League Reconstruction

[Stupie82]

The negative of allowing all teams to receive the same payout regardless of position, is that what is there to play for. Sure winning the league or finishing as high up the table as possible is any clubs goal, but what about mid-table clubs who dont have a European place to play for or relegation to fight for. The cash incentive gives sides something to play for. It creates competition, even if it isnt purely for sporting reasons.

 

Whether we like it or not, to the clubs, the sporting side of football is lesser important than the cash. As a football fan it should be all about the football, but clubs need the cash to survive. Yes they should be able to budget within each individuals means, but even then a gap will emerge.  Would i like to see us set a precedent? of course!! would i like to see all clubs receive even TV money, sponsorship money and league money, again of course, but no club is going to vote for that and the SPFL are incapable of implementing anything of use to the leagues. In a world where money talks in football, I sadly cant see Scottish football changing its ways.

[RicoS321]

The negative of allowing all teams to receive the same payout regardless of position, is that what is there to play for. Sure winning the league or finishing as high up the table as possible is any clubs goal, but what about mid-table clubs who dont have a European place to play for or relegation to fight for. The cash incentive gives sides something to play for. It creates competition, even if it isnt purely for sporting reasons.

 

Whether we like it or not, to the clubs, the sporting side of football is lesser important than the cash. As a football fan it should be all about the football, but clubs need the cash to survive. Yes they should be able to budget within each individuals means, but even then a gap will emerge.  Would i like to see us set a precedent? of course!! would i like to see all clubs receive even TV money, sponsorship money and league money, again of course, but no club is going to vote for that and the SPFL are incapable of implementing anything of use to the leagues. In a world where money talks in football, I sadly cant see Scottish football changing its ways.

 

I don't believe there is a player in our game that gives a shite whether their team makes £100K more for finishing an extra place higher in the league. They want to win because that's what the game is about. Same as I do when I play at sports village or goals. I'm not preventing the issue of win bonuses either, which they may give a crap about because it directly affects them. The "cash for places" is only ever brought out after a team doesn't get the money. For example, the dons missed out on 250K last season by finishing third, but I can guarantee that no player in that team (nor McInnes I expect) gave a shite about the cash - they wanted to finish second.

 

Money talks, perhaps, but there is only one team that would be significantly financially affected by sharing the wealth amongst the other teams - the Tims. If we split the £20M the tims made in prize money alone the season before last (don't have recent seasons figures, but expect it'd be in the teens(£millions)) and split it evenly amongst the teams in the division along with the existing SPFL prize funds, then every other team would be better off from day one and it would instantly make the league stronger. So I'm not convinced it's a case of money talks, more a case of fear of change/risk and a happy as we are mentality. 

[tom_widdows]

They will care if their employer cares ie that extra £100k for finishing 8th instead of 9th means the club doesnt have to slash the playing squad or wage bill the following season or even allows them to actually get a win bonus once in a while

 

The prize money from the SPL is irrelevant to the likes of celtic as they make their money from sponsorship, Champions league football, and of course having a large gullible fanbase (both loyal and gloryhunting) who like to throw cash across the celtic shop tills.

 

If there is no incentive to finish as high as you can other than 'ho look as us we're better than you' this year then I hate to think how many meaningless games there would be and how much worse the quality could get.

For every player who gives his all just for the love of the game and to hell with the money there are 2 or 3 Bobo Baldes (9 years at £30k a week but only played 161 games and happily sat on the bench for 3-4 of those years doing nothing)

[Tubilay]

I don't think there's much point debating a straight share of prize money. It might be the best idea in the world, but there's no way in hell that it'd be adopted by the clubs and the people who vote on these matters. That won't matter if it's an 11/1 majority needed or a 7/5, there'll always be enough clubs who feel that making more than a straight pool share is worthwhile.

 

There are a number of issues that need remedied as a matter of urgency.

 

We need to stop bickering about how the league actually divides up, how many teams there are, the split, the playoffs, etc. The layout of the leagues. Every single year this comes up, and it's hardly to the benefit of the game. Were our glorious league leaders to take some responsibility here, then we'd be far more likely to win sponsorship and attract interest from outside Scotland. We've got the most competitive league in years, some good football, 10 different cup winners in seven years, and a national team that's slowly but surely finding their feet. When do you ever hear a story about Scottish football on UK-wide broadcast? When there's some bungle or mistake or crisis. We need to change the record there, and get people talking positively.

 

The "product" has improved markedly in the last five or six years. The governance is worse than the Highland League. To move forward with any kind of vision, that's got to change first.

[Jute]

Doncaster saying a 14 team league for next season.

 

http://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/competitions/premiership/14-team-premiership-could-be-brought-in-for-2016-17-1-3970519

 

This set up would probably finish me with Scottish Football. Looks like a safety net for the tribute act and nothing else.

[WeegieRed]

Doncaster saying a 14 team league for next season.

 

http://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/competitions/premiership/14-team-premiership-could-be-brought-in-for-2016-17-1-3970519

 

This set up would probably finish me with Scottish Football. Looks like a safety net for the tribute act and nothing else.

 

Doncaster really is not fit for purpose.

 

The Motherwell chairman got it spot on the other day when he said the SPFL have better communication with the TV companies and sponsors than they do the clubs.

 

That's all Doncaster is interested in, keeping sky, bt and ladbrokes happy. The clubs are secondary and I doubt the fans are even an after thought with him.

 

Any league set up proposed will always have four old firm games in it. It's fucking ridiculous.

 

That said, I'd probably accept the 14-team plan he proposes ONLY because it's marginally better than the current set-up, with the top 6 split routinely turning into a mess.

 

However, I've never been a fan of any split because it doesn't encourage teams to be brave and try out youngsters. People say an 18-team league means a lot of meaningless games. I say it gives some clubs an opportunity to spend 2/3 years building an exciting team that can then go and do something up at the top end, which in turn will help the national team.

 

Besides, weren't Dortmund in a relegation fight last season, and recovered to make the Europa League. Had Germany adopted a league split, they'd have been denied the chance, so don't tell me a split is essential to keeping the league interesting.

[BobbyBiscuit]

However, I've never been a fan of any split because it doesn't encourage teams to be brave and try out youngsters. People say an 18-team league means a lot of meaningless games. I say it gives some clubs an opportunity to spend 2/3 years building an exciting team that can then go and do something up at the top end, which in turn will help the national team.

 

 

I pretty much agree with the rest of your post but I think the bit above is maybe a bit pie in the sky thinking.  There would be a lot of dead rubbers from an early part in the season, so will fans go and watch all of their team's meaningless matches? Very doubtful. Clubs are as likely to rest on their laurels than they are to take the initiative - the cheaper option will be the favoured option, particularly if crowds are down.  We could end up with a lot of clubs floating in no man's land for seasons on end.

 

And the national team? It's a fair assumption that Strachan (or his replacement) would all of a sudden take an interest in the domestic league.  I would also say it is not Aberdeen FC's responsibility to produce players for Scotland, which is why we have a few non Scots in the u20s.

[manc_don]

Dons Supporters Trust have set up a survey regarding this:

 

https://donssupporterstogether.typeform.com/to/VwEezA

[tom_widdows]

League cup final apparently moving back to November next season

 

Could throw up a future pub quiz dispute for the question 'Who won the 2016 Scottish League cup?'

 

[manc_don]

League cup final apparently moving back to November next season

 

Could throw up a future pub quiz dispute for the question 'Who won the 2016 Scottish League cup?'

 

Another sign of the reactionists that run this game.  Wasn't it just yesterday that the English FA announced something similar for all cup games?

 

In this instance I do agree with the moving of the final though

[Panda]

The story landing on April Fool's day may have you questioning it, but league reconstruction is on the cards.

The Herald are reporting the plan is a 10-team league, but it's only one option being discussed. A 14-team league or even a 16-team league are also on the table.

Main driver is to reduce the number of league games due to the increase in European matches (translated: The Old Firm have more European games so want fewer league games).

A 10-team league seems pretty backwards. I don't see any realistic way a 16-team league works without there being a big cut in TV revenue (and it would be too big a drop from 38 games to 30 for many as well). An 18-team league playing each other twice isn't being considered AFAIA.

Greece have a 14-team league, splits after two rounds of fixtures into a top 6 and bottom 8, then has play-offs. Potentially you could have the team that finishes seventh (to keep the bottom 8 interesting for those not fighting relegation) enter a play-off style system along the lines of the current Scottish Championship one (seventh v fifth, winners of that play fourth for the final European spot). That would reduce the fixtures from 38 to 36 for those that want it, give the bottom eight clubs an extra home game to make up for losing some revenue by not play Aberdeen, add some 'new' teams to the fixture list, and the tv companies get to keep their coveted four Old Firm games.

 

[manc_don]

Does it need to change? I’ve seen some say online that it needs to, but I actually like the system. It works. Wouldn’t mind a 14 league setup, it’s actually what the a-league are striving towards as well, although once the top 6 breakaway, the season ends for the rest. 
 

im genuinely surprised we’re even talking about it, the cheeks need to get a grip.

[RicoS321]

55 minutes ago, Panda said:

Main driver is to reduce the number of league games

The main driver? What about increasing fairness, and the competition as a sport? Surely that should be the number one driver of all changes within the game? We're going through the worst period in Scottish football history, with no end in sight, yet no journalist or commentator will ever address the root problem.

[Jute]

This is only being done to benefit the usual two and not the rest of us. If they want to reduce fixtures for rest of top flight then ditch the league cup group games and go back to straight knockout format. Means could start league games earlier and create space later in calendar. Would not benefit either of the bigots but might others. 

[Panda]

2 hours ago, RicoS321 said:

The main driver? What about increasing fairness, and the competition as a sport?
Surely that should be the number one driver of all changes within the game?

Hey, I'm just the messenger, you're not going to blame are you?

2 hours ago, RicoS321 said:

We're going through the worst period in Scottish football history, with no end in sight, yet no journalist or commentator will ever address the root problem.

Oh, you are.

DM me your questions and I'll put them to Neil Doncaster in our weekly catch up.

1 hour ago, Jute said:

This is only being done to benefit the usual two and not the rest of us. If they want to reduce fixtures for rest of top flight then ditch the league cup group games and go back to straight knockout format. Means could start league games earlier and create space later in calendar. Would not benefit either of the bigots but might others. 

You started off saying "the rest of us", then went on to forget about the 30 or so clubs who rely on the income from the League Cup group stages.

[Jute]

13 minutes ago, Panda said:

Hey, I'm just the messenger, you're not going to blame are you?

Oh, you are.

DM me your questions and I'll put them to Neil Doncaster in our weekly catch up.

You started off saying "the rest of us", then went on to forget about the 30 or so clubs who rely on the income from the League Cup group stages.

Do they make much less cash from taking league cup back to straight knockout?

[Panda]

26 minutes ago, Jute said:

Do they make much less cash from taking league cup back to straight knockout?

Well some would have one game as opposed to four for a start, and there's TV and some sizeable gate receipt money to be had if they land a group with one of the 'big guns' - more often than not at least one of hearts, Hibs and Aberdeen are in it.

[RicoS321]

10 hours ago, Panda said:

Hey, I'm just the messenger, you're not going to blame are you?

Oh, you are.

DM me your questions and I'll put them to Neil Doncaster in our weekly catch up.

Ha ha, not on this occasion! It was aimed at the article writers, who are essentially putting out unquestioned PR, I suspect leaked from one of the two cheeks.

However, I would absolutely include the number one broadcaster in my criticism. Doncaster has appeared on radio Scotland numerous occasions and never been adequately questioned. It almost always concentrates on a single small issue rather than the bigger picture of Scottish football. To the extent that things like league construction become an abstract concept that focuses on a number. You might as well ask a group of fifty kids what their favourite number is out of 10, 12, 14 or 16 and just go with the most popular. The format of the league in and of itself is largely irrelevant. 

Given that this is the fortieth anniversary of two teams solely winning our league - the worst period in Scottish football, if measured by sport - maybe you could write an article discussing the problem? If you were critical enough, and direct enough, then it might start some discussion. Do you think it would, hypothetically? Or do you think it would simply be brushed off (it's just the way it is, look at countries X, Y and Z) for tedious discussion about VAR or the Huns new manager? I think the latter. The point I was originally making is that fairness doesn't even seem to be a consideration by those that are paid to regularly discuss our game on the BBC (radio. Other broadcasters are exempt from criticism as they actively pursue the inequality as their business model). They don't see it as integral, when it should be the number one consideration. They should be discussing it every single week, and planning how to reduce the staggering inequality. Yet, it isn't even acknowledged as a problem. It's like some natural phenomenon that just happens, controlled by the gods. We can't even name the problem. Numerous discussions go by about the state of the game, or the state of the national side, but inequality has not once been pinpointed as the single greatest problem that underpins the rest. Which it undeniably is. Does it not seem ridiculous to you as someone who writes about the game that league reconstruction is being mooted without recourse to fairness? I think the answer is that it doesn't seem ridiculous, because fairness is so far removed from discourse that it would actually seem weird to hear it being discussed. 

My preference would be a 16 team league, so that we reduce the number of scum games per season and so that can never again be used as to strong arm clubs that apparently require the blue/green pound. It would also prevent TV companies from holding us to ransom in a similar vein. Thus, it would be targeting fairness first. I think 30 games is perfect, we could ditch three shitey midweek fixtures. However, if clubs require it, then create playoffs for European and relegation places. Second to fifth play off for European spots, and eleventh to fourteenth for third relegation. Teams in sixth to tenth have a set of playoffs designed to give young players a chance, with four youth players required in each starting eleven and two on the bench. Give it a promotional name like the youth presentation cup and get a sponsor. Fairness would come from the European spots being shared, with several teams given the opportunity to play champions league qualifying if Scotland has that route, and others given the opportunity to play Europa or conference. League winners could be given the opportunity for a lucrative fixture elsewhere, or bask in their glory for a few weeks. There should be no monetary prizes for league placing, as these exacerbate inequality (and no player is playing, or trying harder, so that their club can win X amount more money). European prize money should be declared a product of the league itself - because it is - and captured by the SPFL and apportioned equally. Again, this would negate the unearned compounding effect of European qualification that ruins every league in Europe (bar the English, who have discovered that the difference between having £200M and £100M in spending has a lessening effect). 

The steps towards something like the above begin with those paid to represent our game actually discussing fairness. Every time Brendan Rogers is interviewed, don't say "Brendan, how was that for you today?", say "Brendan, you have eight fold the budget of your opponent today, do you think a three goal margin is enough at home?". Celtic are one goal off of a three goals per game average over an entire season. That is horrific and something to be ashamed of. It's not sport. That should be the default position of anyone paid to discuss the game in our country. If they're not interested in sport, not interested in fairness, then they shouldn't be on our national broadcaster. That shouldn't even be remotely controversial. 

 

[wee toon red]

Under the present - admittedly fucked, as well put by @RicoS321 above - setup, the 12 team league "works" as far as retaining some kind of interest for most clubs for most of the season. However, it's all just playing for crumbs really and the fact that Celtic can sit with almost £80m IN THE BANK and still lord it over the rest of the league should be all the motivation anyone needs for major change rather than shuffling the deckchairs per the "new" proposals.

In reality, Celtic and Rangers fucking off to some new European league would be the only potential catalyst for any kind of meaningful change. However, I don't trust any of the other "big" Scottish clubs, including our own, not to try and simply step into the vacant, shit-stained shoes of the "old firm" rather than enact or lead a new setup which would achieve genuine sporting competition.

In short, it's fucked and not likely to get any better.

[tlg1903]

15 hours ago, manc_don said:

Does it need to change? I’ve seen some say online that it needs to, but I actually like the system. It works. Wouldn’t mind a 14 league setup, it’s actually what the a-league are striving towards as well, although once the top 6 breakaway, the season ends for the rest. 
 

im genuinely surprised we’re even talking about it, the cheeks need to get a grip.

Completely agree. There's only one change I would make to the setup and that is to make the relegation play offs fairer.  I.E second bottom faces 4th and 2nd play 3rd in a semi final rather than 4th playing 3rd then second before the winner facing 2nd bottom. 

 

[Panda]

1 hour ago, RicoS321 said:

Doncaster has appeared on radio Scotland numerous occasions and never been adequately questioned.

Oh, there is a lot I'd love to say about these Neil Doncaster interviews. Let's put it this way, Tom English and Michael Stewart - no matter your views on them -  are not scared to question anyone on the radio.

But when Doncaster is on, [redacted].

1 hour ago, RicoS321 said:

Given that this is the fortieth anniversary of two teams solely winning our league - the worst period in Scottish football, if measured by sport - maybe you could write an article discussing the problem? If you were critical enough, and direct enough, then it might start some discussion.

 

You could write something. We're always asking for fan views. We have fan columns. If I said "Rico wants to write 400 words this week on why Doncaster should fuck off" they'll probably say to send it in. You could likely still call yourself Rico (because we had the absurd situation a few weeks ago of Kenny McIntyre talking to "Goggsy" on Sportsound.)

You could come on Sportsound too. If I said to McIntyre you fancy phoning in on Saturday night, he would say yes.

 

[tlg1903]

36 minutes ago, Panda said:

Oh, there is a lot I'd love to say about these Neil Doncaster interviews. Let's put it this way, Tom English and Michael Stewart - no matter your views on them -  are not scared to question anyone on the radio.

But when Doncaster is on, [redacted].

You could write something. We're always asking for fan views. We have fan columns. If I said "Rico wants to write 400 words this week on why Doncaster should fuck off" they'll probably say to send it in. You could likely still call yourself Rico (because we had the absurd situation a few weeks ago of Kenny McIntyre talking to "Goggsy" on Sportsound.)

You could come on Sportsound too. If I said to McIntyre you fancy phoning in on Saturday night, he would say yes.

 

Shit, I'll come on Sportsound if you want.  Can't do any worse than some of the numpties that have been on 

[RicoS321]

44 minutes ago, Panda said:

Oh, there is a lot I'd love to say about these Neil Doncaster interviews. Let's put it this way, Tom English and Michael Stewart - no matter your views on them -  are not scared to question anyone on the radio.

But when Doncaster is on, [redacted].

You could write something. We're always asking for fan views. We have fan columns. If I said "Rico wants to write 400 words this week on why Doncaster should fuck off" they'll probably say to send it in. You could likely still call yourself Rico (because we had the absurd situation a few weeks ago of Kenny McIntyre talking to "Goggsy" on Sportsound.)

You could come on Sportsound too. If I said to McIntyre you fancy phoning in on Saturday night, he would say yes.

 

It wasn't necessarily a criticism of English and Stewart or whoever, or their approach to someone like Doncaster, nor even Doncaster himself. It's systemic. Doncaster will be invited on to speak about topic X, say VAR, and will be questioned about that topic, and he'll answer in political fashion as always. There was/is no real avenue for them to pursue a wider conversation, and it really wouldn't work in the context of a single conversation with the head of fitba, who would simply bat away questions with "well we'd all love....", "we have to be realistic....." throw aways. 

What I'm talking about here is a complete value change to one that values fairness and plots its course towards that goal - across the board, and in a non-partisan manner. Look at the avenues that you present here (and even those open to you as someone who might be fighting from the inside as it were). What I'm suggesting can't be condensed into 400 words, or a three minute phone in with McIntyre, yet those are the tools of conveyance open to us. No long form discussion or philosophical conversation about what sport is supposed to be and what the values of our game should be. Of course, that's the same with our political and civilisational discourse more broadly. Systemic changes are split into bite size chunks as if they are individual problems and then morons invited to shout about them for ten minutes on question time or wherever, conveniently never addressing the thing as a whole. Football is just the system in microcosm. The Tims the rent-seeker, accumulating capital off the backs of the rest of us (what @wee toon red doesn't mention about the Tims' bank balance is that that £80M is taken entirely from the rest of Scottish fitba - a rent system where capital begets capital). It needs change from the top, of the BBC in this example, that directs the new values through the entire coverage. That would, I'm certain, take the fans with it, and perhaps the opportunity for real change.

[OrlandoDon]

Means little but I’d love to see a 16 team league playing each other twice, two relegated and 3rd bottom in a playoff. It’s so stale playing the same teams x number of times a year. I don’t like the product.
30 league games allows for an autumn league cup as we have, I like the format, plus it means the league is not as congested. We play way too much with cups, Europe, internationals etc. quantity over quality at present.

also means little, but if we care about the future of Scottish football a 16 team league allows for the odd game to play some youth, not totally meaningless games.

would also like to see the old firm gtf and play elsewhere. Nobody else has the money, fan base, and global appeal that I think ridding ourselves of the ugly sisters would help our league. Would be much more open and interesting.

[tlg1903]

Whilst the ugly sisters are in the mix a 16, or bigger, team league will never happen.