Charlie-Brown Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 The clubs know that even with a 10 team league the fans will still turn up...the ones that bother now will anyway...unlikely they will attract any new fans but they will still get their OF trough filled up each season and that's all they care about. However what I don't understand is the smaller teams voting for this, it's like turkeys voting for Xmas. They must have had a bung, or the chairman have been taken care off. These teams are destined for SPL2 though...goodbye OF trough. It's all very odd. I think the SPL club chairman are gambling that the downward trend in attendances can be offset by slightly higher ticket prices each year to compensate for lost fans and a share of TV money to make good the difference. Talk about taking your customers for granted and ignoring their wishes. It's a tragedy it really is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victor Mancini Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 Have a 14 team league, 2 teams go up, 2 teams get relegated and each team plays each other 3 times, total of 42 games. Scrap the league cup and just have the Scottish Cup. Makes the league far more interesting ands would bring in bigger revenue to makee up for the revenue lost by spliiting the pot. Simple, really. If teams played eaxh other 3 times what would be your solution to balancing the home/away game ratio? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IMA MAROON Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 The clubs know that even with a 10 team league the fans will still turn up...the ones that bother now will anyway...unlikely they will attract any new fans but they will still get their OF trough filled up each season and that's all they care about. However what I don't understand is the smaller teams voting for this, it's like turkeys voting for Xmas. They must have had a bung, or the chairman have been taken care off. These teams are destined for SPL2 though...goodbye OF trough. It's all very odd. Clubs like Hamilton know they are giong to go down at some point. An SPL2 will give them more money than what they will get now if they are relegated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie-Brown Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 Clubs like Hamilton know they are giong to go down at some point. An SPL2 will give them more money than what they will get now if they are relegated. So they can hardly decry Michael Johnston of Kilmarnock of acting and talking in terms of self interest then can they? Everybody pays lip-service about 'for the good of scottish football' the reality is what's in it for them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toxteth O'Grady Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 I like how he talks about "Broad Agreement" when it is obvious that Hearts, Killie, ICT and Dundee Utd do not agree. In that case it must also be Broad agreement if only 2 teams disagree, or does that depend on which 2 teams Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jamboinglasgow Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 90% of ALL fans want a bigger league JiG - why? because small leagues are cr@p! Old Firm fans are just as bored by repetitive fixtures as anybody else. 4 x per season year after year is leads to staleness and over-familiarity regardless of whether it's the Old Firm at the top or St Mirren and Hamilton at the bottom. Almost nobody that watches Scottish football wants the smaller leagues - the overwhelming majority want an expanded league and greater fixture variety as well as better value for money (ie lower ticket prices) ...... Neil Doncaster and the majority of SPL clubs decision makers simply aren't listening or don't want to hear this - self interest gravitates them towards the dreaded 10 team folly. Have you bothered to read my post. He has no choice, the Old Firm want a ten team league, there is nothing else he can do if he wants change (i.e. the things that are not flipping well just league numbers.) I suspect that most of the other chairman know this as well and have just accepted it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gigolo-Aunt Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 Anyone got a link for this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dunks Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 I like how he talks about "Broad Agreement" when it is obvious that Hearts, Killie, ICT and Dundee Utd do not agree. In that case it must also be Broad agreement if only 2 teams disagree, or does that depend on which 2 teams And Motherwell: Motherwell doubt Top Ten Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie-Brown Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 Have you bothered to read my post. He has no choice, the Old Firm want a ten team league, there is nothing else he can do if he wants change (i.e. the things that are not flipping well just league numbers.) I suspect that most of the other chairman know this as well and have just accepted it. He does have a choice beyond promoting want the SKY & the Old Firm want - league reconstruction only requires a 10-2 vote so the other clubs can push through another league-format IF they all vote for it, the problem is that Hibs & Aberdeen in particular also want 10 teams cos it means guaranteed 4 x Celtic, Rangers, Hearts, Aberdeen, Hibs, Dundee Utd even when some of those teams aren't in the top 6 teams. Others like Hamilton & St Johnstone seem to like the idea of sweeteners like increased money available outside the top flight. St Mirren & Motherwell seem to be undecided, Dundee Utd flip-flop against & for with only Hearts, Inverness & Killie decidely against it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dunks Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 Anyone got a link for this? You can download it here: Podcast Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IMA MAROON Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 So they can hardly decry Michael Johnston of Kilmarnock of acting and talking in terms of self interest then can they? Everybody pays lip-service about 'for the good of scottish football' the reality is what's in it for them? Yep. Most clubs maybe think what is best for them is best for Scottish football. All our opinions are different. I think 14 teams and a split is best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gigolo-Aunt Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 You can download it here: Podcast Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie-Brown Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 Yep. Most clubs maybe think what is best for them is best for Scottish football. All our opinions are different. I think 14 teams and a split is best. 14 teams and a split is not best but it's marginally better than 12 although the earlier split is worse however it's certainly far more preferable than 10 and the likelyhood is that once the league was expanded it would be much harder to contract down again as there would be proportionately more teams with a vested interest in keeping expanded league than shrinking it again. It would probably be easier to go from 14 to 16 or 18 than to ever get back down to 10. 12 might still be a possibility from 14 if the split after 33 games + 5 games post split proved to be much more palatable than splitting after 26 games then a further 10, 12 or 14 games depending on how the 14 was split ie 6/8 or 7/7 or 8/6. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victorian Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 i keep returning to the position that the entire issue should be approached from a viewpoint of scottish football existing without television revenue. restructure the leagues from within - no input from SKY and ESPN is required or desired - and then look for a live broadcast deal based on the new structure. we should not be settling for a television deal which is basically imposed upon the game and then have the broadcasters dictating what the product is. scottish football is the vendor. the broadcasters are the clients. just create a product and offer it to potential clients. so the broadcasters want a package that must include four old firm matches. the bulk of the other games feature one of the old firm sides, as well as some other games featuring neither of them. if scottish football takes charge of the 'wares' it wants to sell then there is no reason why the same broadcasters wouldn't want a package which has only two old firm games. it's only two games different to the existing package of live games. the money might decrease slightly but it can be coped with. the potential plus points massively outweigh a slight drop in revenue. a fully autonomous sport, a league structure that's been arrived at without prejudice from outside agencies, happier fans who have been listened to and who are far more likely to buy tickets for a tangibly rejuvenated game. the core, traditional source of income (the paying fans) should be the priority target in terms of protecting club' income. television should take second place. put the cart back behind the scabby old horse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Mighty Thor Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 regardless of the arguments and their merits of the varying league formats, i think it's more fundamental and basic than that. on sight alone would you trust these two to take Scottish football to the next level? Nah, me neither. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
132goals1958 Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 To be honest if clubs like Kilmarnock, Dundee, Partick, Dunfermline etc aren't in the SPL then we've got a problem in Scottish football. Of course no club has a god given right to be in the top league but if bigger / medium size clubs are being forced down purely on the basis of facilitating a smaller top league size in terms of numbers then we are deliberately harming approx 50% of full-time football clubs in Scotland and threatening their ability to continue as full time clubs. Adding 25% more games onto their fixture list and giving some of them further games in promotion and relegation play-off's or re-branding it 'The Championship' or giving them another couple of hundred grand each simply is not going to remove the perception of fans that lower league football is 2nd rate nor attract more fans to watch games in that division. 35 years of overwhelming evidence tells us that. All the yo-yo clubs get significantly increased attendance levels in the top league compared to being in the 2nd tier. The only way to build these mid-size yo-yo clubs in the SFL into being strong enough to compete and stay in the SPL for any length of time is to include them and increase the size of the top division. a simple enough concept but requires the elite to make sacrifices (using the rhetoric that proponents of 10 teams have usurped - talk about doublespeak!!) ie 'for the greater good of Scottish Football' Spot on Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portobellojambo1 Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 I think the best way to describe the OF is as a cancer. Like cancer in humans they need to grow stronger while destroying everything around them. If a human being discovers they have cancerous growths surgeons would suggest a course of action to reduce the effect of the cancer and try and balance how the body works going forward, with a full recovery being the end result looked for. Yet in football terms many on this board, along with those based in Park Gardens appear to think the only thing that can be done is to allow the cancer within football to get an even stronger grip. What the clubs that are against this 10 team league are asking for is not a huge sacrifice to the OF in terms of their overall total revenue. A reduction of say around ?500,000 each wouldn't bring either or both halves of the OF to their knees. However, for many clubs a share of that additional pot of money could make a huge difference to how they operate. Personally I think the non actual league size proposals which are getting pushed by a combination of those against the ten team league are perfectly sensible. Fairer distribution of all the pooled funds available to the SPL (the OF will veto this) and reintroduction of the reserve league to help bring through the next generation of youngsters (the OF will veto this, they don't need a reserve league they don't produce youngsters they steal them from other clubs) are suggestions which make perfect sense to me. I would go as far as say that if these two ideas were accepted, without reservation, the clubs might also then agree to a 10 team league initially to see how things turn out. Personally I'd like to see them go to 14 teams, with a split after 26 games (into two halves of 7). This would give a final number of games of 38, but to me the survival of our clubs is more important than the size of the top league (without clubs you have no league). We need to get away from this idea that we have to do whatever the OF say. We aren't subservient to them, we are equal partners, as are all SPL clubs. It doesn't matter if you are talking about real life actual situations or using the term cancer with regard to the OF. If you allow cancer to continue to grow and multiply its power over and over again there is only one guaranteed end result, death. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colinmaroon Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 14 teams and a split is not best but it's marginally better than 12 although the earlier split is worse however it's certainly far more preferable than 10 and the likelihood is that once the league was expanded it would be much harder to contract down again as there would be proportionately more teams with a vested interest in keeping expanded league than shrinking it again. It would probably be easier to go from 14 to 16 or 18 than to ever get back down to 10. 12 might still be a possibility from 14 if the split after 33 games + 5 games post split proved to be much more palatable than splitting after 26 games then a further 10, 12 or 14 games depending on how the 14 was split ie 6/8 or 7/7 or 8/6. Now within that statement, I see a new perspective (for me anyway) I think the Uglies are still rattled about the Setanta deal! They didn't get their way and, in hindsight, it was a real boo-boo for the others. Having been out-voted then, it's in their interest to decrease possible opposition! Obviously, they can use closet OF "chairman", like the idiot from Hamilton, etc., to keep a firm grip on the SPL. With 12, the OF possibly are vulnerable votes wise, if the other clubs unite. With 14, their coats would be on an even shooglier peg! With 10, the only need a few quislings to guarantee getting their way and, there's a chance we could be stuck with 10 for a lot longer than in the past! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deevers Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 Now within that statement, I see a new perspective (for me anyway) I think the Uglies are still rattled about the Setanta deal! They didn't get their way and, in hindsight, it was a real boo-boo for the others. Having been out-voted then, it's in their interest to decrease possible opposition! Obviously, they can use closet OF "chairman", like the idiot from Hamilton, etc., to keep a firm grip on the SPL. With 12, the OF possibly are vulnerable votes wise, if the other clubs unite. With 14, their coats would be on an even shooglier peg! With 10, the only need a few quislings to guarantee getting their way and, there's a chance we could be stuck with 10 for a lot longer than in the past! And there are more than a few of these in the SPL at present - apart from MacDonald at Hamilton - Boyle at Motherwell and Gilmour at St Cheatin' come to mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WagonWheel Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 I might be missing something in the economics of this so perhaps someone will enlighten me. The proposed 2nd tier of 12 teams seems to have been promoted by the SPL as giving the teams extra revenue with an additional 3 home games. Given that most teams (if not all) will have the bulk of their home support as season ticket holders, will the teams relegated charge more, the same or less for said season ticket? If you're, say St Mirren charging ?300 for a season ticket (total random figure BTW) how can you justify charging more for the increased number of games given the quality of the opposition? And if you charge the same or less, then your revenue goes down. Teams relegated to SPL2 are going to have to sell a hell of a lot more corporate hospitality (aye right), pies and programmes in those extra three games to make up the shortfall. Oh wait, I forgot, Sky are going to bump a Premiership game for live coverage from East End Park of Dunfermline v Hamilton...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Felix Lighter Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 I tuned in last night and something Doncaster said caught my attention and that was, 'a move to a bigger league would cost the SPL 20 million quid in lost revenue.' Only last week he stated the figure as a 1 million loss per club. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Dover Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 I tuned in last night and something Doncaster said caught my attention and that was, 'a move to a bigger league would cost the SPL 20 million quid in lost revenue.' Only last week he stated the figure as a 1 million loss per club. He or they are beginning to lose it ! In days gone by this would have been voted in and none of the Chairmen would have said a dickie bird ! However this time the 'truth' has escaped out into the wild and we the fans are asking questions and DEMANDING to know who voted for what Bring it on Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Felix Lighter Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 He or they are beginning to lose it ! In days gone by this would have been voted in and none of the Chairmen would have said a dickie bird ! However this time the 'truth' has escaped out into the wild and we the fans are asking questions and DEMANDING to know who voted for what Bring it on Seems like downright scaremongering to me.If the SPL steering group are so confident of their way forward I'm sure they wouldn't mind releasing the 110 page report as a pdf download on their website. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colinmaroon Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 I tuned in last night and something Doncaster said caught my attention and that was, 'a move to a bigger league would cost the SPL 20 million quid in lost revenue.' Only last week he stated the figure as a 1 million loss per club. His statements change like the flippin' weather!!! The guy is obviously a downright liar, or he has a problem in his noodle!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drylaw Hearts Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 Having listened to the programme in question the other night I get the feeling that the 10 team SPL option has little chance of getting the 11 voted it needs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Felix Lighter Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 His statements change like the flippin' weather!!! The guy is obviously a downright liar, or he has a problem in his noodle!!! Yeah it all seems very dodgy. I'm not convinced as yet that to go to a 16 team league, with the loss of 4 home games, would cost teams like Hamilton, St Mirren, St Johnston a million quid. I get the feeling that this 1 million figure has been averaged out by Doncaster and it's the OF have the most to lose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fozzyonthefence Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 Have a 14 team league, 2 teams go up, 2 teams get relegated and each team plays each other 3 times, total of 42 games. Scrap the league cup and just have the Scottish Cup. Makes the league far more interesting ands would bring in bigger revenue to makee up for the revenue lost by spliiting the pot. Simple, really. Sorry, that's the daftest idea yet - even worse than the split we have now. So it wouldn't really be a league at all - some teams would be playing teams twice at home & once away & vice versa. Can you imagine the title coming down to whether 2 of the OF games are at Ibrox or Parkhead? I hope you weren't being serious - if you were there may be a job for you with the SPL or SFA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bean counter Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 Quotes by Johnston taken from this mornings Scotsman The plan has been very much shaped by Rangers and Celtic," Johnston told BBC Scotland. "And it's noticeable that financial modelling for the top division and the voting structure are left aside. If he is speaking the truth about about the financials and voting structure then the OF are offering nothing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadKiller Dog Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 Motherwell have came out and said they are yet to be convinced on the finances of the 10 /12 split yet and they were part of the steering group. John Mcglynn at Raith has came out against the plan and called the SPL greedy. Add that to comments from the Pars and east fife it clear the SFL will likely not back it either . Back to the drawing board i think for the old firm lackies . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie-Brown Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 I think it is becoming clear that unless more of the non Old Firm clubs grow a backbone and are prepared to vote against Doncaster's proposals then regardless of how we tinker with the voting rights, or how the finances are divided up it looks like unless there are some radical new developments we will be landed with a 10 team 'SPL Premiership' and a 12 team 'SPL Championship' and they will then start to trumpet this as a new dawn for Scottish football and talk up the new league formats and re-branding etc etc .... of course the fans and the media won't be fooled by this they will see that a 10 team SPL and a 12 team lower division is exactly the same thing we've had already from 1975-1986 from 1989-1990 (when it was actually a 14 team 2nd tier for a couple of seasons) and from 1994-1998 when we had 2 leagues of 10. Doncaster can spin it how ever he likes but it's simply the same old stale wine being put into a new bottle with a new label that's all. New gimmickry same old sheeite Iam afraid! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victorian Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 Having listened to the programme in question the other night I get the feeling that the 10 team SPL option has little chance of getting the 11 voted it needs. i know, great news. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie-Brown Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 It only needs a 10-2 vote to be adopted not an 11-1. It needs at least Hearts, Inverness and Kilmarnock to remain steadfast and refuse to back it .... of course they will chip away at the dissenters so having Motherwell or St Mirren or Dundee United added to those against would help but it depends how strong their opposition is and how easily they can be bought to vote in favour. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colinmaroon Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 Sorry, that's the daftest idea yet - even worse than the split we have now. So it wouldn't really be a league at all - some teams would be playing teams twice at home & once away & vice versa. Can you imagine the title coming down to whether 2 of the OF games are at Ibrox or Parkhead? I hope you weren't being serious - if you were there may be a job for you with the SPL or SFA. Still not as daft as going back to 10, marginally! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colinmaroon Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 Quotes by Johnston taken from this mornings Scotsman The plan has been very much shaped by Rangers and Celtic," Johnston told BBC Scotland. "And it's noticeable that financial modelling for the top division and the voting structure are left aside. If he is speaking the truth about about the financials and voting structure then the OF are offering nothing Can't say I'm shocked, as it's what I've said would happen all along! Must be my paranoia blossoming into reality!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.