Francis Albert Posted April 26, 2011 Share Posted April 26, 2011 A couple of things recently have confirmed my favouring a small league rather than a larger league, certainly one as large as 16 or 18. First was watching (on TV) Hibs play out the season in meaningless games at Easter Road in front of 7000 or 8000 people - very reminiscent of most of the second half of the old big league (except crowds were often even worse). The other was that Saturday's game blew a hole in the theory that playing a few teams 4 times leads to over-familiarity and teams cancelling each other out. (Well OK in a sense we did cancel each other out, but 3-3 going on 6-6!). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rossthejambo Posted April 26, 2011 Share Posted April 26, 2011 Inverness and Killie were dead against a 10 team league before and I have a feeling that Inverness at least will be voting against it as well. My link Anyone wanting the lottery numbers for tomorrow get in touch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seymour M Hersh Posted April 26, 2011 Share Posted April 26, 2011 For me the number of teams is not the issue, the issues are distribution of money, implementation of either colt teams or bringing back the reserve league and more than one team up and down which is mind numbingly boring. I think this is more or less the club's position. Not sure they are overly bothered at league size but I do remember VR/SF making a statement that fairer wealth distribution and very importantly the return of the reserve league were key to getting HMFC on board. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bilel Mohsni Posted April 26, 2011 Share Posted April 26, 2011 10 teams is shit... Wasn't sure if that had already been mentioned on this latest thread but felt it is too relevant a point to be excluded from the debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingantti1874 Posted April 26, 2011 Share Posted April 26, 2011 For me the number of teams is not the issue, the issues are distribution of money, implementation of either colt teams or bringing back the reserve league and more than one team up and down which is mind numbingly boring. I do believe the 10 team league actually implements all these though I'm not an expert on it, just my interpretation from reading the papers? If this is the case I have no problem with a 10 team league. I would far rather play the old firm, hibs et al 4 times a season than watch us play Partick in an empty stadium. I also don't think this would add to competition as people think. The old firm will regularly horse most first division teams whereas they will snatch results against us and Dundee Utd. etc. Would in my opinion increase the gulf. One thing mentioned in this thread was pumping money into the 1st division with the hope of in a few years creating a larger league. This seems the only plausible way to make a larger league. It is my observation people don't really have a problem with 12 teams or even the split it's the fact that the two combined lead to unequal fixtures? Perhaps 14 would be workable. 10- the only probelm is we have already had a 10 team league and it didnt work. it is boring as hell and only serves to strengthen the old firm's finances. thts why they are so desperate to get it back... if the old firm want it it means its bad for everyone else. 14 - the worst bit of the 12 team league is the split, you could be in 7th within spitting distance of a european slot and the league splits and your season is finished in feb.... with 12 games or a a third of the season to go..... we should stay with 12 until 16 or 18 is viable, we would drop less points to the non OF teams be closer to the top therefore gates would increase not decrease.... the less old firm games we have the better and the less those scummy barstewards visit us the better... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drylaw Hearts Posted April 26, 2011 Share Posted April 26, 2011 18 is too big - we don't have enough big clubs to support a top league that size. 16 is better but it's not enough matches for the clubs. 14 with a split is the best option imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bilel Mohsni Posted April 26, 2011 Share Posted April 26, 2011 18 is too big - we don't have enough big clubs to support a top league that size. 16 is better but it's not enough matches for the clubs. 14 with a split is the best option imo. And yet this seems to be the one option that no-one (with a voice worth listening to on such matters) appears willing to investigate any further??? 16 is my preference if the number of games can be made up with a change in format to other available games on a season ticket. However failing that, 14 and the split is the best idea all round IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cut The Crap Posted April 26, 2011 Share Posted April 26, 2011 Take into account the top 12 we have now and add Dunfermline, Raith, Falkirk, Ross County, Dundee (if they sort their cash situation) also Partick and Livingston have the facilities Airdrie have an all seater stadium. Don't know if I've missed anyone out but we could easily start with a 16 team league next season and an 18 is certainly plausible Replacing matches against Rangers, Celtic and Hibs with fixtures against the likes of Raith, Falkirk and Ross County doesn't appeal to me, I have to say. I doubt it will appeal much to the TV companies, our sponsors and ultimately our finance director either. Reducing season ticket income by 1/5 isn't really feasible either, surely - or would we paying the same for 15 games as we currently pay for 19? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bilel Mohsni Posted April 26, 2011 Share Posted April 26, 2011 Replacing matches against Rangers, Celtic and Hibs with fixtures against the likes of Raith, Falkirk and Ross County doesn't appeal to me, I have to say. I doubt it will appeal much to the TV companies, our sponsors and ultimately our finance director either. Reducing season ticket income by 1/5 isn't really feasible either, surely - or would we paying the same for 15 games as we currently pay for 19? How many times do you want to play Rangers, Celtic and Hibs though? Seriously? Four matches against the same opposition is unbelievably boring and takes away somewhat from the big-game occassion. Once at home and once away against these teams and the games would feel like you have this one great chance to do the damage at home and one big push away... I would much rather rack up some points from some different teams and see some other grounds in between coming up to the big games... Makes the whole occasion more exciting. I mean they may be bigger games but they get no less dull after at least four matches a season. If the smaller clubs do not want to lose the income from playing the OF four times each a season then they need to either find more outside investment or cut their cloth according to their means. I wonder how quick teams in Spain would be to add more games against Barca and Real?... Would they put the extra money before the respectability of their nation's league set up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingantti1874 Posted April 26, 2011 Share Posted April 26, 2011 And yet this seems to be the one option that no-one (with a voice worth listening to on such matters) appears willing to investigate any further??? 16 is my preference if the number of games can be made up with a change in format to other available games on a season ticket. However failing that, 14 and the split is the best idea all round IMO. Thats because the whole point is to get rid of the split, not make it bigger and for a greater %age of the season...all 14 achieves is getting rid of the odd fixture imbalance and nothing else... its not better than 12.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bilel Mohsni Posted April 26, 2011 Share Posted April 26, 2011 Thats because the whole point is to get rid of the split, not make it bigger and for a greater %age of the season...all 14 achieves is getting rid of the odd fixture imbalance and nothing else... its not better than 12.... I think it is better than 12. I'd rather have a split than a ten team league. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Templeton'sUnderpants Posted April 26, 2011 Share Posted April 26, 2011 Thats because the whole point is to get rid of the split, not make it bigger and for a greater %age of the season...all 14 achieves is getting rid of the odd fixture imbalance and nothing else... its not better than 12.... What is the problem with the split other than the fixture imbalance? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingantti1874 Posted April 26, 2011 Share Posted April 26, 2011 I think it is better than 12. I'd rather have a split than a ten team league. I agree mate - rather a split than a 10 team league but I hate splitting full stop as well so i agree it better than 10, its seriously debateable if its better than 12, each has pros and cons.... i just think we should stay as we are until such a time as we have a proper workable solution (16 or 18). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cut The Crap Posted April 26, 2011 Share Posted April 26, 2011 How many times do you want to play Rangers, Celtic and Hibs though? Seriously? Four matches against the same opposition is unbelievably boring and takes away somewhat from the big-game occassion. Once at home and once away against these teams and the games would feel like you have this one great chance to do the damage at home and one big push away... I would much rather rack up some points from some different teams and see some other grounds in between coming up to the big games... Makes the whole occasion more exciting. I mean they may be bigger games but they get no less dull after at least four matches a season. If the smaller clubs do not want to lose the income from playing the OF four times each a season then they need to either find more outside investment or cut their cloth according to their means. I wonder how quick teams in Spain would be to add more games against Barca and Real?... Would they put the extra money before the respectability of their nation's league set up? Thus widening the financial gulf between the OF and the rest, I assume? Let's face it, Rangers and Celtic away games will always be on TV whether they are playing Hearts, Dundee United or Ross County. It's the rest of us who will miss out on TV revenue, Hearts and Hibs more than most, because we have big TV-friendly games against each other that the likes of Motherwell and Aberdeen don't have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingantti1874 Posted April 26, 2011 Share Posted April 26, 2011 What is the problem with the split other than the fixture imbalance? well, the fact that a team could be on a run, still able to reach euro positions yet there season is to all intents and purposes over after the split... in february with a 14 team proposal with 14, you could be say 8-10 points off a euro spot with 12 games of the season to go.... sitinng in 8th on goal difference and your season is over.... a very possible scenario... not for me..the split is terrible...we shouldnt have it full stop but at least in the current set-up the impact is minimal and only for 5 games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingantti1874 Posted April 26, 2011 Share Posted April 26, 2011 Thus widening the financial gulf between the OF and the rest, I assume? not really, take killie i imagine the 2 additional old firm fixtures they have is probably worth 200k over a season, the olf firm want 10 teams and it means significntly more revenue for them... if the old firm want it - its for financial reasons, it certainly isnt to increase competition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heartsfc_fan Posted April 26, 2011 Share Posted April 26, 2011 well, the fact that a team could be on a run, still able to reach euro positions yet there season is to all intents and purposes over after the split... in february with a 14 team proposal with 14, you could be say 8-10 points off a euro spot with 12 games of the season to go.... sitinng in 8th on goal difference and your season is over.... a very possible scenario... not for me..the split is terrible...we shouldnt have it full stop but at least in the current set-up the impact is minimal and only for 5 games. Agreed. I think a league of 14 with a split would make things worse aswell. Weighing up the alternatives, our current 12 team set up isn't that bad IMO. Perhaps we could make the 11th placed team have a play off at the end of the season with the 2nd placed team in the 1st division for a bit of excitement? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cut The Crap Posted April 26, 2011 Share Posted April 26, 2011 not really, take killie i imagine the 2 additional old firm fixtures they have is probably worth 200k over a season, the olf firm want 10 teams and it means significntly more revenue for them... if the old firm want it - its for financial reasons, it certainly isnt to increase competition. Not sure I understand your reasoning. So the OF play Ross County in Dingwall instead of Killie at Rugby Park. TV follows them, so they (the OF) still get the TV fee as before but Killie are 200k down. Admittedly, Ross County are, say, 200k up but across the board all non-OF teams will be relatively poorer, no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hawaii Posted April 26, 2011 Share Posted April 26, 2011 League Position vs % Revenue (Basic + Supplementary = Total) 1 4.0% 13.0% 17.0% 2 4.0% 11.0% 15.0% 3 4.0% 5.5% 9.5% 4 4.0% 4.5% 8.5% 5 4.0% 4.0% 8.0% 6 4.0% 3.5% 7.5% 7 4.0% 3.0% 7.0% 8 4.0% 2.5% 6.5% 9 4.0% 2.0% 6.0% 10 4.0% 1.5% 5.5% 11 4.0% 1.0% 5.0% 12 4.0% 0.5% 4.5% Now call me daft if you like but the whole point Neil Doncaster is making is that we need to go from 12 clubs to 10 to get the cash paid out to 11th & 12th places into a SPL2 league. Maths was never my strong subject at school but even I can see that reducing the prize money paid out to 1st and 2nd could also accomplish this. Unless of course that is not the real reason for going to 10 teams after all... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingantti1874 Posted April 26, 2011 Share Posted April 26, 2011 Not sure I understand your reasoning. So the OF play Ross County in Dingwall instead of Killie at Rugby Park. TV follows them, so they (the OF) still get the TV fee as before but Killie are 200k down. Admittedly, Ross County are, say, 200k up but across the board all non-OF teams will be relatively poorer, no? sorry i was referecning attendances not TV money, sure if the pot was the same but with more clubs we'd all get a little less in the short term... which is what i think your saying... but i think after 5/6 years the product would be better and wed be able to get a bigger pot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandylejambo Posted April 26, 2011 Share Posted April 26, 2011 Replacing matches against Rangers, Celtic and Hibs with fixtures against the likes of Raith, Falkirk and Ross County doesn't appeal to me, I have to say. I doubt it will appeal much to the TV companies, our sponsors and ultimately our finance director either. Reducing season ticket income by 1/5 isn't really feasible either, surely - or would we paying the same for 15 games as we currently pay for 19? The TV companies dont come to Hearts V Dundee United either, so should we show them the door? unless we are playing Rangers or celtic at home (and most Hibs games) we're not on the telly either, unless you speak Galic. For the good of the game we have to play teams that only get to play the big teams once in a life time now, when we had a bigger league, the likes of Cowdenbeath and Stirling Albion graced it every so often, giving the public that something a wee bit different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
topcat Posted April 26, 2011 Share Posted April 26, 2011 Replacing matches against Rangers, Celtic and Hibs with fixtures against the likes of Raith, Falkirk and Ross County doesn't appeal to me, I have to say. I doubt it will appeal much to the TV companies, our sponsors and ultimately our finance director either. Reducing season ticket income by 1/5 isn't really feasible either, surely - or would we paying the same for 15 games as we currently pay for 19? We might not be too up for it but it's probable that supporters of Raith, Falkirk and Ross County would be right up for the idea This post illustrates a general problem. When evaluating any alternative we all naturally look to the effect on Hearts yet we'll all happily criticise supporters of Rangers, Kilmarnock or Dundee for doing the same thing. The Old Firms priorities are different because they are different. They generally have long cup campaings and still aspire to have busy European schedules so they don't want a 44 game fixture list and they have a huge showcase derby to milk Hearts priorities are unique, almost invariably in the top 6 but with a derby that's actually bigger than the visits of the old firm. As a club we usually don't feel much difference between the current situation and a 10 team top flight except when it stops a second Category A visit from Hibs (roughly once every 4 years). Hibs again are unique in that they have a big derby to protect but are a club for whom not making the split constitutes a bad season as opposed to a disasterous one. They'd probably have more to gain from a 10 team top flight than most The Dundee teams would actually meet more often if the top flight was expanded so their motives are slightly different again Motherwell are located closer to Parkhead than Rangers are and with their huge away end have historically been most reliant on visits from it's giant neighbours to fill it's coffers. Aberdeen are geographically remote and a big enough club not to worry too much about relegation Just about everybody else in the SPL has experienced 2nd tier football in recent memory or come awfully close to relegation and while their finance directors appreciate extra visits from big teams they would probably also appreciate the financial security an expanded league where they could feel relatively safe from relgation. It is increasingly evident that there's not an alternative that will leave all clubs significantly better off than the status quo* and given the voting system it seems unlikely that there will be any proposal that wont be vetoed. Try to look at it from the point of view of supporters various clubs as opposed to the finance directors and it becomes apparent that no structure can be ideal for everybody. As partisan spectators we want to see our team tested and want to see it win. These are conflicting desires. We're not interested in watching our teams canter through a series of turkey shoots against lightweight opposition. We're similarly unenthusiastic about watching our teams get regularly humped. As fanse We generally want a fixture list that provides a reasonable balance of 'could win' games and 'should win' games with very few foregone conclusions either way. An expanded top flight would result in the whipping boys of the current SPL having mid table respectability withing their grasp. At the moment only Hearts and the old firm have won most of our games this season. That kind of season is pretty rare but in a bigger league more clubs would experience that feeling. But if the prospect of playing more games against the smaller clubs doesn't enthuse Hearts supporters it's going to be even less appealing to Celtic and Rangers fans who are going to be less that enamoured with swapping 'Should Win' matches against us with 'Can't even imagine losing' ones against genuine minnows. *Economists call this pareto optimality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I.T.K Posted April 26, 2011 Share Posted April 26, 2011 18 is too big - we don't have enough big clubs to support a top league that size. 16 is better but it's not enough matches for the clubs. 14 with a split is the best option imo. I still think if you planned to have an 18 team SPL in 5 to 6 years we would get the teams. Step 1, SPA to merge SPL and SFL bodys and document the plan. (Year 1) Step 2, Redistribute SPL prize money so its fair and more money goes to 1st division. (Year 2) Step 3, Introduce 2 relegation spots from the SPL to 1st devision. (Year 3) Step 4, Leave it for another 2-3 years to allow division 1 clubs to grow and meet SPL entry targets. (Think that time is needed as clubs might require new stands to be built that wont happen over night.) Step 5, Start 18 team SPL, and, 18 team division 1. If the SFA came out with this plan I think there would be a number of investor's out there that will look at the 1 division clubs and know that if they put some cash in they will have an SPL club in a few years. Free Money etc. SFA plan can be called "18 for 2018"! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sparky Posted April 26, 2011 Share Posted April 26, 2011 I think its pretty clear that this is a difficult juggling act. Funnily enough I don't think that the 'biggest' problem is league size. That's a red herring. The problem, as others have mentioned, is the uneven distribution of money, reserve leagues, promotion relegation and pyramid structure. It looks like we'll stick with the current system, which doesn't anger me too much... as long as the other issues start to get sorted. I have absolutely no faith that this will happen. But, I'm glad that the 10 team league is being voted down. It stinks of self interest from a select few. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jambo2524 Posted April 26, 2011 Share Posted April 26, 2011 I think its pretty clear that this is a difficult juggling act. Funnily enough I don't think that the 'biggest' problem is league size. That's a red herring. The problem, as others have mentioned, is the uneven distribution of money, reserve leagues, promotion relegation and pyramid structure. It looks like we'll stick with the current system, which doesn't anger me too much... as long as the other issues start to get sorted. I have absolutely no faith that this will happen. But, I'm glad that the 10 team league is being voted down. It stinks of self interest from a select few. Simple Solution 2 Leagues SPL/Championship of 12 = 24 teams (Scottish football 'Professional' level) 11 Home and away = 22 matches Mid season split (bad weather glam friendlies etc) then - 3 divisions of 8 = SPL Championship and Championship 2 SPL Carry points forward to new league- 7 home and away Total 36 matches per season - Title and Europe and no relegation Championship - The 4 relegated SPL and 4 promoted from Championship. NO carry forward of points - Effectively 7 home and away play off for Title with top 4 given SPL spots next season and bottom 4 start in Championship places next season. Total 36 matches. Championship 2 - Bottom 8 carry forward points from Championship - 7 home and away (36 matches) = Title to play for - Last position relegated to Regional (North and South)league. The North and South play off for automatic promotion the loser of this final features in a play off Match v Championship 2 Second bottom team Big teams still have big games more fluidity in system less meaningless matches. Bigger crowds IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.