majority of what scraps are available in this league. It’s amazing to me how many people still attend games in this country when there’s zero chance of winning the league. 
 

It’s not just a bigger top league we need we also need to limit our set up to two leagues, any thing below that is non-league and can compete to enter the 2nd division through a play off system.

 

Rebrand the whole thing, get individuals involved who know how to maximise the product and get rid of these charlatans currently filling their faces at Hampden. Not one of these guys care about our game, only their own pockets getting lined.

 

This is a UEFA prize money problem more than a Scottish football problem, no?

[OTT]

27 minutes ago, colinmaroon said:

 

I agree 16 teams but with a real shakeup and bring in someone else/team with marketing and real sport experience to be involved in brainstorming best overall plan that really changes things.  All this will depend if we have Sharia law, of course.

 

 

 

Oh yeah, 100%

 

You know the John Lewis motto of "never knowingly undersold" ? Well those running Scottish football appear to have the opposite... 

 

The leadership within the SFA/SPFL is so bad and absent that the whole thing is a giant rotting corpse. Self interest absolutely guides Doncaster, Maxwell and latterly the previous CEOs. Its too easy for them to blame the clubs but it being set up like the ****ing UN with everything having a vote and a supermajority at that too doesn't help, which makes agreeing anything impossible. 

 

I would love another breakaway league with a restructure that moved to a bigger league, more equitable distribution of finances, and a much stronger leadership structure. Scottish football needs clear vision and direction. Not currently getting that, and its upsetting. 

[Greenbank2]

Nothing will ever change. There is a gravy train that the current set up funds and it's more than just the uglies that are on it. Is there any other "democratic" organisation in the world that needs such an overwhelming majority to affect change? Or where so much of the money is channeled to only 2 of their participating members. Of course it's not just the uglies as clubs that have their pockets lined. How would the "social clubs" spewing out racist bile every weekend night, or the pubs they frequent, or the gushing red top fanzines they buy, or the bus companies that ferry them, or the pundits, or the radio shows that pander to them...(I could go on) ...survive without the status quo? And there are the "pub teams" that are part of the pyramid structure that get a £5 figure sum every year simply for being gubbed in the first qualifying round of the scottish cup. And don't get me started on the officials of said clubs.

 

There is an industrial scale boys club sustaining the status quo. When did turkeys last vote for Christmas?

[Doc Rob]

15 hours ago, Fozzyonthefence said:

It wasn’t though.  It was much, much better than what we have now.  Probably the most competitive decade we’ve ever had.  Four different teams won the league in the 1980’s (would have been 5 but for Dens Park).  Compare that to the two team bore fest we have now.  
 

I’m not suggesting it would improve things now but it was a fairer league than the shitshow with a ridiculous split that we have now.   The financial discrepancy between the OF and the rest now is the biggest problem.  It wasn’t like that in the 1980’s. 
 

Back to point - the 12 team league is much worse than the 10 team league so not sure why you’d chuck the towel in.  This is the least competitive era Scottish football has ever had.  And most of that nearly 40 years has been under the 12 team format. 

Oh, come on. That era wasn’t competitive because we had a 10-team league. Aberdeen had the best squad they have ever had under one of football’s greatest managers. Dundee United and Hearts both had single wonder seasons (didn’t United only use 14 players the year they won the title?) although ours obviously didn’t end well. All on a background of Celtic and Rangers being unusually weak. That all ended abruptly with the Souness and Murray era at Rangers.

 

The problem we have now is that the resources available to Celtic and, to a lesser extent, Rangers* are such that it isn’t possible for anyone else to win the title. 8 games a season against a team whose resources dwarf your own. Makes it incredibly difficult to maintain the momentum needed to win titles when you’re only ever a few fixtures away from a team who will probably horse you 3 or 4 nil. Would Leicester still have won the title if they had had to play Man City, Man Utd and Liverpool twice as often?

[Turkishcap]

Dont matter how many posts are put up re this as all fall on deaf ears. Logic and common sense have no place in our game.

[Shooter McGavin]

I would be up for a bigger league, in an ideal world 16/18 teams just to freshen things up. You'd hopefully end up with the Dundee and Fife derbies in the top flight to make it a bit more interesting, maybe even the Highland derby between Ross County and Inverness.

 

Playing the likes of Livingston, St Mirren, Dundee etc 4 times a season can feel a bit dull at times.

 

Would never go ahead for the reasons that have already been mentioned though. The TV deal is essentially built around 4 x Old Firm matches.

[OTT]

11 minutes ago, Shooter McGavin said:

I would be up for a bigger league, in an ideal world 16/18 teams just to freshen things up. You'd hopefully end up with the Dundee and Fife derbies in the top flight to make it a bit more interesting, maybe even the Highland derby between Ross County and Inverness.

 

Playing the likes of Livingston, St Mirren, Dundee etc 4 times a season can feel a bit dull at times.

 

Would never go ahead for the reasons that have already been mentioned though. The TV deal is essentially built around 4 x Old Firm matches.

 

I've suggested this further up, but could a Scottish Community Shield be an option to mean 9/10 we'd be losing 1 OF game a season, rather than 2? (League winners vs Scottish Cup winners). Would be a showpiece event before the season starts and give Sky something that could potentially be paired with the English version. 

 

Agree - Sky have got themselves a sweetheart deal in being able to hold the league structure ransom with this BS 4 OF games a season nonsense. Need to think outside the box where this could be worked round. 

 

If we went 16 teams, we'd only have 30 games a season. Unless we split into top 8 and bottom 8, with the top playing for Europe, and the bottom to avoid relegation. Would get us to 37 games. and would provide 3 OF games (+ the Community Shield, and we're meeting Skys demand..)

 

3 rounds of fixtures, with the 3rd being a random draw? - but given the OF's success in always avoiding each other in the early stages of a cup, I'd question the leagues ability to draw truly randomly. 

[ri Alban]

6 hours ago, davemclaren said:

To who, given stadiums are at capacity anyway? 

TV Sky, BT, BBC,  STV

 

Streaming.  Netflix and Amazon 

Edited January 8 by ri Alban