League expansion

[Bull's-eye]

53 minutes ago, May98 said:

Rangers literally got to the final of a European competition 3 years back.  

 

The reason other teams fail isn't because of the league format, it's because of the money of the leagues the opposition play in.  Even then we are closer, a lot closer than before, knocking out Norwegian and Swiss teams in Europe this season for example, Rangers topping a group with Betis and Sparta Prague in it.

 

A bigger league would probably suit three teams in the whole of the country - us, sheep, hibs.  The rest of the country wouldn't want to only play the bigger clubs twice a season, why would they want Ayr to come visiting instead of another bigot visit and the cash they bring?  

 

Why would TV companies put more money into a league with even more dross games than we have just now in their eyes?  There would also be around 6/7 teams with sod all to play for this time of year each season stuck in no mans land instead of the 1 or 2 just now.

 

Nice pipe dream the larger league, selfishly because it would give us a chance to get closer to the top of the table but realistically it's never going to happen just to suit a few teams.

 

I think your entire post is complete drivel, short sighted old fashioned guff.

[OTT]

2 minutes ago, Hmfc1965 said:

Maybe. But they'll get another stale and boring league in its place.

Combined with an overall poorer standard of game.

 

So zero point in trying then. Gotcha. 

 

Take the absolute shite that gets served up year after year and thank them for the privilege.

[Hmfc1965]

Just now, OTT said:

 

So zero point in trying then. Gotcha. 

 

Take the absolute shite that gets served up year after year and thank them for the privilege.

Not necessarily but a bigger league brings its own IMO bigger problems.

As someone else said those in favour of an 18 team league never had to experience it.

[OTT]

8 minutes ago, Hmfc1965 said:

Not necessarily but a bigger league brings its own IMO bigger problems.

As someone else said those in favour of an 18 team league never had to experience it.

 

You cannot look at the current structure and think thats good enough.

 

Change is good. Refresh the league, give a new generation something exciting to look forward to. If it doens't work, can always go back. 

[May98]

17 minutes ago, Bull's-eye said:

 

I think your entire post is complete drivel, short sighted old fashioned guff.

 

I wouldn't expect anything less, coming from yourself.  

 

It's drivel to state a fact that Rangers made the Europa League Final a short while ago? 

 

Considering your post I replied to was factually incorrect to begin with that makes no odds at all to me.

 

Any solutions to the situation then?  Instead of the usual bog standard smarmy post slagging things off?

Edited April 3 by May98

[Hmfc1965]

16 minutes ago, OTT said:

 

You cannot look at the current structure and think thats good enough.

 

Change is good. Refresh the league, give a new generation something exciting to look forward to. If it doens't work, can always go back. 

Really, meaningless games against the likes of Dunfermline are not exciting.

[OTT]

1 minute ago, Hmfc1965 said:

Really, meaningless games against the likes of Dunfermline are not exciting.

 

Neither is playing the same teams 4-6 times a season. 

 

I'd rather a league where games had a sense of uniqueness around them. Derbies, games against Aberdeen, the OF etc. would have so much more emphasis and there would be the opportunity to dole out some thumpings to teams like Dunfermline, Raith, Partick etc. 

 

We've only scored 3 goals in a game twice this season. Cagey 1-0 games aren't entertaining. They're frustrating and often dull games. 

[1971fozzy]

6 hours ago, michael_bolton said:

Bigger leagues are one of these things that a lot of people think they want, but after a 4-5 years we'd be regretting it.

 

Firstly, you'd kill the second tier. It would be a wasteland and essentially the same teams would bob between the top two divisions. Our second tier is a brilliant competition just now. The format is just right. Why ruin that?

 

Secondly, your season ticket would lose a Hibs game, an Aberdeen game, and one OF game each season, replaced by Thistle, Raith, Morton etc. Some folk might fancy that, I don't. I think after a few years people would regret that.

 

Thirdly, there'd be a lot of dead rubbers towards the end of the season most years. Unless we had very convaluted play-offs that might end up sending our 10th best team into the Conference League or something. Do we want that? As it is, more or less every game in all four divisions matters. Dead rubbers are very rare until the very end of the season.

 

The current system is good. Crowds are probably the best they've been in the era since stadiums went from mainly standing to mainly sitting. For all that people deride the split, at this time of the season every year it provides a bit of excitement in the league and then we'll have more or less straight play-offs for the title, Europe, play-offs and relegation. The lower leagues have similar with promotion and relegation play-offs. We'd lose a lot by making the leagues bigger and we'd gain very little.

 

And anyone who thinks we'd be more likely to win the league by giving the Old Firm more games against the likes of Morton, Ayr etc has lost the run of reality.

 

The current set-up is imperfect, but it's about the best we're going to do.

100% spot on for me

[Nookie Bear]

11 minutes ago, OTT said:

 

Neither is playing the same teams 4-6 times a season. 

 

I'd rather a league where games had a sense of uniqueness around them. Derbies, games against Aberdeen, the OF etc. would have so much more emphasis and there would be the opportunity to dole out some thumpings to teams like Dunfermline, Raith, Partick etc. 

 

We've only scored 3 goals in a game twice this season. Cagey 1-0 games aren't entertaining. They're frustrating and often dull games. 

That’s hugely arrogant and also unlikely. 
 

Hardly a reasoned argument for a bigger league, is it. 
Why don’t we just quit the league and join the Lowland League (or whatever it is) so we can win 10-0 against different teams every week?

[OTT]

Just now, Nookie Bear said:

That’s hugely arrogant and also unlikely. 
 

Hardly a reasoned argument for a bigger league, is it. 
Why don’t we just quit the league and join the Lowland League (or whatever it is) so we can win 10-0 against different teams every week?

 

Only if you're looking to be offended and ignore the point I'm trying to make. 

 

Our league is too competitive in the wrong ways. Below Celtic & Rangers its cut throat and the net result is hyper defensive cagey games which aren't interesting watches. Throw in some games against weaker opponents where there is a chance to actually rack up some goals and it would help. 

 

Beyond that, there would be a good opportunity for teams to give youth more of a shot in those games too.

 

Every game this season has felt like a war of attrition. Its been more exhausting than enjoyable IMO. 

 

Ignoring the LL point, its just a bit of a pointless comment. 

[Locky]

4 hours ago, Bickfest said:

I'm not sure that is a flaw. Every few weeks a team would have week/round off, enabling some R&R or injury recovery.

 

This is my favoured option.

 

I would also divisionalise the league cup with home and away ties. And seed them based on the previous season's final league placings. There would be fewer meaningless games.

 

Something has to change.

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.

[Luckies1874]

1 hour ago, May98 said:

 

I wouldn't expect anything less, coming from yourself.  

 

It's drivel to state a fact that Rangers made the Europa League Final a short while ago? 

 

Considering your post I replied to was factually incorrect to begin with that makes no odds at all to me.

 

Any solutions to the situation then?  Instead of the usual bog standard smarmy post slagging things off?

 

👏

 

 

[Nookie Bear]

33 minutes ago, OTT said:

 

Only if you're looking to be offended and ignore the point I'm trying to make. 

 

Our league is too competitive in the wrong ways. Below Celtic & Rangers its cut throat and the net result is hyper defensive cagey games which aren't interesting watches. Throw in some games against weaker opponents where there is a chance to actually rack up some goals and it would help. 

 

Beyond that, there would be a good opportunity for teams to give youth more of a shot in those games too.

 

Every game this season has felt like a war of attrition. Its been more exhausting than enjoyable IMO. 

 

Ignoring the LL point, its just a bit of a pointless comment. 

I’m not looking to be offended as I’m just doing the same as everyone else: thinking aloud and trying to look for solutions to improve the game. 
 

I just think it’s a bit old firm-ish to see smaller clubs as cannon fodder. 
 

I get it can be a war of attrition at times but that’s also because it’s competitive. That has to be better for the game than teams routinely getting battered 0-5 because they are playing kids and have no reason to scramble for points. 

[Bazzas right boot]

13 minutes ago, Nookie Bear said:

I’m not looking to be offended as I’m just doing the same as everyone else: thinking aloud and trying to look for solutions to improve the game. 
 

I just think it’s a bit old firm-ish to see smaller clubs as cannon fodder. 
 

I get it can be a war of attrition at times but that’s also because it’s competitive. That has to be better for the game than teams routinely getting battered 0-5 because they are playing kids and have no reason to scramble for points. 

 

Tbh, playing Dundee,  St mirren etc 4 times will just be as shite or exciting  playing the likes of utd, raith etc twice.

I'd rather play more teams twice rather than less teams 4 times

 

 

Playing each team 4 times in shite.

A split that has a odd number of fixtures before it is nonsense,  it makes a farce of the league set up. Teams should play the same fixtures.

 

The smaller league just protects clubs from relegation, protects the OF fixtures and to a lesser extent lets the utter Diddy teams get big crowds v the OF.

 

2 bigger leagues with more promotion and relegation with regionals is just obvious.

 

It may not help much, but it will increase the variety and let more clubs have the opportunity to thrive. 

 

There is no down side to a larger league other than protecting diddle clubs and the OF fixtures.

 

No one can look at the current set up and trend and think Scottish league football is in a good place.

 

English womans football will over take it soon in terms of revenue. 

 

Edited April 3 by Bazzas right boot

[OTT]

3 minutes ago, Nookie Bear said:

I’m not looking to be offended as I’m just doing the same as everyone else: thinking aloud and trying to look for solutions to improve the game. 
 

I just think it’s a bit old firm-ish to see smaller clubs as cannon fodder. 
 

I get it can be a war of attrition at times but that’s also because it’s competitive. That has to be better for the game than teams routinely getting battered 0-5 because they are playing kids and have no reason to scramble for points. 

 

Its not intended to be dismissive of them, in a 18 team league the top few teams should be comfortably ahead of the bottom few teams. As a fan, I don't want to see a season where we struggle and every game is a horrible mess that we either just lose or just win. Its stressful and frustrating. Its healthy to have more varied competition where there can be some high scoring fixtures that are actually enjoyable to watch. 

 

Competition is good, but when every game is the same slugging match it makes it hard for managers to blood young players and actually sell the product - who is going to want to watch a stodgy 1-0 ground out result against Livi? Absolutely no one that isn't a supporter of either club. 

 

Also think that managers figure each other out, so we have the double whammy of trying to overcome the OF whilst all the clubs below end up cutting each others throat because even shit teams can work you out after 3/4 games and at the very least salvage a draw somewhere in there. How often do we (or anyone else) go 3/3 or 4/4 against other teams ? Rarely. It kills any ability to challenge. 

 

I think the games would have more value if there were less of them. They'd be more important and be far easier to market. 

 

I just despair at these older fans being utterly dismissive of a larger league because 50 years ago it might not have been very good. Shockingly, the current league isn't very good. Sometimes change is good for no other reason than to freshen things up. Its like some sort of stockholm syndrome, convincing themselves that there is no alternative than a 12 team borefest watching the OF play pass the ****ing parcel with the league trophy. 

[Bazzas right boot]

2 minutes ago, OTT said:

 

Its not intended to be dismissive of them, in a 18 team league the top few teams should be comfortably ahead of the bottom few teams. As a fan, I don't want to see a season where we struggle and every game is a horrible mess that we either just lose or just win. Its stressful and frustrating. Its healthy to have more varied competition where there can be some high scoring fixtures that are actually enjoyable to watch. 

 

Competition is good, but when every game is the same slugging match it makes it hard for managers to blood young players and actually sell the product - who is going to want to watch a stodgy 1-0 ground out result against Livi? Absolutely no one that isn't a supporter of either club. 

 

Also think that managers figure each other out, so we have the double whammy of trying to overcome the OF whilst all the clubs below end up cutting each others throat because even shit teams can work you out after 3/4 games and at the very least salvage a draw somewhere in there. How often do we (or anyone else) go 3/3 or 4/4 against other teams ? Rarely. It kills any ability to challenge. 

 

I think the games would have more value if there were less of them. They'd be more important and be far easier to market. 

 

I just despair at these older fans being utterly dismissive of a larger league because 50 years ago it might not have been very good. Shockingly, the current league isn't very good. Sometimes change is good for no other reason than to freshen things up. Its like some sort of stockholm syndrome, convincing themselves that there is no alternative than a 12 team borefest watching the OF play pass the ****ing parcel with the league trophy. 

 

Agreed, no idea why anyone would  think the the current system is the best.

 

Even players have mentioned it's shite in the past. 

 

 

[OTT]

6 minutes ago, Bazzas right boot said:

 

Agreed, no idea why anyone would  think the the current system is the best.

 

Even players have mentioned it's shite in the past. 

 

 

 

Its ****ing awful. If I wasn't a Hearts fan I wouldn't have any interest in it. 

 

With a meaningful restructure of the league, it could be combined with an aggressive marketing campaign and really push a renewed interest in the game. 

 

Instead, folk are tunnel visioned on trying to compete with the OF in a structure which heavily favours the OF. Turn it on its head, reduce their impact on a challengers season and see where the chips land. Its concievable that if you could put together a solid season outside of your games against the OF, a genuine title tilt could be on. Removing guys like Martindale or Robinson getting 3/4 bites at the apple to get their tactics right and also removing their fear of relegation and you actually give these middle of the road teams an incentive to have a go at you. 

 

I'm sick of the reactionary bollocks from some folk. The current system makes me want to figure out how to get rid of my interest in Scottish football because its utterly depressing. 

[ROCK LOBSTER]

2 minutes ago, OTT said:

 

Its ****ing awful. If I wasn't a Hearts fan I wouldn't have any interest in it. 

 

With a meaningful restructure of the league, it could be combined with an aggressive marketing campaign and really push a renewed interest in the game. 

 

Instead, folk are tunnel visioned on trying to compete with the OF in a structure which heavily favours the OF. Turn it on its head, reduce their impact on a challengers season and see where the chips land. Its concievable that if you could put together a solid season outside of your games against the OF, a genuine title tilt could be on. Removing guys like Martindale or Robinson getting 3/4 bites at the apple to get their tactics right and also removing their fear of relegation and you actually give these middle of the road teams an incentive to have a go at you. 

 

I'm sick of the reactionary bollocks from some folk. The current system makes me want to figure out how to get rid of my interest in Scottish football because its utterly depressing. 

Nothing will change, sectarianism is big business and the sfa and spfl are weak as skol. The league will end up an English reserve league.

[Bazzas right boot]

10 minutes ago, OTT said:

 

Its ****ing awful. If I wasn't a Hearts fan I wouldn't have any interest in it. 

 

With a meaningful restructure of the league, it could be combined with an aggressive marketing campaign and really push a renewed interest in the game. 

 

Instead, folk are tunnel visioned on trying to compete with the OF in a structure which heavily favours the OF. Turn it on its head, reduce their impact on a challengers season and see where the chips land. Its concievable that if you could put together a solid season outside of your games against the OF, a genuine title tilt could be on. Removing guys like Martindale or Robinson getting 3/4 bites at the apple to get their tactics right and also removing their fear of relegation and you actually give these middle of the road teams an incentive to have a go at you. 

 

I'm sick of the reactionary bollocks from some folk. The current system makes me want to figure out how to get rid of my interest in Scottish football because its utterly depressing. 

 

Yip,  the interest is dieing in it, much more kids are drawn towards the English game and the two horse race does nothing to elevate the game.

 

During our admin I considered binning Scottish football.

I hate the OF,  the bigotry,  the boredom,  the quality and in general the shitness of it all and our inability to make positive change.

There is so much potential in our game that is just wasted.

 

It's even more depressing that many fans just line uo behind it and accept it.

 

The English womens game will overtake our game very soon yet Doncaster,  most clubs, the media and even some fans think we're being run well with the best set up.

 

We'll go 50 years, then 75 years with two teams winning the league. 

Brilliant. 

Good chance no other team will win the league this century.

 

Edited April 3 by Bazzas right boot

[LarrysRightFoot]

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

[upgotheheads]

1 minute 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. 

 

No, it wouldn't.

Edited April 3 by upgotheheads

[Hmfc1965]

33 minutes ago, OTT said:

 

Its not intended to be dismissive of them, in a 18 team league the top few teams should be comfortably ahead of the bottom few teams. As a fan, I don't want to see a season where we struggle and every game is a horrible mess that we either just lose or just win. Its stressful and frustrating. Its healthy to have more varied competition where there can be some high scoring fixtures that are actually enjoyable to watch. 

 

Competition is good, but when every game is the same slugging match it makes it hard for managers to blood young players and actually sell the product - who is going to want to watch a stodgy 1-0 ground out result against Livi? Absolutely no one that isn't a supporter of either club. 

 

Also think that managers figure each other out, so we have the double whammy of trying to overcome the OF whilst all the clubs below end up cutting each others throat because even shit teams can work you out after 3/4 games and at the very least salvage a draw somewhere in there. How often do we (or anyone else) go 3/3 or 4/4 against other teams ? Rarely. It kills any ability to challenge. 

 

I think the games would have more value if there were less of them. They'd be more important and be far easier to market. 

 

I just despair at these older fans being utterly dismissive of a larger league because 50 years ago it might not have been very good. Shockingly, the current league isn't very good. Sometimes change is good for no other reason than to freshen things up. Its like some sort of stockholm syndrome, convincing themselves that there is no alternative than a 12 team borefest watching the OF play pass the ****ing parcel with the league trophy. 

I'm one of these older fans.

Freshening things up with more games against weaker opposition isn't for me.

That isn't Stockholm Syndrome. I've seen both sides.

[LarrysRightFoot]

2 minutes ago, upgotheheads said:

 

No, it wouldn't.

😂 

 

I knew someone would say that. 
 

Not looking for a pantomime here. We will likely never know but I’ve never spoken to anyone (not one person) in real life that doesn’t want bigger leagues so I’ve no doubt if it ever got put to the public it’d be a resounding yes (for bigger leagues). 

[Bazzas right boot]

10 minutes 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. 

 

It was.

 

There was a poll a while back for players and fans,  both were heavily in favour of a larger league.

 

It's about going smaller with most fans wanting a bigger league.

 

Bit aged

https://www.scotsman.com/sport/a-survey-suggests-that-the-majority-of-fans-are-frustrated-at-plans-for-a-ten-team-spl-league-1690872

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/jackross/2011/01/beattie.html

 

Cannae find anything else.

 

 

 

Edited April 3 by Bazzas right boot

[upgotheheads]

In every league in the world the biggest teams with the biggest support win. Leicester and Dundee United are the exceptions that prove the rule, What makes anyone think that a bigger league will change that?

[Bazzas right boot]

2 minutes ago, LarrysRightFoot said:

😂

 

I knew someone would say that. 
 

Not looking for a pantomime here. We will likely never know but I’ve never spoken to anyone (not one person) in real life that doesn’t want bigger leagues so I’ve no doubt if it ever got put to the public it’d be a resounding yes (for bigger leagues). 

 

Never seen a positive argument for a shitey wee league and playing 4 times.

 

Never seen a positive case for it yet.

 

The only argument is that it was shite in the 60's and 70's, which doesn't even make sense.

The other is thing is " it won't change".. then why not try it, nothing to lose?

 

There is no positive case for the current set up. 

 

Edited April 3 by Bazzas right boot

[Bazzas right boot]

3 minutes ago, upgotheheads said:

In every league in the world the biggest teams with the biggest support win. Leicester and Dundee United are the exceptions that prove the rule, What makes anyone think that a bigger league will change that?

 

It definitely won't change as is, so why not expand?

 

 

[upgotheheads]

1 minute ago, Bazzas right boot said:

 

Never seen a positive argument for a shitey wee league and playing 4 times.

 

Never seen a positive case for it yet.

 

The only argument is that it was shite in the 60's and 70's, which doesn't even make sense.

 

 

 

That's because you never experienced the 18-team leagues. As I have said many times, meaningless games started in September, and now meaningless games start in May.

[upgotheheads]

1 minute ago, Bazzas right boot said:

 

It definitely won't change as is, so why not expand?

 

 

 

Because itwon't change if we expand.

[Hmfc1965]

6 minutes ago, Bazzas right boot said:

 

Never seen a positive argument for a shitey wee league and playing 4 times.

 

Never seen a positive case for it yet.

 

The only argument is that it was shite in the 60's and 70's, which doesn't even make sense.

The other is thing is " it won't change".. then why not try it, nothing to lose?

 

There is no positive case for the current set up. 

 

The positive case for it is most clubs have games in which the result is meaningful for the majority of the season.

As a rule fans don't like meaningless games.

[Bazzas right boot]

5 minutes ago, upgotheheads said:

In every league in the world the biggest teams with the biggest support win. Leicester and Dundee United are the exceptions that prove the rule, What makes anyone think that a bigger league will change that?

 

No they don't -

 

German league this year?

Napoli

A Madrid a few years ago

Feynoord recently?

Even AEK in Greece broke that trend

Even in Belgium the  league went to wire a few seasons.

 

Only in Scotland do 2 teams always win the league.

Always, 40 years now, it will go 50 easily. 

 

 

 

 

[upgotheheads]

Reconstruction along the lines of two SPL leagues  of 12, with a split to three leagues of 8 might be worth a trial, but I have written about this so often that I can't be arsed to say it all again.

[Des Lynam]

20 minutes ago, Bazzas right boot said:

 

Yip,  the interest is dieing in it, much more kids are drawn towards the English game and the two horse race does nothing to elevate the game.

 

During our admin I considered binning Scottish football.

I hate the OF,  the bigotry,  the boredom,  the quality and in general the shitness of it all and our inability to make positive change.

There is so much potential in our game that is just wasted.

 

It's even more depressing that many fans just line uo behind it and accept it.

 

The English womens game will overtake our game very soon yet Doncaster,  most clubs, the media and even some fans think we're being run well with the best set up.

 

We'll go 50 years, then 75 years with two teams winning the league. 

Brilliant. 

Good chance no other team will win the league this century.

 

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

[Nookie Bear]

1 minute ago, Bazzas right boot said:

 

No they don't -

 

German league this year?

Napoli

A Madrid a few years ago

Feynoord recently?

Even AEK in Greece broke that trend

Even in Belgium the  league went to wire a few seasons.

 

Only in Scotland do 2 teams always win the league.

Always, 40 years now, it will go 50 easily. 

 

 

 

 

I just can’t think of another league in the world where two teams are so massive compared to the next team. 
 

All to do with geography and religious affiliation that will not change with changing the league format. 

[Bazzas right boot]

4 minutes ago, upgotheheads said:

 

That's because you never experienced the 18-team leagues. As I have said many times, meaningless games started in September, and now meaningless games start in May.

 

Is that when different teams like us, killie, hibs won the league, various runners up and Scottish clubs won European cups?

That continued to the 80's buy has now changed.

 

There are 14-18 team leagues all over the world,  why aren't they all clamouring to go to a 10/12 team league?

 

I experience lots of 18 team leagues, have done for decades- I'm watching a 20 team league game right now!

All appear way more exciting than ours.

 

 

As I said, I've yet to hear a positive argument for it.

[upgotheheads]

2 minutes ago, Bazzas right boot said:

 

No they don't -

 

German league this year?

Napoli

A Madrid a few years ago

Feynoord recently?

Even AEK in Greece broke that trend

Even in Belgium the  league went to wire a few seasons

 

Only in Scotland do 2 teams always win the league.

Always, 40 years now, it will go 50 easily. 

 

 

 

 

 

And Dundee United, and Leicester, once.

 

You're just emphasizing my point.

[upgotheheads]

1 minute ago, Bazzas right boot said:

 

Is that when different teams like us, killie, hibs won the league, various runners up and Scottish clubs won European cups?

That continued to the 80's buy has now changed.

 

There are 14-18 team leagues all over the world,  why aren't they all clamouring to go to a 10/12 team league?

 

I experience lots of 18 team leagues, have done for decades- I'm watching a 20 team league game right now!

All appear way more exciting than ours.

 

 

As I said, I've yet to hear a positive argument for it.

 

Tell me what significant factor caused the change in the 80's.

[upgotheheads]

4 minutes ago, Bazzas right boot said:

 

Is that when different teams like us, killie, hibs won the league, various runners up and Scottish clubs won European cups?

That continued to the 80's buy has now changed.

 

There are 14-18 team leagues all over the world,  why aren't they all clamouring to go to a 10/12 team league?

 

I experience lots of 18 team leagues, have done for decades- I'm watching a 20 team league game right now!

All appear way more exciting than ours.

 

 

As I said, I've yet to hear a positive argument for it.

 

What are the populations of the countries you mention? And how big are the cities and clubs in those leagues?

[upgotheheads]

8 minutes ago, Nookie Bear said:

I just can’t think of another league in the world where two teams are so massive compared to the next team. 
 

All to do with geography and religious affiliation that will not change with changing the league format. 

 

Correct.

[part_time_jambo]

3 hours ago, May98 said:

Rangers literally got to the final of a European competition 3 years back.  

 

The reason other teams fail isn't because of the league format, it's because of the money of the leagues the opposition play in.  Even then we are closer, a lot closer than before, knocking out Norwegian and Swiss teams in Europe this season for example, Rangers topping a group with Betis and Sparta Prague in it.

 

A bigger league would probably suit three teams in the whole of the country - us, sheep, hibs.  The rest of the country wouldn't want to only play the bigger clubs twice a season, why would they want Ayr to come visiting instead of another bigot visit and the cash they bring?  

 

Why would TV companies put more money into a league with even more dross games than we have just now in their eyes?  There would also be around 6/7 teams with sod all to play for this time of year each season stuck in no mans land instead of the 1 or 2 just now.

 

Nice pipe dream the larger league, selfishly because it would give us a chance to get closer to the top of the table but realistically it's never going to happen just to suit a few teams.

That's how normal leagues work. The split would be more acceptable if all teams were treated equally, and they didn't break their necks making sure that it is only Rangers and Celtic who always have the same number of home and away games.

[Mirror]

2 leagues both with 20 teams or the 2nd league has 22 or 24 teams. Like Englands leagues, 3 down from the top to the second and the top 2 come up while 3, 4, 5 and 6 play off for the other promotion spot. And no split.

 

2nd league, 2 go down and the winner of the highland league and the winner of the lowland both come up. No play offs. 

 

Doesn't seem that hard just that no one will go for it as they don't want to jeopardise their (small) slice of the pie

Edited April 3 by Mirror

[Bazzas right boot]

2 hours ago, upgotheheads said:

 

What are the populations of the countries you mention? And how big are the cities and clubs in those leagues?

 

We have 42 clubs atm?

We don't have to make more teams.

4 leagues as it is, or 2/3 smaller league,  no idea why population is relevant.

 

Small nations also have larger leagues.

 

We can easily make 2 larger leagues,  so unsure of your point.

Again, it's not a positive argument for smaller leagues.

 

 

[Bazzas right boot]

2 hours ago, upgotheheads said:

 

Tell me what significant factor caused the change in the 80's.

 

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?

[Bazzas right boot]

2 hours ago, upgotheheads said:

 

And Dundee United, and Leicester, once.

 

You're just emphasizing my point.

 

No I'm not, these leagues haven't gone 4O years with 2 winners.

 

Larger leagues tend to spawn more winners.

 

[Bazzas right boot]

2 hours ago, Nookie Bear said:

I just can’t think of another league in the world where two teams are so massive compared to the next team. 
 

All to do with geography and religious affiliation that will not change with changing the league format. 

 

It may not, but other benefits are there, atm there is none and I have yet to see a positive argument for our service up.

I don't think there is one.

 

 

[Bazzas right boot]

2 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

 

 

It is true.

Not local,  I meant commercially- we're miles behind most leagues. No one is interested.

 

There is no interest commercially. We will be behind the woman's game soon, they will attract more money from TV companies.

 

[Bazzas right boot]

2 hours ago, upgotheheads said:

 

Because itwon't change if we expand.

 

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.

[Bazzas right boot]

2 hours ago, Hmfc1965 said:

The positive case for it is most clubs have games in which the result is meaningful for the majority of the season.

As a rule fans don't like meaningless games.

 

 

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.

 

 

[OTT]

12 minutes 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.

 

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. 

[Polonia Gorgie]

I like the idea of league expansion, our current format is extremely stale. One definite positive for league expansion is some games become bigger, like only playing Hibs, Aberdeen, old firm once at Tynecastle. Maybe another could be that "wee diddie teams" can raise there game against the bigger clubs, maybe both rangers and celtic could drop more points. Down side would be losing out on Hibs games and the league would lose out on old firm revenue......... That's when whoever is in charge of selling our game can/should big up the other big games in Scotland, our derby, Dundee derby plus "new firm" derby etc etc....... I'm so bored knowing the probable outcome of the league before a ball is kicked. I think change is needed.