League expansion

[WDJ87]

Clubs need to start pushing the topic of league reconstruction. I had a good look through FotMob at all the leagues throughout the world. Found 2 countries (please correct me if I missed one) with the same number of teams, Welsh  and Irish Leagues. No offence intended to either, imo both are below the level the SPFL is at.

[kingantti1874]

4 minutes ago, WDJ87 said:

Clubs need to start pushing the topic of league reconstruction. I had a good look through FotMob at all the leagues throughout the world. Found 2 countries (please correct me if I missed one) with the same number of teams, Welsh  and Irish Leagues. No offence intended to either, imo both are below the level the SPFL is at.

the vast majority of top flight clubs don’t want an 18/20 team league. 
 

[OTT]

6 minutes ago, kingantti1874 said:

the vast majority of top flight clubs don’t want an 18/20 team league. 
 

 

Think the fans do though. 

 

Anyone advocating for the status quo is a reactionary ***** scared of change. 

[Bazzas right boot]

17 minutes ago, kingantti1874 said:

the vast majority of top flight clubs don’t want an 18/20 team league. 
 

 

Aye, but the reasons are shite.

Less relegation,  sell out to the OF, scared to spread the money etc.

 

None of it is for progressive reasons. 

 

Just like our demotion, clubs have their own shitty reasons for voting.

No one will top bus fares rho.

 

 

 

 

Edited April 4 by Bazzas right boot

[Watt-Zeefuik]

34 minutes ago, kingantti1874 said:

the vast majority of top flight clubs don’t want an 18/20 team league. 
 

 

Based on what?

 

You don't think Livingston and Ross County would prefer an 18 team league this season? That Dundee and Killie would have liked to avoided their recent trips to the second tier?

[Nookie Bear]

27 minutes ago, OTT said:

 

Think the fans do though. 

 

Anyone advocating for the status quo is a reactionary ***** scared of change. 

What’s with the ***** ? 😂

 

Calm down, it’s just folk talking and none of us have any influence over this. 

[OTT]

Just now, Nookie Bear said:

What’s with the ***** ? 😂

 

Calm down, it’s just folk talking and none of us have any influence over this. 

 

Usually I'm fine with folk having different opinions, but they're wrong. Their opinion is wrong. 

 

Its rooted in reactionary nonsense and being shit scared of change. Literally the only argument against it I'm seeing is "DURRRR DON'T LIKE CHANGE" or "It was bad before colour TV". Absolutely laughable. 

[kila]

9 minutes ago, Watt-Zeefuik said:

 

Based on what?

 

You don't think Livingston and Ross County would prefer an 18 team league this season? That Dundee and Killie would have liked to avoided their recent trips to the second tier?

 

Threat of the TV deal being ripped up and us being offered something even shitter because there's not four OF games a season and some clubs relying on as many visits from the OF as possible.

 

It's what should happen though.

[Nookie Bear]

10 minutes ago, OTT said:

 

Usually I'm fine with folk having different opinions, but they're wrong. Their opinion is wrong. 

 

Its rooted in reactionary nonsense and being shit scared of change. Literally the only argument against it I'm seeing is "DURRRR DON'T LIKE CHANGE" or "It was bad before colour TV". Absolutely laughable. 

About as sensible as folk wanting change so they can see us bang in a few against diddy teams in a succession of post-Easter exhibition matches. 
 

✌️ 

[Watt-Zeefuik]

2 minutes ago, kila said:

 

Threat of the TV deal being ripped up and us being offered something even shitter because there's not four OF games a season and some clubs relying on as many visits from the OF as possible.

 

It's what should happen though.

 

As dumb as the "four OF games/season" requirement is and as much as I wish it didn't exist, there are ways that could be preserved if they actually tried.

 

I mean at the very simplest, go to 16 teams and 30 games/season, then expand the hell out of the LC groups and rig it regionally so the OF are always drawn together, but the top 3-4 teams progress out of every group. Yes it would be transparently artificial to mash them together, but no worse than the current unbalanced schedule and split.

[michael_bolton]

3 hours 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.

 

 

 

 

You've still not made any good arguments.

 

1) We'd have had 2 league winners in 40 years with bigger leagues. There's nothing to suggest that's related to the size of the league. Nothing.

 

2) Being commercially weaker than other nations is debatable as there are all kinds of factors that go into it, but that's on our clubs. Again, there's nothing to suggest it's due to the size of the league. If anything, you can argue it's commercially prudent to make sure there are four of the only fixture anyone beyond our border is interested in. I'm not sure what kind of market people think there is for our league out there. Are you into Austrian football?

 

3) Our performance in Europe hasn't really got much worse since the 90s. It's got worse since the 80s when the financial playing field was more level and English clubs were banned. There's nothing to say that's due to the size of our league either.

 

4) Playing three times before the split being a "farce" is your opinion. It's not a fact. It's like arguing "it's rubbish because I think it is".

 

You've not addressed the issue of larger leagues meaning fewer big games, fewer interesting games, giving more teams nothing to play for, almost certainly driving down attendances (SPFL's main income source) and the issue that you would kill stone dead what is currently a thriving lower league scene. This would cost Hearts a fortune, and I'm pretty sure that after a few years we'd want two of the derbies back, having grown fed up with games against dross constantly.

 

It's still not clear to me why anyone is arguing for bigger leagues. There's no tangible benefit, but several obvious problems.

[Locky]

9 hours ago, Bickfest said:

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.

I did the fag packet maths a few times and that was the figure I kept getting but something wasn't sitting right with me. Definitely my preferred option.

[Libertarian]

While I would prefer a 16 team league playing each team once home and away this is highly unlikely to happen due to the demands of TV for at least 4 OF games a season. A compromise would therefore be a 14 team league play each other twice, then split into a top 8 and bottom 6 and play each other twice again. This would equate to 40 games for the top 8 and 36 for the bottom 6.

On 03/04/2024 at 10:27, Phil D. Corners said:

I still like the split. It gives the majority of teams in our league something to play for IMO. Let’s face it only two teams play for the top two spots. 
 

I’m always looking to see when we confirm top 6. Just now I’m enjoying that Aberdeen are most probably a bottom 6 team, and fingers crossed Hibs too. 
 

The league could do a lot more to sell the spilt at this stage of the season. 

 

[Watt-Zeefuik]

4 minutes ago, michael_bolton said:

 

You've still not made any good arguments.

 

1) We'd have had 2 league winners in 40 years with bigger leagues. There's nothing to suggest that's related to the size of the league. Nothing.

 

2) Being commercially weaker than other nations is debatable as there are all kinds of factors that go into it, but that's on our clubs. Again, there's nothing to suggest it's due to the size of the league. If anything, you can argue it's commercially prudent to make sure there are four of the only fixture anyone beyond our border is interested in. I'm not sure what kind of market people think there is for our league out there. Are you into Austrian football?

 

3) Our performance in Europe hasn't really got much worse since the 90s. It's got worse since the 80s when the financial playing field was more level and English clubs were banned. There's nothing to say that's due to the size of our league either.

 

4) Playing three times before the split being a "farce" is your opinion. It's not a fact. It's like arguing "it's rubbish because I think it is".

 

You've not addressed the issue of larger leagues meaning fewer big games, fewer interesting games, giving more teams nothing to play for, almost certainly driving down attendances (SPFL's main income source) and the issue that you would kill stone dead what is currently a thriving lower league scene. This would cost Hearts a fortune, and I'm pretty sure that after a few years we'd want two of the derbies back, having grown fed up with games against dross constantly.

 

It's still not clear to me why anyone is arguing for bigger leagues. There's no tangible benefit, but several obvious problems.

 

The "commercial weakness" of Scotland is IMO 100% the result of sharing most broadcast companies with the territory for the richest league in the world. Most nations the size of Scotland don't have a league the size of the EPL being broadcast into their homes as if it were the home league. And that doesn't even get into player trading, where the lure of the English setup is an easy hop for most players. I mean I'm sure the Czech league gets Bundesliga broadcasts but I'm also sure it's less frequent and less omnipresent than the EPL coverage is in Scotland.

 

If Sky Sports and BBC MotD weren't available pretty much everywhere in Scotland, the media rights to the SPFL would be worth much more, full stop, regardless of the gap in wages and player quality.

[Watt-Zeefuik]

39 minutes ago, Nookie Bear said:

What’s with the ***** ? 😂

 

Calm down, it’s just folk talking and none of us have any influence over this. 

 

37 minutes ago, OTT said:

 

Usually I'm fine with folk having different opinions, but they're wrong. Their opinion is wrong. 

 

Its rooted in reactionary nonsense and being shit scared of change. Literally the only argument against it I'm seeing is "DURRRR DON'T LIKE CHANGE" or "It was bad before colour TV". Absolutely laughable. 

 

I kind of have to agree with OTT. I simply can't imagine any alternative that would actually be worse than the current split system.

 

Since I'm throwing out solutions today, I'll throw in the American system, which is to have regional divisions in the national league where you end up playing the teams in your division more often than those outside of it. It would take a little tweaking in Scottish football (and probably would do better as part of the LC) and I'd probably prefer another solution but it would still be better than the  current fiasco.

Edited April 4 by Watt-Zeefuik

[Rampant]

22 minutes ago, Watt-Zeefuik said:

 

As dumb as the "four OF games/season" requirement is and as much as I wish it didn't exist, there are ways that could be preserved if they actually tried.

 

I mean at the very simplest, go to 16 teams and 30 games/season, then expand the hell out of the LC groups and rig it regionally so the OF are always drawn together, but the top 3-4 teams progress out of every group. Yes it would be transparently artificial to mash them together, but no worse than the current unbalanced schedule and split.

 

Just introduce US style play-offs to determine the champion.  A super bowl for the top two.  Even 7 game play-offs.  Give the fans what we're told they clearly want, more OF games. Record Sky deals for not technically but basically assuring 4 OF games.  Imagine what they'd pay for the same assurance of 10 plus OF games??  Trickle down, we'd be laughing.

[kingantti1874]

51 minutes ago, Watt-Zeefuik said:

 

Based on what?

 

You don't think Livingston and Ross County would prefer an 18 team league this season? That Dundee and Killie would have liked to avoided their recent trips to the second tier?

based on years and years of the smaller saying they don’t want a bigger league.

 

they want the old firm coin, the believe they need it and tbh they probably do. 
 

Scotland is too small a country for the number of clubs we have,especially when 75% of the country support 2 clubs.  people criticised budge when she said it but she was correct.

 

an 18/20 team league will never ever reach the point where it is up for serious consideration.  A total non starter and a waste of time debating it

[AC Mallin_51]

How many top flight sides have struggled with championship sides in the cup the last few years? I personally think the top half of the championship would compete well with the bottom half of our league 

[Watt-Zeefuik]

5 minutes ago, Rampant said:

 

Just introduce US style play-offs to determine the champion.  A super bowl for the top two.  Even 7 game play-offs.  Give the fans what we're told they clearly want, more OF games. Record Sky deals for not technically but basically assuring 4 OF games.  Imagine what they'd pay for the same assurance of 10 plus OF games??  Trickle down, we'd be laughing.

 

This idea dates to before the Saudi buyout, and who knows they may get tired and sell out and make it viable again, but . . .

 

You want more money in Scottish football? Gather the heads of the bigger Scottish clubs and a select few smaller ones, BT Sport, and then the NE England clubs. All the FL clubs—Newcastle, Boro, Sunderland, Hartlepool, and throw in Carlisle for fun. Ask BT to write down what it would pay for the rights to a Scotland and North league, centered around huge stadiums, bitter rivalries, but it has to be a big boost to TV revenue.

 

Celtic and Rangers get big boosts in paydays, Newcastle gets a clear path to the CL (and ultimately probably Scotland's coefficient goes up), Boro and Sunderland get dependable rivalry games. 20 team top tier and plenty of good games to go around that aren't just OF derbies. The rest of us get substantially more money and better football to watch, and I think with a 30k stadium Hearts more than hold our own against the rest.

 

(No I don't think this would seriously happen but what if it did

[Watt-Zeefuik]

26 minutes ago, kingantti1874 said:

based on years and years of the smaller saying they don’t want a bigger league.

 

they want the old firm coin, the believe they need it and tbh they probably do. 
 

Scotland is too small a country for the number of clubs we have,especially when 75% of the country support 2 clubs.  people criticised budge when she said it but she was correct.

 

an 18/20 team league will never ever reach the point where it is up for serious consideration.  A total non starter and a waste of time debating it

 

I believe they want the OF coin but I think those were years when clubs like Killie and Mirren and even Pars and Falkirk thought they'd be in the top tier more often than not. Now with the rise of clubs like Hamilton, ICT, County, Partick, Livingston, and others, the smaller clubs spend more time toiling away in the second tier than they used to.

 

I think if you offer them the difference between 2 OF games per season but a much lower chance of going down vs. 3 OF games per season living over the trap door as it currently is, they'd take the safe option.

[upgotheheads]

1 hour ago, Watt-Zeefuik said:

 

Based on what?

 

You don't think Livingston and Ross County would prefer an 18 team league this season? That Dundee and Killie would have liked to avoided their recent trips to the second tier?

 

Livingstone and Ross County would be happy to bumble along in an 18-team league forever, which was why the system was changed in the first place.

[Sooks]

23 hours ago, LarrysRightFoot said:

Heaven forbid they ever ask the fans what they think but I think it’d be a landslide in favour of bigger leagues. 

I think so too . There are still a few older fans who are against it but if it went to a vote I would be astonished if it were not a landslide 

[OTT]

1 hour ago, Nookie Bear said:

About as sensible as folk wanting change so they can see us bang in a few against diddy teams in a succession of post-Easter exhibition matches. 
 

✌️

 

I just want a league we can actually be proud of. There is a reason so few countries have such small leagues - because its diddy as ****. 

 

Bigger leagues, more variety, more chance of competition at the top end of the table, more opportunity for youth development, more chance of teams playing expansive football due to the reduced likelihood of relegation. 

 

Watching us go to Glasgow and get slapped about 4 times a season, then having to welcome the unwashed ****s back to Gorgie another 4 times for similar results again is about as wrist slitting an existence as you could ask for. How many fan can look at that, and say "yeah this is great" genuinely boggles my mind. 

 

The branding/maketing of the the SPFL is horrific - the same as the SPL, because its just the SPL with an extra relegation place. A meaningful restructure offers the opportunity for a proper rebrand to capitalise on the excitement that a larger league would bring. 

 

The OF games would bring an element of scarcity which adds value, likewise Edinburgh derbies and the games against Aberdeen for those teams. It would force a pivot to actually trying to market the other clubs in the league instead of just relying on the OF to effectively be the league for the neutral. 

 

A continuation of the status quo is ****ing depressing. 

Edited April 4 by OTT

[upgotheheads]

3 minutes ago, OTT said:

 

I just want a league we can actually be proud of. There is a reason so few countries have such small leagues - because its diddy as ****. 

 

Bigger leagues, more variety, more chance of competition at the top end of the table, more opportunity for youth development. 

 

Watching us go to Glasgow and get slapped about 4 times a season, then having to welcome the unwashed ****s back to Gorgie another 4 times for similar results again is about as wrist slitting an existence as you could ask for. How many fan can look at that, and say "yeah this is great" genuinely boggles my mind. 

 

The branding/maketing of the the SPFL is horrific - the same as the SPL, because its just the SPL with an extra relegation place. A meaningful restructure offers the opportunity for a proper rebrand to capitalise on the excitement that a larger league would bring. 

 

The OF games would bring an element of scarcity which adds value, likewise Edinburgh derbies and the games against Aberdeen for those teams. It would force a pivot to actually trying to market the other clubs in the league instead of just relying on the OF to effectively be the league for the neutral. 

 

A continuation of the status quo is ****ing depressing. 

 

You couldn't be more wrong.

Except for Livingston and probably Arbroath every team in the top two divisions has something to play for.

[OTT]

10 minutes ago, upgotheheads said:

 

You couldn't be more wrong.

Except for Livingston and probably Arbroath every team in the top two divisions has something to play for.

 

Why? Current bottom 6 teams would have almost no reason to fear relegation. When you're only playing a team once at home/away you can afford to actually have a go. 

 

I'm not saying there wouldn't be any teams looking to be defensive, but as things stand you're probably talking 7/8 out of 12 teams that will park the bus every game. Its horrid. 

[upgotheheads]

13 minutes ago, OTT said:

 

Why? Current bottom 6 teams would have almost no reason to fear relegation. When you're only playing a team once at home/away you can afford to actually have a go. 

 

I'm not saying there wouldn't be any teams looking to be defensive, but as things stand you're probably talking 7/8 out of 12 teams that will park the bus every game. Its horrid. 

 

By my calculation and excluding Livi who are doomed and H1b5 who are probably safe, the four remaining teams are in serious danger of the play-offs.  Squeaky bum time for them.

Edited April 4 by upgotheheads

[Bazzas right boot]

3 hours ago, michael_bolton said:

 

You've still not made any good arguments.

 

1) We'd have had 2 league winners in 40 years with bigger leagues. There's nothing to suggest that's related to the size of the league. Nothing.

 

2) Being commercially weaker than other nations is debatable as there are all kinds of factors that go into it, but that's on our clubs. Again, there's nothing to suggest it's due to the size of the league. If anything, you can argue it's commercially prudent to make sure there are four of the only fixture anyone beyond our border is interested in. I'm not sure what kind of market people think there is for our league out there. Are you into Austrian football?

 

3) Our performance in Europe hasn't really got much worse since the 90s. It's got worse since the 80s when the financial playing field was more level and English clubs were banned. There's nothing to say that's due to the size of our league either.

 

4) Playing three times before the split being a "farce" is your opinion. It's not a fact. It's like arguing "it's rubbish because I think it is".

 

You've not addressed the issue of larger leagues meaning fewer big games, fewer interesting games, giving more teams nothing to play for, almost certainly driving down attendances (SPFL's main income source) and the issue that you would kill stone dead what is currently a thriving lower league scene. This would cost Hearts a fortune, and I'm pretty sure that after a few years we'd want two of the derbies back, having grown fed up with games against dross constantly.

 

It's still not clear to me why anyone is arguing for bigger leagues. There's no tangible benefit, but several obvious problems.

 

I have addressed them and I'll repeat,  if the smaller league is so great why aren't countries either bigger leagues reducing the Suze to join our party?

 

There is no positive case for no change yo the league size, only fear of change.

 

A league system where teams do not play the same fixtures is a farce, there's a reason top leagues don't do it.

It makes a mockery of the league set up.

A league system by nature is built on the principle of teams playing the same fixtures as each other.

It's built to accommodate the OF fixtures. 

 

More importantly,  it's just jobbies.

 

 

[Bazzas right boot]

2 hours ago, OTT said:

 

I just want a league we can actually be proud of. There is a reason so few countries have such small leagues - because its diddy as ****. 

 

Bigger leagues, more variety, more chance of competition at the top end of the table, more opportunity for youth development, more chance of teams playing expansive football due to the reduced likelihood of relegation. 

 

Watching us go to Glasgow and get slapped about 4 times a season, then having to welcome the unwashed ****s back to Gorgie another 4 times for similar results again is about as wrist slitting an existence as you could ask for. How many fan can look at that, and say "yeah this is great" genuinely boggles my mind. 

 

The branding/maketing of the the SPFL is horrific - the same as the SPL, because its just the SPL with an extra relegation place. A meaningful restructure offers the opportunity for a proper rebrand to capitalise on the excitement that a larger league would bring. 

 

The OF games would bring an element of scarcity which adds value, likewise Edinburgh derbies and the games against Aberdeen for those teams. It would force a pivot to actually trying to market the other clubs in the league instead of just relying on the OF to effectively be the league for the neutral. 

 

A continuation of the status quo is ****ing depressing. 

 

Yip, and there ate folk even on here happy with it and di not want change. 

 

It's amazing.

 

[kingantti1874]

2 hours ago, OTT said:

 

I just want a league we can actually be proud of. There is a reason so few countries have such small leagues - because its diddy as ****. 

 

Bigger leagues, more variety, more chance of competition at the top end of the table, more opportunity for youth development, more chance of teams playing expansive football due to the reduced likelihood of relegation. 

 

Watching us go to Glasgow and get slapped about 4 times a season, then having to welcome the unwashed ****s back to Gorgie another 4 times for similar results again is about as wrist slitting an existence as you could ask for. How many fan can look at that, and say "yeah this is great" genuinely boggles my mind. 

 

The branding/maketing of the the SPFL is horrific - the same as the SPL, because its just the SPL with an extra relegation place. A meaningful restructure offers the opportunity for a proper rebrand to capitalise on the excitement that a larger league would bring. 

 

The OF games would bring an element of scarcity which adds value, likewise Edinburgh derbies and the games against Aberdeen for those teams. It would force a pivot to actually trying to market the other clubs in the league instead of just relying on the OF to effectively be the league for the neutral. 

 

A continuation of the status quo is ****ing depressing. 

Scotland is a diddy country.  Everything about it 

[kingantti1874]

2 hours ago, Watt-Zeefuik said:

 

I believe they want the OF coin but I think those were years when clubs like Killie and Mirren and even Pars and Falkirk thought they'd be in the top tier more often than not. Now with the rise of clubs like Hamilton, ICT, County, Partick, Livingston, and others, the smaller clubs spend more time toiling away in the second tier than they used to.

 

I think if you offer them the difference between 2 OF games per season but a much lower chance of going down vs. 3 OF games per season living over the trap door as it currently is, they'd take the safe option.

so why are they not pushing for it? If there was a broad consensus of support it would be on the table. Teams would be actively promoting it.  

 

its not on the table. Only silence 

[OTT]

3 minutes ago, kingantti1874 said:

Scotland is a diddy country.  Everything about it 

 

We seem to be brilliant at ****ing up simple things. 

 

Appoint a CEO with absolutely zero vision or strategy and then be befuddled as to why the league lacks vision and strategy... 

 

[Bazzas right boot]

8 minutes ago, kingantti1874 said:

Scotland is a diddy country.  Everything about it 

 

We're a country shit scared of change and are a bunch of shite bags.

 

We like to moan, whine but when given the opportunity to change or determine our own destiny we are cowards.

 

Held back by religion,  bigotry and fear.

 

Great potential in every aspect of culture, including sport but shit scared of change.

 

With football,  the decision not to use Murrayfield like Ireland and Wales do just confirmed that authorities have no vision, desire or will to change anything. 

 

They are happy with the 2 team show and everyone else as a supporting act, many fans are as well tbh.

 

Alloa, or whoever it was that voted to keep teams down  based on bus fares and the price of a lunch just summed up the ambition and train of thought of those that run  our game.

 

 

 

Edited April 4 by Bazzas right boot

[Bazzas right boot]

5 minutes ago, kingantti1874 said:

so why are they not pushing for it? If there was a broad consensus of support it would be on the table. Teams would be actively promoting it.  

 

its not on the table. Only silence 

 

Celtic and Rangers like it.

 

[Tiro]

9 minutes ago, Bazzas right boot said:

 

Celtic and Rangers like it.

 

It's hard to see where growth is going to come from in the Scottish game. Our current top three clubs have little scope for increased home attendances and if you look at Scotland as a whole our attendances, per capita, are at least 65% higher than any other European nation. Our TV income is restricted as, outwith the old firm fixtures, there is little interest in our game from anywhere outside Scotland. Tampering with our league by simply increasing the number of teams will not generate additional interest and thus TV exposure and associated income will not improve.  It follows that, without the greater exposure that TV brings, larger sponsorship deals for the league and, indeed the clubs that form it, will not materialise. 

For this reason we need to speak to the TV companies and explore what structural changes  would influence them to increase coverage of our league and outline how much they would be prepared to invest to secure the rights. Lets not kid ourselves that we hold any great influence when negotiating with the large media companies. We must at least listen to their suggestions 

 

[kingantti1874]

1 hour ago, Bazzas right boot said:

 

We're a country shit scared of change and are a bunch of shite bags.

 

We like to moan, whine but when given the opportunity to change or determine our own destiny we are cowards.

 

Held back by religion,  bigotry and fear.

 

Great potential in every aspect of culture, including sport but shit scared of change.

 

With football,  the decision not to use Murrayfield like Ireland and Wales do just confirmed that authorities have no vision, desire or will to change anything. 

 

They are happy with the 2 team show and everyone else as a supporting act, many fans are as well tbh.

 

Alloa, or whoever it was that voted to keep teams down  based on bus fares and the price of a lunch just summed up the ambition and train of thought of those that run  our game.

 

 

 

That’s not why we are held back. But a debate for a different board. 

[Swanny17]

2 leagues of 18 with regionals below that. No need to over complicate things. 

[weegie jambo]

4 hours ago, OTT said:

 

I just want a league we can actually be proud of. There is a reason so few countries have such small leagues - because its diddy as ****. 

 

Bigger leagues, more variety, more chance of competition at the top end of the table, more opportunity for youth development, more chance of teams playing expansive football due to the reduced likelihood of relegation. 

 

Watching us go to Glasgow and get slapped about 4 times a season, then having to welcome the unwashed ****s back to Gorgie another 4 times for similar results again is about as wrist slitting an existence as you could ask for. How many fan can look at that, and say "yeah this is great" genuinely boggles my mind. 

 

The branding/maketing of the the SPFL is horrific - the same as the SPL, because its just the SPL with an extra relegation place. A meaningful restructure offers the opportunity for a proper rebrand to capitalise on the excitement that a larger league would bring. 

 

The OF games would bring an element of scarcity which adds value, likewise Edinburgh derbies and the games against Aberdeen for those teams. It would force a pivot to actually trying to market the other clubs in the league instead of just relying on the OF to effectively be the league for the neutral. 

 

A continuation of the status quo is ****ing depressing. 

this is the most sensible solution and summing up I've heard for ages. An expanded league would also bring into play some local rivalry's which haven't been present for a long time (think Raith v Pars, Dundee Derby etc) The branding as you say is woeful, I still go way back to the day Barry Hearn addressed the blazers and tore them apart. The blazers couldn't run abath and their pandering to the OF is cringe worthy and has held back our game for decades. As someone else said, smaller clubs would/should take a chance on Premier league safety and 2 OF games rather than swimming around in a lower league that is almost impossible to get out of. A sensible promotion/relegation is a must as is a clear path for the pyramid.

[OTT]

12 minutes ago, weegie jambo said:

this is the most sensible solution and summing up I've heard for ages. An expanded league would also bring into play some local rivalry's which haven't been present for a long time (think Raith v Pars, Dundee Derby etc) The branding as you say is woeful, I still go way back to the day Barry Hearn addressed the blazers and tore them apart. The blazers couldn't run abath and their pandering to the OF is cringe worthy and has held back our game for decades. As someone else said, smaller clubs would/should take a chance on Premier league safety and 2 OF games rather than swimming around in a lower league that is almost impossible to get out of. A sensible promotion/relegation is a must as is a clear path for the pyramid.

 

Derbies sell, so if we can get as many of them into the top flight at once, the better IMO. They are all natural sell outs (or pretty damn close). You add a bit better marketing and can probably push it all the way and drum up some real excitement. 

 

OF Derby

Edinburgh Derby

Dundee Derby

Ayrshire Derby

Fife Derby

 

Something that annoys me about the wee clubs that would vote against reconstruction to a bigger league is that they claim to be dependent on the away supports - Pick a league with 18 teams, small teams make it work. Launch a fan ownership scheme, live within your means and figure it the **** out!! Fans of other clubs shouldn't be subsidising the existance of another!!

 

I know that sounds dismissive, away fans account for 33% of Livi's revenue apparently. But smaller teams in worse leagues make it work. Its not easy, but it can be done. Encouraging all Scottish teams to launch fan ownership schemes could be massive to delivering extra revenue to support them long term. 

 

 

[Watt-Zeefuik]

2 hours ago, kingantti1874 said:

so why are they not pushing for it? If there was a broad consensus of support it would be on the table. Teams would be actively promoting it.  

 

its not on the table. Only silence 

 

It's come up repeatedly and the answer is always "we have to have the 4xOF games or Sky Sports won't pay us." Which yes, is a problem if it's just a flat 18 team table and no changes to the LC structure to ensure more OF games.

[Bongo 1874]

25 minutes ago, Watt-Zeefuik said:

 

It's come up repeatedly and the answer is always "we have to have the 4xOF games or Sky Sports won't pay us." Which yes, is a problem if it's just a flat 18 team table and no changes to the LC structure to ensure more OF games.

There is a way to still allow Celtic & Rangers have 4 games a season,and to only have two of them league games.

 

And allow a bigger league.

 

Make a separate cup competition called the Glasgow Cup,and make it a two leg tie.

 

There's your two games in league,and two in the separate cup competition.

 

 

 

Edited April 5 by Bongo 1874

[Sydney]

Since the league began in 1890, we have changed the structure of the top league 19 times.

 

Now, I looked back at all the league tables (there have been 126 seasons prior to this season) and it is very interesting:

 

When the league is smaller than 16 teams = 63 seasons.  Rangers or Celtic have won it 54 times (86%)

When league is 16 teams or more = 63 seasons.  Rangers or Celtic have won it 54 times (86%)

 

It looks to me that no matter how many times we change the number of teams in the league, Rangers and Celtic dominate. 

 

That is why I think a radical change to a "US" or "Aussie" style of play-off system to determine the Champions (and entry to the Champions League and its potential riches) would benefit Scottish football as a whole.  It goes against everything we're used to in football, but imagine if every 3-5 years or so, Aberdeen or Hearts or Hibs won the end of season play-offs and got access to the Champions League money instead of Rangers and Celtic.  That would begin to even the playing field out and make the overall competition better.

 

[Byyy The Light]

My preferred change would be:

 

2 leagues of 16.

 

30 games, team who finish top of that bank poorer of the 2 champions league places.

 

Playoffs then happen to determine the Champions.

 

https://www.superleague.co.uk/article/999/play-offs-explained

 

Copy the Superleague playoff format.

 

2 up, 2 down automatically with 13th and 14th teams go in to the relegation playoffs using the same format as above with 3rd, 4th and 5th in Championship.

 

6th-12th is a bit of an issue but you could create a league trophy type prize that gets a final and some increased prize pot.

 

Pretty much guarantees the OF games, makes the end of the season more interesting. An outside chance of a shock Champion. Better mobility for teams up and down. More attractive for potential investment. Balanced fixtures up to the 30 game point.

 

More importantly, it’s way better than the current set up, in my opinion.

 

 

 

 

[Chuck Berry]

Perhaps we should be asking the club board what their opinion is towards league reconstruction.  Afterall, the SPFL is a members organisation and the members are the clubs, and we own our club.

[Byyy The Light]

2 hours ago, Chuck Berry said:

Perhaps we should be asking the club board what their opinion is towards league reconstruction.  Afterall, the SPFL is a members organisation and the members are the clubs, and we own our club.

I went to a shareholder’s dinner that Tom English and Ewen Murray spoke at. I know it’s not the board but their comments were that it will never happen while Doncaster is getting his strings pulled by the OF. Clubs don’t want to put their head above the parapet.

Personally I’d love to see FoH take it on at arms length from the club and get in touch with other fans groups and shareholders at other clubs and do it that way.

 

Any club who takes it on as a board is going to get shot down. Budge has learned her lesson in that regard. Bunch of parochial dinosaurs run out game. 

 

[buzzbomb1958]

Don’t know why this thread pops up ,

THERE IS NOT A CHANCE IN HELL THEY WILL CHANGE THE FORMAT BECAUSE THAT WOULD BE TO THE DETRIMENT OF THE UGLIES 

Edited April 5 by buzzbomb1958

[OTT]

31 minutes ago, buzzbomb1958 said:

Don’t know why this thread pops up ,

THERE IS NOT A CHANCE IN HELL THEY WILL CHANGE THE FORMAT BECAUSE THAT WOULD BE TO THE DETRIMENT OF THE UGLIES 

 

People like to talk about an optimistic future where the league is actually entertaining.

[Byyy The Light]

46 minutes ago, buzzbomb1958 said:

Don’t know why this thread pops up ,

THERE IS NOT A CHANCE IN HELL THEY WILL CHANGE THE FORMAT BECAUSE THAT WOULD BE TO THE DETRIMENT OF THE UGLIES 

The format can be changed to still weight it to the uglies but still be a better product

[Watt-Zeefuik]

1 hour ago, Byyy The Light said:

I went to a shareholder’s dinner that Tom English and Ewen Murray spoke at. I know it’s not the board but their comments were that it will never happen while Doncaster is getting his strings pulled by the OF. Clubs don’t want to put their head above the parapet.

Personally I’d love to see FoH take it on at arms length from the club and get in touch with other fans groups and shareholders at other clubs and do it that way.

 

Any club who takes it on as a board is going to get shot down. Budge has learned her lesson in that regard. Bunch of parochial dinosaurs run out game. 

 

I'm on board with this.