Major Restructuring in the Pipeline for SPL

[sheepheid]

I agree with Kowalski - 18 team league for me.  Play each team home and away - It couldn't be easier.  10 team league is a backwards step in my opinion.

[maverick sheep]

The Scottish Premier League has scrapped plans for a vote to introduce a top division of 10 teams.

 

A meeting scheduled for 17 January was intended to push the plans through but those have now been put on hold.

 

Dundee United chairman Stephen Thompson, a critic of the scheme, met SPL bosses Neil Doncaster and Ralph Topping at Gleneagles on Saturday.

 

All 12 clubs were due to meet on 17 January to vote on the idea but no formal resolution has been agreed.

 

The SPL's chief executive Doncaster and its chairman Topping had hoped that the clubs would vote in favour of the changes which would be introduced the season after next.

 

But for a vote to happen a formal resolution needs to be put to clubs 14 days before the meeting and that has not happened.

 

One senior figure told BBC last night: "There has been no resolution so there is nothing to vote on."

 

With four clubs - Dundee United, Hearts, Inverness Caledonian Thistle and Kilmarnock - against the changes and St Mirren also saying they preferred a 14-team top league, the proposals for two leagues of 10 now appear to be on hold.

[Kowalski]

Great news 

[TENEMENTFUNSTER]

Listened to a wee bit of debate on sportsound, is there really an appetite to play teams currently struggling in the 1st Division? Really? The top six in the 1st Division are that good they should be in any top division?

 

I hate to admit it, I agreed with Fanny Weir last night, I don't think the number of teams makes a cunt of a difference, simply most of them aren't very good or are not receiving good enough coaching/management.

 

If fans are willing for the game to slide further over the next few years, as is inevitable when more money leaves if/when the league changes, why weren't they before? Fans aren't turning up just now and lowered investment levels will compound that. That and every cunt being skint.

 

There are basic structural problems with Scottish football, the powerbase overly concentrated with the ugly sisters being a large part of it, that set the whole thing up to be hugely difficult to change. 

[BobbyBiscuit]

The Scottish Premier League  has unwittingly extended the pantomime season. And to the division's credit, it is quite a feat to come up with a reconstruction plan which enrages so many people in one fell swoop.

 

If the SPL's chairman and chief executive – more of their errant ways to come later – had their way, a vote ratifying the move from 12 to 10 top-flight teams would take place on 17 January. Within the past four days, that prospect has become as likely as segregation being abolished at Old Firm games.

 

The topic of how successfully to reform Scotland's top flight was a rather dull one until this week. Details of talks held at Hampden Park between representatives of all 12 current SPL members have gradually leaked out, leaving supporters somewhere between baffled and angry.

 

Through it all, Neil Doncaster, the SPL's chief executive, has maintained a stunningly bullish stance over the likelihood of 10 teams making up the league from the onset of season 2012-13. Doncaster is either arrogant, blind to the opinions of his own member clubs or trying desperately to adopt a strong public persona in the face of widespread discontent.

 

Supporters don't want a 10-team league, that much has been made abundantly clear. Of a Supporters Direct survey, 88% said as much. Therefore, if Doncaster ever attempts to point out that the SPL take the views of fans into realistic consideration, onlookers can be forgiven a smile.

 

What is correct is that a move to 16 or 18 teams is too financially damaging – owing to the television value of Old Firm games – to be considered. However, a retention of 12 teams, or a jump to 14, are perfectly valid.

 

It remains surprising that so many people apparently believe the basic make-up of the SPL is so pertinent to the country's current and many football problems. The reality is, and has been for a considerable time now, that the content of the league is the key issue, not its size. Supporters continue to drift away, leaving the depressing sight of empty stadiums, because of overpriced, poor fare, not how many teams form leagues.

 

But since this theme appears no sign of disappearing, it must be addressed. Four clubs – Hearts, Inverness, Dundee United and Kilmarnock – have made their reservations over a 10-team scenario perfectly clear this week. And with good reason; here the SPL is asking for support over a format which would see promotion and relegation play-offs thereby offering a 33.3% chance of demotion. Clubs, already operating in a tight financial environment, would be writing suicide notes by supporting it. There is no evidence at all that a 10-side league would improve standards. In fact, evidence points to the contrary given the increase of a fear factor.

 

David Longmuir, the head of the Scottish Football League, claimed with a straight face that the biggest issue he faces just now relates to the reschedule of postponed games. If the SPL has its way, the SFL will either cease to exist or radically change in format.

 

Play-offs may work in England but in leagues more than double the size of what the SPL wants to introduce. They are unnecessary north of the border and a blatant attempt to raise guaranteed end-of-season cash; a simple two-up, two-down system should be adopted. With the greatest of respect, it is debatable how much monetary value there would be in, for example, a Hamilton v Ross County play-off anyway.

 

A plan to increase the size of the SPL to 14 teams, heavily mooted to clubs as well as the media, mysteriously disappeared around the time that Henry McLeish published his hard-hitting review of Scottish football. The cause for that should be fully explained because the 14-team format was perfectly reasonable to many.

 

The recommendation which has been put forward stems from a six-team SPL strategy group. There is, in the words of the league chairman Ralph Topping, "no Plan B". Having failed to convene a meeting between October and January, Plan A was haphazardly put before the other six teams a fortnight before an 11-1 vote was required to see it through.

 

Topping, in yet another bizarre public utterance, earlier said a successful vote was "odds on". This man has reached a prominent position within a British bookmaking firm, as well. Now, he and Doncaster must be seeking a way to delay that vote, or face huge embarrassment. The Scottish Football Association's fresh performance and youth league models cannot be fully implemented until this unseemly mess is sorted out.

 

Motherwell are known to be wavering and partly of a mind to support the "rebel" four clubs. St Mirren, a member of the strategy group, haven't exactly poured cold water on its proposals but made a public statement yesterday which at least illustrated they are unconvinced.

 

At Monday's meeting, the Rangers chief executive, Martin Bain, said those members of the strategy group should fully endorse its findings and keep individual opinions to one side. That was contested at the time by Stewart Gilmour, the St Mirren chairman.

 

The same meeting heard how the value of television deals was likely to improve with a move to 10 teams. No figures were available to back this up. Apart from the fact it would be a bizarre negotiating tactic in any case, are we really to expect that broadcasters would commit to handing over more cash for a product which is more widely unpopular than what exists already?

 

The blunt truth is that Scottish football is doing well to hold on to the commercial revenue it already has. Suggestions that a reshaping of one or all divisions will prompt a vast influx of cash have no foundation in economic reality.

 

One possible way to pacify those who object to cutting the SPL's size would be to alter revenue distribution. As things stand, the top two clubs collect 32% of commercial income. The possibility of splitting some of that, in handing out a mere £125,000 extra per club, was mooted on Monday but swiftly swatted aside. The Old Firm can point back to the McLeish report, which states that 56% of SPL crowds over the last decade were generated by Rangers and Celtic alone, as a reference point of their value.

 

During Monday's talks Topping reminded clubs of the work Doncaster has done since moving into his role and laid out how the chief executive's own position was closely linked to reform. That was perceived by many as a veiled warning to support these fundamentally flawed reconstruction plans. Given what a mess this episode has turned into, Topping's words may come back to haunt him.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/blog/2011/jan/07/spl-reform-neil-doncaster

[Kowalski]

But the 14 team league sounded like a mess as well, with clubs in one half playing more games than clubs in the other half.  But perhaps it's the compromise they will have to take.

[manc_don]

But the 14 team league sounded like a mess as well, with clubs in one half playing more games than clubs in the other half.  But perhaps it's the compromise they will have to take.

 

I assumed that it was just a straight league of 14 rather than the 8 and 6 split. Otherwise I don't see why st. Mirren would want it

[Kowalski]

I assumed that it was just a straight league of 14 rather than the 8 and 6 split. Otherwise I don't see why st. Mirren would want it

 

But playing each other twice is only 26 games, and playing each other 4 times is 52 games.

[tsr]

I assumed that it was just a straight league of 14 rather than the 8 and 6 split. Otherwise I don't see why st. Mirren would want it

There's a split, I was under impression top 6 broke off and bottom 8, the preference is to play each other twice but that's two few games and SKY want 4 Old Firm games.

[Harcus]

As I recall, the split in the 14 team league is very early. Would make for a long season if you're bottom 8.

[tsr]

Is reasonably early, but there will be more relegation places, 2 auto and one play off, therefore more at stake?

[d0nald0n1]

Yep I think 14 sounds messy, but perhaps its no worse than 12 with a split? Not sure on that.

 

I think they have a MASSIVE problem here. 10 is too small, 12 and 14 wont work without a split of some sort, 16 is simply too few games to pay the bills, forget if they are against the OF or anyone else there's just too few of them. 18 seems to get dissed because they quality isn't good enough.

 

Is it just me or should they be looking at this with a MUCH longer term plan and perhaps they need a road map that has us move to 14 asap along with pushing more money down to Div 1 then 3 years down the line move to 16, work out how to create a few extra games (perhaps a split at the top again :-( ) then finally 3 years after that move to 18.

 

Does this allow team to help the other clubs improve their set up over a 7 year period before we go to 18 teams?

[tlg1903]

One thought i had was how about a sixteen team league with a split.  Play thirty games then split top and bottom leaving 37 games played all in. 

[tsr]

Who's going to tell the Old firm which of them is only getting one home game against the other?

[tlg1903]

Who's going to tell the Old firm which of them is only getting one home game against the other?

 

good point but surely they could take it time about per season, they would always be in the top half anyway

[Madbadteacher]

good point but surely they could take it time about per season, they would always be in the top half anyway

 

Take the 3rd game around the country/world to spread the news about the "New, improved, exciting ESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS! PEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE! ELLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL!"

 

"Lets! PLAY! FOOOOTBAAAAAAAAAAAAALLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL!"

 

 

"Coming to you from the FIFA Backhanders Stadium in Dubai this Spring......."

[s1dnk]

I don't want to see any split, never have liked it and never will like it. I'm now favouring an 18 team league, play each other twice. Re-structure the league cup to increase the amount of games if more revenue is required, go back to a mini league format or something like that.

[King Street Loon]

I don't want to see any split, never have liked it and never will like it. I'm now favouring an 18 team league, play each other twice. Re-structure the league cup to increase the amount of games if more revenue is required, go back to a mini league format or something like that.

I like the sound of that.

 

Absolutely no split for me.

[TENEMENTFUNSTER]

18 teams just doesn't appeal to me.

 

Dunfermline

Dundee

Raith Rovers

Falkirk

Queen of South

Partick Thistle

 

2 matches each against that lot? Hold me back.

[King Street Loon]

Adds variety for me.

 

Gets boring playing the likes of Hamilton, St Mirren, St Johnstone etc 4 times a season.

[TENEMENTFUNSTER]

Adds variety for me.

 

Gets boring playing the likes of Hamilton, St Mirren, St Johnstone etc 4 times a season.

 

I understand the variety thing but I look forward to the cups for that, the top 6 in the 1st Div I mentioned in addition to those 4, meh.

[maverick sheep]

I understand the variety thing but I look forward to the cups for that, the top 6 in the 1st Div I mentioned in addition to those 4, meh.

 

I'd be surprised if there wasn't about a 50/50 split in opinion between seeing it as more boring to play the teams you mention, or playing the top flight teams twice as often.

 

I tend to prefer the variety personally. I'm much less likely to go to see us play Motherwell 4 times than them twice and Dunfermline twice.

 

it's not so much WHO I'm watching us play that is the factor for me, but HOW we're playing. Each team is a different challenge in terms of tactics, personnel etc, so it's of more interest to me.

 

An extra 6 teams wouldn't really make the cup less interesting as when you do draw a top flight team, that in itself is exciting because, in place of the variety, it's more of an unknown prospect whether we'll get through.

[TENEMENTFUNSTER]

The number of teams in the league really doesn't matter but given the supposed large number of fans opposed to the top 10 they really have to try another way. Maybe the way it is without the split or 14 teams but I really fail to see the attraction of more 1st Div teams to play. It's the standard of fitba and 14/16/18 just widens the pool of mediocrity and probably strengthens the position of the huns/tims.

[coopy100]

I don't want to see any split, never have liked it and never will like it. I'm now favouring an 18 team league, play each other twice. Re-structure the league cup to increase the amount of games if more revenue is required, go back to a mini league format or something like that.

As good as it sounds I doubt that the finance would work out with this idea. The league cup suffers from piss poor turnouts as it is without introducing more games that will have piss poor turnouts.

 

As much as I agree a ten team league will breed boredom I really don't see anyway round it bar keeping the status quo. All the clubs in the SPL seem to be in a poor state financially, maybe with the exception of the tims, and all of them really need the money. The big problem is that expecting perenial relegation candidiates to vote for it is a non starter.

 

Its all well and good saying I would rather see us play x twice and y twice rather than y 4 times a season but the problem is if halfway throught the season you are in midtable with no fear of relegation and no chance of climbing the table to a decent level then the fans won't turn out anyway. Also the introduction of 6 teams from the first division would probably dilute the quality of the league further due to their presence and even less funds being available to other sides which leads to the current accusation of lack of value for money seem even more valid.

 

I also don't think the blooding the youngsters will happen anymore than it is haoppening already due to the finances as well. It may not seem a lot but for a club like ours a couple of places can make a difference on the balance sheet and that is what most chairman now need to look at unless you want to end up in a Dundee style situation. Also blooding the youngsters has the inherent risk of them playing poorly meaning less fans turn up and less money is gained.

 

Basically it boils down to money. This idea wasn't mooted for footballing reasons IMO but financial reasons and all the other suggestions, as nice as they would be to have go ahead, just won't work with that in mind.

[maverick sheep]

I understand the variety thing but I look forward to the cups for that, the top 6 in the 1st Div I mentioned in addition to those 4, meh.

 

I remember seeing something a year or two ago that showed the mathematics of OF teams playing people 4 instead of 2 times.

 

Basically the biggest difference is they benefit from having the number of 'banker' games doubled, whereas teams like us, being relatively weaker anyway, don't have 'banker' games to the same extent - so we don't have as great a liklihood of points gain from playing Hamilton/St mirren more often that the OF do.

 

But I agree about the increase in teams meaning the shite is spread more thinly, unless all the teams have the same budget that top flight teams do now.

 

That is an even bigger problem than the OF stealing all the revenue. The EPL and other leagues sucking all the talent out of Scottish football is the real killer.

 

Take all Scottish managers and players and have them up here, then no question 12 teams wouldn't even be nearly enough! But that's as likely to happen as me waking up tomoro with Jessica Alba.

 

I have the sneaking feeling Doncaster et al will use this seeming dead-end as an excuse not to actually change anything at all.