Major Restructuring in the Pipeline for SPL

[Kowalski]

There's a Q&A with the SPL's marketing and communications manager in today's SOS:

 

Q: All available evidence suggests supporters favoured an enlarged top tier with teams playing each other only twice a season. Two leagues of ten and teams playing each other four times runs completely contrary to that. Why is this? Why not 14, 16 or even 18?

 

A: The 14-team set-up required a six-eight or eight-six split to avoid too many games. It retained the number of 'big' games attractive to broadcasters and removed any fixtures imbalance, but in the eight-six split it could have meant the seventh, eighth and ninth placed teams having nothing to play for across their remaining 14 games.

 

An eight-six split would have avoided this but it would have meant 40 league games for the top clubs. The fixture card is already extremely congested. With the possibility of a winter break, as well as the prospect of Scottish teams remaining in European competition post-Christmas, further fixtures for the top clubs simply cannot be accommodated within the season.

 

The 16-team set-up is what a lot of supporters say they want but there would be four fewer home game per season for each club, that is, a pro rata reduction of 20 per cent of each club's gate income. All teams would play Celtic and Rangers only once at home each season, leading to a further reduction in gate income.

 

The current number of 'big' games for broadcasting would be much reduced - leading to a negative impact on the value of the league's media deals. An 18-team is also what some supporters say they would like to see.

 

But, again, there would be significantly reduced revenues from a number of income streams and all the downsides of the 16-team set-up magnified.

 

The analysis we have carried out on the various models we believe demonstrates unequivocally that a 16 or 18-team league is utterly unworkable and that a 14-team league is not the answer either. A ten-team league is the only way that substantial funding can be pushed down to the second tier at the same time as protecting the revenues of the top tier. A ten-team league is also consistent with Henry McLeish's recommendations regarding the best playing the best.

[Sandaldinho]

all about money, not about football

while it stays like that Scottish football will always be shite

[tsr]

Think the article just backs up what the loon posting before was saying, they pass the decision to commerical people and then wonder why the football's garbage.

[tom_widdows]

listening to off the ball on the Iplayer and as far as im concerned Mcleish sounds like the typical puppet.

People seem to be applauding his involvement because he once played the game but that was back in the 60s when tv money etc wasnt an issue

 

Cosgrove asked him if the TV money etc should be split equally between the clubs to which he said no. Cosgrove then said ' so there will be 10 clubs but they are not equal, are you happy with the inequality'. Response was to avoid answering that question and start going on about other european leagues etc.

 

Scottish football will never improve if Rangers and celtic who will naturally earn more money from gate reciepts, merchandising etc are also each guaranteed 25% of any sponsorship deal while the others get 5-6.25%

 

They are stuck in the spl with the the rest of us so make them tow the line too.

[Rebus30]

As previous posters have indicated, they shouldn't leave decisions like this up to people who care more about money that the game.  I know the dons need to pull their socks up at the moment, but the game in scotland as a whole has to improve - TENFOLD.

 

COYR

 

[Kowalski]

Meeting's off:

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/scot_prem/9302982.stm

 

A Scottish Premier League meeting to discuss proposals for reconstruction has been postponed as opposition grows against a 10-team top flight.

 

The general meeting due to be held on Monday has been rescheduled for 4 January because of wintry weather.

 

Representatives from the 12 member clubs were due to discuss a proposal to create a 10-team league.

 

But January's meeting is expected to hear fresh proposals for a new play-off system at the top of the table.

 

Four clubs - Dundee United, Hearts, Inverness Caledonian Thistle and Kilmarnock - remain to be convinced of the case for a 10-club top league.

 

And they are understood to want further discussion on league sizes while also exploring new play-off proposals, such as exists in the Eredivisie in the Netherlands.

[Ajja]

As previous posters have indicated, they shouldn't leave decisions like this up to people who care more about money that the game.  I know the dons need to pull their socks up at the moment, but the game in scotland as a whole has to improve - TENFOLD.

 

COYR

 

 

It's a wonderful idea but the key problem here is that if you don't make the right commercial decisions then the football suffers, if not perishes completely. As fans we can bemoan the idea that business men are making the decision that are destroying our game but its impractical to do it any other way.

 

As much as I hate it, the club have to run a business to survive. They have to protect income at all costs and this means not giving up any home game revenue and particularly not revenue that comes in from 4-5,000 OF fans paying into the ground. Scottish football clubs are living on the bread line these days and it would just be unbelievably damaging, if not business critical, to vote away this revenue. So a 16 team league will never happen.

[Kowalski]

Pittodrie chief backs 10-team SPL as the way forward

 

Published: 21/12/2010

 

A new, 10-team SPL is the only way forward for Scottish football to survive and flourish. Aberdeen chairman Stewart Milne made no apology last night for wanting to take a step back in time as the game in this country scrambles to survive.

 

It's broke and it needs fixing but, despite a consensus of supporters wanting an expanded league, Milne was insistent a reduced league – meaning more matches against the Old Firm, of course – and stronger financial support for the teams in the second-tier 10-team championship is the way forward.

 

It is back to the future for Milne. No team other than the Old Firm has won the SPL since its inception in 1998 and it was season 1984-85 when the Dons last won Scottish football's ultimate prize. He said: “I think it will create a league where there is excitement from top to bottom. Yes, all the clubs outside Rangers and Celtic will have to up their games and provide sterner competition for them. I think we have seen that from two or three clubs already this season.

 

“We need four or five strong teams every season competing with Rangers and Celtic. We have not been able to achieve it. In the current set-up you end up playing teams three or four times a season. If you go to a 14-team league – whether you split it top six and bottom eight or the other way around – you will still end up playing most teams four times a season.

 

“If you move to a 16-team league with 30 games you are losing games and taking a big hit on that, losing two home Old Firm matches, you are going to end up with more meaningless games. When you work the whole thing through logically there is no better option."

 

Milne insists the teams outside of the top flight will be funded properly, unlike now.

 

He said: “What is vital is a well-funded championship, so we can start to build a real profile and start to generate some serious money for this league.

 

“There is still a lot of debate to take place about when we play. A start would be to bring the season forward to start as soon as we can. There is a commitment more or less to bring it forward to the middle of July for next year, if we could bring it forward even more I think we could have a meaningful break in the winter and finish a bit earlier.

 

“I am not convinced about summer football because I think there are an immense amount of people who get a lot of pleasure out of watching their team in the winter months when their options are limited.

 

“I think we would be competing with a lot of other things if we switched to the summer completely. A much earlier starting date, and an even earlier start for the championship, would make us much more attractive to the television companies.

 

“If we can get going in early July I am convinced there is a lot of benefit to be had."

[glasgow sheep]

 

 

SM in "fucking idiot" shocker

[TENEMENTFUNSTER]

He's an idiot for aying the 10 team SPL makes more financial sense?

[glasgow sheep]

He's an idiot for aying the 10 team SPL makes more financial sense?

 

To be fair I never read past the headline 

[boboisared]

If I had my way the changes I'd make:

 

• Expand to 16, playing each team twice. Split of top 8 and bottom 6. Gives teams extra incentive to try and break in to the top positions for the extra games.
  
• I like the idea of one lower division followed by regionalised leagues below this. Shorter travelling distances for clubs to save money and the chance of larger supports at games for local rivals.
   
  
• Promotion to the top league automatically for one team plus a second vs. fifteenth one off match at a neutral venue to decide the sixteenth spot for the following season
   
  
• TV money split equally between all 16 teams.
   
  
• Games to be graded on calibre of opposition, set at start of the season. E.g - Grade A - Old Firm, Hearts - £22. Grade B - Hibs, Dundee Utd, Motherwell - £20. Down to Grade D and £15. For the matches excluding the Old Firm free tickets to be issued to Primary school children (who will be accompanied by teachers or football team managers) to try and develop more fans at a young age rather than have them supporting the teams they see most often on tv.
   
  
• Re-introduction of the reserve league. It's asking a lot for young players to go straight from the 19's to playing at the top level immediately.
   
  
• If possible grants from the football association (one association to govern the whole lot) for the teams in the regionalised leagues to get their youth set up in order.
   
  
• Full time referees with demotion and promotion dependant on performances.
   
  
• Wages to be no higher than an agreed % of a teams turnover.
  

 

I've probably missed out some of what I want to say there and don't expect many to agree. It's also partly a re hash of other peoples suggestions I've heard.

[BobbyBiscuit]

If I had my way the changes I'd make:

 

• Expand to 16, playing each team twice. Split of top 8 and bottom 6. Gives teams extra incentive to try and break in to the top positions for the extra games.

 

Where do the other two teams go?

[boboisared]

Where do the other two teams go?

Ha ha.

 

Two splits of eight then. Even better!

 

[Ajja]

If I had my way the changes I'd make:

 

• Expand to 16, playing each team twice. Split of top 8 and bottom 6. Gives teams extra incentive to try and break in to the top positions for the extra games.
  
• I like the idea of one lower division followed by regionalised leagues below this. Shorter travelling distances for clubs to save money and the chance of larger supports at games for local rivals.
   
  
• Promotion to the top league automatically for one team plus a second vs. fifteenth one off match at a neutral venue to decide the sixteenth spot for the following season
   
  
• TV money split equally between all 16 teams.
   
  
• Games to be graded on calibre of opposition, set at start of the season. E.g - Grade A - Old Firm, Hearts - £22. Grade B - Hibs, Dundee Utd, Motherwell - £20. Down to Grade D and £15. For the matches excluding the Old Firm free tickets to be issued to Primary school children (who will be accompanied by teachers or football team managers) to try and develop more fans at a young age rather than have them supporting the teams they see most often on tv.
   
  
• Re-introduction of the reserve league. It's asking a lot for young players to go straight from the 19's to playing at the top level immediately.
   
  
• If possible grants from the football association (one association to govern the whole lot) for the teams in the regionalised leagues to get their youth set up in order.
   
  
• Full time referees with demotion and promotion dependant on performances.
   
  
• Wages to be no higher than an agreed % of a teams turnover.
  

 

I've probably missed out some of what I want to say there and don't expect many to agree. It's also partly a re hash of other peoples suggestions I've heard.

 

Its quite simple and Milne is correct in his position. Your heart is ruling your head if you think otherwise.

 

I'm afraid what you, or any other fan, 'want' is not going to hold any store. We cannot vote to reduce our revenues. End of story.

 

[boboisared]

Its quite simple and Milne is correct in his position. Your heart is ruling your head if you think otherwise.

 

I'm afraid what you, or any other fan, 'want' is not going to hold any store. We cannot vote to reduce our revenues. End of story.

I'd much rather take a step backwards to go forwards than stand still.

 

The reason we're in the mess we're is a lot to do with Milne. We trusted him to make decisions in our best interests before and look where we are.

 

I didn't realise you held the over riding opinion either.

[maverick sheep]

How exactly can this ten team set up do anything other than reduce revenues for non-OF clubs given the 'properly funded' SPL 2? I haven't seen that explained anywhere.

 

I cannot see the OF taking any financial hit in order to provide more cash to SPL 2 clubs. Therefore how is the guaranteed 2nd home game against OF clubs enough to cancel out the loss for clubs like ours?

 

We're structuring an entire country's league system around 2 teams and the issue seems to be less about the good of the league, more about massaging the OF ego as they're embarrassed among their european pals to be playing in such a poorly structured league.

 

'Financial sense' and 'improved performance' are smokescreens. We'll still be given the same, or worse rations and the standard will be still be as dire because we play each other too often. The fans get bored, the players get bored.

 

Until the tail stops wagging the dog, no benefit will come our way.

[manc_don]

Ajja, surely it has to come to a point though, where the interest in the game takes such a hit that it doesn't even make financial sense to go down to a 10 team league? If it goes back to that, fans will continue to give up and look further afield to find their saturday entertainment. I know the current figures will probably back their view the reduction, but the interest in the professional game in Scotland is dwindling, I honestly don't think the boards are aware of how severe the situation is.

[Ajja]

Ajja, surely it has to come to a point though, where the interest in the game takes such a hit that it doesn't even make financial sense to go down to a 10 team league? If it goes back to that, fans will continue to give up and look further afield to find their saturday entertainment. I know the current figures will probably back their view the reduction, but the interest in the professional game in Scotland is dwindling, I honestly don't think the boards are aware of how severe the situation is.

 

For the record, in footballing terms I am in favour of a 16 team league not a 10 team league.

 

The problem here is that clubs have to balance up the risks associated with any decision. The risk you have highlighted that the product becomes more stagnant and therefor less desirable is a significant one. That said, it's a risk that may not come to fruition, it's speculative and however likely it might be its not guaranteed.

 

However, to take a decision that effectively writes off the income for 2 full home games, as well as 2 home game against the OF has an immediate and guaranteed impact on revenue. This, in a climate of austerity and already reducing income streams is just too difficult a decision to make for any business.

 

Personally, I would rather see the game invest in a more compelling and balanced product. To 'take the pain' as Bobo suggests for the benefit of the future. I would love to see a fundamental reshape of Scottish football so that those two disgusting and vile organisations that drag the game through the mire while bleeding it dry of all resource are forced to play on a level playing field. Unfortunately, it just isn't going to happen as long as the people who are trying to make economic sense of a business model are the decision makers. It just doesn't work I'm afraid.

[coopy100]

For the record, in footballing terms I am in favour of a 16 team league not a 10 team league.

 

The problem here is that clubs have to balance up the risks associated with any decision. The risk you have highlighted that the product becomes more stagnant and therefor less desirable is a significant one. That said, it's a risk that may not come to fruition, it's speculative and however likely it might be its not guaranteed.

 

However, to take a decision that effectively writes off the income for 2 full home games, as well as 2 home game against the OF has an immediate and guaranteed impact on revenue. This, in a climate of austerity and already reducing income streams is just too difficult a decision to make for any business.

 

Personally, I would rather see the game invest in a more compelling and balanced product. To 'take the pain' as Bobo suggests for the benefit of the future. I would love to see a fundamental reshape of Scottish football so that those two disgusting and vile organisations that drag the game through the mire while bleeding it dry of all resource are forced to play on a level playing field. Unfortunately, it just isn't going to happen as long as the people who are trying to make economic sense of a business model are the decision makers. It just doesn't work I'm afraid.

I thought one of the reasons they moved to a 12 team league was public indifference was growing to such an extent that they needed to do something to freshen up the product so as to try and keep the fans going.

 

Either way it is a catch22. A larger league could lead to a further dilution of playing standards as you let lesser skilled teams in over a period of time, even if it is hard to believe there are such teams out there Another fear will obviously be the fact an already small pot is divided even further meaning less money for wages and a worse product. On the plus side it may alleviate some teams fear of relegation and encourage them to give youth a chance.

 

Ten team league could become boring as sorting through your sock drawer meaning less fans going which again reduces revenue which impacts on wages and standards fall again.

 

The only major way for anything of any note to happen is for a fair distribution of wealth from all revenue streams for all teams and that is not going to happen as it would threaten the old firm dominance and some clubs, like ours, survival.

[boboisared]

For the record, in footballing terms I am in favour of a 16 team league not a 10 team league.

 

The problem here is that clubs have to balance up the risks associated with any decision. The risk you have highlighted that the product becomes more stagnant and therefor less desirable is a significant one. That said, it's a risk that may not come to fruition, it's speculative and however likely it might be its not guaranteed.

 

However, to take a decision that effectively writes off the income for 2 full home games, as well as 2 home game against the OF has an immediate and guaranteed impact on revenue. This, in a climate of austerity and already reducing income streams is just too difficult a decision to make for any business.

 

Personally, I would rather see the game invest in a more compelling and balanced product. To 'take the pain' as Bobo suggests for the benefit of the future. I would love to see a fundamental reshape of Scottish football so that those two disgusting and vile organisations that drag the game through the mire while bleeding it dry of all resource are forced to play on a level playing field. Unfortunately, it just isn't going to happen as long as the people who are trying to make economic sense of a business model are the decision makers. It just doesn't work I'm afraid.

I appreciate this post Ajja.

 

I certainly don't disagree with what you have said here.

 

I was only giving my opinion on what measures I would go to whilst having no power or responsibility to make sure it can work.

 

If forced to pick a couple of things I wouldn't back down on from my post and which I feel can be implemented even next season is the free tickets for Primary school children and the return of the reserve league.

 

Also slightly controversial but I'd be behind the club offering season tickets at a discounted price for under privelleged people also.

[Ajja]

I appreciate this post Ajja.

 

I certainly don't disagree with what you have said here.

 

I was only giving my opinion on what measures I would go to whilst having no power or responsibility to make sure it can work.

 

If forced to pick a couple of things I wouldn't back down on from my post and which I feel can be implemented even next season is the free tickets for Primary school children and the return of the reserve league.

 

Also slightly controversial but I'd be behind the club offering season tickets at a discounted price for under privelleged people also.

 

I'm sure there are many things that can be done to improve the product on the field. Likewise there are many incentives that can be used off field to attract customers to purchase the product. Again they would all have to be looked at in the context of costs versus income but your suggestions make a lot of sense.

 

I can never understand why we don't just give tickets away to kids on a regular basis, the seats are empty otherwise. Easyjet built a successful model around the premise that you might as well sell the seat for 1p if its going to leave empty. At least then it gets people used to the idea that flying is the norm. Now they can charge £30 and people have become used to using their product so they pay it.

 

The season ticket one is interesting, did the club not make a real mess of the student concession or did I pick that up wrongly. It would potentially attract interest but not sure it would drive significant numbers. Season tickets in general are a difficult issue for clubs as they are committed income which is very valuable but they also make it very difficult for the club to run any promotions without upsetting those who have made that up front commitment.

 

One thing for sure is that Aberdeen FC are going to have to get very innovative in the coming seasons. They can't rely on the authorities to deliver a more viable product on the field through restructuring as it will serve a different agenda. As I've said already, the quality of the football is not the key decision making criteria. Its just about business survival.

[boboisared]

I'm sure there are many things that can be done to improve the product on the field. Likewise there are many incentives that can be used off field to attract customers to purchase the product. Again they would all have to be looked at in the context of costs versus income but your suggestions make a lot of sense.

 

I can never understand why we don't just give tickets away to kids on a regular basis, the seats are empty otherwise. Easyjet built a successful model around the premise that you might as well sell the seat for 1p if its going to leave empty. At least then it gets people used to the idea that flying is the norm. Now they can charge £30 and people have become used to using their product so they pay it.

 

The season ticket one is interesting, did the club not make a real mess of the student concession or did I pick that up wrongly. It would potentially attract interest but not sure it would drive significant numbers. Season tickets in general are a difficult issue for clubs as they are committed income which is very valuable but they also make it very difficult for the club to run any promotions without upsetting those who have made that up front commitment.

 

One thing for sure is that Aberdeen FC are going to have to get very innovative in the coming seasons. They can't rely on the authorities to deliver a more viable product on the field through restructuring as it will serve a different agenda. As I've said already, the quality of the football is not the key decision making criteria. Its just about business survival.

The Easyjet similiarity you've made is exactly what I'm talking about, but over a longer period. If you get the kids along and they enjoy it (some won't) then there is always the chance the weeks their school isn't selected for the free ticket scheme they may still ask a parent to take them. If you get them hooked at a young enough age then they're an addict for life. We're just as bad for your heart rate as crack too.

 

I have no idea what the current scooby is with the season ticket as I play football on a Saturday so have never needed to look in to getting one. It's perhaps the fact that I'm the type of person who believes your season ticket should get you your chosen seat and a priority ticket for cup matches and that's it. Some agree and some don't. My feelings would be the same if I was a season ticket owner though, as I have been previously.

 

Although some won't admit it I think a lot of people staying away from the game is cost factor. I understand it's hard for the club to lower the prices as although there'd be a bigger gate there would be a loss of income so that's a hard nut to crack. It's a definite catch 22 situation but something needs to be done.

 

The Utd game for a fiver if you purchase the Motherwell ticket was a good start. Or was it the other way round?!

[King Street Loon]

Heard this on the radio and Fearts MD was on speaking about it & saying that they and some others are in favour of the top 4 finishing teams in the league going into a play off for the championship.

 

I.E Rangers, Celtic, Hearts & us for example would playoff to decide who finishes as champions.

[tsr]

Indeed, Old Firm unsurprisingly rejecting it out of hand today.