Major Restructuring in the Pipeline for SPL

[kelt]

How long is it for 

 

I don't think I've been carded... but I think I might have hurt someone's feelings by pointing something or other out.

 

What can you do, eh?

 

 

[jmo]

This may be a really stupid question but it is something that people keep mentioning which I don't really understand. They keep saying that clubs cannot afford to only play the Old Firm twice at home in any given season and still survive. Why is this the case? Wouldn't that mean every team in the first, second and third divisions would have gone out of business?

 

I'm assuming it must be because the SPL costs more overall for clubs, but what exactly about it costs more? There is tv revenue, more fans from other clubs attending the grounds, possibly more fans from their own club attending games which are perhaps more appealing than lower league games etc. Only thing I could really think of was that players would probably cost more in wages, though I still wonder if the likes of Hamilton Accies or St Mirren are paying that much more for players than those near the top of the first division.

 

I really know nothing about the business side of football so I'm sure there is something I've completely missed which makes it so expensive for a club in the SPL but what is it?

[TENEMENTFUNSTER]

Police? Catering? Stewarding? Presumably the costs involved for crowds in excess of a thousand or so would be much higher.

[jmo]

Police? Catering? Stewarding? Presumably the costs involved for crowds in excess of a thousand or so would be much higher.

 

So do those costs outweigh the amount they make in ticket sales and sales of food in the ground?

 

Again doesn't that mean games against the Old Firm would mean the cost would be the greatest therefore they would lose out on it?

[bilbobaggins]

If 2 leagues of 10 are viable then the ony reason not to have one league of 20 is impact of the loss of the the Old Firm visiting revenue.

 

Why not cover those costs for every applicable club for a period of time out of the inequitable old firm share of the TV money or from Champoins League money.

 

 

[Ajja]

This may be a really stupid question but it is something that people keep mentioning which I don't really understand. They keep saying that clubs cannot afford to only play the Old Firm twice at home in any given season and still survive. Why is this the case? Wouldn't that mean every team in the first, second and third divisions would have gone out of business?

 

I'm assuming it must be because the SPL costs more overall for clubs, but what exactly about it costs more? There is tv revenue, more fans from other clubs attending the grounds, possibly more fans from their own club attending games which are perhaps more appealing than lower league games etc. Only thing I could really think of was that players would probably cost more in wages, though I still wonder if the likes of Hamilton Accies or St Mirren are paying that much more for players than those near the top of the first division.

 

I really know nothing about the business side of football so I'm sure there is something I've completely missed which makes it so expensive for a club in the SPL but what is it?

 

The loss of revenue from a coupe of home OF games is only one small part of the problem. The expanded league argument requires a move away from playing as many home games. Its the loss of these that is the real killer, for AFC, two less home games is a lot of income gone.

 

The other problem is that if you set up a league where there are less fixtures between the bigger clubs (lets say the top 4 non-OF teams playing the OF as well as them playing each other 4 times a season) then the TV companies look less favourably on it. The increase in the number of dead rubbers is not only poor fare for the fans, it diminishes the interests of the TV companies and so the deal gets worse and the revenue again decreases. There is already severe pressure in this area and I suspect a significant part of this 10-team set up is being driven by the prospect of TV money. The TV companies may even be telling the SPL that they are not interested in an expanded league, why would they want to shell out money for Raith Rovers against Hamilton ?

 

10 teams is the only viable solution at present. The onus has to be on the SPL and the clubs involved to ensure that there is more equality in that set up in terms of income. That is the only way that we will get more competition, a more attractive product and therefor better TV money and European success. There are two giant fucking hurdles to that unfortunately.

[Sandaldinho]

i was watching the Gordon Smith interview on the Beeb website and, as he says, the fans can want whatever, the SPL will says that our opinion counts but ultimately they don't give a shit and will do whatever will make them more money.

[jmo]

The loss of revenue from a coupe of home OF games is only one small part of the problem. The expanded league argument requires a move away from playing as many home games. Its the loss of these that is the real killer, for AFC, two less home games is a lot of income gone.

 

The other problem is that if you set up a league where there are less fixtures between the bigger clubs (lets say the top 4 non-OF teams playing the OF as well as them playing each other 4 times a season) then the TV companies look less favourably on it. The increase in the number of dead rubbers is not only poor fare for the fans, it diminishes the interests of the TV companies and so the deal gets worse and the revenue again decreases. There is already severe pressure in this area and I suspect a significant part of this 10-team set up is being driven by the prospect of TV money. The TV companies may even be telling the SPL that they are not interested in an expanded league, why would they want to shell out money for Raith Rovers against Hamilton ?

 

10 teams is the only viable solution at present. The onus has to be on the SPL and the clubs involved to ensure that there is more equality in that set up in terms of income. That is the only way that we will get more competition, a more attractive product and therefor better TV money and European success. There are two giant fucking hurdles to that unfortunately.

 

Ah right that makes sense.

[bilbobaggins]

I'm going to go ahead and offer up the Kelt Plan For Footballing Awesome in Scotland. And I'm just going to copy/paste from another site because I'm a lazy fecker....

 

To me, that involves the manner in which the entire league structure currently operates being torn apart and put back together in a very different way... not just altering the number of teams in the top league... which does nothing but, well, change the number of teams in the top league. 10, 14, or 16 teams, imo, is about as radical as putting a product in new packaging and emblazoning the packaging with the words NEW FORMULA, when if fact absolutely f**k all is going to change regards the OF domination, the gulf in finances and the continued apathy towards the sport.

 

An East Coast and West Coast split would be a genuine and positive step.

 

East Coast League

Aberdeen

Dundee United

Hearts

Hibs

Dundee

Inverness

St Johnstone

Dunfermline

Raith Rovers

Falkirk

 

West Coast League

Rangers

Celtic

Motherwell

Kilmarnock

St Mirren

Hamilton

Partick Thistle

Morton

QotS

Airdrie United

 

The Scottish Cup remains a national competition.

 

The League cup becomes a regional competition. Two league cups, one East Coast, one West.

 

The Winners of each league play off for the title, and as such gains admittance to the Champion's league as national winner (whether that winner then has to play off against, say, the Latvian champs to gain entry to the CL would be up to UEFA. The EC/WC playoff loser becomes runner up.

 

Travel is largely reduced for fans, as the leagues are regional.

 

Promotion and relegation would involve lower tier regional leagues... assuming relegation is retained. Personally I'd like to see relegation scrapped. With no fear of relegation the top teams will be more prone to play attacking football. The worst that can happen is finishing bottom and losing out on prize money.

 

The West Coast teams have the benefit of Old Firm gates, likely more sponsorship and probably more media attention.

 

The East Coast is massively more competitive, leading to larger gates and an increase in gate money. With no OF demanding larger chunks of prize money, gouging an extra 5% on ticket sales and the potential for any of the teams to win the league, the East Coast league benefits from the departure of the Scum and their bigotry.

 

 

We could call the final play off game the Super Bowel.

[wee toon red]

Let's face it, Scottish football is fucked either way. They can try changing formats all they want but nothing will stop the slide to oblivion that started as soon as money became the main motivation and no-one did anything to stop the Glasgow hoors taking the lion's share of it.

 

The ideal scenario for me would be a reset button that would see all clubs going bankrupt and new teams being formed by supporters and run in a similar way to the German clubs. Kinda like FC Utd of Manchester but on a nationwide scale 

[dave_min]

The loss of revenue from a coupe of home OF games is only one small part of the problem. The expanded league argument requires a move away from playing as many home games. Its the loss of these that is the real killer, for AFC, two less home games is a lot of income gone.

 

The other problem is that if you set up a league where there are less fixtures between the bigger clubs (lets say the top 4 non-OF teams playing the OF as well as them playing each other 4 times a season) then the TV companies look less favourably on it. The increase in the number of dead rubbers is not only poor fare for the fans, it diminishes the interests of the TV companies and so the deal gets worse and the revenue again decreases. There is already severe pressure in this area and I suspect a significant part of this 10-team set up is being driven by the prospect of TV money. The TV companies may even be telling the SPL that they are not interested in an expanded league, why would they want to shell out money for Raith Rovers against Hamilton ?

 

10 teams is the only viable solution at present. The onus has to be on the SPL and the clubs involved to ensure that there is more equality in that set up in terms of income. That is the only way that we will get more competition, a more attractive product and therefor better TV money and European success. There are two giant fucking hurdles to that unfortunately.

 

The 'less home games' argument only really works if we had exactly the same number of people at every game (which we don't). We currently have 18 home games, unless the split is shit and then we can have only 17. Assuming the best of 18 home games, and using our average crowd of approx. 10,000 we get 180,000 gate reciepts a season.

 

If we manage to get our average crowd up to 12,000 (not exactly unrealistic) in a 16 team league we'd get the same amount of money. Surely to fuck a season ticket for a season which has 3 less games in it will be cheaper too, which might encourage a few more fans along, i'm sure i'm not the only one who would head along to a few more games if they didn't come around so often - we filled the away end (and some more) at Raith last season, then didn't manage to fill places like Tannadice.

 

As for SKY. Do they not realise that in a 10 team league they have 180 games a season to choose from, but the 16 team league has 240. Are they really suggesting that all 60 of these extra games are completely pointless? This also goes for advertising etc, the Clydesdale Bank will get its logo on a board shown an extra 60 times a year.

 

I just don't see the point in changing it to 10 teams, it won't be any better so why bother changing it at all? The thing that needs to change is the distribution of the money and as there's absolutely zero chance of the OF taking less of the cake all we're doing is rearranging the deckchairs here.

[TENEMENTFUNSTER]

I just don't see the point in changing it to 10 teams, it won't be any better so why bother changing it at all? The thing that needs to change is the distribution of the money and as there's absolutely zero chance of the OF taking less of the cake all we're doing is rearranging the deckchairs here.

 

I agree.

[bilbobaggins]

So do I. Total waste of time. let's stick with 12 and kill the split.

[Ajja]

The 'less home games' argument only really works if we had exactly the same number of people at every game (which we don't). We currently have 18 home games, unless the split is shit and then we can have only 17. Assuming the best of 18 home games, and using our average crowd of approx. 10,000 we get 180,000 gate reciepts a season.

 

If we manage to get our average crowd up to 12,000 (not exactly unrealistic) in a 16 team league we'd get the same amount of money. Surely to fuck a season ticket for a season which has 3 less games in it will be cheaper too, which might encourage a few more fans along, i'm sure i'm not the only one who would head along to a few more games if they didn't come around so often - we filled the away end (and some more) at Raith last season, then didn't manage to fill places like Tannadice.

 

As for SKY. Do they not realise that in a 10 team league they have 180 games a season to choose from, but the 16 team league has 240. Are they really suggesting that all 60 of these extra games are completely pointless? This also goes for advertising etc, the Clydesdale Bank will get its logo on a board shown an extra 60 times a year.

 

I just don't see the point in changing it to 10 teams, it won't be any better so why bother changing it at all? The thing that needs to change is the distribution of the money and as there's absolutely zero chance of the OF taking less of the cake all we're doing is rearranging the deckchairs here.

 

Same conclusion I have alluded to. The rest is a speculative argument (on both our parts) and seemingly a moot point as the clubs are not going to vote for anything other than 'as we were' because they can't agree.

 

So we can all sit back and watch as the OF drain the life from the game. Let's hope they either go find another host to be parasites to or they realise they have to bring parity to the table.

[Harcus]

So do I. Total waste of time. let's stick with 12 and kill the split.

 

Not sure if I'm biting or not, but how's that going to work? That's either 33 games a season (too few presumably, and would be fucking bizarre) or 44 (too many).

 

Couldn't agree more with abolishing the split, but would have to go to 10/18 for that to happen IMO.

[glasgow sheep]

I like the split 

[bilbobaggins]

If it's about bringing in gate money then why not have more (44) games?

 

It's not as if we have hectic European schedules or summer International tournaments to work around.

[boboisared]

We should just go with 20 teams, call it the Scottish Premiership and keep telling everyone it's the best league in the world until somebody believes it.

[TENEMENTFUNSTER]

We should just go with 20 teams, call it the Scottish Premiership and keep telling everyone it's the best league in the world until somebody believes it.

 

It would only take one person with incredible powers of perception to bring down the house of cards . . . .

[bilbobaggins]

It would only take one person with incredible powers of perception to bring down the house of cards . . . .

 

I knew you were going to say that.

[Harcus]

I knew you were going to say that.

 

Incredible!

[boboisared]

 

It's Bilbotime!

[d0nald0n1]

The 'less home games' argument only really works if we had exactly the same number of people at every game (which we don't). We currently have 18 home games, unless the split is shit and then we can have only 17. Assuming the best of 18 home games, and using our average crowd of approx. 10,000 we get 180,000 gate reciepts a season.

 

If we manage to get our average crowd up to 12,000 (not exactly unrealistic) in a 16 team league we'd get the same amount of money. Surely to fuck a season ticket for a season which has 3 less games in it will be cheaper too, which might encourage a few more fans along, i'm sure i'm not the only one who would head along to a few more games if they didn't come around so often - we filled the away end (and some more) at Raith last season, then didn't manage to fill places like Tannadice.

 

As for SKY. Do they not realise that in a 10 team league they have 180 games a season to choose from, but the 16 team league has 240. Are they really suggesting that all 60 of these extra games are completely pointless? This also goes for advertising etc, the Clydesdale Bank will get its logo on a board shown an extra 60 times a year.

 

I just don't see the point in changing it to 10 teams, it won't be any better so why bother changing it at all? The thing that needs to change is the distribution of the money and as there's absolutely zero chance of the OF taking less of the cake all we're doing is rearranging the deckchairs here.

 

Yep I think that needs to be calculated in. I'm not convinced by the argument that 10 team is the best for TV either. Are we saying that currently Sky televise every single game between hearts, hibs, aberdeen, celtic, dundee utd and rangers (supposing those are the top 6 teams). I'd guess if we went to 10 teams playing four times they won't show all four aberdeen vs dundee utd or even all 4 aberdeen v celtic games. so whats the big deal if they show 2 aberdeen vs dundee utd games in a league that has 2, or if they show 2 in a league that has 4 but they chose not to televise the others. Surely as they broadcast a limited number of games there is a limit to how meaningful this argument for TV really is.

[d0nald0n1]

oh and while i'm here...

 

no one noticed what i did with my 18 team league suggestion huh?

 

and secondly why do most people think a 16 team league is best? Surely any argument you can make for 16 can also be made for 18 but with the added advantage of 4 more league games a season (2 more at home) and hence more cash for all the clubs and more choice to televise.

 

Surely if you want an expanded league 16 is too small and 18 is what we should aim for as well as being more financially sound?

 

I find the SPL's argument using 16 teams as the example all the time - which is pish because thats the fewsit possible number of games and therefore the weakest fincancially (by there argument) they are not discussing 18 or 20 publicly and explaining any financial argument for that?

 

 

[Kowalski]

Couldn't agree more with abolishing the split, but would have to go to 10/18 for that to happen IMO.

 

Agreed, which is why I'd prefer an 18 team league to a 16, and certainly not 14 or 10.