Terry Butcher (Merged topics)

[shaun.lawson]

Can we please stop flinging these red herrings into the mix-

Aberdeen and United did not top the league BECAUSE it was 10 team

Nor have the OF ever been 'run close' BECAUSE it was 10 team

In fact the phrase 'in spite of' would surely be more accurate?

 

Now for the sake of balance I'd also suggest that the 1998 breakaway

didn't go to 12 teams BECAUSE it was better

I think we're all now agreed it was simply a deal to pander to the SFL

As to why it changed again later ........ dont know. ( Mr Lawson? )

 

It's not changed again, Ben. It was expanded to 12 in 2000, and has remained the same ever since. And I'm not arguing Aberdeen, United or we were successful BECAUSE it was a 10-team league; I'm simply showing that a 10-team league didn't stop any of us being successful, and that we all had less success when the league was expanded.

[shaun.lawson]

If an expanded league will mean more supposedly meaningless matches and more one-sided games why do that vast majority of Scottish fans polled want that? Simple they have experienced 35+ years of small leagues of 10/12 teams - they see what it leads to and don't want it anymore. They also see that even excluding the English Premiership clubs from the Championship to the Conference plus the majority of major European countries all have leagues bigger than 10 or 12 and manage to cope with all these 'meaningless' fixtures and one-sided games.

 

My interpretation? Scottish football's in a mess, has generally been monotonously predictable and of low standard for some considerable time (with this season a rare exception), and fans want change. So they seize on a change in numbers to something which hasn't been tried since the 70s as a quick fix, and ignore the potential downsides. It's human nature.

 

But real change - better, more enlightened coaching, football played with patience and intelligence, a salary cap, summer football - is barely discussed by anyone, largely because it's long term and results wouldn't be seen for years. Changing the numbers is only ever going to be cosmetic when the deep rooted issues remain.

[shaun.lawson]

Shaun - the SPL was expanded in 1986 from 10 to 12 because there was simply too much pressure and fear of relegation in the 10 team set up - in it's 10 seasons from 1975 to 1986 bigger clubs like Hearts, Hibs, Motherwell, Kilmarnock and Dundee had all been relegated some of them several times. The league was expanded to create a bigger safety net for our bigger clubs because then as now relegation was terribly damaging for clubs financially and in terms of attendances and support base - they lost a lot fans & money and that damaged them.

 

Ah - you mean it was changed because of self-interest? The same self-interest we attack the OF for at every turn?

[Ben Dover]

It's not changed again, Ben. It was expanded to 12 in 2000, and has remained the same ever since. And I'm not arguing Aberdeen, United or we were successful BECAUSE it was a 10-team league; I'm simply showing that a 10-team league didn't stop any of us being successful, and that we all had less success when the league was expanded.

 

I should have said earlier Shaun, during the period post 1975 when it was still The Scottish league Premier div but went from 10-12 and perhaps back again?

[Charlie-Brown]

My interpretation? Scottish football's in a mess, has generally been monotonously predictable and of low standard for some considerable time (with this season a rare exception), and fans want change. So they seize on a change in numbers to something which hasn't been tried since the 70s as a quick fix, and ignore the potential downsides. It's human nature.

 

But real change - better, more enlightened coaching, football played with patience and intelligence, a salary cap, summer football - is barely discussed by anyone, largely because it's long term and results wouldn't be seen for years. Changing the numbers is only ever going to be cosmetic when the deep rooted issues remain.

 

So you don't think that too high a percentage chance of relegation (even higher if you exclude the OF), too much fear based football - even greater evidenced in the 10 team structure, too many repetitive, stale and predictable fixtures are valid concerns and reasons why a 10 team SPL has been ditched 3 times already because it does NOTHING to address or improve the quality of football played, the ability to play & protect the development of young players, or enhance supporters interest and appeal?

 

Shaun you, Levein & Doncaster are seriously of your rockers if you think genuinely think 10 teams x 4 times per season concentrates quality - do you somehow know better than the overwhelming majority of Scottish football fans who have been watching & paying for that product, complained about it before and have zero wish to return to it but will no doubt have it imposed on them yet again despite it's manifest folly?

[Ben Dover]

Ah - you mean it was changed because of self-interest? The same self-interest we attack the OF for at every turn?

 

There is self interest and SELF INTEREST though Shaun

To continue the Titanic theme, We're clinging on for our bloody lives here and aye, maybe we're shoving the steerage passengers away from our tiny bit flotsam, but the OF want the whole bloody lifeboat to themselves and are only

allowing a half dozen of us in SO WE CAN DO THE FECKIN ROWING !

[shaun.lawson]

I should have said earlier Shaun, during the period post 1975 when it was still The Scottish league Premier div but went from 10-12 and perhaps back again?

 

It went up to 12 in 1986, back down to 10 in 1988, up to 12 in 1991, back down to 10 in 1994, and up to 12 again in 2000. The expansions were invariably because of self-interest (either of struggling top flight or, when the SPL was formed, unhappy SFL clubs); moving back down was to stop clubs exhausting themselves through too many fixtures.

 

So you don't think that too high a percentage chance of relegation (even higher if you exclude the OF), too much fear based football - even greater evidenced in the 10 team structure, too many repetitive, stale and predictable fixtures are valid concerns and reasons why a 10 team SPL has been ditched 3 times already because it does NOTHING to address or improve the quality of football played, the ability to play & protect the development of young players, or enhance supporters interest and appeal?

 

Shaun you, Levein & Doncaster are seriously of your rockers if you think genuinely think 10 teams x 4 times per season concentrates quality - do you somehow know better than the overwhelming majority of Scottish football fans who have been watching & paying for that product, complained about it before and have zero wish to return to it but will no doubt have it imposed on them yet again despite it's manifest folly?

 

I'd agree with you if a 12-team league had resulted in more positive football, Charlie; but it hasn't. The product's just got even worse. When I talk about 'concentrating quality', I'm only talking in relative terms: but expanding the league will lead to more mismatches, not less.

 

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Scotland has a need for small divisions because the gap in size between its two biggest clubs and the rest, three mid-ranking clubs and the rest, and even the Motherwells and Killies of this world and the rest is so vast. Dundee United, Scotland's sixth biggest club, get gates of, what, 40% of what we, the third biggest club do? That's the problem, and has vexed the game's administrators for many decades now.

[Charlie-Brown]

Ah - you mean it was changed because of self-interest? The same self-interest we attack the OF for at every turn?

 

No it was change because it was damaging Scottish Football - yes it affected these clubs but it also affected all the other clubs under far greater threat of relegation and spending time outside the top division - the majority of Scottish clubs realised the severely damaging effects of relegation not only financially but on their ability to be able to compete. How can you grow Scottish football when under a 10 team SPL set up half our our full time clubs must by necessity of size be excluded from the top league?

 

Look Shaun you cannot polish a turd - no matter whether you call it the 'championship' or give them extra fixtures, money or promotion opportunities there simply isn't the same appetite for fans to attend what is seen naturally and correctly as 2nd fare football. Every club that has spent time in the lower division has been damaged financially and in terms of lost support. Hibs in 1999 are the unique exception but every other clubs Hearts, Dundee, Killie, Partick, Motherwell, Dunfermline, Airdrie, Raith etc have all lost support in big numbers whilst being in the lower league.

 

A 10 team / 12 team SPL by necessity of smaller size pushes many of our bigger and medium size clubs into the lower division. That harms and has harmed Scottish Football. The weight of evidence is undeniable!

[rossthejambo]

I'd agree with you if a 12-team league had resulted in more positive football, Charlie; but it hasn't. The product's just got even worse. When I talk about 'concentrating quality', I'm only talking in relative terms: but expanding the league will lead to more mismatches, not less.

 

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Scotland has a need for small divisions because the gap in size between its two biggest clubs and the rest, three mid-ranking clubs and the rest, and even the Motherwells and Killies of this world and the rest is so vast. Dundee United, Scotland's sixth biggest club, get gates of, what, 40% of what we, the third biggest club do? That's the problem, and has vexed the game's administrators for many decades now.

 

Smaller clubs can't get bigger if they're stuck in a continuous cycle of promotion/relegation from the top 2 divisions. Teams like Partick, Dunfermline, Dundee and even Raith and Ross County need to be given the opportunity to grow and expand by being in a bigger top flight. Sure there would be mismatches to start with but this would only be short-term IMO. The gap would close and the league would be more competitive IMO with teams like Hearts, Hibs, Aberdeen only playing the OF twice each, would give more of an opportunity to close the gap.

 

It's a long term fix we need, and this would do it IMO.

[shaun.lawson]

No it was change because it was damaging Scottish Football - yes it affected these clubs but it also affected all the other clubs under far greater threat of relegation and spending time outside the top division - the majority of Scottish clubs realised the severely damaging effects of relegation not only financially but on there ability to be able to compete. How can you grow Scottish football when under a 10 team SPL set up half our our full time clubs must by necessity of size be excluded from the top league?

 

Look Shaun you cannot polish a turd - no matter whether you call it the 'championship' or give them extra fixtures, money or promotion opportunities there simply isn't the same appetite for fans to attend what is seen naturally and correctly as 2nd fare football. Every club that has spent time in the lower division has been damaged financially and in terms of lost support. Hibs in 1999 are the unique exception but every other clubs Hearts, Dundee, Killie, Partick, Motherwell, Dunfermline, Airdrie, Raith etc have all lost support in big numbers whilst being in the lower league.

 

A 10 team / 12 team SPL by necessity of smaller size pushes many of our bigger and medium size clubs into the lower division. That harms and has harmed Scottish Football. The weight of evidence is undeniable!

 

Actually, the weight of evidence is that close title races have happened more often when there were only ten teams. If mid-ranking and lower clubs aren't willing to take the risks which accompany it, well...

 

All clubs have the ability to adopt a positive approach to how they play and run themselves sensibly. A 10-team division should remove any complacency, and ensure they're always focused on improvement. If they choose to adopt a negative approach, more fool them.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

Actually, the weight of evidence is that close title races have happened more often when there were only ten teams. If mid-ranking and lower clubs aren't willing to take the risks which accompany it, well...

 

All clubs have the ability to adopt a positive approach to how they play and run themselves sensibly. A 10-team division should remove any complacency, and ensure they're always focused on improvement. If they choose to adopt a negative approach, more fool them.

 

 

Close title races tend to happen when clubs are closer in financial parity. That this has most recently happened when there were 10 teams in Scotland's top flight is a coincidence.

[Charlie-Brown]

Actually, the weight of evidence is that close title races have happened more often when there were only ten teams. If mid-ranking and lower clubs aren't willing to take the risks which accompany it, well...

 

All clubs have the ability to adopt a positive approach to how they play and run themselves sensibly. A 10-team division should remove any complacency, and ensure they're always focused on improvement. If they choose to adopt a negative approach, more fool them.

 

Shaun they could all play 4-2-4 or any other more attacking formation and style they wanted the facts are that 2 or 3 from 10 (realistically 2/3 from 8) will face relegation at the end of the season and the 'armageddon' that entails. Doncaster's 'championship' plans are further turd polishing over and above his fatally flawed SPL proposals. Fear of relegation begets fear based football not confidence and positivity especially when the threat is real and direct threat to peoples livelyhoods ie managers and players jobs as well as clubs finances.

 

Fear of relegation does remove complacency but does not focus the mind on improvement - it focuses the mind on not being relegated by whatever means possible and the ends justify the means. This cannot and will not ever produce positive football unless there are more Tony Mowbray type managers prepared to sacrifice their clubs for their footballing principles....however the reality is there will be far more Bertie Auld / Tommy Mclean / John Lambie / Joe Jordan / Csaba Laszlo / Craig Brown type mentality amongst managers. Self preservation will rule their thinking that is assured regardless of entertainment going out the window.

[Charlie-Brown]

Close title races tend to happen when clubs are closer in financial parity. That this has most recently happened when there were 10 teams in Scotland's top flight is a coincidence.

 

Correct and in Shaun most recently cited examples Hearts 1986, Aberdeen 1991 and Hearts 1998 the league was expanded very soon if not immediately after....why? Because small leagues / relegation pain has, is and will threaten and continue to damage a core element of full-time Scottish football clubs until it is finally abolished or these clubs are extinguished or become part-time clubs. How does that help improve anything?

[shaun.lawson]

Shaun they could all play 4-2-4 or any other more attacking formation and style they wanted the facts are that 2 or 3 from 10 (realistically 2/3 from 8) will face relegation at the end of the season and the 'armageddon' that entails. Doncaster's 'championship' plans are further turd polishing over and above his fatally flawed SPL proposals. Fear of relegation begets fear based football not confidence and positivity especially when the threat is real and direct threat to peoples livelyhoods ie managers and players jobs as well as clubs finances.

 

Fear of relegation does remove complacency but does not focus the mind on improvement - it focuses the mind on not being relegated by whatever means possible and the ends justify the means. This cannot and will not ever produce positive football unless there are more Tony Mowbray type managers prepared to sacrifice their clubs for their footballing principles....however the reality is there will be far more Bertie Auld / Tommy Mclean / John Lambie / Joe Jordan / Csaba Laszlo / Craig Brown type mentality amongst managers. Self preservation will rule their thinking that is assured regardless of entertainment going out the window.

 

So explain ICT's approach this season. Or Motherwell's when McGhee took over after they'd just finished 11th. Or Killie's under Mixu despite huge financial constraints and finishing 11th last season. The positive approaches of all three were or are being rewarded. Meanwhile, in the case of Hearts, Aberdeen, Hibs and really Dundee United too, it would take the most phenomenal incompetence to end up relegated, even in a 10-team division. That shouldn't be an excuse for any of us.

[Charlie-Brown]

So explain ICT's approach this season. Or Motherwell's when McGhee took over after they'd just finished 11th. Or Killie's under Mixu despite huge financial constraints and finishing 11th last season. The positive approaches of all three were or are being rewarded. Meanwhile, in the case of Hearts, Aberdeen, Hibs and really Dundee United too, it would take the most phenomenal incompetence to end up relegated, even in a 10-team division. That shouldn't be an excuse for any of us.

 

Shaun you are completely missing the point - even if ALL teams played positively the FACTS are 3 of the 10 / 8 if you exclude Rangers & Celtic will still end up in the bottom 3 places and face the prospect of being relegated. Only the top 7 places are safe - how big is the spread from 4th - 8th place? more clubs can and will face the potential threat of relegation for a bigger part of the season - that cannot and will not do anything to improve the type and quality of football because the percentage chance of failure is too high. Yes there should be more promotion and relegation opportunities to keep vitality and freshness in the league but the potential of 3 going down from 14, 16, 18 or 20 in an expanded league is far less damaging than 3 from 10 that is undenaible!

[Socrates]

If you were relegated out of a 16 or 18 team league, you really would be facing oblivion. One of the good things about this proposal appears to be that some of the money will go to the SPL2, which means that the immediate impact of relegation should be less severe, giving clubs the opportunity to bounce back.

 

The problem with the idea that teams will suddenly become creative and play better football if they aren't worried by relegation is that it isn't true. Look at the Premiership as an example. Mid-table teams tend not to play with too much flair and bring through lots of youngsters. You could make a case that teams like Blackburn, Birmingham, Everton and so on are regularly safe from relegation exactly because they don't take this approach.

 

There are plenty teams in the SPL already that should be safe from relegation unless they really have an awful season, but they don't all introduce the youngsters or play nice football. Aberdeen, Hibs, Kilmarnock until this season (although I think if you took out Eremenko they would be ordinary) and some others. Additionally, teams which do better at bringing through youngsters, such as Motherwell and Dundee Utd, are not seeing any reward in terms of attracting more fans.

[Charlie-Brown]

If you were relegated out of a 16 or 18 team league, you really would be facing oblivion. One of the good things about this proposal appears to be that some of the money will go to the SPL2, which means that the immediate impact of relegation should be less severe, giving clubs the opportunity to bounce back.

 

The problem with the idea that teams will suddenly become creative and play better football if they aren't worried by relegation is that it isn't true. Look at the Premiership as an example. Mid-table teams tend not to play with too much flair and bring through lots of youngsters. You could make a case that teams like Blackburn, Birmingham, Everton and so on are regularly safe from relegation exactly because they don't take this approach.

 

There are plenty teams in the SPL already that should be safe from relegation unless they really have an awful season, but they don't all introduce the youngsters or play nice football. Aberdeen, Hibs, Kilmarnock until this season (although I think if you took out Eremenko they would be ordinary) and some others. Additionally, teams which do better at bringing through youngsters, such as Motherwell and Dundee Utd, are not seeing any reward in terms of attracting more fans.

 

The SPL currently feeds approx ?1.8M down to the SFL as part of it's separation agreement - Neil Doncaster is quoted as saying this will now be increasing to approx ?3M by using the money currently allocated to 11th & 12th place in the SPL so they will all get another approx ?120K per year if it is equally divided but perhaps slightly more/less depending if it is split based on finishing league positions. They will also increase their fixture list from 36 games to 44 games which assumes fans can afford to finance an almost 25% increase in number of games plus also an additional 2-4 play-off fixtures for promotion/relegation places for some teams ie potentially up-to 48 league matches for some which is a 33% increase - might suit some clubs but what about their fans who suffer additional financial burden to support their team?

 

It is true that SFL / 'Championship' clubs will get more money however it is still a massive drop compared to being in the SPL and it simply isn't enough of an increase to bridge the gap between 1st tier / 2nd tier - at best it might save some from administration or part-time football for a while longer but it is nowhere near bringing the clubs up to comparable income levels enjoyed by SPL clubs.

[Charlie-Brown]

If you argue in favour of a top 10 clubs and say that relegation from a 16 or 18 team league would mean oblivion consider the following;

 

I have ranked our major & mid-sized clubs based on my perception of size

 

1. Rangers

2. Celtic

3. Hearts

4. Hibs

5. Aberdeen

6. Dundee Utd

7. Dundee

8. Motherwell

9. Kilmarnock

10. Dunfermline

11. Falkirk

12. Partick

13. Airdrie

14. St Mirren

15. St Johnstone

16. Raith Rovers

17. Inverness

18. Livingston

19. Hamilton

20. Morton

21. Ayr Utd

22. Queen of the South

 

So assuming these clubs would comprise the all new SPL Premiership 10 & Championship 12 for most seasons - with potentially 3 up & 3 down each season via automatic and play-offs this means that 68% of the top 22 clubs will spend a minimum of 50% of time outside the SPL top 10 and for most it will probably exceed this percentage amount of time in the lower divisions.

 

If you increase the league to 16 or 18 teams with potentially 3 up and 3 down then the likely percentage of these teams being out of the top division falls to 40% and 32% or put more simply more of these clubs will play in the top division more of the time. If they were to get relegated from the top division in a bigger league of course it would be financially punishing however as there would be fewer bigger clubs outside the top division their chances and opportunity of being re-promoted would be increased.

 

If you want to build up and strengthen the majority of full-time clubs in Scotland then the best way to help them is by expanding the top division - it's that simple.

 

Of course this necessitates the proposed top 10 clubs getting a proportionately smaller share and this is the biggest obstacle to re-expanding the league to accommodate more of our full-time clubs.

[Socrates]

The country is too small to have 18 decent teams, especially with the OF taking up such a high proportion of the potential fanbase in Scotland. Many of the smaller clubs you mention are not going to be helped substantially by being gifted entry to a bigger league - look at the attendances that a club like Hamilton achieve in the SPL. The figures were not significantly better either when they had gifted young players. They do not ever have the potential to be more than mediocre even in an 18 team league.

[Charlie-Brown]

 

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Scotland has a need for small divisions because the gap in size between its two biggest clubs and the rest, three mid-ranking clubs and the rest, and even the Motherwells and Killies of this world and the rest is so vast. Dundee United, Scotland's sixth biggest club, get gates of, what, 40% of what we, the third biggest club do? That's the problem, and has vexed the game's administrators for many decades now.

 

Shaun,

 

Here is the list of Scottish Cities & Towns by population size - this fairly well matches the SPL & SFL clubs by size with a few odd exceptions ie St Mirren (Paisley) & Motherwell.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_towns_and_cities_in_Scotland_by_population

 

1 Glasgow 581,320 City Glasgow City

2 Edinburgh 454,280 City City of Edinburgh

3 Aberdeen 183,030 City Aberdeen City

4 Dundee 142,070 City Dundee City

5 Paisley 74,100 Town[2] Renfrewshire

6 East Kilbride 73,200 Town South Lanarkshire

7 Livingston 54,740 Town West Lothian

8 Cumbernauld 50,480 Town North Lanarkshire

9 Hamilton 48,900 Town South Lanarkshire

10 Kirkcaldy 48,630 Town Fife

11 Dunfermline 46,430 Town[2] Fife

12 Ayr 46,070 Town South Ayrshire

13 Perth 44,820 Town Perth and Kinross

14 Kilmarnock 44,390 Town East Ayrshire

15 Inverness 44,220 City Highland

16 Greenock 43,130 Town Inverclyde

17 Coatbridge 42,000 Town North Lanarkshire

18 Glenrothes 38,750 Town Fife

19 Airdrie 35,500 Town North Lanarkshire

20 Falkirk 34,570 Town Falkirk

21 Stirling 33,710 City Stirling

22 Irvine 32,920 Town North Ayrshire

23 Rutherglen 31,700 Town South Lanarkshire

24 Dumfries 31,610 Town Dumfries and Galloway

25 Motherwell 31,180 Town North Lanarkshire

26 Wishaw 29,040 Town North Lanarkshire

27 Clydebank 29,020 Town West Dunbartonshire

28 Bearsden 27,220 Town East Dunbartonshire

29 Cambuslang 25,630 Town South Lanarkshire

30 Newton Mearns 23,610 Town East Renfrewshire

31 Bishopbriggs 22,940 Town East Dunbartonshire

32 Musselburgh 22,380 Town East Lothian

33 Arbroath 22,110 Town Angus

34 Polmont 21,070 Town Falkirk

35 Elgin 21,040 Town[2] Moray

36 Renfrew 20,370 Town Renfrewshire

37 Bellshill 20,090 Town North Lanarkshire

38 Alloa 20,040 Town Clackmannanshire

39 Blantyre 19,870 Town South Lanarkshire

40 Dumbarton 19,860 Town West Dunbartonshire

41 Kirkintilloch 19,200 Town East Dunbartonshire

42 Clarkston 18,980 Town East Renfrewshire

43 Bathgate 18,270 Town West Lothian

44 Stenhousemuir 17,980 Town Falkirk

45 Peterhead 17,450 Town Aberdeenshire

46 Barrhead 16,990 Town East Renfrewshire

47 Grangemouth 16,740 Town Falkirk

48 St Andrews 16,680 Town Fife

49 Kilwinning 16,380 Town North Ayrshire

50 Giffnock 16,090 Town East Renfrewshire

51 Viewpark 16,090 Area* North Lanarkshire

52 Buckhaven 16,030 Town Fife

53 Penicuik 16,010 Town Midlothian

54 Johnstone 15,680 Town Renfrewshire

55 Erskine 15,510 Town Renfrewshire

56 Larkhall 15,420 Town South Lanarkshire

[Charlie-Brown]

The country is too small to have 18 decent teams, especially with the OF taking up such a high proportion of the potential fanbase in Scotland. Many of the smaller clubs you mention are not going to be helped substantially by being gifted entry to a bigger league - look at the attendances that a club like Hamilton achieve in the SPL. The figures were not significantly better either when they had gifted young players. They do not ever have the potential to be more than mediocre even in an 18 team league.

 

Entry to a bigger league would help the bigger SFL clubs more than the smaller ones like Hamilton however they would ALL undoubtedly earn more being in a top division of 14, 16 or 18 teams more of the time and be more financially secure than under a Premiership 10 and Championship 12 split as proposed.

[Socrates]

The thing with promotion and relegation is that there should be fair opportunities for clubs to rise or fall to their correct level. Clubs who consistently cannot put out a decent team on the pitch don't deserve to be propped up for ever. What is important, however, is that clubs who are relegated have a fair opportunity to bounce back. I'm not sure that this works with a big league, as there would be no money at all in whatever is below that. Clubs would have to go part-time very quickly on relegation, and may then get permanently stuck in the lower league. Conversely, a part-time club who went up may have great difficulty sticking in the 18-team SPL, and may not be willing to gamble on going full-time. I think that a 10 team league, with somewhat better support for the league below, is more likely to allow clubs the opportunity to progress, while not having catastrophic consequences when a team is relegated.

[Socrates]

Entry to a bigger league would help the bigger SFL clubs more than the smaller ones like Hamilton however they would ALL undoubtedly earn more being in a top division of 14, 16 or 18 teams more of the time and be more financially secure than under a Premiership 10 and Championship 12 split as proposed.

Well, except for the ones on your list who wouldn't get in, and probably couldn't sustain full-time football for long.

[Socrates]

Charlie - that list you put up for Shaun shows exactly why so many teams in Scotland will never and can never be big teams. It doesn't help shoving a whole load of teams with limited potential into a big league and hoping that somehow everything improves. I think that one of the main weaknesses of the big league before was the number of very one-sided games. I see no real reason, except perhaps for improved defensive organisation, why this would be different if we had an 18 team league.

[Charlie-Brown]

Well, except for the ones on your list who wouldn't get in, and probably couldn't sustain full-time football for long.

 

if my list of top 22 clubs is approx correct then an 18 team league with 3 up + 3 down would mean that only 4 clubs in my top 22 would be excluded in any single season 3 of whom could in theory be re-promoted the following season and given form fluctuations most of them could reasonably expect to be in the top league at least 50% of the time which is a far far greater chance than they have now or under the proposed system of 10 + 12.

[Charlie-Brown]

Charlie - that list you put up for Shaun shows exactly why so many teams in Scotland will never and can never be big teams. It doesn't help shoving a whole load of teams with limited potential into a big league and hoping that somehow everything improves. I think that one of the main weaknesses of the big league before was the number of very one-sided games. I see no real reason, except perhaps for improved defensive organisation, why this would be different if we had an 18 team league.

 

The population density around the major cities and hence Glasgow & Edinburgh clubs means that very few if any of the others can ever be anything more than ocassional contenders and do in fact make up the numbers - even Edinburgh and Dundee split their potential between 2 clubs.

 

Bigger leagues help more of the clubs more of the time to continue to exist and ocassionally prosper than is possible under current 12+10 or proposed 10+12 which perpetuates and exacerbates disparities between the top tier clubs and second tier clubs ability to compete and sustain more full-time football clubs in Scotland.

[Socrates]

if my list of top 22 clubs is approx correct then an 18 team league with 3 up + 3 down would mean that only 4 clubs in my top 22 would be excluded in any single season 3 of whom could in theory be re-promoted the following season and given form fluctuations most of them could reasonably expect to be in the top league at least 50% of the time which is a far far greater chance than they have now or under the proposed system of 10 + 12.

There is a problem with a big league in that the gap between it and whatever is below will be very large. That makes it harder for teams to get promoted and stay up. I suspect that you would very quickly end up with about 13-14 teams who were always in the SPL, or if they did go down, would get straight back up like Hibs did, 5-6 yoyo teams, and the rest, who would do terribly badly if they ever did get promoted.

 

The advantage of more, smaller leagues is that the gaps between them are smaller, and thus teams have a good chance of staying up if they are promoted.

 

I suppose I just don't really get why it helps Scottish football to spend scarce resources on mediocre teams that have no real potential to ever expand. If there were 6-8 teams outside the SPL of the scale of Dundee or maybe Dunfermline, then it would be fine, but I don't see any point in spending extra money on clubs like Queen of the South (no disrespect intended, but they have limited potential, as can be seen from their relatively small attendances and their persistent failure to reach the top league on merit). They are probably more likely to develop talented young players playing in the 1st division, than desperately struggling to stay up in the SPL, knowing that they could be in very serious trouble if they ever went down.

[Charlie-Brown]

There is a problem with a big league in that the gap between it and whatever is below will be very large. That makes it harder for teams to get promoted and stay up. I suspect that you would very quickly end up with about 13-14 teams who were always in the SPL, or if they did go down, would get straight back up like Hibs did, 5-6 yoyo teams, and the rest, who would do terribly badly if they ever did get promoted.

 

The advantage of more, smaller leagues is that the gaps between them are smaller, and thus teams have a good chance of staying up if they are promoted.

 

I suppose I just don't really get why it helps Scottish football to spend scarce resources on mediocre teams that have no real potential to ever expand. If there were 6-8 teams outside the SPL of the scale of Dundee or maybe Dunfermline, then it would be fine, but I don't see any point in spending extra money on clubs like Queen of the South (no disrespect intended, but they have limited potential, as can be seen from their relatively small attendances and their persistent failure to reach the top league on merit). They are probably more likely to develop talented young players playing in the 1st division, than desperately struggling to stay up in the SPL, knowing that they could be in very serious trouble if they ever went down.

 

Who is spending scarce resources? You've got that wrong - it's not anybody spending any resources other than how football revenue from TV & Sponsors is divided and apportioned. Bigger league give more clubs more opportunities to earn and most will enjoy bigger crowds in tier 1 than tier 2. That gives the best chance of sustaining the amount of full-time football clubs in Scotland. If combined with voluntary percentages on the amount of players eligible for the Scotland national teams to be included in matchday squads at 1st team, reserve and youth level also then it also increases the potential options available to Craig Levein and the other current or future Scotland team coaches.

[Socrates]

Who is spending scarce resources? You've got that wrong - it's not anybody spending any resources other than how football revenue from TV & Sponsors is divided and apportioned. Bigger league give more clubs more opportunities to earn and most will enjoy bigger crowds in tier 1 than tier 2. That gives the best chance of sustaining the amount of full-time football clubs in Scotland. If combined with voluntary percentages on the amount of players eligible for the Scotland national teams to be included in matchday squads at 1st team, reserve and youth level also then it also increases the potential options available to Craig Levein and the other current or future Scotland team coaches.

OK they get somewhat higher gates, although not that much higher, as there would be plenty of games against clubs who are not much of a draw and have a negligible travelling support. Additionally, many of these clubs have a relatively limited potential fan base. Most of them will be desperate to preservie their big league status, so won't particularly play young players. On average, each new team would be pretty much like Hamilton - small club who add nothing much to the league, and don't play exciting football, or develop many young players. Actually, Hamilton developed more young players outside the SPL than they have done since they were promoted. It isn't clear to me how we get a better league because we have 6 more Hamiltons or St. Mirrens in our league, especially as it is possible to develop young players outside the SPL. OK, some clubs may be better placed to preserve their full-time status (I don't think they would, given most 1st division clubs are currently full-time, and I don't think anyone outside the big SPL would be able to maintain full-time status for long, but that's another argument), but it isn't clear to me how this benefits anyone apart from the clubs concerned.

[Charlie-Brown]

OK they get somewhat higher gates, although not that much higher, as there would be plenty of games against clubs who are not much of a draw and have a negligible travelling support. Additionally, many of these clubs have a relatively limited potential fan base. Most of them will be desperate to preservie their big league status, so won't particularly play young players. On average, each new team would be pretty much like Hamilton - small club who add nothing much to the league, and don't play exciting football, or develop many young players. Actually, Hamilton developed more young players outside the SPL than they have done since they were promoted. It isn't clear to me how we get a better league because we have 6 more Hamiltons or St. Mirrens in our league, especially as it is possible to develop young players outside the SPL. OK, some clubs may be better placed to preserve their full-time status (I don't think they would, given most 1st division clubs are currently full-time, and I don't think anyone outside the big SPL would be able to maintain full-time status for long, but that's another argument), but it isn't clear to me how this benefits anyone apart from the clubs concerned.

 

Dundee, Dunfermline, Partick, Airdrie, Livingston, Falkirk, Raith Rovers all enjoyed far higher levels of support in their most recent SPL seasons than they currently get in the SFL divisions - probably between 50%-100% higher attendances whilst others like Hamilton or Inverness prosper as being relatively well run clubs in recent times despite their smaller size. Games against each other would probably also attract higher attendances in the SPL than in the lower division.

 

Put it this way there is defintely enough room in the top league in Scotland for more than 10 or 12 clubs if you factor in some of the medium sized Scottish clubs that are currently excluded from it but who have been SPL clubs in fairly recent times ie those bigger SFL clubs I lsted above plus also the smaller well run outfits like Hamilton & Inverness who've managed to have multiple seasons in the SPL at the expense of some of our more traditional top flight clubs.

 

The quality of Scottish football is a function of the relative strength of it's full-time clubs. Currently our SPL clubs are relatively impoverished due to falling attendances and previous financial mismanagement whilst most of the full-time clubs in the SFL leagues are in dire straights many just about on the brink of administration, part-time football or both!

[Socrates]

Dundee, Dunfermline, Partick, Airdrie, Livingston, Falkirk, Raith Rovers all enjoyed far higher levels of support in their most recent SPL seasons than they currently get in the SFL divisions - probably between 50%-100% higher attendances whilst others like Hamilton or Inverness prosper as being relatively well run clubs in recent times despite their smaller size. Games against each other would probably also attract higher attendances in the SPL than in the lower division.

 

Put it this way there is defintely enough room in the top league in Scotland for more than 10 or 12 clubs if you factor in some of the medium sized Scottish clubs that are currently excluded from it but who have been SPL clubs in fairly recent times ie those bigger SFL clubs I lsted above plus also the smaller well run outfits like Hamilton & Inverness who've managed to have multiple seasons in the SPL at the expense of some of our more traditional top flight clubs.

 

The quality of Scottish football is a function of the relative strength of it's full-time clubs. Currently our SPL clubs are relatively impoverished due to falling attendances and previous financial mismanagement whilst most of the full-time clubs in the SFL leagues are in dire straights many just about on the brink of administration, part-time football or both!

I have no problem with Inverness, but the teams at the bottom of the SPL are awful already. Adding 6 more teams who can't even get into the league will be soul destroying for everyone to watch. They won't get better, because the consequences of falling out of the big SPL will be catastrophic (much more so than falling out the current SPL), so they'll play depressing negative football, and won't risk blooding youngsters, or they'll end up being reasonably secure, and will get complacent like several existing SPL clubs already are. The number of pointless games, and games between two teams with relatively small fanbases and little appeal will increase massively.

[Charlie-Brown]

I have no problem with Inverness, but the teams at the bottom of the SPL are awful already. Adding 6 more teams who can't even get into the league will be soul destroying for everyone to watch. They won't get better, because the consequences of falling out of the big SPL will be catastrophic (much more so than falling out the current SPL), so they'll play depressing negative football, and won't risk blooding youngsters, or they'll end up being reasonably secure, and will get complacent like several existing SPL clubs already are. The number of pointless games, and games between two teams with relatively small fanbases and little appeal will increase massively.

 

Your argument and logic is circular - the reason they can't get into the SPL is due to it's small size and limited promotion opportunities - the current SPL with 1 up / 1 down has been an almost closed shop for the last decade with stagnation and little movement between divisions. Each year that Dunfermline, Dundee, Partick, Raith, Livingston, Airdrie, Falkirk etc spend out of the top tier of Scottish football they are being severely harmed both financially and in terms of eroding their fan base and attendance levels.

 

No matter how you dress it up by calling it the Championship or whatever - 2nd tier football is perceived as 2nd rate - every season we force some of our traditionally bigger or medium size full-time clubs to spend outside our top tier we are damaging Scottish football and it's capacity to sustain full-time football clubs - what part of that don't you understand? Small leagues have done major damage to the strength and structure of full-time football in Scotland.

 

You also don't make Scottish football stronger by having an elite 10 or 12 and a relatively impoverished everybody else below. That has proven to have failed and why we are at the current re-organisation debate again! How many times now in 35 years?

[Socrates]

Your argument and logic is circular - the reason they can't get into the SPL is due to it's small size and limited promotion opportunities - the current SPL with 1 up / 1 down has been an almost closed shop for the last decade with stagnation and little movement between divisions. Each year that Dunfermline, Dundee, Partick, Raith, Livingston, Airdrie, Falkirk etc spend out of the top tier of Scottish football they are being severely harmed both financially and in terms of eroding their fan base and attendance levels.

 

No matter how you dress it up by calling it the Championship or whatever - 2nd tier football is perceived as 2nd rate - every season we force some of our traditionally bigger or medium size full-time clubs to spend outside our top tier we are damaging Scottish football and it's capacity to sustain full-time football clubs - what part of that don't you understand? Small leagues have done major damage to the strength and structure of full-time football in Scotland.

 

You also don't make Scottish football stronger by having an elite 10 or 12 and a relatively impoverished everybody else below. That has proven to have failed and why we are at the current re-organisation debate again! How many times now in 35 years?

I'm happy for there to be more promotion and relegation - 1 from 12 is ridiculous, but it doesn't change the fact that these teams are generally not as good as those who have managed to be promoted. Too many of the clubs already in the SPL add little or nothing to the competition - and that's not based on size - this year Motherwell, Inverness, Kilmarnock and, to a lesser extent Dundee Utd and St. Johnstone add to the league. Aberdeen, Hibs, St. Mirren and Hamilton don't currently, and I think many or all of the new teams would be so desperate to stay up that they would play negative, dull football with a bunch of older players and very few youngsters, in order to stay up.

 

Actually, the real problem with football these days is to do with the way the game is structured across Europe. Clubs can't make the money necessary through young players, as a result of Bosman, and far too much of the money is given out to those who do well, and qualify for Europe, especially the Champions League. That money is then used to reinforce those teams' positions, which makes more and more leagues like ours. There isn't really a long-term solution without reversing some of these changes in my opinion, although we can try to redistribute wealth as much as possible, but there are things that we can do which will make things worse. One of those is a 16-20 team league imo. There are several reasons for this:

 

i. Too many mediocre sides with few fans and no drawing power. Lower crowds result.

ii. Costs of losing SPL status could be massive (administration, going part-time). This causes more teams to have to play defensive football to stay in the SPL.

iii. More meaningless games. Lower crowds again

iv. Less money, which means fewer decent players staying in the league. Players like, say, Skacel or Eremenko, draw in fans, and help young players to improve. I don't believe it's a coincidence that Temps has started playing so well since Rudi.

v. No real reason to think it would be more competitive. New teams would be almost automatic points for the OF, not so much for challengers.

[Charlie-Brown]

I'm happy for there to be more promotion and relegation - 1 from 12 is ridiculous, but it doesn't change the fact that these teams are generally not as good as those who have managed to be promoted. Too many of the clubs already in the SPL add little or nothing to the competition - and that's not based on size - this year Motherwell, Inverness, Kilmarnock and, to a lesser extent Dundee Utd and St. Johnstone add to the league. Aberdeen, Hibs, St. Mirren and Hamilton don't currently, and I think many or all of the new teams would be so desperate to stay up that they would play negative, dull football with a bunch of older players and very few youngsters, in order to stay up.

 

Actually, the real problem with football these days is to do with the way the game is structured across Europe. Clubs can't make the money necessary through young players, as a result of Bosman, and far too much of the money is given out to those who do well, and qualify for Europe, especially the Champions League. That money is then used to reinforce those teams' positions, which makes more and more leagues like ours. There isn't really a long-term solution without reversing some of these changes in my opinion, although we can try to redistribute wealth as much as possible, but there are things that we can do which will make things worse. One of those is a 16-20 team league imo. There are several reasons for this:

 

i. Too many mediocre sides with few fans and no drawing power. Lower crowds result.

ii. Costs of losing SPL status could be massive (administration, going part-time). This causes more teams to have to play defensive football to stay in the SPL.

iii. More meaningless games. Lower crowds again

iv. Less money, which means fewer decent players staying in the league. Players like, say, Skacel or Eremenko, draw in fans, and help young players to improve. I don't believe it's a coincidence that Temps has started playing so well since Rudi.

v. No real reason to think it would be more competitive. New teams would be almost automatic points for the OF, not so much for challengers.

 

The small league structure systematically weakens teams capabilities to compete - due to league size at least 50% of our medium-sized full-time clubs must spend 50% or more of the time outside the top division whilst those who are able to remain in the top flight devise ever more ways to ensure the majority of wealth is concentrated in the top 10-12 teams relative to the remainder of clubs. The only reason to proposed an increased share for the current SFL clubs is that they propose to pay for it by ditching 2 clubs from the top league so that the remaining 10 clubs can get a guaranteed 4 games per season against the bigger clubs.

 

Rudi Skacel and Alexei Eremenko are 2 of the few examples of SPL imports who have enhanced the league - I can give you countless examples at all SPL clubs going back 15 years since Bosman of imported players who have cost far more than they've contributed and added little or nothing to the quality of the SPL or Scottish football. There are many many more times examples of bad than good.