League restructure

[virgilhiltz]

Some Hobo on hobo.net has posted a very reasonable argument on why the Old Firm do not favour league reconstruction:

 

What do you think?

 

As posted:

 

'The old firm, have created a duopoly that, due to the current league construction, favours the strong and is disadvantageous to the weaker teams.

 

The current league set up means that non-old firm total points for the season are 22% againsty Old Firm, 78% against the rest.

With this percentage, being the stronger teams, the bias is in their favour to finish 1st and 2nd.

 

Compare these figures to an 18 team league where the non-old firm points attainable for the season would be 11% against Old Firm 89% against the rest.

These ratios would make it far easier for a stronger 3rd and 4th team in the league to challenge for 2nd place.

Given the amount of money on offer for champions league places, this would be disaterous if either of the old firm consistently failed to finish 2nd.'

 

Unfotunately the current league set-up results in Apathy.........

 

The argument that the clubs wont support because they will lose the gate money of the old firm is utter tosh.

 

we would lose two old firm games, 7000 seats of a yearly total of 275,000 equates to 2.5%

A 2.5% increase on a ST is ?9 to a ?360 ST holder......thats if we dont sell the seats in the South stand ourselves.'

 

Thoughts?

 

Does this argument carry any weight?

[Cade]

Basically the top 6 is just a way for the OF to gang up on anyone who is challenging them.

 

Any team who is laying 3rd and threatens to split them is forced to play them both in the last 5 games, giving them a chance to slap the rest of us down.

 

It very nearly worked in 05/06!

[dutch_jambo]

indeed it is absurd not having a bigger league.Why not have a 18 team premier league where 2 teams get relegated (one straight and one after a play off spot) after playing each other twice a season and 2 lower divisions of 12 teams each

[132goals1958]

Basically the top 6 is just a way for the OF to gang up on anyone who is challenging them.

 

Any team who is laying 3rd and threatens to split them is forced to play them both in the last 5 games, giving them a chance to slap the rest of us down.

 

It very nearly worked in 05/06!

 

There are 24 points at stake against the olf Firm and last year we had five games in Glasgow and three in Edinburgh, ( ridiculous state of affairs) If we make the top six I wonder if the fixtures will be reversed. I actually think the OP makes a lot of sense but it would never be allowed to happen.

[JamboSean]

I'd be all for it. Not only would there be a greater chance of breaking an Old Firm dominance, there would be less of the same tired routine.

 

Look at this season, 4 trips to Fir Park at least. Would be good to see some different grounds, different trips and more of a change.

 

Think the one draw back would be getting used to only having 2 derbies again.

[132goals1958]

I'd be all for it. Not only would there be a greater chance of breaking an Old Firm dominance, there would be less of the same tired routine.

 

Look at this season, 4 trips to Fir Park at least. Would be good to see some different grounds, different trips and more of a change.

 

Think the one draw back would be getting used to only having 2 derbies again.

 

You could also argue that only two games against Hibs and the Bigot Brothers would provide a much better sense of occasion

[JamboSean]

[/b]

 

You could also argue that only two games against Hibs and the Bigot Brothers would provide a much better sense of occasion

 

I did think of that. I don't think I'd miss playing the Old Firm 4 times, I would miss the derbies though. They give dire season's like this one, a little more excitement.

[frankblack]

Also, the league rules mean that the non old firm teams have to play the old firm at home on Setanta but we don't get the reverse.

 

The teams lose maybe 35% gates esp. for a 12:30pm Saturday kick-off, and give rantic an advantage on the pitch before a ball is kicked.

[Dr Ian Malcolm]

I think it would give the individual gams more excitement though. For example after losing the first game of this season, whilst very annoyed and dissapointed, I knew that we had at least another two, possibly three shots at getting revenge. Had we only one, it would have placed far more importance on us going to Easter Rd, knowing it was our last chance to take points off them.

 

Apply this to matches against the Old Firm - you only have two chances to take any points off them - if your team is challenging at the top of the league, it places extra significance on getting points so may encourage teams to really have a go. Also, the OF lose their "security" of having 3/4 attempts to beat the rest so won't have as much opportunity to make up for any dropped points. Whether or not this makes them more cautius or apprehensive when appraoching their traditional "tougher" games against ourselves, Hibs, Dundee Utd & Aberdeen who knows, but it would maybe increase the pressure on them to win those games.

[132goals1958]

Also, the league rules mean that the non old firm teams have to play the old firm at home on Setanta but we don't get the reverse.

 

The teams lose maybe 35% gates esp. for a 12:30pm Saturday kick-off, and give rantic an advantage on the pitch before a ball is kicked.

 

Good point ? only the parochial administrators who run the game in Scotland would allow this to happen. Everything but everything is geared towards the Old Firm and they wonder why everyone else wants them dumped out of Europe

[AndyPenman]

Theoretically speaking Hearts, Hibs and Aberdeen could afford to lose the the extra 2 OF games from their schedule however it is not these clubs that need convincing it's the Killies, Motherwells, Arabs et al that need to be persuaded that it is probably more beneficial to go back to a 16/18 team league and unfortunately for these teams its like turkeys voting for chrimbo

[Dr Ian Malcolm]

Surely the loss of two OF games a season could be partially offset by an increase of more local derbies. For example, Hamilton and Motherwell should attract a bigish support from each side. Its not beyond possibilty that Ayr Utd could end up in a new expanded league (eventually) - surely Killie could attract something approaching a decent crowd for that one given the rarity of the fixture. St. Mirren against Morton would be a stick on full house given Morton's crowds already. Inverness Ross County would be another one as well as the Dundee Derby. The big games for these teams are either the OF, Hearts, possibly Hibs and (Utd aside) relegation battles. Increase the amount of "Big" games and it generates more interest, which would hopefully lead to more erses on seats.

[portobellojambo1]

I did think of that. I don't think I'd miss playing the Old Firm 4 times, I would miss the derbies though. They give dire season's like this one, a little more excitement.

 

I would tend to go the other way and say the less times you play someone the more you look forward to it.

 

I would love to see the SPL revert to an 18 team league, playing 34 games per season, there again I would like to see us revert to Scottish Cup ties in any given round all being played on the same date, and games kicking off at 15:00 pm on a Saturday, maybe I am just an old traditionalist who sees no benefit in any of the changes which have been implemented over the years.

[Pants Shaton]

I would tend to go the other way and say the less times you play someone the more you look forward to it.

 

I would love to see the SPL revert to an 18 team league, playing 34 games per season, there again I would like to see us revert to Scottish Cup ties in any given round all being played on the same date, and games kicking off at 15:00 pm on a Saturday, maybe I am just an old traditionalist who sees no benefit in any of the changes which have been implemented over the years.

 

Maybe but a 16 team SPL is a realistic proposition. I seem to remember Gordon Smith favouring an expanded SPL whilst in his role as a 'pundit' - I wonder if the same applies now?

 

Playing each Old Firm side twice would mean that a greater chance existed for a team that was clearly third best (but still some way from achieving the quality of the Old Firm) to sneak into the top two.

[Boof]

I think it would give the individual gams more excitement though.

 

:hae36:Can't see Setanta covering them....

[Boozyuzi]

The structure of Champions League and the UEFA Cup will be changed in 2009/10 - last 16 of the Champions League will be spread over 4 midweeks in February and the UEFA Cup group stage will be expanded to 12 groups of 4 teams playing home and away. That's even more midweek's committed to European football. Also, after this season the Old Firm will realise that the split doesn't help when it comes to rearranging postponed games & cup replays.

 

I think this will mean a U-turn for the Old Firm and they will want to expand the SPL to 16 or 18 teams meaning 30 or 34 games. More European games for them = less domestic games.

[Ben Dover]

Are we not forgetting why the Premier League came into existence though ?

Was it not to rid ourselves of meaningless mid table games and the annual title 'procession' ??

[rossthejambo]

Maybe but a 16 team SPL is a realistic proposition. I seem to remember Gordon Smith favouring an expanded SPL whilst in his role as a 'pundit' - I wonder if the same applies now?

 

Playing each Old Firm side twice would mean that a greater chance existed for a team that was clearly third best (but still some way from achieving the quality of the Old Firm) to sneak into the top two.

 

im pretty sure it wouldnt matter what Gordon Smith thought seeing as it would be an SPL matter and nothing to do with the SFA. it would need someone to put forward the proposition and for everyone other than the OF to be behind it. the chances of this happening are slim and none

[Jambo66]

Theoretically speaking Hearts, Hibs and Aberdeen could afford to lose the the extra 2 OF games from their schedule however it is not these clubs that need convincing it's the Killies, Motherwells, Arabs et al that need to be persuaded that it is probably more beneficial to go back to a 16/18 team league and unfortunately for these teams its like turkeys voting for chrimbo

 

Under the present system, 6 teams play the OF only 6 times - 3 at home and 3 away. The truth is that teams in the bottom half would only be giving up 1 home game against the OF. The other 4 teams are the ones who would positively benefit from fewer OF games if they are challenging for a top 2 place.

[Jambo66]

Are we not forgetting why the Premier League came into existence though ?

Was it not to rid ourselves of meaningless mid table games and the annual title 'procession' ??

 

Gretna are currently 12 points adrift, making it likely that they will be formally relegated before the split. In that scenario, it is clear that 6 teams will play 5 utterly irrelevant games each at the end of the season. When coupled with the fact that there are currently 7 teams with a realistic chance of finishing 3rd or 4th, it is clear that the present system isn't working.

[savage]

all for re structure but it will never happen cause the old firm run things and what they want they get

[Flimsy]

Can anyone who was around in 1975 remember why the 18 team league was scrapped, I thought it was because there were too many meaningless games and crowds were dwindling but I may be wrong? There is also the issue of how to address the shortfall in gate revenue from losing 2 or 4 home games a season. Would you be happy to accept a hike in season ticket/entrance prices? I don't like the current set-up but there are issues to be addressed by increasing the size of the league. By the way, I'm unconvinced that increasing the league will result in a challenge to the Old Firm, it'll just mean more banker wins for them.

[john brownlee]

Are we not forgetting why the Premier League came into existence though ?

Was it not to rid ourselves of meaningless mid table games and the annual title 'procession' ??

 

 

I was always in favour of the ten team league but what messed it up was the three points for a win and the TV rights these two changes IMO shifted the balance even more to the squirm. I feel that I've went full circle on this one and would now favour of 18 teams and keeping the three points. this would enable non squirm teams to pick up more points you are more likly to pick up three point at morton than a second game at hunbox, they may still win more games but I feel we and other non squrm teams would drop less therefore making it a tighter league especilly for third and fourth places and who know when your up there with lesser of a points gap whos to say the squirm wont get into panic mode and drop even more points.

 

I would also like for the new teams coming in to be given grants by the jimmi parly to bring their ground up to modern all seater stadiums of between 7000 to 10000 to show they care about football outside the old squrm

 

How many new or refurbished stadiums would you get for a new tram system, new parly and countless useless schemes ect. You could build a new stadium by just useing foulkes' expences and pension, now that would be a better use of out tax money

 

 

:5643::5643:

[Ally Alexander]

The main change was that clubs kept their home gate receipts where before hand they were shared. Meant that smaller clubs missed out on a bumper trip to an Old Firm ground and having to rely on a full house at home for an increase to normal revenue, which as mentioned, often does not happen due to TV scheduling. Of course, result was that the OF got even more richer at the expense of the smaller clubs.

[Pants Shaton]

Can anyone who was around in 1975 remember why the 18 team league was scrapped, I thought it was because there were too many meaningless games and crowds were dwindling but I may be wrong? There is also the issue of how to address the shortfall in gate revenue from losing 2 or 4 home games a season. Would you be happy to accept a hike in season ticket/entrance prices? I don't like the current set-up but there are issues to be addressed by increasing the size of the league. By the way, I'm unconvinced that increasing the league will result in a challenge to the Old Firm, it'll just mean more banker wins for them.

 

For the best part of 20 years almost every game has been meaningless except Old Firm matches. All the arguments for the SPL have been found wanting in practice. An expanded top division would make it possible for a strong 3rd team to win the SPL. That is assuming the 3rd best team is significantly better than those below it. In that case home matches against the OF would take on the significance of cup ties - winning those 2 games could result in a championship.

[blairdin]

The OP makes alot of sense. I've said the same thing for years.

 

I think a 16 or 18 team league would be more exciting. More banker wins for the Old Firm, but in theory more banker wins for the 'middle' sized clubs like us, the wee team, Aberdeen and possibly Dundee United. So it in theory it would bring all of us closer together. There could come a point where only a home win against either of the Old Firm and a consistent showing against the rest could see someone outwith Weejieville claim a Champions League place.

 

In additon, unfamiliarality means that any of the bigger teams in the league - Old Firm or any of the middle teams I mentioned - are more likely to slip up against the clubs traditionally seen as being smaller.

 

I don't buy into the too many meaningless games arguement - happens all over Europe that teams are left with nothing to play for by mid March.

 

Old Firm home games are easily replaced in a bigger league. Falkirk v Dunfermline; Motherwell v Hamilton; St Midden v Morton; Inverness v Ross County; Dundee v Dundee United; Kilmarnock v Ayr; Gretna v OoS even. All of these have the potential to re-ignite local interest and attract big crowds. Setanta have ensured the smaller clubs don't sell out in their home games against the Old Firm anyway.

 

I'm pretty sure there are plenty of tickets available for our match tomorrow night even! I'd bet my house on the fact if it was a 16 team league, we were sitting in fourth place within three points of the Old Firm at the top of the league having played them both twice, we'd sell the same number of tickets for a midweek match against Hamilton as we have for tomorrow. Don't think we'd be the only ones.

 

16 or 18 team league. Bring it on!

[Bootboy100]

The OP makes alot of sense. I've said the same thing for years.

 

I think a 16 or 18 team league would be more exciting. More banker wins for the Old Firm, but in theory more banker wins for the 'middle' sized clubs like us, the wee team, Aberdeen and possibly Dundee United. So it in theory it would bring all of us closer together. There could come a point where only a home win against either of the Old Firm and a consistent showing against the rest could see someone outwith Weejieville claim a Champions League place.

 

In additon, unfamiliarality means that any of the bigger teams in the league - Old Firm or any of the middle teams I mentioned - are more likely to slip up against the clubs traditionally seen as being smaller.

 

I don't buy into the too many meaningless games arguement - happens all over Europe that teams are left with nothing to play for by mid March.

 

Old Firm home games are easily replaced in a bigger league. Falkirk v Dunfermline; Motherwell v Hamilton; St Midden v Morton; Inverness v Ross County; Dundee v Dundee United; Kilmarnock v Ayr; Gretna v OoS even. All of these have the potential to re-ignite local interest and attract big crowds. Setanta have ensured the smaller clubs don't sell out in their home games against the Old Firm anyway.

 

I'm pretty sure there are plenty of tickets available for our match tomorrow night even! I'd bet my house on the fact if it was a 16 team league, we were sitting in fourth place within three points of the Old Firm at the top of the league having played them both twice, we'd sell the same number of tickets for a midweek match against Hamilton as we have for tomorrow. Don't think we'd be the only ones.

 

16 or 18 team league. Bring it on!

 

Totally agree with what you say and with the OP.

 

The 12 team league and split is horrendous no matter which half of the table you are in.

 

16 or 18 teams only playing twice would be far more appealing to majority of people who pay to go to the games.

 

Sadly I cant see the SPL agreeing to such ideas especially as we are the paying public and are championing such an idea!!!

[Flimsy]

The OP makes alot of sense. I've said the same thing for years.

 

I think a 16 or 18 team league would be more exciting. More banker wins for the Old Firm, but in theory more banker wins for the 'middle' sized clubs like us, the wee team, Aberdeen and possibly Dundee United. So it in theory it would bring all of us closer together. There could come a point where only a home win against either of the Old Firm and a consistent showing against the rest could see someone outwith Weejieville claim a Champions League place.

 

In additon, unfamiliarality means that any of the bigger teams in the league - Old Firm or any of the middle teams I mentioned - are more likely to slip up against the clubs traditionally seen as being smaller.

 

I don't buy into the too many meaningless games arguement - happens all over Europe that teams are left with nothing to play for by mid March.

 

Old Firm home games are easily replaced in a bigger league. Falkirk v Dunfermline; Motherwell v Hamilton; St Midden v Morton; Inverness v Ross County; Dundee v Dundee United; Kilmarnock v Ayr; Gretna v OoS even. All of these have the potential to re-ignite local interest and attract big crowds. Setanta have ensured the smaller clubs don't sell out in their home games against the Old Firm anyway.

 

I'm pretty sure there are plenty of tickets available for our match tomorrow night even! I'd bet my house on the fact if it was a 16 team league, we were sitting in fourth place within three points of the Old Firm at the top of the league having played them both twice, we'd sell the same number of tickets for a midweek match against Hamilton as we have for tomorrow. Don't think we'd be the only ones.

 

16 or 18 team league. Bring it on!

 

Some good points. Celtic won 9 in a row before league reconstruction in 1975 and that was with 2 points for a win, I just feel the Old Firm would pee all over a 16/18 team league, even more so than now.

 

How would you address the loss of gate revenue from losing 2 or 4 home games a season? (If anyone says groups in the CIS cup I'll greet).

[virgilhiltz]

What we need is a Web-site championing the cause for change.

Getting other SPL clubs and First Division clubs interested via forums and siging up some sort of petition and publicity via the media.

 

This 'Organised crime' by the SPL and the old-firm has to stop.

[virgilhiltz]

Some good points. Celtic won 9 in a row before league reconstruction in 1975 and that was with 2 points for a win, I just feel the Old Firm would pee all over a 16/18 team league, even more so than now.

 

How would you address the loss of gate revenue from losing 2 or 4 home games a season? (If anyone says groups in the CIS cup I'll greet).

 

You increase the prices, not a huge %age required.

Also reduce the apathy whin the fans and increasing competition will bring the fans back thus compensating revenue.

 

More fans equates to bigger advertisers.

Big advertisers attract TV companies.

[Flimsy]

You increase the prices, not a huge %age required.

Also reduce the apathy whin the fans and increasing competition will bring the fans back thus compensating revenue.

 

More fans equates to bigger advertisers.

Big advertisers attract TV companies.

 

I would not be happy with an increase in entrance/season ticket prices, they are high enough as they are.

 

It is a myth that crowds are poor, most clubs are getting the same attendances they were 20 years ago, in fact Hearts and Hibs are getting more. I agree though that attendances against the Old Firm are dwindling.

 

The SPL already has saturated TV coverage, also the more teams in the league the more the TV revenues have to be split, so less cash for the likes of Hearts.

 

I think people are obsessed with challenging the Old Firm for the title, they are two humungous clubs in the context of Scottish football, so many Scottish clubs have nearly bankrupted themselves chasing an impossible dream.

[Boozyuzi]

The split is going to be an even bigger yawn in a couple of season when Scotland has 5 European places - maybe 1 should be allocated back to the winners of the League Cup.

[Jambo66]

I would not be happy with an increase in entrance/season ticket prices, they are high enough as they are.

 

It is a myth that crowds are poor, most clubs are getting the same attendances they were 20 years ago, in fact Hearts and Hibs are getting more. I agree though that attendances against the Old Firm are dwindling.

 

The SPL already has saturated TV coverage, also the more teams in the league the more the TV revenues have to be split, so less cash for the likes of Hearts.

 

I think people are obsessed with challenging the Old Firm for the title, they are two humungous clubs in the context of Scottish football, so many Scottish clubs have nearly bankrupted themselves chasing an impossible dream.

 

If you don't want to challenge them for the title, why do you bother going?

[blairdin]

Some good points. Celtic won 9 in a row before league reconstruction in 1975 and that was with 2 points for a win, I just feel the Old Firm would pee all over a 16/18 team league, even more so than now.

 

How would you address the loss of gate revenue from losing 2 or 4 home games a season? (If anyone says groups in the CIS cup I'll greet).

 

That's the challenge.

 

First, I think the rules need to be changed about revenue but I don't have the answer - just can't see how the current system is working if some clubs are so reliant on the old firm coming to their town (cause lets face it, it's not two fixtures most clubs miss, it's the old firm coming twice most will miss) just to survive financially at the expense of entertainment - which is ultimately what footy is supposed to be all about.

 

First of all, get back to playing football on Saturday. You'll never get big crowds Sundays or midweeks routinely because most of us do other thngs at these times routinely - be it work, families, playing amatuer football, whatever. Play on Saturdays (with live game either lunchtime or evening), fans will go.

 

Saying that, one off Sunday or midweek games can be a success. Like the Aberdeen match at Tynie circa April 1986. Should be an exception and not a rule though.

 

Sort this, and I'd suggest the clubs were paid their portion of the gate receipts in respect of thier fans going to away matches and the home club keep the rest. Clubs like us, Aberdeen, Hibs would do alright from this but I can hear the wailing from the Killies and Motherwells of the world already. Serves them right for not living within their means IMHO, but many will no doubt side with them.

 

I still think television money would increase as mid to late season games that are currently unattractive would take on a whole new significance. Setanta would suddenly be interested in televising us away to Motherwell, Aberdeen away to Hamilton or the ultimate televisual nightmare Hobo's v St Midden if the outcome was going to affect (hopefully weaken) the Old Firms league position. Sadly, the only way to test this theory would be to try it - I don't think any of the telly channels would confirm or deny this scenario is plausible here and now.

 

If you had 4/5 teams challenging at the top of the league within a win of each other, and 4/5 teams fighting relegation within a win of each other, I think the increase in crowds over a season because they saw something to play/fight for would make up for the fewer total number of games - say an extra 750 bums on seats per match for the clubs that would feel it most and there's the usual home support x 2 over the season to make up for the games you're missing.

 

The potential big losers are the safe mid-table clubs. But like I said, that's a problem all over Europe. Could these safe middle clubs be the ideal place to give young players an opportunity to make it in the SPL with the current loan system?

 

I'll spare you the league cup tears, but will say something imaginative needs to be done to this tournament irrespective of the league structure to give it some kind of presteige to rival the English version that concluded yesterday.

[Pants Shaton]

I would not be happy with an increase in entrance/season ticket prices, they are high enough as they are.

 

It is a myth that crowds are poor, most clubs are getting the same attendances they were 20 years ago, in fact Hearts and Hibs are getting more. I agree though that attendances against the Old Firm are dwindling.

 

The SPL already has saturated TV coverage, also the more teams in the league the more the TV revenues have to be split, so less cash for the likes of Hearts.

 

I think people are obsessed with challenging the Old Firm for the title, they are two humungous clubs in the context of Scottish football, so many Scottish clubs have nearly bankrupted themselves chasing an impossible dream.

 

If there was no possibility of that ever happening, I'm not sure I would savour following Hearts just to occasionally get two games in the UEFA cup.

 

Football remains very much in its infancy; little more than 100 years.

 

Rangers and Celtic are by far the largest clubs for a number of reasons, not least sectarianism (allowing them to draw fans from across the country and beyond and keep them, even when success has briefly eluded them) but also the corresponding demographics of football and Glasgow (large working class population). Success begets success. But is this the end of (Scottish football) history? I hope not.

 

Hearts showed in 2005/2006 that the gap is not unassailable. Had we kept Burley in place I sincerely believe we would have won the SPL (I know many disagree). What did it require? A good manager and a few additions to our squad. The OF cannot attract players of the stature of Gazza, Laudrup and Larsson anymore. They are still significantly better and the 12 team SPL reinforces their stranglehold. Although not as much as the Champions League structure, which is creating a two-tier system across Europe and consolidating that age-old problem in Scotland.

 

Had Romanov kept his ego in check in October 2005 and had Hearts then won the league: 20,000+ would have been queuing for season tickets. If we hadn't made such a mess of things by the time AEK came calling, CL money would have helped bankroll another challenge.

 

I don't think there's any reason why Hearts couldn't expand and mount a regular challenge. Sadly, there are plenty of reasons why it won't happen.

[Tatlock]

You always hear the sanctimonious ones from GFA talk about 'for the good of scottish football' but the current set up is good for the top 6 (allegedly) only. If it was about the good of Scottish football every one of the lower league teams would get some benefit but they dont.

 

If we had an 18 team league, those 'wee teams' would have enjoyed a vastly more financially rewarding season even the ones who get relegated. Those games which we class a meaningless would actually mean something to the new clubs as the increased crowds (in comparison o the 1st division) would allow them to pay slightly more and if managed properly would benefit 'scottish football'.

 

There is no doubt that the current set up has provided better competition maybe not over a prolonged period but certainly evidence is there this season that we can all beat each other and give the old firm a closer game.

 

Its not and never will be about scottish football its about the bigot brothers because thats where the media gravy train is.

[Hearts Heritage]

Whilst the OP may seem fine in principle, here are a few facts to consider.

The OF now have their biggest average home crowds in their history e.g. their average is at least 3 times as big as the third placed club

Accordingly far more corporate revenue.

Domestic TV money is distributed 'unevenly' to the OF because they finish 1st or 2nd. Though this is miniscule when compared to

European TV money especially the CL again going to the OF.

Changing the structure is not going to alter the fact that with the money at their disposal the OF will continue to beat the rest.

This isn't a unique to Scotland increasingly leagues across Europe are dominated by one or two clubs are historically or because of the CL money.

The EPL is different in the amount of TV money that all their clubs receive but again it has been dominated by the 'Big 4'.

One possibility is that Scotland gets a third CL place and therefore a better cut of the Overall TV pie. Though again this would likely only benefit one or two sides ala Sevillie or Valencia in Spain. The also rans would stay the also rans.

[Jarhead]

Something I have noticed since the SPL started is that when the OF drop points it is usually against the teams that are struggling.

From their point of view as long as they raise their game and beat the challenging teams in 3rd and 4th place they can keep the challengers at arms length.

Hearts in season 97/98 is a great example. Our inability to beat the OF in the league was the difference between 3rd and 1st.

 

Also, when they were last in the top league, St Johnstone reported that when they played the OF at home the crowd may have been larger but the size of the home support dropped. That should tell you all you need to know about how much of a draw the OF are to the rest of Scottish football.

[Makween]

What a stupid argument.

 

If a team was good enough to win the league, they'd have to be better than the Old Firm anyway.

[The People's Chimp]

Surely the loss of two OF games a season could be partially offset by an increase of more local derbies. For example, Hamilton and Motherwell should attract a bigish support from each side. Its not beyond possibilty that Ayr Utd could end up in a new expanded league (eventually) - surely Killie could attract something approaching a decent crowd for that one given the rarity of the fixture. St. Mirren against Morton would be a stick on full house given Morton's crowds already. Inverness Ross County would be another one as well as the Dundee Derby. The big games for these teams are either the OF, Hearts, possibly Hibs and (Utd aside) relegation battles. Increase the amount of "Big" games and it generates more interest, which would hopefully lead to more erses on seats.

 

You need only look at the first division at the time when the pars and dundee united were comopeting against each other, you had falkirk, raith, morton, dundee, all big games. Each team was winning games, or had the chance to win games and they were all getting decent crowds as the games had meaning and teams had a chance to string together a few results.

 

Imagine in an 18 team league, whereas now a bottom club might have to play hearts, aberdeen, celtic, hibs, rangers, dundee united as a run of 5 games, they would maybe only have say hearts, morton, dundee, falkirk, aberdeen as a run. So much easier to pick up a few points and therefore meaning a bigger crowd, more to play for and a more exciting league.

[Peter Olivers Army]

Would love to go back to twice a season games in the SPL.

 

At present, if you are unlucky with cup draws, you can play the same side 7 times in one season. Way over the top.

 

The OF, unfortunately, would resist any change that could possibly threaten their duopoly and as we all know, the SPL will bend over backwards to please them.

 

Looking from another angle, I'm sure an expanded top division would lead to more youngsters breaking through. At present, we all expect them to be the finished article on their debuts & give them little leeway.

[topcat]

'The old firm, have created a duopoly that, due to the current league construction, favours the strong and is disadvantageous to the weaker teams.

 

The current league set up means that non-old firm total points for the season are 22% againsty Old Firm, 78% against the rest.

With this percentage, being the stronger teams, the bias is in their favour to finish 1st and 2nd.

 

Given that the league is supposed to find the strongest team in the country it seems a bit strange to talk about giving the stronger teams a greater chance of success as if it's a bad thing.

 

Rangers and Celtic do not generally dominate this league because of the League set up, they dominate it because they've got the biggest resources and the best players (and the best officials, but that's for another thread).

[Makween]

Given that the league is supposed to find the strongest team in the country it seems a bit strange to talk about giving the stronger teams a greater chance of success as if it's a bad thing.

 

Rangers and Celtic do not generally dominate this league because of the League set up, they dominate it because they've got the biggest resources and the best players (and the best officials, but that's for another thread).

 

The argument being made here's just bizarre.

 

As far as I can see, what's being said is that the smaller teams would have a greater chance of finishing closer to the Old Firm if they played them less often. If they need to play them less often to have any chance of getting close, surely they don't deserve to be near to them in the first place?

 

The whole point of a league is that the best team wins.

[Peter Olivers Army]

The argument being made here's just bizarre.

 

As far as I can see, what's being said is that the smaller teams would have a greater chance of finishing closer to the Old Firm if they played them less often. If they need to play them less often to have any chance of getting close, surely they don't deserve to be near to them in the first place?

 

The whole point of a league is that the best team wins.

 

But look at it another way. At present you may play 8 games in which you get eff all from the ref, thus reducing your chances of points and that's whether you are us, Aberdeen or even Gretna.

 

Reduce that to 4 in which you are directly mucked about and you may stand a better chance.

 

Of course, that's assuming refs don't influence other games too much.........

[Ivan Drago]

Maybe but a 16 team SPL is a realistic proposition. I seem to remember Gordon Smith favouring an expanded SPL whilst in his role as a 'pundit' - I wonder if the same applies now?

 

Playing each Old Firm side twice would mean that a greater chance existed for a team that was clearly third best (but still some way from achieving the quality of the Old Firm) to sneak into the top two.

 

agreed, its only 4 extra teams FFS! im sure there are 4 teams who could come in who would be better than East Stirling, just look at inverness, and to a different extent Livi and Gretna.

 

i hate how self preservationist the SPL is, only 1 team going down/coming up a year is a joke

[Jambo66]

The argument being made here's just bizarre.

 

As far as I can see, what's being said is that the smaller teams would have a greater chance of finishing closer to the Old Firm if they played them less often. If they need to play them less often to have any chance of getting close, surely they don't deserve to be near to them in the first place?

 

The whole point of a league is that the best team wins.

 

Do you think that everyone should play the OF more often then? What about 8 times each? Surely that would allow the stronger teams - ie the OF - an even better chance to be the deserving winners.

 

The fact is that playing everyone 4 times skews the league in favour of the strongest teams and makes everything less competitive. The top footballling countries have a league where everyone plays everyone else at home once and away once. It works and it's fair.

 

It's a bit like the cup. How often do you hear commentators saying after a lower league team has got a draw that they have had their chance? In the SPL the OF being the strongest teams are the ones that get the chance to put the one off result behind them.

 

In 2005-06 our better results at home and away against the OF were 2 wins, a draw and a defeat. Our worse results were a draw and 3 defeats. It makes a massive difference by playing the top sides 4 times. And we are probably one of the sides least affected given our normal high finishing position. It is much more unfair for the sides finishing lower down the table.

[Jarhead]

The argument being made here's just bizarre.

 

As far as I can see, what's being said is that the smaller teams would have a greater chance of finishing closer to the Old Firm if they played them less often. If they need to play them less often to have any chance of getting close, surely they don't deserve to be near to them in the first place?

 

The whole point of a league is that the best team wins.

 

No I would disagree.

The debate is basically, how do we create a more competative league?

Do you use the American sport system where they effectivly skew it to force competition or do we continue with our free for all system where the richest teams ALWAYS win.

No one is saying that their ideas wouldn't result in the OF still winning most of the time but could things be changed to at least give others teams a chance?

I just don't believe that the fans, including a lot of OF fans, feel the present setup is sustainable in the long term.

[BigBreezey]

i agree with the 16/18 team league scenario, playing 30/34 games, (all games being played on a sat or sun, leaving midweeks free for europe and league cup ties and possible scottish cup replays), have a three or four week break in january/february. there will be lots of meaningless games, these are the games that teams can blood youngsters with little or no pressure. anything is better than the top 6 split and the nonsense of playing teams away from home 3 times in a season. they even bottle out of making it a marketing dream by refusing to have the old firm potential title decider after the split as the final game of the season due to their inability of their 'fans' to behave.

[Flimsy]

If you don't want to challenge them for the title, why do you bother going?

 

I would like Hearts to challenge for the title, but I don't EXPECT Hearts to challenge for the title.

[Flimsy]

You need only look at the first division at the time when the pars and dundee united were comopeting against each other, you had falkirk, raith, morton, dundee, all big games. Each team was winning games, or had the chance to win games and they were all getting decent crowds as the games had meaning and teams had a chance to string together a few results.

 

Imagine in an 18 team league, whereas now a bottom club might have to play hearts, aberdeen, celtic, hibs, rangers, dundee united as a run of 5 games, they would maybe only have say hearts, morton, dundee, falkirk, aberdeen as a run. So much easier to pick up a few points and therefore meaning a bigger crowd, more to play for and a more exciting league.

 

Clubs like Kilmarnock, Motherwell, Dunfermline Athletic, Dundee United etc do NOT get increased crowds when they go on a run of results or even challenge for Europe, it has been shown time and time again, including this season. I take your point that crowds for these clubs increase dramatically for promotion or relegation deciding matches. In an 18 team league these clubs may never play a promotion or relegation decider again, they'll be stuck in the middle of a vast league.

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm not in favour of the current league with it's ridiculous split but there are a lot of questions to be answered about the viability of a large league too.