League expansion

[kingantti1874]

Just now, BackOfTheNet said:

Problem with this set up is the 3rd group of 4. Both yourself and kimgantti have suggested this, but that 3rd group of 4 would be the meaningless games everyone is going on about.

 

Splits create more meaningless games than an 18 team league with 10 or 11 of its positions meaning something.

not any more meaningless than the top half of the current bottom 6 mate.  Or the bottom half of the top 6.

 

there is no perfect system.  Chuck and extra 200k in the prize pot to make it more worthwhile 

[Footballfirst]

1 minute ago, kingantti1874 said:

Reduces the risk against the 4 in your group.  Would create a guaranteed imbalance against the second pot.  
 

How many game are you advocating for

 

44 games is too many imo

37 is a guaranteed imbalance for 7 fixtures 

33 not enough games.  harms revenues.

 

40 is the sweet spot imo 

36 games with a guaranteed 18 home/away is fine.

 

Scenario for your double split

30 games - 15 home/away

1st split - 4 home, 3 away

2nd split - 3 games potentially all against the 3 you played away from home in the 1st split. Where do you play those 3 games? Ideally you'd have 1 at home and 2 away to balance home and away 20/20 over the season, but that would mean that you end up playing two teams 3 times away from home.

 

[DC_92]

Just now, BackOfTheNet said:

Problem with this set up is the 3rd group of 4. Both yourself and kimgantti have suggested this, but that 3rd group of 4 would be the meaningless games everyone is going on about.

 

Splits create more meaningless games than an 18 team league with 10 or 11 of its positions meaning something.

 

The 2nd and 3rd groups would have to be parallel pools.

 

Group 1: 5th, 8th, 9th, 12th

Group 2: 6th, 7th, 10th, 11th.

 

[indianajones]

Everyone bar the OF and the Weege mafia wants this. 

 

For that reason it'll never happen.

[kingantti1874]

2 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

36 games with a guaranteed 18 home/away is fine.

 

Scenario for your double split

30 games - 15 home/away

1st split - 4 home, 3 away

2nd split - 3 games potentially all against the 3 you played away from home in the 1st split. Where do you play those 3 games? Ideally you'd have 1 at home and 2 away to balance home and away 20/20 over the season, but that would mean that you end up playing two teams 3 times away from home.

 

yep agreed.  But you won’t get 12 teams to vote for only 2  fixtures against say rangers celtic hearts and Aberdeen.  
 

as I say there are better proposals than mine but none that would pass the bar.

 

we already have an imbalance with the current split so it’s not really worse, in fact it’s slightly better.  And the 2 additional fixtures would offset revenue loss and teams would go for it.

 

 

Edited January 7 by kingantti1874

[LarrysRightFoot]

23 minutes ago, kingantti1874 said:

the small clubs revenues dipped quite a lot. It’s not “suicide” but they won’t implement a system which results in less money. 

They most likely sat about waiting for the status quo to return. If a new format was introduced, revenue may (it may not) decrease initially but it would maybe force clubs to be more innovative and try to increase their support and revenue streams. 

 

As I’ve said before I firmly believe the game name independent governance and this should be forced through by the government IMO. 
 

I don’t think anyone would argue against it being said our game is poorly run. 
 

From top to bottom it needs a complete overhaul - not just the league structure. 

[Byyy The Light]

1 minute ago, LarrysRightFoot said:

They most likely sat about waiting for the status quo to return. If a new format was introduced, revenue may (it may not) decrease initially but it would maybe force clubs to be more innovative and try to increase their support and revenue streams. 

 

As I’ve said before I firmly believe the game name independent governance and this should be forced through by the government IMO. 
 

I don’t think anyone would argue against it being said our game is poorly run. 
 

From top to bottom it needs a complete overhaul - not just the league structure. 

Scottish football is the high street equivalent of Woolworths. If we don’t make quite dramatic changes in the next couple of years, we’ll be league of Ireland standard.

 

Are the OF doing it deliberately so they can access the riches in a European league or a desperate bid to get in down south

somewhere in their set up?

[kingantti1874]

Just now, LarrysRightFoot said:

They most likely sat about waiting for the status quo to return. If a new format was introduced, revenue may (it may not) decrease initially but it would maybe force clubs to be more innovative and try to increase their support and revenue streams. 

 

As I’ve said before I firmly believe the game name independent governance and this should be forced through by the government IMO. 
 

I don’t think anyone would argue against it being said our game is poorly run. 
 

From top to bottom it needs a complete overhaul - not just the league structure. 

Agreed Larry. Fundamentally we have too many small clubs with too many vested interests for a country with our population. Just enough support to keep them alive on life support but nothing else. 
 

My ultimate solution is clear. A British league.  If clubs survive great but if they die they die 

[Footballfirst]

7 minutes ago, BackOfTheNet said:

Problem with this set up is the 3rd group of 4. Both yourself and kimgantti have suggested this, but that 3rd group of 4 would be the meaningless games everyone is going on about.

 

Splits create more meaningless games than an 18 team league with 10 or 11 of its positions meaning something.

An alternative would be to keep the bottom 8 together and play 7 games, post split. You could start it on pre split points, a graded 8,7,6,5 ....... points, or even a zero points start for the final games.

 

There are loads of different ways that you can create interest and add jeopardy into the final few games.

 

Another alternative for the 4 x 4 groups would be to run a mini league in parallel with the normal league standings (everyone starts on 0 points) with a trophy at the end of it (cup, shield, plate, bowl)

[kingantti1874]

2 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

An alternative would be to keep the bottom 8 together and play 7 games, post split. You could start it on pre split points, a graded 8,7,6,5 ....... points, or even a zero points start for the final games.

 

There are loads of different ways that you can create interest and add jeopardy into the final few games.

 

Another alternative for the 4 x 4 groups would be to run a mini league in parallel with the normal league standings (everyone starts on 0 points) with a trophy at the end of it (cup, shield, plate, bowl)

yep good suggestions.  If we want 16 teams you need to have a variation of the suggestions put forward. I don’t think there is a viable solution bigger number which will ever be voted in 

[LarrysRightFoot]

3 minutes ago, kingantti1874 said:

Agreed Larry. Fundamentally we have too many small clubs with too many vested interests for a country with our population. Just enough support to keep them alive on life support but nothing else. 
 

My ultimate solution is clear. A British league.  If clubs survive great but if they die they die 

Tbh the idea of a British league - at the very least some sort of British cup has always interested me. 
 

I liked the idea of the Atlantic league as well. Not saying I fully backed it but found some of the proposals interesting. Again some kind of Cup competition involving Norwegian, Danish clubs etc could be an interesting idea. 

[kingantti1874]

1 minute ago, LarrysRightFoot said:

Tbh the idea of a British league - at the very least some sort of British cup has always interested me. 
 

I liked the idea of the Atlantic league as well. Not saying I fully backed it but found some of the proposals interesting. Again some kind of Cup competition involving Norwegian, Danish clubs etc could be an interesting idea. 

absolutely.  I’m one of the few who supports the super league becuase I think it will spark a dramatic shift.

 

lets be honest.  The 20 biggest clubs in Europe have outgrown everyone else anyway. 
 

the NFL hasn’t harmed college football In the USA 

[Byyy The Light]

Just now, kingantti1874 said:

absolutely.  I’m one of the few who supports the super league becuase I think it will spark a dramatic shift.

 

lets be honest.  The 20 biggest clubs in Europe have outgrown everyone else anyway. 
 

the NFL hasn’t harmed college football In the USA 

That’s where I am with it too 👍🏼

[kingantti1874]

4 minutes ago, Byyy The Light said:

That’s where I am with it too 👍🏼

Yup.  Football needs to change. There have been good suggestions on here to restructure our leagues but whilst I think it would be better it’s just tinkering around the edge.

 

super league underpinned by regional / European leagues.  

 

 

[LarrysRightFoot]

2 minutes ago, kingantti1874 said:

absolutely.  I’m one of the few who supports the super league becuase I think it will spark a dramatic shift.

 

lets be honest.  The 20 biggest clubs in Europe have outgrown everyone else anyway. 
 

the NFL hasn’t harmed college football In the USA 

I don’t back the Super league I think the game needs to evolve to be more equitable. These ‘super’ clubs need brought down several pegs. 
 

I’d love to see limits on foreign players, squad sizes, proper spending caps etc. Bring back the days of Red Star winning the European cup. 
 

As much as I despise them (and I know the world and game have changed) what Celtic achieved in 1967 should be what clubs aspire to. 
 

As an aside from I’m sure I read PSG are ultimately aiming for a team full of Parisians (it might have been Frenchmen) 

[kingantti1874]

1 minute ago, LarrysRightFoot said:

I don’t back the Super league I think the game needs to evolve to be more equitable. These ‘super’ clubs need brought down several pegs. 
 

I’d love to see limits on foreign players, squad sizes, proper spending caps etc. Bring back the days of Red Star winning the European cup. 
 

As much as I despise them (and I know the world and game have changed) what Celtic achieved in 1967 should be what clubs aspire to. 
 

As an aside from I’m sure I read PSG are ultimately aiming for a team full of Parisians (it might have been Frenchmen) 

we’d all like that bud, I’d love for football to be more like the 80’s when we could beat Bayern. But we have to be realistic.  
 

These are businesses with shareholders and investors.  With sponsors and advertisers, driving the massive TV revenue.

there is a difference between what we’d all like and what can happen.  There is no way back

 

 

[LarrysRightFoot]

4 minutes ago, kingantti1874 said:

we’d all like that bud, I’d love for football to be more like the 80’s when we could beat Bayern. But we have to be realistic.  
 

These are businesses with shareholders and investors.  With sponsors and advertisers, driving the massive TV revenue.

there is a difference between what we’d all like and what can happen.  There is no way back

 

 

I believe there is. The world is shifting towards being more local than global. Sustainability is the way things are going (and have to go). Even things like carbon footprint and emissions are coming into play with these own European and World tournaments and causing questions to be asked. 

[jr ewing]

Ah the good old days 😌 

[Weonly151]

I've not read all the replies. But the point people are making about smaller teams relying on OF travelling fans is that the fact is if you only have to visit one ground once it will attract more interest. Plus a lot of these grounds will only allow for a certain amount of away fans anyway which the likes of ourselves, H1bs  Aberdeen, the Dundee teams and a few of the better supported smaller teams will probably fill anyway. As said you get bored of visiting the same ground 2 or 3 times a season so the fact its only once should be a benefiting factor. 

[kingantti1874]

15 minutes ago, LarrysRightFoot said:

I believe there is. The world is shifting towards being more local than global. Sustainability is the way things are going (and have to go). Even things like carbon footprint and emissions are coming into play with these own European and World tournaments and causing questions to be asked. 

im not sure I’ve seen any evidence of that tbh.  
 

I believe the world is absolutely ****ed tbh.  But thats an entirely different debate. 🤣

[LarrysRightFoot]

3 minutes ago, kingantti1874 said:

im not sure I’ve seen any evidence of that tbh.  
 

I believe the world is absolutely ****ed tbh.  But thats an entirely different debate. 🤣

Yes it is a different debate. I just don’t think the Super league is good idea. I get what you are saying it would force a shake up for those who don’t make the cut but I don’t see it being sustainable at all. 
 

Back to the point of the thread - I wish those in charge of the game hear could see the potential short and long term benefits of a complete overhaul of its structure and governance. 

[Fozzyonthefence]

3 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)

Sounds great.  So why didn’t it work when we did have it?

[Dsjambo]

3 hours ago, LarrysRightFoot said:

Not looking for an argument but don’t agree with any of that. 
 

Are you suggesting we stick with what we have -which is awful - rather than try to improve our game? 
 

I’m not saying bigger leagues will solve everything in one fell swoop but it’s a step in the right direction (even if it just showing everyone our game doesn’t need to revolve around the OF).

I’m not looking for arguments either, everyone is entitled to have their opinion respected but everything I said is based on facts. I remember the old 18 team league and it was crap, that’s why the ‘top’ clubs voted in the top ten league. The game was dying because meaningless games were badly attended at most of the grounds, even we were getting 7-8,000 at a lot of our home games.

As long as we have the OF in our league they, and the TV companies, will never allow any league structure that does away with the four OF derbies. If they were to get their wish and move to the EPL that’s another matter. It would be a blank canvas if that ever happens.

[Bull's-eye]

There's no appetite for long term strategy at any club in Scotland except Hearts. Even a fair few of our own support can't get their heads round that.

 

That's why nothing changes, all too busy looking out for themselves and making sure they just keep their heads above the parapet.

 

The football has suffered immeasurably and is at an all time low imo.

 

Thats what you get with poor officiating, plastic pitches, the split, horrendous media coverage, no money, no investment etc etc etc . . The list is endless. . .

 

 

 

[LarrysRightFoot]

11 minutes ago, Dsjambo said:

I’m not looking for arguments either, everyone is entitled to have their opinion respected but everything I said is based on facts. I remember the old 18 team league and it was crap, that’s why the ‘top’ clubs voted in the top ten league. The game was dying because meaningless games were badly attended at most of the grounds, even we were getting 7-8,000 at a lot of our home games.

As long as we have the OF in our league they, and the TV companies, will never allow any league structure that does away with the four OF derbies. If they were to get their wish and move to the EPL that’s another matter. It would be a blank canvas if that ever happens.

You most likely haven’t looked at all the replies on this thread (and I don’t blame you), however, a lot of counter arguments to your points have been made, including 

 

- In the old 18 team division there were about 3 meaning places being played for (champions + 2 relegation places). I’m not sure how Europe worked back then - did 2nd get into the Fairs/UEFA cup? Anyway a max of 4 meaningful places. Today however there could be around 8 meaningful places to be played for. 
- I don’t believe the x 4 OF games/TV argument. There are Scandinavian leagues with better TV deals than us who have clubs nowhere near the size of the OF. Rangers weren’t even in the top flight for 4 years. 

Edited January 7 by LarrysRightFoot

[OTT]

We do need a bigger league. The current set up is boring, stale and too competitive in the wrong areas - as we've found out, even for a club our size, one bad season and relegation is very much on the cards but at the same time, there is zero hope of winning the league.. I think its given managers too many "Do overs" with games, i.e if you lose one, its doesn't matter because there is another in the next round of fixtures (and the next). Probably provides Celtic/Rangers with a bit of a safety net with getting to play the challenger in 3rd 4 times a piece - so the proportion of points they essentially hold each season is huge. 

 

Prize money is the difficulty. It would likely mean less prize money, although with it being so shit, I don't really see this as valid. Cut cloth accordingly and promote youth. With Martindale wanting a bigger league, it makes me wonder how dependent teams actually are on the away gate. Is it just greed?

 

Also, agree with @Drylaw Hearts, part-time and professional teams have no business voting on stuff that impact each other - full time professional teams have different needs, e.g. B-teams, and having them in the same voting pool is bad for change as we end up having to water everything down to accomodate everyones demands, so what we get is a shit version of the original idea. 

 

I'd love to only play Celtic/Rangers once at home and once away. It would be fantastic knowing that once you've played them at Ibrox/Parkhead, you don't need to go there again that season, would likely dilute their impact on our season and allow for longer unbeaten streaks which would make the league more interesting and amplify the significance of fixtures against those 2, Aberdeen & Hibs. I wonder what it would do to the gap at the top of the league too, could reduce it into an area where there actually becomes enough of a margin of error that 3rd place could be breathing down their necks all season. Games against weaker sides would hopefully lead to more highscoring games. 

 

Needs to happen. 

[Rogue Daddy]

4 hours ago, Hansel said:

The bum cheeks and the TV companies wouldn't part with their precious 4 glasgow derbies per year.

 

Doesn't matter what the fans think unfortunately. 

Sadly, yes. This is exactly the case- and God forbid Dungcaster coming up with anything better or original!

 

We only receive around 80 live SKY games per year. Compare this to most of the rest of Europe who have 150-220 ish games, we begin to see how backward thinking out blazers actually are. 
 

Id wager that if we opted for far more games (ie more coverage of teams other than the uglies)… I’m pretty sure SKY subscriptions would rise, Scottish football would receive more money, and any ‘lost’ uglies derbys will be more that compensated. 
 

Of course, everyone else (outwith the uglies) would receive more money…. and we can’t have that, can we. 

[Jamhammer]

Smaller teams want the old firms money 

Media and TV only care about 2 teams 

They’re the hurdles to overcome but we SHOULD be looking to overcome them 

 

 

[BackOfTheNet]

1 hour ago, kingantti1874 said:

not any more meaningless than the top half of the current bottom 6 mate.  Or the bottom half of the top 6.

 

there is no perfect system.  Chuck and extra 200k in the prize pot to make it more worthwhile 

I know that, which is why we need material change. In the 18 teams league with no split, you’d have 3/4 automatic European spots to play for, 3 relegation spots and then 4 playoff spots for the 4th/5th available European place. That’s 10 or 11 league places that are worth playing for to be in (or not be in for relegation places).

 

Which means the other 7 or 8 positions don’t mean anything in the end, but there’s every chance the teams that end up in those positions will be playing to get into the top 7 or 8 or out of the bottom 3 right up to the end of the season. And as I’ve said previously, even if it gets to the last 4 or 5 games and there are teams that can’t get into a European playoff space and are also safe from relegation, they are still more likely to be playing games against teams that are still battling for playoff places or fighting for their life, than if they were just to play each other. It would actually mean meaningless games would be very hard to come by.

[LarrysRightFoot]

24 minutes ago, Fozzyonthefence said:

Sounds great.  So why didn’t it work when we did have it?

I’m not denying the world is different and comparing eras is difficult, if not impossible because of it. 
 

However, we are now touching 50 years of the x4 a season format and we’ve had 4 winners. It can’t be forgotten though that for approaching 40 years we’ve had 2 winners. 
 

In the previous 50 years under the x2 a season format we had (off the top of my head so may be incorrect) 7 or maybe 8. Yes the OF were still dominant but not to the same extent 

 

The change to a x 4 season format brought competition (however that’s long since gone) maybe just maybe the change back would reignite competition at least in the short term whilst the OF adjust. 

Edited January 7 by LarrysRightFoot

[BackOfTheNet]

1 hour ago, Footballfirst said:

An alternative would be to keep the bottom 8 together and play 7 games, post split. You could start it on pre split points, a graded 8,7,6,5 ....... points, or even a zero points start for the final games.

 

There are loads of different ways that you can create interest and add jeopardy into the final few games.

 

Another alternative for the 4 x 4 groups would be to run a mini league in parallel with the normal league standings (everyone starts on 0 points) with a trophy at the end of it (cup, shield, plate, bowl)

To me that just overcomplicates things. 18 teams, play each other twice, 34 games. Euro playoffs and 3 teams automatically relegated means meaningless games will be few and far between. Super Cup and two legged knock out ties in League Cup can make up for missed games (and provide opportunities for more OF games for TV). Scottish Cup could bring back replays too if need be.

Edited January 7 by BackOfTheNet

[BackOfTheNet]

21 minutes ago, Fozzyonthefence said:

Sounds great.  So why didn’t it work when we did have it?

2 points for a win, not as many relegation spots and not as many European places. It’s not rocket science why they’d be completely different formats.

[Rudy T]

The problem with all these discussions is nothing ever changes. The OF run the show and Doncaster lies on their behalf. The amount of absolute shitshows this guy has overseen is incredible yet he remains in place and it’s the clubs who keep him there ours included.

 

Unless the OF get on board with league reconstruction it’ll never happen without us the fans uniting to put pressure on our own clubs to remove the suits at Hampden and force change. I’d imagine if the Rangers support can be persuaded to join the fight it would have a chance, Celtic are scared of it and would be turkeys voting for Xmas for them.  

[BackOfTheNet]

25 minutes ago, Fozzyonthefence said:

Sounds great.  So why didn’t it work when we did have it?

And if you’re referring to the tactical side of my post, then yes we had much better coaches and produced much better players in larger numbers back when we played each other twice than we do 4 times. There are other factors to take into consideration, but surely that’s indisputable? 

[LarrysRightFoot]

2 minutes ago, Rudy T said:

The problem with all these discussions is nothing ever changes. The OF run the show and Doncaster lies on their behalf. The amount of absolute shitshows this guy has overseen is incredible yet he remains in place and it’s the clubs who keep him there ours included.

 

Unless the OF get on board with league reconstruction it’ll never happen without us the fans uniting to put pressure on our own clubs to remove the suits at Hampden and force change. I’d imagine if the Rangers support can be persuaded to join the fight it would have a chance, Celtic are scared of it and would be turkeys voting for Xmas for them.  

That’s why we need government intervention to introduce an independent regulator. It’s our game not the OF, Doncaster or even the clubs - they are here to serve us not themselves. 

[Rudy T]

14 minutes ago, BackOfTheNet said:

To me that just overcomplicates things. 18 teams, play each other twice, 34 games. Euro playoffs and 3 teams automatically relegated means meaningless games will be few and far between. Super Cup and two legged knock out ties in League Cup can make up for missed games (and provide opportunities for more OF games for TV). Scottish Cup could bring back replays too if need be.

FWIW I don’t think there’s anything wrong with meaningless games. Gives managers a chance to play youngsters without the pressure they’re under at the moment. Can try out different tactics and give fringe players game time. 
 

For me the biggest issue with this league format is there’s not enough meaningless games, and the pressure on managers creates a league chock full of teams just trying to survive. To survive any thoughts of expansive football is out the window as every point is precious. 

[Rogue Daddy]

9 minutes ago, Rudy T said:

The problem with all these discussions is nothing ever changes. The OF run the show and Doncaster lies on their behalf. The amount of absolute shitshows this guy has overseen is incredible yet he remains in place and it’s the clubs who keep him there ours included.

 

Unless the OF get on board with league reconstruction it’ll never happen without us the fans uniting to put pressure on our own clubs to remove the suits at Hampden and force change. I’d imagine if the Rangers support can be persuaded to join the fight it would have a chance, Celtic are scared of it and would be turkeys voting for Xmas for them.  

Much as I hate Sevco - they’ve been front and centre, twice in recent history, pushing for change. During Covid they offered to pay for an independent investigation into the blazers - it was voted down. Lately, they have come out pressuring the SFA with regards to officiating. Now, no matter how hypocritical they’re being, it doesn’t mean they’re wrong - and it’s at these opportunities, we (ie other clubs) should be piling on the pressure. Because, you’re right, if you have one of the uglies on your side of the fight, you at least stand a chance. 

[Fozzyonthefence]

7 minutes ago, BackOfTheNet said:

2 points for a win, not as many relegation spots and not as many European places. It’s not rocket science why they’d be completely different formats.

The biggest problem - far too many meaningless games - would still exist.  Crowds would be abysmal for Airdrie v Raith, Livi v Morton, etc (even more so with nothing at stake).

 

I’m actually not against it and there are pros and cons for 18 and 12.  I’d rather only play the OF 4 times and there is an argument that there is more likely to be a challenge to the OF with 18 (there still wouldn’t be though).  
 

Ironically, the most competitive era we had was with a 10 team league.  Hardly any meaningless games and at one point 6 of the 10 qualified for Europe (normally 5 though).  No stupid, unfair split either. 2 getting relegated was too much though (a play off for 2nd bottom would have been better).  I’m not saying a 10 team league would work now, times have changed but I’d rather have it than a 12 with farcical, unbalanced splits.  No chance of the clubs voting it back though and to be honest I’d probably rather see another attempt at 18 as I was too young to remember it.  
 

At the end of the day it’s not league set up that is the problem or the solution.  The product is the problem and nobody has a solution. 

[Rudy T]

9 minutes ago, LarrysRightFoot said:

That’s why we need government intervention to introduce an independent regulator. It’s our game not the OF, Doncaster or even the clubs - they are here to serve us not themselves. 

Imagine someone independent going in there now! They’d be astounded at the incompetence. If we can get the government on side then power to the people, would absolutely have to be someone who comes from outside this country. Independent should be exactly that not someone who’s got family members entrenched in Glasgows football.

[LarrysRightFoot]

2 minutes ago, Rudy T said:

FWIW I don’t think there’s anything wrong with meaningless games. Gives managers a chance to play youngsters without the pressure they’re under at the moment. Can try out different tactics and give fringe players game time. 
 

For me the biggest issue with this league format is there’s not enough meaningless games, and the pressure on managers creates a league chock full of teams just trying to survive. To survive any thoughts of expansive football is out the window as every point is precious. 

Davie Martindale made that point a few days ago. 

[Rudy T]

3 minutes ago, Rogue Daddy said:

Much as I hate Sevco - they’ve been front and centre, twice in recent history, pushing for change. During Covid they offered to pay for an independent investigation into the blazers - it was voted down. Lately, they have come out pressuring the SFA with regards to officiating. Now, no matter how hypocritical they’re being, it doesn’t mean they’re wrong - and it’s at these opportunities, we (ie other clubs) should be piling on the pressure. Because, you’re right, if you have one of the uglies on your side of the fight, you at least stand a chance. 

While I agree they’ve been making noise have they ever backed a move to expand the league? I think if they thought it would benefit them they’d be all over it.

[LarrysRightFoot]

4 minutes ago, Fozzyonthefence said:

The biggest problem - far too many meaningless games - would still exist.  Crowds would be abysmal for Airdrie v Raith, Livi v Morton, etc (even more so with nothing at stake).

 

I’m actually not against it and there are pros and cons for 18 and 12.  I’d rather only play the OF 4 times and there is an argument that there is more likely to be a challenge to the OF with 18 (there still wouldn’t be though).  
 

Ironically, the most competitive era we had was with a 10 team league.  Hardly any meaningless games and at one point 6 of the 10 qualified for Europe (normally 5 though).  No stupid, unfair split either. 2 getting relegated was too much though (a play off for 2nd bottom would have been better).  I’m not saying a 10 team league would work now, times have changed but I’d rather have it than a 12 with farcical, unbalanced splits.  No chance of the clubs voting it back though and to be honest I’d probably rather see another attempt at 18 as I was too young to remember it.  
 

At the end of the day it’s not league set up that is the problem or the solution.  The product is the problem and nobody has a solution. 

When was this? There would’ve been one CL/European cup place. Then 1 UEFA cup place for the league. 
 

The Scottish Cup would get a CWC place and I do remember the League Cup getting a UEFA Cup place at one point.  

[BackOfTheNet]

8 minutes ago, Rudy T said:

FWIW I don’t think there’s anything wrong with meaningless games. Gives managers a chance to play youngsters without the pressure they’re under at the moment. Can try out different tactics and give fringe players game time. 
 

For me the biggest issue with this league format is there’s not enough meaningless games, and the pressure on managers creates a league chock full of teams just trying to survive. To survive any thoughts of expansive football is out the window as every point is precious. 

Absolutely, my point is what may be meaningless for a team in 12th who has no chance in getting a Euro playoff spot and is safe from relegation, if they’re against a team sitting 15th in danger of dropping into the relegation zone or a team in 9th with a chance of getting into those Euro spots then it’s not a meaningless game for one team and the average viewer. But the team that’s 12th could easily use that game to do what you say.

 

So I agree with you, but I don’t agree with others that we’d have meaningless games since January onwards. 

[Dsjambo]

3 minutes ago, LarrysRightFoot said:

You most likely haven’t looked at all the replies on this thread (and don’t blame you), however, a lot of counter arguments to your points have been made, including 

 

- In the old 18 team division there were about 3 meaning places being played for (champions + 2 relegation places). I’m not sure how Europe worked back then - did 2nd get into the Fairs/UEFA cup? Anyway a max of 4 meaningful places. Today however there would be around 8 meaningful places to be played for. 
- I don’t believe the x 4 OF games/TV argument. There are Scandinavian leagues with better TV deals than us who have clubs nowhere near the size of the OF. Rangers weren’t even in the top flight for 4 years. 

It was only the champions that went into the European cup obviously and 2nd place went into the Fairs Cup with the Scottish cup winners (or sometimes the runners up) in the cup winners cup for a total of three places. We had 5 this year but that will go down to 4 again as our coefficient position reduces with every poor result. Scandinavian leagues may have better TV deals but the OF games are sold all over the world which makes a huge difference. Malmo v Gothenburg doesn’t have the same appeal or selling power. I’m not saying I like or agree with this but it’s just the way it is.

It’s understandable that people are fed up with playing teams x 4 a season but the alternative is no better. Instead of playing Hibs X 4 you would be playing x 2 against Raith Rovers or Dundee Utd or Partick or maybe Dunfermline if they can get moving up again. Nothing much there to get the pulse racing and what other two teams would help to make the league better? Falkirk perhaps or Morton? 
It would be interesting if the reconstruction thing does come up again but I’m pretty sure these same arguments would come out but you never know until you try.
 

[Rudy T]

3 minutes ago, LarrysRightFoot said:

Davie Martindale made that point a few days ago. 

And he should know, he’s got a team of hammer throwers fighting to stay up by playing anti football and keeping a pitch that should’ve been ripped up years ago.

[Rogue Daddy]

1 minute ago, Rudy T said:

While I agree they’ve been making noise have they ever backed a move to expand the league? I think if they thought it would benefit them they’d be all over it.

Did they not vote for league expansion during Covid?… can’t really remember. But it’s the whole ‘house of cards’ effect. Once ‘something’ has been changed - could very well lead to the next. 
 

One things for certain, they hate Dungcaster and want him removed. That would be a start! 
 

For me, Id like to see 18 team league. And those that point to ‘meaningless games’… well, if it’s good enough for Germany, Spain, France, England (give or take a couple of games) then it’s surely good enough for us!

 

As mentioned above, it would give teams opportunities to play/test their youths, formations etc. 

[BackOfTheNet]

10 minutes ago, Fozzyonthefence said:

The biggest problem - far too many meaningless games - would still exist.  Crowds would be abysmal for Airdrie v Raith, Livi v Morton, etc (even more so with nothing at stake).

 

I’m actually not against it and there are pros and cons for 18 and 12.  I’d rather only play the OF 4 times and there is an argument that there is more likely to be a challenge to the OF with 18 (there still wouldn’t be though).  
 

Ironically, the most competitive era we had was with a 10 team league.  Hardly any meaningless games and at one point 6 of the 10 qualified for Europe (normally 5 though).  No stupid, unfair split either. 2 getting relegated was too much though (a play off for 2nd bottom would have been better).  I’m not saying a 10 team league would work now, times have changed but I’d rather have it than a 12 with farcical, unbalanced splits.  No chance of the clubs voting it back though and to be honest I’d probably rather see another attempt at 18 as I was too young to remember it.  
 

At the end of the day it’s not league set up that is the problem or the solution.  The product is the problem and nobody has a solution. 

You’re assuming crowds would be abysmal for Airdrie v Raith, but what if it’s the 32nd game of the season and they’re 15th and 16th in the league? Then it means something so crowds would turnout. Livi v Morton the same thing, maybe Livi in mid table wilderness, but Morton fighting relegation need points, would gain interest.

 

If either of these games are at the start of the season, with the teams thinking a lot is possible, I don’t think there’s hardly any. And even if there was, if the league becomes a more exciting prospect to watch and play in, it gets more interest and sponsorship and with it more money and better players and coaches. Then you’d see crowds going up more.

[Fozzyonthefence]

2 minutes ago, LarrysRightFoot said:

When was this? There would’ve been one CL/European cup place. Then 1 UEFA cup place for the league. 
 

The Scottish Cup would get a CWC place and I do remember the League Cup getting a UEFA Cup place at one point.  

May have only been one or two seasons but I’m pretty sure our coefficient was high enough at one point to get 6 teams into Europe on the back of Aberdeen and Dundee Utd’s success in the 1980’s. I could be talking pish though.  And yes, the League Cup had one spot back then.  CWC for winning Scottish Cup (sometimes runner up), one in European Cup, and it was either 2 or 3 UEFA spots for league placings.  

[Dsjambo]

5 hours ago, Hansel said:

The bum cheeks and the TV companies wouldn't part with their precious 4 glasgow derbies per year.

 

Doesn't matter what the fans think unfortunately. 

Agree 100%

im getting a bit stick for suggesting this but it’s true unfortunately. 

[Fozzyonthefence]

4 minutes ago, Rogue Daddy said:

Did they not vote for league expansion during Covid?… can’t really remember. But it’s the whole ‘house of cards’ effect. Once ‘something’ has been changed - could very well lead to the next. 
 

One things for certain, they hate Dungcaster and want him removed. That would be a start! 
 

For me, Id like to see 18 team league. And those that point to ‘meaningless games’… well, if it’s good enough for Germany, Spain, France, England (give or take a couple of games) then it’s surely good enough for us!

 

As mentioned above, it would give teams opportunities to play/test their youths, formations etc. 

 

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.