League expansion

[OTT]

13 minutes ago, Jim_Duncan said:

The two clubs with the most power have no interest in the 'product' being anything other than shite. All they want is to know when they play each other and who they get in Europe.

 

You could see by Celtic's attendances when Rangers died how interested they are in Scottish football.

 

That's why I mentioned yesterday I'd like to see us move to England. Or Holland. Or Belgium. Or anywhere, really.

 

It really is a shitty position for clubs like Hearts, Hibs & Aberdeen - a larger league would probably benefit us the most, but as you say, Celtic & Rangers unlikely to want to vote against anything which could have any slightest inkling of impacting their dominance, and too many diddy clubs are suriving on away crowds.

 

A club owned & ran league doesn't work. Short term interests are dictating the direction (or lack of) of the league. Nothing we've done in the last 20/30 years has been impressive or innovative. Its not improved Scottish football at all. Forcing change seems like it will only happen when fans drag the clubs kicking and screaming to voting for that change. 

 

Diddy clubs in the Czech republic get by with visits from Slavia & Sparta Prague once a season each, so there really isn't any reason why Scottish clubs can't do the same. Its like greed for mediocrity. Likewise the Netherlands with Feyenoord, Ajax etc. 

Edited April 3 by OTT

[Tiro]

4 minutes ago, OTT said:

 

Yep. When the product is shite, change is needed. The product has been shite for about 30 years. 

 

A larger league replicating most other countries is absolutely the way to go. I'm absolutely horrified to see anyone defending the current system. 

The bulk standard answer now is that the Scottish game is shit and I would be the first to agree there is much room for improvement. The problem is that it's not clear what people object to. Is it the lack of technical ability, lack of excitement or some other reason. Until we establish what the real issues are then there is  no point in making change for change sake. Trust me, as someone who watched football during the days of the old first division, solely increasing the number of teams would be a retrograde step, adversely affecting income from TV contracts and sponsorship deals. 

For me until we tackle the way money is distributed, within the Scottish game, we will never move forward. Unfortunately the old firm and the administrators of our game are too short sighted to see this is what is holding our game back. More money, spread between clubs, will allow  increased investment in players thus increasing competition and ultimately interest in our game. 

[jager man]

6 hours ago, michael_bolton said:

 

This would be fine if there was any chance of us beating all of the other teams. But there isn't.

 

I'm honestly not sure what people think would happen here. Rangers and Celtic would thrash these teams while we'd win most of the time, occasionally draw and get beat. Just like that happens now.

 

When did we last out-perform the Old Firm against the bottom six in any season?

Okay it was hypothetical.  Sorry for being an optomist. 

[jager man]

20 minutes ago, OTT said:

 

It really is a shitty position for clubs like Hearts, Hibs & Aberdeen - a larger league would probably benefit us the most, but as you say, Celtic & Rangers unlikely to want to vote against anything which could have any slightest inkling of impacting their dominance, and too many diddy clubs are suriving on away crowds.

 

A club owned & ran league doesn't work. Short term interests are dictating the direction (or lack of) of the league. Nothing we've done in the last 20/30 years has been impressive or innovative. Its not improved Scottish football at all. Forcing change seems like it will only happen when fans drag the clubs kicking and screaming to voting for that change. 

 

Diddy clubs in the Czech republic get by with visits from Slavia & Sparta Prague once a season each, so there really isn't any reason why Scottish clubs can't do the same. Its like greed for mediocrity. Likewise the Netherlands with Feyenoord, Ajax etc. 

Another one who sees the bigger picture.

[jager man]

51 minutes ago, Bazzas right boot said:

 

 

Only because we invented a split.

 

A split can also  be done with a larger league.

 

Why do most other countries not want to change to this fantastic system we have in place?

 

Why do the most successful teams,  even from  small countries favour a larger league?

 

Why aren't Belgium,  Denmark,  Norway,  and all the top leagues not clamouring to change their system to ours?

 

It's because it's shite, that's why.

 

 

Exactly 

[Byyy The Light]

10 minutes ago, Tiro said:

The bulk standard answer now is that the Scottish game is shit and I would be the first to agree there is much room for improvement. The problem is that it's not clear what people object to. Is it the lack of technical ability, lack of excitement or some other reason. Until we establish what the real issues are then there is  no point in making change for change sake. Trust me, as someone who watched football during the days of the old first division, solely increasing the number of teams would be a retrograde step, adversely affecting income from TV contracts and sponsorship deals. 

For me until we tackle the way money is distributed, within the Scottish game, we will never move forward. Unfortunately the old firm and the administrators of our game are too short sighted to see this is what is holding our game back. More money, spread between clubs, will allow  increased investment in players thus increasing competition and ultimately interest in our game. 

Playing teams 4 times a season is the problem. Your other points are valid but fundamentally the switch to the 4 times a season format has knackered Scottish football. 

 

Comparisons to the 70s are completely irrelevant. The world is a different place. 

[Sydney]

4 hours ago, Des Lynam said:

That’s not true. 
 

 

https://www.skysports.com/amp/football/news/11781/12810174/scottish-football-tops-european-attendance-per-capita-table-ahead-of-second-placed-netherlands

The problem with these stats, is that although they are true, they are primarily driven by the Old Firm with 43% of the people going to watch football in Scotland watching Rangers or Celtic home matches.

 

Interestingly, although only those two teams have won the league for the last 40 years, and although in that time Hearts, Hibs and Aberdeen have only won 12 out of the 80 cups available (Aberdeen with 4 League Cups - 85/86, 89/90, 95/96 and 13/14, 2 Scottish Cups - 85/86, 89/90, Hearts with 3 Scottish Cups - 97/98, 05/06 and 11/12 and Hibs with 1 Scottish Cup - 15/16 and 2 League Cups - 91/92 and 06/07) the crowds for these three teams are about as good as they've been since the 1960s.

[Troon Jambo]

16 Team League. 15 Home Fixtures, 15 Away (Dundee U, Dunfermline, ICT, Falkirk, Partick and Morton as examples of potential teams in Top 16)

 

Split to Top 8. 7 further fixtures.

 

Top 8 determined along with bottom 8. 
 

Top 8 then contest a US Style playoff Series. 1-4 at Home in ties v 5-8. Straight knock out, league championship series. League already won but chance to get games 38-40 played. Maybe Old Firm win league every season but this way there is a further chance at silverware in beating them at the very end! Revenues on these games split, final played at Hampden. Final might regularly be contested by Old Firm giving them game 4 of the season.
 

Games after split give 4 home games to top 4 and 3 to 5-8.

 

Bottom half play 7 further games to avoid bottom 4. Top 4 teams  in Championship play bottom 4 teams in a Relegation Shoot Out. Home and Away matches to determine division.

 

All this involves more high stakes games at the top and bottom. European places would go to league finish and also be on offer in playoffs. 
 

Opportunity to revamp the Cups to create more meaningful games….

 

The status quo will provide same outcomes, year after year. This way might throw the spanner in that we all need. Works in the US where there are really no sporting monopolies…

 

 

 

[Dazo]

We need to **** off with the play offs idea, this isn’t soccerball. You win the league by performing over a season not a handful of games. That is why we have cup competitions. 
 

I don’t like the split and would prefer we had a bigger league but we just don’t have the clubs to support it unless we are happy with regular drubbings for smaller clubs, meaningless games and the OF still winning the league every year. A bigger league would consist of Rantic competing for the title, usual suspects competing for 3rd and euro spots, a bunch in the middle competing for very little and a relegation battle at the bottom. I personally don’t like the current system but concede it may be the best of a bad bunch. I don’t have the answers and would happily try a bigger league but it would be delusional to expect much difference. 

[jamboozy]

9 hours ago, Bazzas right boot said:

 

 

Only because we invented a split.

 

A split can also  be done with a larger league.

 

Why do most other countries not want to change to this fantastic system we have in place?

 

Why do the most successful teams,  even from  small countries favour a larger league?

 

Why aren't Belgium,  Denmark,  Norway,  and all the top leagues not clamouring to change their system to ours?

 

It's because it's shite, that's why.

 

 

Good post. And if I can add to your last sentence? It’s shite and it was created to serve two clubs, that’s why.

[TexasAndy]

I think the SPL could do with freshening up but the lower leagues work really well.  The championship is a great league with literally every club with still something to play for.  The problem with SPL is that it provides 4 OF league games a season and that won't be altered.  

[Bickfest]

13 hours ago, Locky said:

In todays climate where footballers are constantly complaining of hectic schedules, it certainly won't be a bad thing for many to have a free week in the business end of the campaign. We also have an odd number of teams in the League Cup group stages so its not an entirely alien format to Scottish football.

 

It's definitely the most balanced adaptation to the league which I've thought of. Gives the fans an extra 2 teams to face each season without changing how many games a season teams play, while still giving them the prospects of the same benefits that the current format offers.

 

One glaring oversight on my part however, which I only realised on reflection, is that with the free week, there would be a total of 45 matchdays required with this format. 26 for the initial part of the season, but with each team having a bye week in the split x2, you'd need 19 matchday slots to accommodate the extra 12 games. This would mean a hell of a lot of midweek fixtures crammed in. And with the new format of European competitions creating less free space to the domestic calendars, I'm not sure if it would really work at all without either:

 

A) Playing lots of midweek games over the winter period

 

B ) Barely any downtime between 2 seasons. The league would likely have to start in mid-July and to still end in May. However, I'd be happy to see the back of the group format of the League Cup and go back to a straight knockout which would free up space for an earlier start to the season.

I don't think that's correct. You would need 14 slots, totalling 40, compared to 38 as of now - only 2 more. And each team would be guaranteed the same number of home games and away matches, so no imbalances or complaints about who played whom more at home etc.

 

Agreed about the league cup being straight knock out from the beginning. Seeded, and home and away rounds. And a separate league cup competition for each division, increasing teams' chances of winning a trophy, especially for lower division clubs, which would be great for their fans.

[Opinionated Jambo]

I haven’t read all the thread so apologies in advance if someone has already covered this

 

I think the current league format is rather stale. Financial wise for smaller clubs such as Livingston and Ross County etc playing Celtic and Rangers 3/4 times a season is great.

I would like to see the league expanded. 9/10 you will face either Celtic or Rangers in one of the cups anyway as they always usually hit the semi-final/final. So even if we played them twice in the league in a new format you could still play them another once or twice in the cups.

[michael_bolton]

10 hours ago, Bazzas right boot said:

 

How do you know, you can't say that, just like I can't say it will.

 

Again, no positive argument.

 

The product is shite.

 

Is it?

 

Look through the SPFL fixtures this weekend. Pretty much every game down the whole four divisions has something riding on it. That's a good thing.

 

Crowds are probably the highest now that they've been for a generation. That's a good thing.

 

We've got a title race, we've got competition for Europe, we've got competition for top 6, we've got competition for the relegation places. All good things.

 

A team from our league has played in a European final every 8 years in the 21st century. A good thing. Any similar-sized countries out-performing that?

 

What exactly do you think is likely to be improved by making the league bigger that it's worth disrupting this? Expanding the leagues would give us fewer meaningful games, pushing crowds down, it would reduce the levels of excitement throughout the leagues, it would give us fewer of the "big" games that people enjoy.

 

So, why shake everything up? There are clear positive arguments for the status quo. Nobody has made any positive arguments for a change that aren't simple optimism.

Edited April 4 by michael_bolton

[Nookie Bear]

15 minutes ago, michael_bolton said:

 

Is it?

 

Look through the SPFL fixtures this weekend. Pretty much every game down the whole four divisions has something riding on it. That's a good thing.

 

Crowds are probably the highest now that they've been for a generation. That's a good thing.

 

We've got a title race, we've got competition for Europe, we've got competition for top 6, we've got competition for the relegation places. All good things.

 

A team from our league has played in a European final every 8 years in the 21st century. A good thing. Any similar-sized countries out-performing that?

 

What exactly do you think is likely to be improved by making the league bigger that it's worth disrupting this? Expanding the leagues would give us fewer meaningful games, pushing crowds down, it would reduce the levels of excitement throughout the leagues, it would give us fewer of the "big" games that people enjoy.

 

So, why shake everything up? There are clear positive arguments for the status quo. Nobody has made any positive arguments for a change that aren't simple optimism.

 

Agree with this.

 

Unpopular opinion: it was a lot more exciting watching us fight relegation under Stendel than it would be watching us turn over Ayr United and Airdrie every week. I would rather have the excitement of winning something, mind 😄

 

It's European money that is causing the chasm between the old firm and the rest and nothing we do will change that. I would bin the League Cup though!

[DalryJambo]

On 07/01/2024 at 01:01, kila said:

More than that when we draw a top flight team in the cups. 
 

18 team top fight. Won’t be pretty at first but it’ll be an investment to a greater good. Shame the Glasgow FA will do all they can to prevent anything that’ll threaten their status quo. 

 

I'd only have 2 'professional' leagues. Maybe a top flight of 16 or 18 and just 16 in a second league. There would need to be some sort of cull of all these teams with 500 fans pretending to be 'full time' outfits.

 

The second league could be semi-pro at first but over time the aim would be for 2 full time fully professional leagues, all with academies/youth teams of some sort. Below that it would be a pryamid of Amature leagues that would allow for promotion and relagation. Maybe the highest amateur league would be national and below that it could be regional. There could be a grand final between the regional leagues to get promotion to the top amateur league. 

 

I'd also get the SFA to underwrite a massive loan which is used as a handout to all the teams (£10m per team). It MUST be spent on infrastructure projects. And if existing clubs merged they'd be given much better loan terms. Ie if all the fife clubs merged and formed one team they might have £40-50m to invest in a stadium/training ground type projects. These loans would be effectively long term mortgages. Teams like Hearts and Hibs could properly invest in training academy's, youth training initiatives, astro pitches all across their catchment areas and really try to move the dial on the standard of players coming through.

[michael_bolton]

2 minutes ago, DalryJambo said:

 

 There would need to be some sort of cull of all these teams with 500 fans pretending to be 'full time' outfits.

 

 

 

Such as?

[gregzy2k7]

Said before

 

Should just be 

 

18 team prem (34 games, 17 home, 17 away, two down automatically and then 3rd bottom goes into a play off.

 

18 team champ (see above)

 

Then just expand the lowland and highland leagues.

 

We are a small country and don't need 4 pro leagues and daft splits to pander to the OF coin.

 

It will never happen though as the OF would not want that.

 

[DalryJambo]

15 minutes ago, michael_bolton said:

 

Such as?

 

How do you mean, as in which teams? Look at the bottom half of Scottish League 2 and take your pick. It's not for me to say, but the SFA need to create some structure that teams of appropriate size are playing in appropriate leagues. If you are a club chairman, you average about 500 fans every 2 weeks for 8 months of the year is that really a business? If the players need to have 'full time' jobs is that really going to provide the best standard of football and development pathways? I'm not saying they should be put out of business I'm just saying let's be honest and call it what it is, and find an appropriate full time structure that supports an appropriate number of clubs.

 

In my post I suggested a way of creating bigger clubs from what we currently have that could be done in a positive way.

Edited April 4 by DalryJambo

[Nookie Bear]

3 minutes ago, DalryJambo said:

 

How do you mean, las in which teams? Look at the bottom half of Scottish League 2 and take your pick. It's not for me to say, but the SFA need to create some structure that teams of appropriate size are playing in appropriate leagues. If you are a club chairman, you average about 500 fans every 2 weeks for 8 months of the year is that really a business? If the players need to have 'full time' jobs is that really going to provide the best standard of football and development pathways? I'm not saying they should be put out of business I'm just saying let's be honest and call it what it is, and find an appropriate full time structure that supports an appropriate number of clubs.

 

In my post I suggested a way of creating bigger clubs from what we currently have that could be done in a positive way.

 

Regionalise it for starters. Seems silly to have Peterhead travelling to Stranraer or Cove going to Queen of the South.

[michael_bolton]

7 minutes ago, DalryJambo said:

 

How do you mean, as in which teams? Look at the bottom half of Scottish League 2 and take your pick. It's not for me to say, but the SFA need to create some structure that teams of appropriate size are playing in appropriate leagues. If you are a club chairman, you average about 500 fans every 2 weeks for 8 months of the year is that really a business? If the players need to have 'full time' jobs is that really going to provide the best standard of football and development pathways? I'm not saying they should be put out of business I'm just saying let's be honest and call it what it is, and find an appropriate full time structure that supports an appropriate number of clubs.

 

In my post I suggested a way of creating bigger clubs from what we currently have that could be done in a positive way.

 

None of those clubs are full-time, so what difference does it make having them all play each other down the pyramid?

 

What purpose is served by eliinating them? Who magically replaces them to play in your expanded second tier and help develop players?

 

It's not a sensible idea.

[upgotheheads]

11 hours ago, Bazzas right boot said:

 

No idea, but like the 69's and 70's it's irrelevant in 2024.

 

Still no argument put forward fir a smaller league.

Is there one?

What happened in the 80's and 90's was Sky TV and the flooding of cash Into the major leagues and to the bigger clubs (like the arse-cheeks for example) That changed the dynamics irrevocably. The only way clubs like Hearts, Hibs, Aberdeen or Dundee United will ever win their domestic league is to somehow grow to the size of the aforementioned. In the case of Leicester City they were bought by a billionaire who threw money at them, and that is something I hope never to see at Hearts.

[DalryJambo]

20 minutes ago, michael_bolton said:

 

None of those clubs are full-time, so what difference does it make having them all play each other down the pyramid?

 

What purpose is served by eliinating them? Who magically replaces them to play in your expanded second tier and help develop players?

 

It's not a sensible idea.

 

We currently have 42 teams in this setup. I'm proposing a 16/18 team top league and 16 team second league. That's between 32/34 teams, so between 8-10 teams would need to move into an appropriately named league. There's an argument to say this is just shuffling the deck chairs, so we could say the Premier League and championship become our 2 professional leagues, one is 16 teams one is 18 (I'm not sure of the pros and cons of the numerical splits) and then everyone else form 100% amature leagues under that. There's a lot of pressure, and very little structural support, for lots of teams in Scotland to fit into a full time structure and we need to create a tighter product that we can properly market, develop and support. Over time if we get the top 2 leagues stronger, this should feed down to the smaller clubs as well.

 

I think the current setup spreads fans, talent and resources too thinly across to many teams. 

Edited April 4 by DalryJambo

[michael_bolton]

7 minutes ago, DalryJambo said:

 

We currently have 42 teams in this setup. I'm proposing a 16/18 team top league and 16 team second league. That's between 32/34 teams, so between 8-10 teams would need to move into and appropriately named league. There's an argument to say this is just shuffling the deck chairs, so we could say the Premier League and championship become our 2 professional leagues, ones 16 teams ones 18 (I'm not sure of the pros and cons of the numerical splits) and then everyone else forms 100% amature leagues under that. There's a lot of pressure, and very little structural support for lots of teams in Scotland and we need to create a tighter product that we can properly market, develop and support. Over time if we get the top 2 leagues stronger, this should feed down to the smaller clubs as well.

 

I think the current setup spreads fans, talent and resources too thinly across to many teams. 

 

So, people just stop supporting smaller clubs?

 

This is a terrible and pointless idea.

[loveofthegame]

46 minutes ago, gregzy2k7 said:

Said before

 

Should just be 

 

18 team prem (34 games, 17 home, 17 away, two down automatically and then 3rd bottom goes into a play off.

 

18 team champ (see above)

 

Then just expand the lowland and highland leagues.

 

We are a small country and don't need 4 pro leagues and daft splits to pander to the OF coin.

 

It will never happen though as the OF would not want that.

 

 

Correct. 18 team league, once home and away, increases interest for fans and increases the competitiveness of the league - it is that final point which means it will never happen.

 

That and our pathetic broadcasters losing two OF games. 

 

Perhaps one answer on that is to bring in a "Charity Shield" style game for Scotland to be played between winner of league and winner of Scottish cup - if that is the same team, it goes to 2nd in the league. That increases the likelihood of at least 1 more OF game for said broadcasters.

 

Until the rest really really push for this we'll be stuck in the doldrums though. It needs a Budge/McKinley to seriously come out for this again though. Maybe it is something we should be pushing for via the FOH?!

 

[colinmorewasgash]

2 clubs wouldn't vote for expansion they love their 4 game bigotfest. Losing 2 games would also prob mean sky pulling out mind you might be good thing as its like old firm tv anyway. Rather show tims at mwell or rangers at stmirren than an edinburgh derby sums them up.

[upgotheheads]

4 minutes ago, DalryJambo said:

 

We currently have 42 teams in this setup. I'm proposing a 16/18 team top league and 16 team second league. That's between 32/34 teams, so between 8-10 teams would need to move into and appropriately named league. There's an argument to say this is just shuffling the deck chairs, so we could say the Premier League and championship become our 2 professional leagues, ones 16 teams ones 18 (I'm not sure of the pros and cons of the numerical splits) and then everyone else forms 100% amature leagues under that. There's a lot of pressure, and very little structural support for lots of teams in Scotland and we need to create a tighter product that we can properly market, develop and support. Over time if we get the top 2 leagues stronger, this should feed down to the smaller clubs as well.

 

I think the current setup spreads fans, talent and resources too thinly across to many teams. 

 

At least you offer a proposal, but I would prefer this;

 

Currently we have around 24 clubs with viable population centres that could provide the potential for full-time football, those who can't will find their level in the pyramid. So here goes;

 

1st round of fixtures; two leagues of 12, play each other twice...                                                        22 games

 

Split into three leagues of 8, play each other twice...                                                                           14 games

                                                                                                                                                   Total       36 games

 

Competition for Europe and the Championship happens in the top 8

Competition for the following seasons' top 12 happens in the middle 8

Competition for readmission/relegation happens in the bottom 8.

 

 

[Pans Jambo]

1 hour ago, gregzy2k7 said:

Said before

 

Should just be 

 

18 team prem (34 games, 17 home, 17 away, two down automatically and then 3rd bottom goes into a play off.

 

18 team champ (see above)

 

Then just expand the lowland and highland leagues.

 

We are a small country and don't need 4 pro leagues and daft splits to pander to the OF coin.

 

It will never happen though as the OF would not want that.

 

This

[DalryJambo]

9 minutes ago, michael_bolton said:

 

So, people just stop supporting smaller clubs?

 

This is a terrible and pointless idea.

 

People will support who they want. I'm not saying any club should be forced to close. They should just be in an appropriate league for their size and have suitable financial expectations.

 

I would propose some incentive based approach to encourage smaller teams to merge into one bigger club, based on locality (ie Inverness clubs).  It's surely going to help Scottish football develop if we have 1 professional team covering the whole of Fife that has the potential to grow rather than 4 or 5 clubs that are struggling along year after year.

[Carter]

2 hours ago, TexasAndy said:

I think the SPL could do with freshening up but the lower leagues work really well.  The championship is a great league with literally every club with still something to play for.  The problem with SPL is that it provides 4 OF league games a season and that won't be altered.  

This is sacrosanct in Scottish football it would seem. Never be altered for this reason above any other. 

[michael_bolton]

2 minutes ago, DalryJambo said:

 

People will support who they want. I'm not saying any club should be forced to close. They should just be in an appropriate league for their size and have suitable financial expectations.

 

I would propose some incentive based approach to encourage smaller teams to merge into one bigger club, based on locality (ie Inverness clubs).  It's surely going to help Scottish football develop if we have 1 professional team covering the whole of Fife that has the potential to grow rather than 4 or 5 clubs that are struggling along year after year.

 

The appropriate league for a club is the one above the one they last won promotion from.

 

Why not just merge Hearts and Hibs and have one team in Edinburgh? Neither club has won the league for decades, so what's the point?

 

And Rangers and Celtic haven't got a Champions League between them in the modern era. Let's just merge them too.

[Percival King]

1 hour ago, gregzy2k7 said:

Said before

 

Should just be 

 

18 team prem (34 games, 17 home, 17 away, two down automatically and then 3rd bottom goes into a play off.

 

18 team champ (see above)

 

Then just expand the lowland and highland leagues.

 

We are a small country and don't need 4 pro leagues and daft splits to pander to the OF coin.

 

It will never happen though as the OF would not want that.

 

I'm not sure it's been demonstrated that clubs outwith the uglies want change either. Why would Ross County, Motherwell, Dundee and others vote to have two fewer home games and also replace either one or two home televised games against the uglies (plus home games against us, Hibs and Aberdeen) with games against Airdrie or Morton or Ayr United. That would be quite a hit to their income. Even if a bigger league was the fans solution, and that's debatable, we've seen that rightly or wrongly, clubs in Scotland tend to vote for change, or not, in their self interest. Maybe we need yet another working group to look at more than just the size of the leagues.

Would we want Hearts to vote for something that would lose the club money but only might lead to a better product?

[Nookie Bear]

1 hour ago, upgotheheads said:

What happened in the 80's and 90's was Sky TV and the flooding of cash Into the major leagues and to the bigger clubs (like the arse-cheeks for example) That changed the dynamics irrevocably. The only way clubs like Hearts, Hibs, Aberdeen or Dundee United will ever win their domestic league is to somehow grow to the size of the aforementioned. In the case of Leicester City they were bought by a billionaire who threw money at them, and that is something I hope never to see at Hearts.

 

I could handle that!

[Super_Hans]

12 hours ago, Bazzas right boot said:

 

 

Only because we invented a split.

 

A split can also  be done with a larger league.

 

Why do most other countries not want to change to this fantastic system we have in place?

 

Why do the most successful teams,  even from  small countries favour a larger league?

 

Why aren't Belgium,  Denmark,  Norway,  and all the top leagues not clamouring to change their system to ours?

 

It's because it's shite, that's why.

 

 

We actually stole the split idea from Switzerland back in 1999. They have since gone back to a 10 team league then this season gone to the exact  same 12 team split as the Scottish Premiership.

Denmark have a split albeit after two rounds of fixtures.

Belgium have 3 way split.

Austria, Serbia, Greece, Slovenia and Bulgaria all have splits so most similar sized countries all have a league split of varying formats.

 

My favoured format would be Greece's 14 team, 8/6 split after 26 games. Takes away the imbalance we often have after 33 games.

 

[upgotheheads]

41 minutes ago, Super_Hans said:

We actually stole the split idea from Switzerland back in 1999. They have since gone back to a 10 team league then this season gone to the exact  same 12 team split as the Scottish Premiership.

Denmark have a split albeit after two rounds of fixtures.

Belgium have 3 way split.

Austria, Serbia, Greece, Slovenia and Bulgaria all have splits so most similar sized countries all have a league split of varying formats.

 

My favoured format would be Greece's 14 team, 8/6 split after 26 games. Takes away the imbalance we often have after 33 games.

 

 

That could be worth a try.

[ROCK LOBSTER]

2 hours ago, colinmorewasgash said:

2 clubs wouldn't vote for expansion they love their 4 game bigotfest. Losing 2 games would also prob mean sky pulling out mind you might be good thing as its like old firm tv anyway. Rather show tims at mwell or rangers at stmirren than an edinburgh derby sums them up.

This is spot on the only way to change is for all the other clubs is to threaten to break away and to let the bigots play each other 38 times. I know this won't happen but it would be fun.

[DalryJambo]

1 hour ago, michael_bolton said:

 

The appropriate league for a club is the one above the one they last won promotion from.

 

Why not just merge Hearts and Hibs and have one team in Edinburgh? Neither club has won the league for decades, so what's the point?

 

And Rangers and Celtic haven't got a Champions League between them in the modern era. Let's just merge them too.

 

Not if the whole set-up is a bag of rubbish! I think being in a set up that is half full time, half part time just makes life difficult for everyone.

 

We need a much cleaner division between full time and part time clubs and they really shouldn't mix, apart from the cup.

 

My sense on this would be if you can average over 10000 fans per year you are a 100% viable club. If you're much lower than that you could well consider how you could become a bigger more sustainable organisation. There are a lot of clubs between 5000 and 10000 that are sustainable, but could probably grow if the overall cost to fans was lower, and the product was better.

 

I'd also want us to look at alternative approaches to income, which would make tickets sales a much lower priority to clubs. So improved tv money, increased prize money, elevated sponsorship income opportunities for each club could make ticket sales the 4th income stream, rather than the primary income stream.

 

For example why does the current TV deal limit the number of old firm games, Hearts games, hibs games etc. (I think there a limt to 5 games from each ground?) Stuff that. Every game from Ibrox, Celtic Park, Tynecastle, Easter Road and Pittodrie should be available. Also every old firm away game should be available. There should 2 or 3 live games per fixture round. Also 2 game per fixture round from the Championship.  If clubs can be suitably compensated for a potential loss of gate income, it becomes less of an issue. The clubs would then price tickets at a sensible level to make it more appealing. 

 

There's a huge market around the world for football, and if its made accessible and the games are competitive people will watch it. A combination of a good Lead broadcaster, terrestrial market highlights and OTT Digital streaming packages will offer a bunch of income opportunities for the league and clubs.

 

Edited April 4 by DalryJambo

[Bazzas right boot]

1 hour ago, Super_Hans said:

We actually stole the split idea from Switzerland back in 1999. They have since gone back to a 10 team league then this season gone to the exact  same 12 team split as the Scottish Premiership.

Denmark have a split albeit after two rounds of fixtures.

Belgium have 3 way split.

Austria, Serbia, Greece, Slovenia and Bulgaria all have splits so most similar sized countries all have a league split of varying formats.

 

My favoured format would be Greece's 14 team, 8/6 split after 26 games. Takes away the imbalance we often have after 33 games.

 

 

Yeah, the split is common but they have bigger leagues and/ or play equal fixtures.

 

We don't. 

 

 

[Bazzas right boot]

3 hours ago, upgotheheads said:

What happened in the 80's and 90's was Sky TV and the flooding of cash Into the major leagues and to the bigger clubs (like the arse-cheeks for example) That changed the dynamics irrevocably. The only way clubs like Hearts, Hibs, Aberdeen or Dundee United will ever win their domestic league is to somehow grow to the size of the aforementioned. In the case of Leicester City they were bought by a billionaire who threw money at them, and that is something I hope never to see at Hearts.

 

Still no argument for the current set up tho.

 

Fear shouldn't be a barrier to change.

[Bazzas right boot]

4 hours ago, michael_bolton said:

 

Is it?

 

Look through the SPFL fixtures this weekend. Pretty much every game down the whole four divisions has something riding on it. That's a good thing.

 

Crowds are probably the highest now that they've been for a generation. That's a good thing.

 

We've got a title race, we've got competition for Europe, we've got competition for top 6, we've got competition for the relegation places. All good things.

 

A team from our league has played in a European final every 8 years in the 21st century. A good thing. Any similar-sized countries out-performing that?

 

What exactly do you think is likely to be improved by making the league bigger that it's worth disrupting this? Expanding the leagues would give us fewer meaningful games, pushing crowds down, it would reduce the levels of excitement throughout the leagues, it would give us fewer of the "big" games that people enjoy.

 

So, why shake everything up? There are clear positive arguments for the status quo. Nobody has made any positive arguments for a change that aren't simple optimism.

 

Outside the OF it's terrible.

 

The OF are OK, the governing body, tv sponsorship and league set uocaters for them well.

 

Even so, in the top level of football they have dropped dramatically,  Rangers in the 90's, celtic in the 00's v the current ucl performances are terrible.

 

Even Rangers/ celtic can't compete at te top level anymore, they used to.

Cel5ic have even won it if we are going back to when the league was larger.

 

Even the "OF are doing well" falls down when you look at the top European competition.

 

Even the positive arguments if scrutinised fall down

 

 

 

[Bazzas right boot]

2 hours ago, colinmorewasgash said:

2 clubs wouldn't vote for expansion they love their 4 game bigotfest. Losing 2 games would also prob mean sky pulling out mind you might be good thing as its like old firm tv anyway. Rather show tims at mwell or rangers at stmirren than an edinburgh derby sums them up.

 

Always remember a TV deal could be around 50% less without the OF and every other club would be as is.

 

The Of take about 50% of all the money atm.

 

 

 

[jbee647]

In my opinion the only way we will get any change in the current set up will be if Celtic continue year after year winning the league.

Have no doubt the real reason we changed to a top 10 Premier League in 1975 was because of Celtics initial 9IAR, ironically Rangers did win the league in 1975

I genuinely believe if Celtic keep up there current dominance, then I believe the Scottish football power will at that point consider changes 

[Nookie Bear]

18 minutes ago, Bazzas right boot said:

 

Outside the OF it's terrible.

 

The OF are OK, the governing body, tv sponsorship and league set uocaters for them well.

 

Even so, in the top level of football they have dropped dramatically,  Rangers in the 90's, celtic in the 00's v the current ucl performances are terrible.

 

Even Rangers/ celtic can't compete at te top level anymore, they used to.

Cel5ic have even won it if we are going back to when the league was larger.

 

Even the "OF are doing well" falls down when you look at the top European competition.

 

Even the positive arguments if scrutinised fall down

 

 

 

 

Do you mean the standard of football because i'm not sure how changing the format of the league would change that.

[michael_bolton]

28 minutes ago, Bazzas right boot said:

 

Outside the OF it's terrible.

 

The OF are OK, the governing body, tv sponsorship and league set uocaters for them well.

 

Even so, in the top level of football they have dropped dramatically,  Rangers in the 90's, celtic in the 00's v the current ucl performances are terrible.

 

Even Rangers/ celtic can't compete at te top level anymore, they used to.

Cel5ic have even won it if we are going back to when the league was larger.

 

Even the "OF are doing well" falls down when you look at the top European competition.

 

Even the positive arguments if scrutinised fall down

 

 

 

 

What's that got to do with the size of the leagues? The money of the clubs at the top end of the Champions League has grown exponentially. It's not realistic to expect Rangers and Celtic to do well in that competition.

 

Not one argument on this thread coherently explains any positive reason to make the leagues bigger without the cons outweighing the pros.

[Bazzas right boot]

46 minutes ago, michael_bolton said:

 

What's that got to do with the size of the leagues? The money of the clubs at the top end of the Champions League has grown exponentially. It's not realistic to expect Rangers and Celtic to do well in that competition.

 

Not one argument on this thread coherently explains any positive reason to make the leagues bigger without the cons outweighing the pros.

 

Just have a larger league. Play twice like most other leagues.

If there is a split , ensure it's equal before and after.

No need to re invent the wheel.

 

The fact our set up has teams play 3 times before the split so every team hasn't played the same fixtures is reason enough to see it canned as it is.

 

The coherent argument is we're the only league with 2 winners in 40 years, commercially we are weaker than our peers, our clubs crash in Europe v  past performances, playing 3 times before a split is a farce, add in the 1 up and 1 down format is protecting clubs while stifling opportunity.

Add in playing teams 4 times is shite.

 

 

The reason against it seems to be there was a few boring games 50 years ago.

 

Bigger league, 2 divisions, more up more down, if there is a split do it after equal games.

 

Leaving it as it is shouldn't be an option,  our product is poor and will be behind the English woman's game soon in terms of sponsorship and TV.

It may already be.

 

 

 

[Polonia Gorgie]

22 minutes ago, Bazzas right boot said:

 

Just have a larger league. Play twice like most other leagues.

If there is a split , ensure it's equal before and after.

No need to re invent the wheel.

 

The fact our set up has teams play 3 times before the split so every team hasn't played the same fixtures is reason enough to see it canned as it is.

 

The coherent argument is we're the only league with 2 winners in 40 years, commercially we are weaker than our peers, our clubs crash in Europe v  past performances, playing 3 times before a split is a farce, add in the 1 up and 1 down format is protecting clubs while stifling opportunity.

Add in playing teams 4 times is shite.

 

 

The reason against it seems to be there was a few boring games 50 years ago.

 

Bigger league, 2 divisions, more up more down, if there is a split do it after equal games.

 

Leaving it as it is shouldn't be an option,  our product is poor and will be behind the English woman's game soon in terms of sponsorship and TV.

It may already be.

 

 

 

Add after the split you may play an opponent 3 times away from home, it's hardly fair

[Watt-Zeefuik]

14 hours ago, Sydney said:

The problem with these stats, is that although they are true, they are primarily driven by the Old Firm with 43% of the people going to watch football in Scotland watching Rangers or Celtic home matches.

 

Interestingly, although only those two teams have won the league for the last 40 years, and although in that time Hearts, Hibs and Aberdeen have only won 12 out of the 80 cups available (Aberdeen with 4 League Cups - 85/86, 89/90, 95/96 and 13/14, 2 Scottish Cups - 85/86, 89/90, Hearts with 3 Scottish Cups - 97/98, 05/06 and 11/12 and Hibs with 1 Scottish Cup - 15/16 and 2 League Cups - 91/92 and 06/07) the crowds for these three teams are about as good as they've been since the 1960s.

 

When I did this last, the city with the highest per capita attendance in Scotland was Dundee. Of the largest 5-6 cities, the one with the lowest per capita attendance was Edinburgh. (Yet another reason we need a Wheatfield that's 2.5x its current size.). I think the total attendance of Hearts and Hibs has grown since then but so has Edinburgh.

 

Celtic and Rangers have 43% of the attendance but greater Glasgow somewhat narrowly defined has 18% of the population and the wider metropolitan area is 33% of the population. That's not a terribly unusual arrangement for any particular league.

 

The Eridivisie has a very similar divide between its top clubs and its bottom clubs in terms of attendance. 50k averages at the top, 4k averages at the bottom. What's different is that it has a much broader "middle class," with ten clubs in the 10k-30k average attendance zone, versus Scotland that has just three in that zone.

 

https://www.transfermarkt.com/eredivisie/besucherzahlen/wettbewerb/NL1

 

https://www.transfermarkt.com/scottish-premiership/besucherzahlen/wettbewerb/SC1

 

I am extremely in favor of re-doing the league format because the current format I think contributes to timid, negative football from most clubs in a lot of games. It also introduces greater financial precarity for the yo-yo clubs.

 

But I don't think we can expect league restructuring to give us any kind of boost to get closer to the OF. The blunt truth is that all of the "next three," including us, have been poorly run for a lot of the stretch of OF dominance while Celtic and Rangers made significant investments (obviously illegal ones in some instances). We're playing catch-up.

[kingantti1874]

On 07/01/2024 at 09:18, kingantti1874 said:

No point in coming up with a solution which doesn’t involve 4 Glasgow derbies.  We all want it but it’s entirely pointless.  BUT there is a way to have a bigger league 16 team, 4 derbies AND a reasonable number of games.

 

16 teams

split into 2 groups of 8 after 30 fixtures

split into 4 groups of 4 after 37 fixtures

The top group of 4 play off for the title and the top euro spots

The second play off for the final euro spot

The bottom group are the relegation group with bottom 2 down.

 

Yes we all wish the split didn’t exist but this would mean

* more games against different teams and a bit more interest

*a closer title up to the 30 game mark at least. 

*making the last 3 games against direct competitors.
* more games meaning slightly more revenue.

 

its the best solution.  Gives a bit of everything. A slight increase in games, slightly more revenue,  more teams, should help other teams keep pace with old firm and maintains the dreaded 4 fixtures.  

 

 

I maintain this is the best compromise solution.  Yes it involves some compromise of course.  
 

but as I say, zero point in just saying make the league bigger and play twice.  Not happening fundamentally the clubs do not want that

Edited April 4 by kingantti1874

[Bazzas right boot]

1 hour ago, Polonia Gorgie said:

Add after the split you may play an opponent 3 times away from home, it's hardly fair

 

It's tin pot.

Odd number of fixtures in a league system should not be allowed.

 

It's only there to protect the OF fixtures.

 

 

[Watt-Zeefuik]

I vote for basically any league set up that isn't the current one and that incorporates more teams. There are at least a dozen ways to solve the OF media rights issue and fixtures problem that are better than the current one. I don't even care which one they pick anymore, just pick one and try it, it can't be worse than the small top league with the unbalanced split.

 

10 years ago I read SPFL officials saying things like, there aren't enough teams with a true Premiership setup and stadiums. That's been aptly demonstrated to be hogwash. ICT and County have stepped up and acquitted themselves perfectly well in the top flight. There are at least 10 clubs in tiers 2-3 that would function perfectly fine in the top flight.

 

The best alternate setup I've seen involves a mid-season restructure.

 

Fall:

East and West Division, 10 teams each

18 games total, home and away

Top 5 of each go to 1A in spring, bottom 5 go to 1B in spring

(This facilitates performance in European groups because the stakes for the top teams are low in the fall.)

 

Spring:

1A and 1B leagues with 10 teams each. *Table resets to zero points.*

18 games total, home and away

Automatic relegation for bottom two in 1B, playoff for next two.

European spots go to top of 1A.

 

 

If we did that this season:

East: Hearts, Hibs, Dundee, Aberdeen, St. J., County, Livi, DU, Raith, Pars

West: Celtic, Rangers, Killie, Mirren, Well, Partick, Airdrie, Morton, Ayr, QP

 

1A: Celtic, Rangers,  Killie, Mirren, Well + Hibs, Hearts, Dundee, Aberdeen, St.J,

1B: Partick, Airdrie, Morton, Ayr, QP + County, Livi, DU, Raith, Pars

 

Hearts play Hibs, Dundee, Aberdeen, St. J four times, two times for everyone else.