Major Restructuring in the Pipeline for SPL

[dave_min]

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.

 

5 of then have recently hammered us. I don't think any of them are much worse than Hamilton, St Mirren or even Hibs. The only major problem with the 18 team league (I can see) is if 2 go down, who the fuck is gonna come up to replace them?

[TENEMENTFUNSTER]

5 of then have recently hammered us. I don't think any of them are much worse than Hamilton, St Mirren or even Hibs. The only major problem with the 18 team league (I can see) is if 2 go down, who the fuck is gonna come up to replace them?

 

Aye, but all of them plus the others makes for a pretty guff league, even given the sea of shite the SPL is at present.

 

Add to that the excellent point you make about 2 coming up, you do actually need a few decent teams competing to come up.

[Kowalski]

From the AFC Trust...

SPL Meeting – Greig Ingram, AFC Trust Board Rep &  Neil Doncaster, Chief Executive SPL – Hampden Park – 2-00pm – Thurs 6 January 2011.

 

All of the following points were put to Neil Doncaster in a 40 minute meeting.

 

Review Process to date –           

 

The current Steering Group Report was drawn up without supporters’  involvement or consultation. Fans feel that they are treated as customers rather than stakeholders in their clubs and football in general. The Steering Groups’ approach comes across as a ‘We know best attitude’. An approach which is common amongst Club Directors and SFA officials. This has resulted in supporters feeling that restructuring is being done to them rather than with them.

 

There is a general consensus that there are many good aspects to the current proposals – The introduction of promotion and relegation play-offs, an earlier start to the season, the two tiers SPL, the regionalisation of lower leagues, the introduction of a pyramid system and the inclusion of Colts Teams in lower leagues.

 

Reasons for change –   

 

A dichotomy between those who run the game and the supporters is evident. The SPL Steering Group appears to be driven by considerations of finance, whilst supporters are more concerned with entertainment, something fresh and genuine competition.

 

Current set up is uncompetitive –           

 

The current SPL is Old Firm dominated. It is an uncompetitive farce. The new proposal will simply see this continue. The 4 games format contributes to this. A team outside the Old Firm may be able to beat Celtic or Rangers once or possibly twice but to prevail on 4 occasions is very unlikely.        Attendances are diminishing and the Old Firm are not the draw they were and practically every Rangers and Celtic away game is on TV anyway.

Distribution of income –

 

The issue of income distribution is not really being addressed. The current formula for income distribution It gives advantages to the Old Firm (because they always finish 1st and 2nd) and this will continue.

 

16 team league –

 

Would provide greater variety. The 2 games means  a less congested calendar and addresses the familiarity and tedium of the current format. The loss of 4 home games may be  mitigated by a more attractive product and an increase in attendances at fewer games because it will be more financially viable for supporters to attend fewer games. In this format Old Firm games become a bigger occasion.

 

Martin Richie, Falkirk FC disputes the assertion that the loss of the 4 game format would result in a huge financial reduction for clubs. His calculations puts the loss at  1% at best and  6% at worst.

 

Revenue/Finance -                     

 

Is the influence of TV really beneficial or could it be malevolent in the long run? Football is a spectator sport but fewer and fewer are attending games. Why sit in a freezing stand when you canwatch the game in a warm pub or the comfort of your own home. Why travel a distance when you don’t need to go over your own door? Why pay out considerable entrance money when a TV subscription is far more cost effective?                                                                                                           

 

You (Neil Doncaster) were quoted in the press as saying - ‘If we want to see better players and more excitement then we need to bring more money into the game’. At present bringing in money and getting better players often means buying foreign players and this in turn is detrimental to development of Scottish players. There have been positives come out of reduced revenue because clubs are putting a greater emphasis on youth development. Should there be a cap on the number of foreign players in a club’s first team pool?

 

Change to configuration of the Season -            

 

Why not be more radical and change to Summer football. March to November. Could help with the TV deal, taking Scottish football away from direct competition with English football.

Radical options -           

 

Reviewing the points system for win/lose/draw. Points awarded for goals scored. A no draw policy with penalty shoot- oust at the end of drawn games. A greater focus on football being a form of entertainment. Better marketing of games. Reduced prices for games and especially televised games.

Main responses from Neil Doncaster

 

Neil Doncaster accepted that involving supporters representatives at an earlier stage in the process would have been beneficial.

 

He accepted that the major driving force for change was, for the Steering Group, financial implications. No one within football was advocating a bigger SPL because it was not financially viable. A TV deal was dependent on 4 Old Firm games and 4 Edinburgh derbies. Scottish football is dominated by two large clubs, which is not unique in European leagues, and this will not change no matter the structural arrangements.

 

There will be an element of redistribution of revenue with the introduction of an SPL 2.

 

A total change to Summer football was not being considered but the earlier start to the Scottish season will take Scottish football away from direct competition with the English leagues during June and July and will mean that the climax of the Scottish season will be at a different time as well. This should prove attractive to the TV companies.

 

Some of the more radical options are being considered but this will be done at a later stage.

 

Greig Ingram

 

AFC Trust Board

[capitalsharpie]

lazy cop out bullshit.

[tlg1903]

5 of then have recently hammered us. I don't think any of them are much worse than Hamilton, St Mirren or even Hibs. The only major problem with the 18 team league (I can see) is if 2 go down, who the fuck is gonna come up to replace them?

county maybe, livi will be back in the first div next season most likely too. 

[d0nald0n1]

I'm going to through something else into the mix here as its clearly more than just a question of how many teams.

 

I strongly feel we need to adopt a bundesliga style financial audit system where every club has to lodge fully audited accounts with the league before the start of the season and these have to show the clubs are paying their debtors and reducing their debts/managing the debts correctly before they are allowed entry in the following seasons competition. Clubs should not be allowed to buy players, pay bills or wages directly out of an "investor"s pocket. This may prevent so many clubs going further and further into debt and facing administration.

 

In the initial years allowances could be made for clubs which have debt accrued before this system comes in and they would be measured on how well they are managing and reducing that debt.

 

Once clubs are breaking even and in the black they would be expected to stay there.

 

I also think all the top clubs should be obliged to spend a percentage of their income on youth development and be able to show that in the accounts too. This would ensure a good conveyor belt of talent coming through which is what is important.

 

Its time we all woke up and realised football doesn't have to be about money all the time. We need enough income to pay the bills, develop players and bring in some additional talent. No scottish team really needs to be spending megabucks on chumps from all over the world if we were running the game properly.

 

If we are simply structuring our game around getting more money we are wasting our time because financially we will NEVER compete again with the EPL or even the Championship. We have to realise there is another way to have an exciting game in our country and its about more depth at the top, greater competition and young players.

 

When these players are snapped up by the EPL or Championship we shouldn't see this as a bad thing - its what we have to realise will happen and we need to have the next young talent ready to come through. All the clubs could be doing this.

[boboisared]

So March - November football? Our teams that make it past Christmas have a hard enough time as it is without having to play big European games on little match practice.

[coopy100]

If we are simply structuring our game around getting more money we are wasting our time because financially we will NEVER compete again with the EPL or even the Championship. We have to realise there is another way to have an exciting game in our country and its about more depth at the top, greater competition and young players.

I think this is where the top 10 comes in though it is not about trying to compete with England for players. It is about trying to make our top league solvent. This pretty much ties into the rest of your post. Most clubs are either being forced to make ends meet (killie, the huns) or are doing it off their own back before they are forced to, us included. This pretty much ties into the rest of your post.

 

The big problem with Scottish football is not the size of the league. It is the money it is in debt and the pishness of the entertainment on offer compared to the cost. Forcing clubs down the route of going completely debt free will only bring about a further erosion in standards, at least to begin with, as players will, rightly so, go where the money is. Unless every club has a decent crop of youngsters coming through then this again will lead to a further drop in crowd numbers as more people decide "I'm nae paying £20 ti watch at pish" which again means less money for the youth idea you mooted. The german govern ment also invested heavily in football and youth development in particular. I can't see our bankrupt country doing that at this point in time.

[bilbobaggins]

We need more money to clear the debt by putting more bums on seats. Trying to do this by development of players and restructuring the league is admirable but I don't think either will solve the the biggest problem in the short term, the lack of competitiveness of the league.

 

How about putting some short term manufactured competitiveness into the league by going back to 2 points for a win. The OF would still win but I'm certain we would have more challengers into the New Year.

 

 

[Stuartini]

So March - November football? Our teams that make it past Christmas have a hard enough time as it is without having to play big European games on little match practice.

 

This is where the bitter pill needs to be swallowed. We take the pill now, accept that the champions league ain't coming north soon. Boost the whole game grass roots etc and see what happens.

 

From a purely personal point of view I would watch more live fitba, junior and senior, on a summer day.

 

Yes, there is a chance it would fail, but fuck it, I think there is more to win than lose.

[glasgow sheep]

I'm going to through something else into the mix here as its clearly more than just a question of how many teams.

 

I strongly feel we need to adopt a bundesliga style financial audit system where every club has to lodge fully audited accounts with the league before the start of the season and these have to show the clubs are paying their debtors and reducing their debts/managing the debts correctly before they are allowed entry in the following seasons competition. Clubs should not be allowed to buy players, pay bills or wages directly out of an "investor"s pocket. This may prevent so many clubs going further and further into debt and facing administration.

 

In the initial years allowances could be made for clubs which have debt accrued before this system comes in and they would be measured on how well they are managing and reducing that debt.

 

Once clubs are breaking even and in the black they would be expected to stay there.

 

I also think all the top clubs should be obliged to spend a percentage of their income on youth development and be able to show that in the accounts too. This would ensure a good conveyor belt of talent coming through which is what is important.

 

Its time we all woke up and realised football doesn't have to be about money all the time. We need enough income to pay the bills, develop players and bring in some additional talent. No scottish team really needs to be spending megabucks on chumps from all over the world if we were running the game properly.

 

If we are simply structuring our game around getting more money we are wasting our time because financially we will NEVER compete again with the EPL or even the Championship. We have to realise there is another way to have an exciting game in our country and its about more depth at the top, greater competition and young players.

 

When these players are snapped up by the EPL or Championship we shouldn't see this as a bad thing - its what we have to realise will happen and we need to have the next young talent ready to come through. All the clubs could be doing this.

 

I agree with the sentiment behind a lot of that.

I was under the impression UEFA were brining in something along these lines anyway, although quite how it would work with ManU, Barca, Real Madrid etc I'm not sure.

 

However most clubs in Scotland, even Hearts and with exception of perennial cheats Dundee, are trying to do this already, would it not just add a layer of bureaucracy and cost when what we should be doing the exact opposite?

[Madbadteacher]

 

How about putting some short term manufactured competitiveness into the league by going back to 2 points for a win. The OF would still win but I'm certain we would have more challengers into the New Year.

 

Lets go further and even more "off the ball", abandon the points syatem for, say, a 2 or 3 year trial period, and use a system similar to FIFAs ranking.

 

Start with the previous season's positions as a base, then you get more "ranking points" for beating teams above you, fewer for beating those below, on a sliding scale. That should even things out a bit?

 

I realise I'm looking for porcine aviators here as the bigot bros just wouldn't, but it may be interesting to view how the table would look alongside the traditional 3-1-0 points system

[Nellie The Don]

Table based on 2 pts for a win:

 

	Pld	Gd	Pts
Celtic	19	28	31
Rangers	17	20	28
Hearts	19	18	27
Kilmarnock	19	11	21
InvernessCT	20	4	20
Motherwell	18	1	17
DundeeUtd	16	-5	16
StJohnstone	18	-12	15
Hibernian	19	-11	12
StMirren	19	-16	12
Aberdeen	19	-19	12
Hamilton	17	-19	9

 

[baggy89]

Table based on 2 pts for a win:

 

	Pld	Gd	Pts
Celtic	19	28	31
Rangers	17	20	28
Hearts	19	18	27
Kilmarnock	19	11	21
InvernessCT	20	4	20
Motherwell	18	1	17
DundeeUtd	16	-5	16
StJohnstone	18	-12	15
Hibernian	19	-11	12
StMirren	19	-16	12
Aberdeen	19	-19	12
Hamilton	17	-19	9

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2009/feb/05/question-jonathan-wilson-three-points

 

In a town suffering a plague of vermin, the council began offering money to anybody who could prove they had killed rats by bringing the corpses to a recording office. For a time, the scheme seemed successful, and the numbers of rats being brought in decreased. But then they began to rise again. Puzzled council officials followed the most successful rat-catchers — and discovered they were breeding rats specifically to kill for the cash.

 

Offering increased incentives is never as straightforward as it may seem. When the CIA instituted a programme to reward field agents according to how many spies they recruited, they found numbers went up, but quality went down. Civil servants judged on the results of training programmes they ran began to screen out those who most needed help.

 

And introducing three points for a win might have had a detrimental effect on football.

Falling crowds call for drastic measures

 

Two points for a win was a logical starting point for the league, and stems directly from the days of challenge matches. Two people or teams compete for a prize pot, the winner takes all, and the pot is split if there is a draw. That went on without challenge for more than 90 years, but by 1980, football was facing serious difficulties. Crowds had almost halved from a high of more than 40 million a season in the early 1950s, and it was clear that something had to be done. That October, the chairmen of every league club met in Solihull to set out a vision for the future.

 

"The recession has given a dwindling football public a stricter sense of priorities," wrote David Lacey in the Guardian. "Going to watch a soccer match comes lower down the list than might have been the case because of dull play, crowd violence, over-exposure on television, and the increased cost not only of admission but of getting to and from the ground and having something to eat or drink along the way. When cash is short, people are finding something better, and cheaper, to do."

 

Clubs were never going to turn down television money, and as the boom of the 1990s demonstrated, it is far from clear that more football on television leads to fewer fans in the ground. They didn't have the resources properly to tackle hooliganism - it was the sport's great good fortune that the periods during which the recommendations of the Taylor Report had to be implemented coincided both with Sky's investment and with a period of general prosperity - and they could do little about the economy.

 

But they could tackle "dull play" – and there was plenty of that.

 

This, after all, was only a month after the Stoke City manager, Alan Durban, had advised journalists critical of his tactics in a glum 0-0 draw at Arsenal that if they wanted entertainment, they should go and watch clowns. So a working party under Jimmy Hill proposed increasing the reward for victory to three points. Most accepted the logic of his argument without demur, although there was the odd dissenting voice.

 

"It could make a team a goal up want to sit on their lead that bit more than at present," suggested the Arsenal manager, Terry Neill.

Champions will always be champions

 

So what difference did it make? In one sense, none at all. Apply three points for a win to every season going back to the second world war, and in each case the champions remain the same. Apply two points for a win to each season since the amendment, and only in 1994-95 would it have changed things, handing Manchester United the title on goal-difference ahead of Blackburn (and even then, only because Blackburn conceded a very late free-kick to Jamie Redknapp in their final game, away to Liverpool).

 

It could be argued, though, that that is a sign of strength: under three points for a win, as under two points for a win, the best team prevails. In other ways, the change can be seen as having had limited success. In the five seasons before the switch, there were an average of 133.0 draws per season in what was then the First Division; in the five seasons after, there was an average of 113.4. By way of comparison, there were 100 in the Premier League last season and if you extrapolate that to take account of the reduction in the number of top-flight teams from 22 to 20, you get a figure of 121.6.

A further incentive for winning

 

So it seems that after 1981 teams became more concerned with winning, and that there has been a back-sliding since. Fifa, apparently worried by how a US audience would deal with draws, instituted three points for a win ahead of the 1994 World Cup. It made no difference, 36 group games producing eight draws, just as they had at Italia 90.

 

The change seems also to have promoted more attacking play. In the five seasons leading up to it, home teams averaged 1.60 goals per game and away teams 1.01; afterwards home teams averaged 1.64 and away teams 1.07. (Last season the figures were 1.53 and 1.11). That is a small change, but optimists could even argue that away teams had become proportionally more attacking – suggesting they were less prepared to play for draws.

Other factors in the goal glut

 

Still, it would be difficult to claim, as Hill repeatedly has, that three points for a win revolutionised the game. It could be noted, for instance, that in 1980-81, the last season of two points for a win, the number of draws had already fallen to 118, while average goals per game stood at 1.64 for home teams and 1.02 for away: perhaps the trend was already in that direction. Certainly the outlawing of the back-pass and the tackle from behind made a far more radical impact. Goals per game shot up from 2.31 in Italia 90 to 2.71 at USA 94.

Was Terry Neill right?

 

More worrying figures emerge from a 2005 study by the economists Luis Garicano and Ignacio Palacios-Huerta into the impact of the move from two points for a win to three made in Spain. Fifa made three points for a win part of its Laws of the Game in 1995, and they were adopted worldwide ahead of the 1995-96 season.

 

In their paper Sabotage in Tournaments: Making the Beautiful Game a Bit Less Beautiful, Garicano and Palacios-Huerta analysed the 1994-95 season – the last of two points for a win – and compared it to the 1998-99 season, choosing the fourth season of the new protocol because "it does not require us to assume that teams were able to immediately adjust their behaviour to the new situation". They also used matches in the Copa del Rey – which retained the same knockout structure – as a control against other agents of interference – tactical developments, stricter refereeing and the like.

 

Their study is too complex to discuss in much detail here – and their easy categorisations of certain players as "attacking" or "defensive" seems over-simplistic – but certain points stand out. Essentially, Neill's concern was borne out: the study found that "when ahead, teams became more conservative, increasing their defenders, scoring less goals, and allowing fewer attempts to score by their opponents".

 

As might be expected "the introduction of the new incentives was followed by a decrease in the number of ties". The corollary to that, though, was that "the number of matches decided by a large number of goals declined. Measures of offensive effort such as shot attempts on goal and corner kicks increased while indicators of sabotage activity such as fouls and unsporting behaviour punished with yellow cards also increased."

 

More precisely "attacking effort" increased by around 10 per cent (factoring in any external changes revealed by the Copa del Rey), while fouls went up by 12.5 per cent. "The net result of these opposing forces is that the number of goals scored did not change". In other words, sides were more desperate to go ahead, but having done so, became more negative, because they now stood to lose two points rather than just one by conceding.

 

The trailing team, meanwhile, still fights for only one point, and that point is proportionally worth less under three points for a win (although an equaliser, of course, is a necessary step on the way to three points). Garicano and Palacios-Huerta show that under three points for a win "the probability of scoring an additional goal by a team that is ahead significantly drops; moreover, by the end of the match, the losing teams ends up making significantly fewer attempts on goal than before the incentive change."

Dirty teams mean fewer fans

 

Given that games in which the lead changes hands tend to be the most gripping, that sounds like bad news for football, even if the intensity of the game – as shown by the growing number of fouls - increases. The figures bear that out. "We find that attendances at any given stadium significantly decreases when being visited by teams that play dirtier," said Garicano and Palacios-Huerta. Their figures demonstrate a team protecting a lead is significantly dirtier under three points for a win than under two.

 

In other words, and when all else is accounted for, three points for a win seems to have had a detrimental effect.

The benefits

 

And yet what is the alternative? Herbert Chapman had warned of the dangers of placing too great an emphasis on victory half a century earlier. Developing the W-M at Arsenal, he was heavily criticised for making the game more pragmatic, stripping it of some of its traditional aesthetic qualities, something he seemed to regret in a series of writings published shortly after his death in 1934.

 

"It is no longer necessary for a team to play well," he said. "They must get goals, no matter how, and the points. The measure of their skill is, in fact, judged by their position in the League table."

 

Which, most would agree, is as it should be: nobody wants games decided by a panel of judges giving points for artistic merit.

 

Three points for a win at least helps prevent teams coming to a tacit agreement and playing out the final minutes of games for a draw. The question is, is it worth the cost?

 

Probably a pain in the hoop to work out but what difference

3 points for a win

2 for a score draw

and

1 for nil v nil

?

[Red Wizard]

Scottish football as a whole needs root and branch reform. As long as the OF remain at the centre of the universe then nothing will change.  Producing good footballers and stimulating competition should be the TOP priorities. Changing the amount of teams is a token effort and will do little to improve the quality of football on offer. 

 

How much did Henry McLeish get paid for his super duper report because it’s a complete load of shit.  His report is a basically a financial report and has nothing to do with improving the game as a whole IMO.

 

To improve the SPL we have to look at all the bad things and attempt to change them.

 

There are a number of issues with Scottish football.  Most of them mentioned in this thread.

 

1.      The OF share of revenue

 

TV money. TV money should be shared equally and fairly. If ESPN/SKY want to show every OF away match then fine but it shouldn’t be to the detriment of the other teams.  It takes 2 teams to make a football match. All gates split equally between teams. Who’d pay just to watch Rangers or Celtic kick a ball about themselves with no opposition? 

 

2.      Too many football  teams in Scotland not enough fans.

 

This is a big problem. There are too many teams but there is no easy fix for this one.

 

3.      Revenue/Debt

 

Wages to be no higher than an agreed % of a teams turnover. This will be phased in over x years (Think UEFA are looking at this also).

 

4.      Too many governing bodies

 

One body for all football in Scotland. Get rid of people we don’t need. Saving money.

 

5.      Youth Players/Coaching

 

Encourage youth development. Each club can have a B side is the 3rd division to give competitive match experience.

 

End the  “jobs for the boys” culture of appointing coaches.  I think there are too many ex pros masquerading as coaches within our game.  Being a good player does not guarantee you will be a good coach.  We need more coaches from out with the professional game to bring in new ideas. Are coaches actually appraised regularly to make sure they are doing a good job??

 

6.      Facilities

 

Boils down to money but training facilities in Scotland are poor.  No quick fix.

 

7.      SPL Voting system

 

There should be a majority voting system.  If it’s a tie keep negotiating until there is a consensus

 

8.      Weather

 

Why do we play our season during the darkest coldest months of the year? We need t move the season. March to November seems to be the best option. During world cup/euro championships years the season could be started 2 weeks earlier and ended 2 weeks later and  just postpone the season for a bit during the tournament..

 

9.      Price of tickets

 

Price of tickets is a joke for the product on offer..  There should be more offers. i.e. if you buy a season ticket you are entitled to one free ticket for every home match. Let under 16s in for free etc etc. 

 

10.  League Structure

 

There are currently 4 divisions with a total of 42 clubs. Change the league structure to 3 leagues overall. Keep it simple. Top league (SPL) will have 20 teams, 1st Division will have 20 teams and 2nd Division will have 22 teams made up of 20 “B” teams from the SPL and the remaining 2 SFL teams (The B teams cannot be promoted to the SPL but can float between league 1 and 2. Simple. No splits. Playoffs etc. Just play each other home and away. Look at changing the scoring system to 1 point for a no score draw, 2 points for a score draw and 3 points for a win to encourage attacking football.

 

That’s just some ideas but I fear Scottish football will still be is the same sorry state 10 years down the line.  For change to happen there has to be a willingness to change. As long as the OF call the shots REAL change will never happen. 

 

 

 

 

 

[dave_min]

Agree with everything above, except for the B teams playing in lower leagues. I think that's rather unfair on lower league teams.

[glasgow sheep]

B teams is a fucking stupid idea

How about reinstating the fucking reserve league if they want a competitive set of games for fringe players.  The reserve league was abolished because nobody could afford a reserve team, and I would say outside the OF probably only Hearts and Hibs could afford one at present.  The introduction of B teams doesn't change this financial situation and immediately makes a mockery of the lower leagues and quite possibly the end of some smaller clubs.

 

I never quite get this "too many team" stuff either.

There are basically 2 leagues of professional sides and then 6 or 7 semi-pro leagues (SFL Div 2& 3, HFL, ESL, Junior Super Leagues etc).  I presume you mean too many senior sides, yet the only leagues that have significant problems financially are the top 2 leagues (ignoring Stranraer's recent troubles).  Most clubs are very well run, have little or no debt and are in far less danger of going under that AFC.  To randomly abolish or exclude these clubs from the senior set up would have next to no effect on the finances, crowds or anything else of the clubs in the top 2 leagues.

 

I agree with a lot of the other points but sadly it will be a cold day in hell before the OF agree equal distribution of TV cash.

[Harcus]

The 12 Scottish Premier League clubs have reached a broad agreement at a meeting at Hampden for a 10-team top league and a second tier of 12 teams.

 

The SPL will now consult the Scottish Football Association and the Scottish Football League to progress the idea.

 

A top tier of 14 teams had looked the most likely alternative to the 10-10 arrangement proposed by the SPL after some clubs had voiced reservations.

 

But Monday's meeting suggests those clubs are now convinced of its merits.

 

More to follow...

 

 

 

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/scot_prem/9359765.stm

 

Fucking hell.

[Kowalski]

So they're just ignoring the fans then?

 

[Jute]

So they're just ignoring the fans then?

 

Looks like it.

 

I would think they are banking on the fans just turning up no matter how pish the product is and how bored they are.

[Harcus]

And does the First Division get stuck with the split? Why is it good enough for that league but not the SPL?

 

Out of sight, out of mind I suppose.

 

The whole thing is fucking shit.

[wi_09]

Here is the full article - http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/scot_prem/9359765.stm

 

"The 12 Scottish Premier League clubs have reached a broad agreement at a meeting at Hampden for a 10-team top league and a second tier of 12 teams.

 

The SPL will now consult the Scottish Football Association and the Scottish Football League to progress the idea.

 

A top tier of 14 teams had looked the most likely alternative to the 10-10 arrangement proposed by the SPL after some clubs had voiced reservations.

 

But Monday's meeting suggests those clubs are now convinced of its merits.

 

A statement released by the SPL after the meeting said: "The Scottish Premier League clubs today reaffirmed their commitment to the work of the Strategic Review Group to develop a structure for the whole of Scottish football.

 

"Broad support was given to progressing a 10-team Premiership and a 12-team Championship at the top of a pyramid for Scottish football as the preferred option.

 

"The SPL clubs have asked the executive team to further develop aspects of these proposals and to update the Strategic Review Group's report."

 

SPL chief executive Neil Doncaster and the league's chairman Ralph Topping were keen on a 10-10 format, an arrangement favoured by Celtic and Rangers.

 

However, Dundee United, Hearts, Inverness Caledonian Thistle and Kilmarnock had expressed doubts about that set-up and St Mirren had stated their preference for a league of 14.

 

Doncaster said on Monday afternoon: "Clearly when clubs haven't got a detailed, finalised plan in front of them, then we need to understand that clubs want to reserve their final position and need to see a final document in front of them before they can give their ringing endorsement.

 

"But all 12 clubs have agreed to the statement today so hopefully this gives us a mandate to move forward."

 

Among those lobbied for support by the SPL top duo in the past 10 days were Dundee United chairman Stephen Thompson and Hearts owner Vladimir Romanov.

 

Following the first meeting of all 12 clubs on 4 January, a 16-team league, known to be popular among fans, was seemingly dismissed as unworkable.

 

Doncaster and Topping said that it was not financially viable, with their calculations seeing each club losing around £1m per year as a result of lost matches and television revenue.

 

A 14-team league would have involved a split, a much-maligned aspect of the current system, but it would have seen the end of the fixture imbalances that have been thrown up in recent seasons since teams would have played their opponents twice each either side of the division.

 

No vote was possible at Monday's gathering, since a formal resolution needs to be put to clubs 14 days beforehand and that had not happened.

 

The package of reform proposed by the SPL also involves play-offs, an earlier start to the season and a winter shutdown."

 

It is a shame there isn't a good enough product on offer for a 16/18 team SPL whereby the TV companies would increase the money on offer so the money received by clubs wouldn't decrease! Does this mean we should be greatful to have the Old Firm as some sort of appeal??

 

[tsr]

This is unreal.

 

So they have basically said we can't be fked with the SPL structure and you's (SFL) can have it instead? Where's the money coming from to share dosh between 22 instead of 12 teams?

[dave_min]

This is unreal.

 

So they have basically said we can't be fked with the SPL structure and you's (SFL) can have it instead? Where's the money coming from to share dosh between 22 instead of 12 teams?

 

It won't be from me if we're playing in a 10 team league.

[maverick sheep]

If there's no way of avoiding playing each other 4 times, then I'd like to at least see something like Argentina do.

 

After everyone has played each other twice there we have an Apertura champion, then a winter break, then after the other set of games we have a Clausura champion.

 

The over all champion,  european qualifiers + relegation decided by both sets of points totalled up.

 

That could at least avoid much of the monotony, may also make it more realistic that non-OF teams could challenge for something in the league.