ToadKiller Dog Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 800-1000? Could be wrong, but we don't sell out all that often either. Try 250 upto 550 is around what we get at at the uglies stadiums . Simple for those advocating 10 teams , show me an example where a ten team league has worked and improved the nations game in the years that TV has dominated football . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bighusref Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 I don't. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sraman Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 The snobbery attached to some on here really does make us look like a bunch of tossers. The so called "meh" teams will remain "meh" teams as long as we have this ten team elite shite. Its back of a fag packet ideas. Hmmm, lets get the main teams in scotland into a league and get them to play each other more!!!! What a revelation! Instead of saying lets get a bigger league with a more even split of revenue so that we may at least give other teams the chance to come on par with the so called elite, and in turn look to create a product that is sought after by tv companies as opposed to Sky telling us "We want the old firm". We decide to pump them away into an SPL 2 where they can't even begin to get the same kind of revenue as spl 1 teams thus keeping this two teir system. I would like cold hard figures for revenue projections based on the ten team set up as it must be some amount of money. The idea that a ten team league is some sort of silver bullet is complete shite. I would like to ask Doncaster what his plan B is? If the core problem of old firm dominace continues under the new set up and fans continue to drift away from the game what will he come up with next? This. I can't stand this small club pish some come out with on here. The last time we were in a 10 team league we were the small club behind the likes of Ayr United, Partick Thistle and Morton. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gods a Jambo Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 Good post! Sadly, any plan that Doncaster would put his name to will be only that wanted by the Uglies! The hope of a fresh start from an outsider has proved to be a false hope. Doncaster is as much of a lackey as all others in "power" in Scottish football. My disappointment comes for my hope that a fresh start could well have been on the cards. Its short term thinking that cares not a jot for the long term future of the game. Doncaster will argue otherwise and suggest that he is looking to secure the long term future through Tv deals. I would disagree and say that a bigger league made up of teams who are all capable of taking points off of each other will in the future bear more fruit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rossthejambo Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 Try 250 upto 550 is around what we get at at the uglies stadiums . Simple for those advocating 10 teams , show me an example where a ten team league has worked and improved the nations game in the years that TV has dominated football . I did think I was being a bit generous...didn't think I was being THAT generous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portobellojambo1 Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 No. A five-team league. We'll play everyone else nine times a season. Let's go for it. Possibly not as far fetched as you may have thought when posting it leginten. If increasing the size of the league is considered a non starter, and reducing it to 10 teams fails, which it will, it will fail miserably (you don't even really have to dig out the history books to realsie that) then there is only one option going forward. Reduce the size even more, and eventually you'll end up with the Bigot Brothers league, with 24/7 coverage on Sky (and both of them still saying its the way forward, although they'll have to find someone other than Rod Petrie to draw up the finance figures proving it, unless one of them gives him a job as a bawbag in their Sky sponsored lavvies). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gods a Jambo Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 This. I can't stand this small club pish some come out with on here. The last time we were in a 10 team league we were the small club behind the likes of Ayr United, Partick Thistle and Morton. People argue about old firm arrogance, yet the exact same principles are applied by many on here in respect of teams "below" us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portobellojambo1 Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 The snobbery attached to some on here really does make us look like a bunch of tossers. The so called "meh" teams will remain "meh" teams as long as we have this ten team elite shite. Its back of a fag packet ideas. Hmmm, lets get the main teams in scotland into a league and get them to play each other more!!!! What a revelation! Instead of saying lets get a bigger league with a more even split of revenue so that we may at least give other teams the chance to come on par with the so called elite, and in turn look to create a product that is sought after by tv companies as opposed to Sky telling us "We want the old firm". We decide to pump them away into an SPL 2 where they can't even begin to get the same kind of revenue as spl 1 teams thus keeping this two teir system. I would like cold hard figures for revenue projections based on the ten team set up as it must be some amount of money. The idea that a ten team league is some sort of silver bullet is complete shite. I would like to ask Doncaster what his plan B is? If the core problem of old firm dominace continues under the new set up and fans continue to drift away from the game what will he come up with next? The figures they are presently basing their scaremongering on were thrown together by that ersehole from down Easter Road. Anyone that believes them is a feckin loony. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gods a Jambo Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 The figures they are presently basing their scaremongering on were thrown together by that ersehole from down Easter Road. Anyone that believes them is a feckin loony. Says it all. Have these figures been published anywhere? I would like to see these figures and how these conclusions were reached. I have also yet to read what will be different from the last time we had ten teams and why it will be better this time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
julienbrellier Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 Rangers and Celtic were challenged in the 80's before money became such a defining factor, that small league format has added to their dominance.. To summarise it's a crap terrible format and will only benefit rangers and Celtic exactly. a 10 team league is a terrible idea. apart from the fact that an 18 team league where 3 go down and 3 come up is much more fresh and interesting, we would only have to play the weegi vermin twice a season each, meaning that, like this season, if our form was impressive and we won the majority of games against lesser teams our chances for the league would be greater. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drylaw Hearts Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 Sorry for butting in. I don't know if it would increase straight away but eventually it definitely would. Definitely ? Based on what ? Our travelling support depends on how the well the team is doing. That won't change whatever size of SPL we're playing in and whatever the mix of teams are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drylaw Hearts Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 This. I can't stand this small club pish some come out with on here. The last time we were in a 10 team league we were the small club behind the likes of Ayr United, Partick Thistle and Morton. It's been more than 25 years since we finished behind any of those clubs. And it wasn't because of how big we were - it was because of the financial mess we were in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bert Le Clos Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 Bigger games will bring bigger crowds True, but a better chance of winning games will also bring bigger crowds. Look at the attendances in 2005/06, much higher than we've had the last couple of seasons. Why? Because we were doing well in the league and went into every home game expecting to win the match. The way we have been playing (barring the cup disaster), if we had home games against Dunfermline, Falkirk and QoS I would fully expect us to win these easily. Which I think is quite an attraction for the type of fan we are looking to attract to ensure a full house. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sraman Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 It's been more than 25 years since we finished behind any of those clubs. And it wasn't because of how big we were - it was because of the financial mess we were in. The context of "small clubs" comes accross, to me personally, as very condescending, as if these clubs are only there to make up the numbers and not fit to play in the same league as us, and never ever will be. I was merely trying to point out that they are not "small clubs" in that context, and have played at a higher level than us in the past and may well do again in the future. Also, when some of these teams were playing at a higher level than us, we had a ten team top league. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drylaw Hearts Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 True, but a better chance of winning games will also bring bigger crowds. Look at the attendances in 2005/06, much higher than we've had the last couple of seasons. Why? Because we were doing well in the league and went into every home game expecting to win the match. The way we have been playing (barring the cup disaster), if we had home games against Dunfermline, Falkirk and QoS I would fully expect us to win these easily. Which I think is quite an attraction for the type of fan we are looking to attract to ensure a full house. I think this is a myth. Since 1st November we've played Hamilton, Aberdeen and ICT at Tynecastle for the first time this season and we've averaged 13,000. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davemclaren Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 The context of "small clubs" comes accross, to me personally, as very condescending, as if these clubs are only there to make up the numbers and not fit to play in the same league as us, and never ever will be. I was merely trying to point out that they are not "small clubs" in that context, and have played at a higher level than us in the past and may well do again in the future. Also, when some of these teams were playing at a higher level than us, we had a ten team top league. Just goes to show how a ten team league is good at opening up the competition then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sraman Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 Just goes to show how a ten team league is good at opening up the competition then. Also shows why I am in favour of the safety net of the 42 team league! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Das Root Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 Highly possible, I certainly wouldn't complain if we only had to go to Ibrox and Parkhead once a season instead of 2. Two of the filthiest away games of the year. Shoved into a filthy corner of the ground, having to smell the filth all around and then the other filth treating you like filth. Why would anyone want 4x that each year? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heartsfc_fan Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 we've already moved away from a 10 team league because it was boring playing the same teams over and over would much rather see different opposition eg Dundee, Dunfermline, Falkirk etc than 4 games or more against Murderwell and Aberdeen as for the crowds going down ina bigger league they are ALREADY going downhill fast including ours we have been playing open, attractive football as have Killie and Motherwell in a smaller league with more chance of relegation it will be more negative and that is a fact ^ Sums up my thoughts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jarhead Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 As other posters have suggested maybe the size of the league is a bit of a red herring. IMO what most of us really want is to watch a competitive league at reasonable prices. But, as the size of the league is the hot topic, 12 teams has to be the worst option. 44 games or the split, both have been a disaster. 18 or (God forbid) 20 teams just isn't realistic. The fact that Dundee have been deducted 25 points and will still finish mid table shows there is just not enough strength in depth for these numbers in the top league. 14 teams is not for me. Playing only 5 games in the lower end was a shite experience. I couldn't face the thought of 14 dross games if we weren't in the top 6. This leaves 16 or 10. I like the idea of 16 but that would leave the same problem we have now (in fact would probably make it worse) that relegated teams are left in serious financial difficulties. IMO it is the increased safety net of SPL2 that will win the day for a 10+12. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
world_3 Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 Every other serious footballing country in the world has an 18 or 20 team 1st division (in Scotland's case back in the day when we still mattered we also had the same setup - and I doubt that's a coincidence). The only people dead set against an 18 team league are the OF - that should tell us all we need to know. And all the pish spouted here about meaningless games against smaller clubs forgets the fact that we've often been turfed out of the Scottish Cup or the League Cup by teams in lower divisions. Apart from the OF the difference between the SPL and the lower leagues isn't that great, we sound like the Glasgow bigots when we start belittling the smaller clubs. You get clubs like Hibs putting forward an idea of 10 elite clubs playing each other a minimum of 4 times a year even though in their last Scottish Cup game at home they can't beat a team 2 leagues below them. Absolutely preposterous. The solution for the non-OF clubs is quite simply to give up on the SPL and rejoin the SFL. If all the other SPL clubs did this and the choice for the bigot sisters was either to swallow humble pie and rejoin the SFL too with an even share of the TV money or not rejoin and go it alone then we'll very quickly see a climbdown. The alternative is an American-style World Series of Bigotry where they only play each other every week, week in week out with no end, something which even the most rabid of OF gloryhunters would find unacceptable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
world_3 Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 As other posters have suggested maybe the size of the league is a bit of a red herring. IMO what most of us really want is to watch a competitive league at reasonable prices. But, as the size of the league is the hot topic, 12 teams has to be the worst option. 44 games or the split, both have been a disaster. 18 or (God forbid) 20 teams just isn't realistic. The fact that Dundee have been deducted 25 points and will still finish mid table shows there is just not enough strength in depth for these numbers in the top league. 14 teams is not for me. Playing only 5 games in the lower end was a shite experience. I couldn't face the thought of 14 dross games if we weren't in the top 6. This leaves 16 or 10. I like the idea of 16 but that would leave the same problem we have now (in fact would probably make it worse) that relegated teams are left in serious financial difficulties. IMO it is the increased safety net of SPL2 that will win the day for a 10+12. Why not? Hibs, who are considered either the 4th or 5th biggest team in Scotland, can't even come near to beating a team 2 leagues below them at home in the Scottish Cup. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamboAberdeen Posted January 18, 2011 Share Posted January 18, 2011 Football is in entertainment industry but 10 league brings boredom. Entertainment and boredom rarely sleep together. Yes TV income may increase in short term, but attendance will surely drop, resulting in fall of our main income reportedly 8 times more than TV income in Scotland. And TV income will fall in long term due to low interest/viewing. "Customer is the god" as business text books tell you. You have to provide what your customer wants, otherwise your business will fail eventually. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie-Brown Posted January 18, 2011 Share Posted January 18, 2011 Football is in entertainment industry but 10 league brings boredom. Entertainment and boredom rarely sleep together. Yes TV income may increase in short term, but attendance will surely drop, resulting in fall of our main income reportedly 8 times more than TV income in Scotland. And TV income will fall in long term due to low interest/viewing. "Customer is the god" as business text books tell you. You have to provide what your customer wants, otherwise your business will fail eventually. Yes anybody that actually wants a 10 team SPL is an arse in my opinion. Even as a 'temporary' solution and as a means to an eventually expanded league - how can making the league smaller again - against the wishes of the overwheliming majority of fans/customers somehow lead to a bigger league in future? If 10 teams at the top brings in the most money that they claim is the reason for it being the most viable solution when are those in the top 10 ever going to be motivated enough or financially able to decrease their % share by expanding the league again at some unspecified mythical future date? It's a fairy story and will never happen. At best they could be honest and say the 10 team SPL1 + 12 team SPL2 is only being proposed to prevent some clubs from financial collapse because the TV companies have us over a barrell and are dictating terms which also suit the narrow interests of some of our SPL member clubs whilst throwing a bone to those in the SFL. It's all bollocks - Scottish football is fecked as long as short term financial necessity and self serving vested interests throw up sheeite like this and the paying customer - the fitba fan is just supposed to like it or lump it. Maybe it will take fans staying away in greater numbers and further decline in attendances and the SPL as a spectacle until those who control our game are finally brought to their senses and Scottish football is properly re-structured so that football & competition can flourish and wealth disparities are reigned in not enhanced by stupid league structures and voting rights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juan Rom?n Riquelme Posted January 18, 2011 Share Posted January 18, 2011 :justno: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peebo Posted January 18, 2011 Share Posted January 18, 2011 Am I the only one who thinks a 10 team league is a good idea? I would rather watch us play Hibs, Celtic, Rangers and Aberdeen four times a season than the likes of Morton or Raith Rovers. Bigger games will bring bigger crowds, more games on the TV and more money. We had a 10 team league in the 80s and that is the last time the Old Firm were challenged and when Scotland had a decent football team. A 10 team league is the way forward. Anyone else agree? Yes, I agree. The current 12-team league is unsustainable, and I think a bigger league would just dilute the quality even further. Like you, I'd hate to give up derbies and games against the Old Firm for games against teams who'd bring about 50 fans to Tynecastle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tasavallan Posted January 18, 2011 Share Posted January 18, 2011 We were relegated from a ten-team premier league three times - no thanks! Yes, but it was 2 up / 2 down and look at the squads we had then. I do not see the current Hearts regime letting the club deteriorate as the then Board did in 77, 79 & 81. BTW, I enjoyed Hearts time in the 1st Division. For the record, I am not against a 10 team league but I will not commit until Topping & Doncaster publish the proposed changes to the constitution. For me it is not the number of clubs but a more level playing field in respect to the distribution of revenue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tasavallan Posted January 18, 2011 Share Posted January 18, 2011 "Customer is the god" as business text books tell you. You have to provide what your customer wants, otherwise your business will fail eventually. The question is who is the targeted customer? Is it the supporter who pays money to turn up at the game or is the wider audience who may wish to watch the game in the comfort of his/her home or in pub/club. Due to falling attendances in Scotland, clubs (even the OF) need the money from the broadcasters and the broadcasters are becoming more and more influencial in deciding how the league will be run. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
interista Posted January 18, 2011 Share Posted January 18, 2011 As other posters have suggested maybe the size of the league is a bit of a red herring. IMO what most of us really want is to watch a competitive league at reasonable prices. But, as the size of the league is the hot topic, 12 teams has to be the worst option. 44 games or the split, both have been a disaster. 18 or (God forbid) 20 teams just isn't realistic. The fact that Dundee have been deducted 25 points and will still finish mid table shows there is just not enough strength in depth for these numbers in the top league. 14 teams is not for me. Playing only 5 games in the lower end was a shite experience. I couldn't face the thought of 14 dross games if we weren't in the top 6. This leaves 16 or 10. I like the idea of 16 but that would leave the same problem we have now (in fact would probably make it worse) that relegated teams are left in serious financial difficulties. IMO it is the increased safety net of SPL2 that will win the day for a 10+12. My position exactly. 10 teams is the most practicable solution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eddiepolio Posted January 18, 2011 Share Posted January 18, 2011 We will NEVER win a 10 team league, we MIGHT win a 18 team league. Only having to play the ugly sisters twice as opposed to four times would at least give is a chance. Imagine playing them twice rapid then going 13 or 14 game without playing them? And the bottom line should be fans have unanimously said they don't want a top 10 and without the fans its just 22 blokes running around on a bit of grass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seymour M Hersh Posted January 18, 2011 Share Posted January 18, 2011 The figures they are presently basing their scaremongering on were thrown together by that ersehole from down Easter Road. Anyone that believes them is a feckin loony. He probably puts the stats together for the AGW fascists as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mundojambo Posted January 18, 2011 Share Posted January 18, 2011 i'm surprised nobody has made this point before, but if you put all your eggs in the TV basket, then surely you need people to watch the games on TV. if the standard of football is not worth watching, and nobody goes to the game at the stadium, why would they bother watching it on TV? i agree with a larger league, i don't know of any top league in the world with less than 16 teams. if you get rid of all the dross and end up with a small league, then these "big games" are no longer big games any more, and are the norm, therefore not as special and might eventually lead to further decline in spectators. i would like to see a 16 team SPL with 2-legged league cup ties. i hope this 10 team SPL and SPL2 idea is only temporary until scottish football gets it's finances in order, then we can move on to a bigger league. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
interista Posted January 18, 2011 Share Posted January 18, 2011 i'm surprised nobody has made this point before, but if you put all your eggs in the TV basket, then surely you need people to watch the games on TV. if the standard of football is not worth watching, and nobody goes to the game at the stadium, why would they bother watching it on TV? i agree with a larger league, i don't know of any top league in the world with less than 16 teams. if you get rid of all the dross and end up with a small league, then these "big games" are no longer big games any more, and are the norm, therefore not as special and might eventually lead to further decline in spectators. i would like to see a 16 team SPL with 2-legged league cup ties. i hope this 10 team SPL and SPL2 idea is only temporary until scottish football gets it's finances in order, then we can move on to a bigger league. How about the Austrian Bundesliga, the Swiss Super League or the Slovenian PrvaLiga?? All three have ten teams playing each other four times for a total of 36 matches Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john brownlee Posted January 18, 2011 Share Posted January 18, 2011 never heard of any of their teams, except maybe young boys of bairyn, Austrian team something Vienna, as for the rest, ask an englishman if he has danced in the streets of raith. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randy Marsh Posted January 18, 2011 Share Posted January 18, 2011 How about the Austrian Bundesliga, the Swiss Super League or the Slovenian PrvaLiga?? All three have ten teams playing each other four times for a total of 36 matches Denmark also but I dont think you can classify these as the 'top' leagues in Europe. I think the Swiss league is quite underated to be fair as their sides do far better in Europe than ours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
topcat Posted January 18, 2011 Share Posted January 18, 2011 never heard of any of their teams, except maybe young boys of bairyn, Austrian team something Vienna, as for the rest, ask an englishman if he has danced in the streets of raith. You've never heard of Grasshoppers Zurich, Austria Vienna (Thomas Flogel's other team), Rapid Vienna or Red Bull Salzburg or even Sturm Graz and the Arnold Schwarzeneger Stadium? Most bizarrely you've forgotten all about about Sir Robbie Neilson's wonderstrike against in Basel? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnjl Posted January 18, 2011 Share Posted January 18, 2011 How about the Austrian Bundesliga, the Swiss Super League or the Slovenian PrvaLiga?? All three have ten teams playing each other four times for a total of 36 matches so we should be following in the footsteps of austria, switzerland and slovenia? really it is irrelevant how ten team "superleagues" works for them as we had a ten team league in scotland for ages and it was shite, so we know already how it will work here. the 12 team league (split or no split) was slightly better and why? because there were slightly more teams in it. all that will be achieved is that the old firm will get slightly more tv money while the rest of us will have to share the remainder with sides in the spl2 meaning the disparity in income is increased once again. more competition beneath the old firm but no competition to the old firm. business as usual and so very very sad that so many people fall for it every time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
interista Posted January 18, 2011 Share Posted January 18, 2011 You've never heard of Grasshoppers Zurich, Austria Vienna (Thomas Flogel's other team), Rapid Vienna or Red Bull Salzburg or even Sturm Graz and the Arnold Schwarzeneger Stadium? Most bizarrely you've forgotten all about about Sir Robbie Neilson's wonderstrike against in Basel? What about Maribor? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bert Le Clos Posted January 18, 2011 Share Posted January 18, 2011 Albania - 12 Teams Azerbaijan - 12 Teams Belarus - 12 Teams Belgium - 16 Teams Bosnia-Herzegovina - 16 Teams Bulgaira - 16 Teams Croatia - 16 Teams Cyprus - 14 Teams Czech Rep. - 16 Teams Denmark - 12 Teams England - 20 Teams Finland - 14 Teams France - 20 Teams FYROM - 12 Teams Germany - 18 Teams Greece - 16 Teams Hungary - 16 Teams Iceland - 12 Teams Israel - 16 Teams Italy - 20 Teams Moldova - 14 Teams Montenegro - 12 Teams Netherlands - 18 Teams Northern Ireland - 12 Teams Norway - 16 Teams Poland - 16 Teams Portugal - 16 Teams Romania - 18 Teams Russia - 16 Teams Serbia - 16 Teams Slovakia - 12 Teams Spain - 20 Teams Sweden - 16 Teams Turkey - 18 Teams Ukraine - 16 Teams Wales - 12 Teams Yes their are some nations on that list with far bigger populations, and far better football teams. But there are also many with similar populations and a similar, or worse standard of football. If they can all support leagues with more than 10 teams, why should we feel that a ten team league is the best option just because countries like Swizerland and Austria do? And the only other team in the whole of Europe to have a split? The giants of Kazahkstan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
topcat Posted January 18, 2011 Share Posted January 18, 2011 The idea that we should always look to the 'top' leagues as indicators of the way forward is to draw a false parallell. What works for them isn't sure to work for us anymore than wearing the same brand of boots as Rudi Skacel will make you as good as Rudi Skacel at taking Free Kicks or that as having your own TV channel seems to work for Arsenal it should also work for Aberdeen. There are a few uncomfortable realities that too many people are ignoring * Scotland is too small to have one of the 'top' leagues regardless of how many teams are in it * As the globalisation of media coverage progresses the relative financial strength of the bigger leagues will only increase * Rangers and Celtic are not going to be the massive global brands their rhetoric claims they're destined to be The sooner everybody gets there head around these ideas the sooner Scotland's clubs can have a sensible discussion about what kind of league they are going to be as opposed to what kind of league they wish they were. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jarhead Posted January 18, 2011 Share Posted January 18, 2011 Why not? Hibs, who are considered either the 4th or 5th biggest team in Scotland, can't even come near to beating a team 2 leagues below them at home in the Scottish Cup. Anything can happen in a cup tie so I wouldn't want to base the size of the league on what happened in a one off game. It's all to do with the disparity between top and bottom that puts me off an 18 team league. Our good form aside, if we are being honest the gap between 2nd and 3rd is huge. Until that gap is bridged it would serve no purpose to introduce teams into the league just to receive a right pumping off the OF. IMO a ten team league has major flaws but until the complete package is put forward it's impossible to make a proper judgement on it. Also, there is a misconception that we got rid of the 10 team league because it was pants when it was actually the price the SPL had to pay to get a clean breakaway from the SFL, ie to get enough First Division votes they had to have a greater chance of getting a slice of the pie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DETTY29 Posted January 18, 2011 Share Posted January 18, 2011 We were relegated from a ten-team premier league three times - no thanks! And last day win requirements under Sandy Clark and that wee hamster chops McLean. Not forgetting a gumshield wearing Colin Cameron potentially saving us from relegation less than a season after winning the Cup and only being a couple of results away from being champions. At this moment in time only 2 teams are guaranteed safety if there is a ten team top division. Tell me how that gives any other team relative security to progress. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marvin Posted January 18, 2011 Share Posted January 18, 2011 No ten team league. Its all to help rankers or selick win the title every year. If teams like Killie, Motherwell etc played them twice in a 14 team league say, they could get a win at home or draw away or both. But playing 4 times the likelihood is that the old squirm will take more points off them thus easing their passage to the top. And they've got bigger squads to pick from than everyone else. Its a bad idea. Even the Hearts haven't got the depth of squad that the unwashed have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Dover Posted January 18, 2011 Share Posted January 18, 2011 No ten team league. Its all to help rankers or selick win the title every year. If teams like Killie, Motherwell etc played them twice in a 14 team league say, they could get a win at home or draw away or both. But playing 4 times the likelihood is that the old squirm will take more points off them thus easing their passage to the top. And they've got bigger squads to pick from than everyone else. Its a bad idea. Even the Hearts haven't got the depth of squad that the unwashed have. It's a bold and unlikely step but what we would have to do is embarrass the OF into accepting 'equalizing' measures ! Sadly I cant see any appetite for that, especially when even the ex. 1st Minister didn't feel the need to comment on their unhealthy domination of the game ! The problem is that I suspect they are also seen by many in power as putting Scotland 'on the map' as it were and there is no greart heart to see fairness attained if it means lesser teams like Hearts , Hibs , Aberdeen or Motherwell disappearing out the Euro draw at the very 1st hurdle What we need is for the OF to gratiously accept a smaller slice of the pie, taking comfort in the knowledge it will improve the league in general and thus provide them with the 'stiffer tests' they crave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marvin Posted January 18, 2011 Share Posted January 18, 2011 It's a bold and unlikely step but what we would have to do is embarrass the OF into accepting 'equalizing' measures ! Sadly I cant see any appetite for that, especially when even the ex. 1st Minister didn't feel the need to comment on their unhealthy domination of the game ! The problem is that I suspect they are also seen by many in power as putting Scotland 'on the map' as it were and there is no greart heart to see fairness attained if it means lesser teams like Hearts , Hibs , Aberdeen or Motherwell disappearing out the Euro draw at the very 1st hurdle What we need is for the OF to gratiously accept a smaller slice of the pie, taking comfort in the knowledge it will improve the league in general and thus provide them with the 'stiffer tests' they crave or even feck off and leave the rest of us to it we can live without the OF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sexton Hardcastle Posted January 18, 2011 Share Posted January 18, 2011 Terry Butcher is having a brilliant rant about this just now. Spot on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie-Brown Posted January 18, 2011 Share Posted January 18, 2011 Fans Boycotting the televised games is the only way to teach these arseholes (Doncaster & SPL clubs in favour of 10 teams) a lesson. The TV Companies, advertisers and Sponsors won't hang around long if the televised 'product' is played in half empty stadiums with a flat atmosphere. If these arseholes want to totally disregard the fans and take their continued attendance for granted then for fans angered at the way they've been shafted and disregarded the only option is to hit them where it hurts - the showcase games on TV .... you can still see these games in the pub or at home anyway if you have access to Sky/ESPN ..... don't go to away games either - don't be a mug punter and put money into these clubs coffers. Unless and until the clubs adopt real and radical change for the betterment of football not just try to preserve revenue streams or the current shabby set up, they don't deserve your financial support in these matters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
topcat Posted January 19, 2011 Share Posted January 19, 2011 Albania - 12 Teams Azerbaijan - 12 Teams Belarus - 12 Teams Belgium - 16 Teams Bosnia-Herzegovina - 16 Teams Bulgaira - 16 Teams Croatia - 16 Teams Cyprus - 14 Teams Czech Rep. - 16 Teams Denmark - 12 Teams England - 20 Teams Finland - 14 Teams France - 20 Teams FYROM - 12 Teams Germany - 18 Teams Greece - 16 Teams Hungary - 16 Teams Iceland - 12 Teams Israel - 16 Teams Italy - 20 Teams Moldova - 14 Teams Montenegro - 12 Teams Netherlands - 18 Teams Northern Ireland - 12 Teams Norway - 16 Teams Poland - 16 Teams Portugal - 16 Teams Romania - 18 Teams Russia - 16 Teams Serbia - 16 Teams Slovakia - 12 Teams Spain - 20 Teams Sweden - 16 Teams Turkey - 18 Teams Ukraine - 16 Teams Wales - 12 Teams Yes their are some nations on that list with far bigger populations, and far better football teams. But there are also many with similar populations and a similar, or worse standard of football. If they can all support leagues with more than 10 teams, why should we feel that a ten team league is the best option just because countries like Swizerland and Austria do? And the only other team in the whole of Europe to have a split? The giants of Kazahkstan. A few other countries in Europe have a split Northern Ireland is the only one to have the Same system as the SPL The 12 team leagues in Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan and Wales play each other home and away before splitting into two groups of 6 who play each other twice more giving a 32 game season The 14 team top flight in Cyprus has a split as well and probably wins the award for wackiest league structure in Europe After the 26 game regular season Teams 1-4 play each other twice more deciding the championship Teams 5-8 play each other twice more deciding the mid table places Teams 9-12 play each other twice more deciding the 3rd relegation place Teams 13 & 14 are relegated Giving a 32 game season unless you finish 13th or 14th in which case your season ends in march The other two 14 team leagues are Finland and Moldova which only have 26 game seasons Teams in The other 12 team leagues Albania, Belarus, Denmark, Macedonia, Montenegro & Slovakia play each other 3 times giving a 33 game season meaning that some teams will get 16 home games and others will get 17 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.