steelboy

that would obviously work but i doubt the old firm would ever agree to it with the champions league cash being at stake.

still posting though

they're not paid out match by match. it's the value of the whole package and a package that maximises old firm and edinburgh derby matches adds value. 16 games that are currently sfl1 fixtures won't. there is no split that could fix a 16 team league. 18 teams is too many, to have an 18 team league you need at least 24 teams capable of playing in the top division.

i'd rather stick with 12 as i quite like the split and if we get accies relegated and dunfermline up it would be a pretty strong league. the main reason for the reform seems to be to cut off the bottom feeders and stop the likes of east stirling getting money from the spl payment, the irn bru and alba sponsorship and the cis cup. that money would then be used to fund spl2. the argument would be that we're too small a country for 42 senior teams and that clubs like montrose should automatically be entitled to a share of the pie. the other benefits (from their point of view) would be ending the moaning about fixtures that goes on every year and having a slightly better product for the tv companies.

not every match is of equal value.

we were talking about expansion which jay said would cost each team £1m. it doesn't seem that there is much to be gained financially from going to ten teams and any increase in revenue would have to be weighed against increased risk of relegation.

what will increase quality is clubs having money to resign their better players and bring in some half decent signings. look at the difference porter and hughes made to us, money makes the difference. obviously we wouldn't want to go back to the mental days of ten years ago but it would be good to have some strong sides in the league rather than the embarassing sight of teams scraping around for players. the quality of young player being brought through has little to do with the quality of the league as it's so easy for young players to leave to anywhere with more money. obviously transfer fees help but it's a lottery. i don't know if relegating 20% of teams would increase quality but it would certainly increase competition.

the league isn't going to be expanded. there's far too many reasons why it can't happen. i also don't buy the argument that dundee/falkirk/raith rovers/qots/dunfermline/partick are some kind of panacea for the spl. these teams would as bad if not worse than st mirren just now, the spl is short on quality right now diluting it further isn't the answer. i look forward to the games against aberdeen, hearts, hibs and united because they're games where both teams are looking to win and fairly even, i enjoy playing 18+ games against the city clubs. jay - it's okay saying that you wouldn't mind every club losing £1 million but hearts, rangers, killie, united and aberdeen have massive amounts of debt and it might not even be legal for them to vote through a change that reduces their income.

the old firm won the title in each of the last ten 18 team seasons. it wasn't league restructuring that caused old firm domination. it's down to money, the same as every other league. the nfl isn't a good comparison. it's a monopoly, there are only 32 pro teams in a country of 300 million, the average ticket is 50 quid, it's also probably not physically safe to play more games.

i'm very suprised people feel so strongly about this. is playing 9 teams 4 times so different from playing 6 teams 3 times plus 5 teams 4 times? it's two less games and instead of playing accies and midden you play one more game against the teams who finish in the other half of the league from you.

would it not be less teams playing like hamilton? accies play the way do because they can't afford to sign players who can compete by any other means.

i love a bit of a conspiracy theory so... has anyone considered that this is all a bit of a ruse so we can keep the status quo and continue on with the 12 teams and the split? the spl will look as if they have tried to restructure the league but were thawrted, the fans will feel they beat the ten team league and then it can all be put to bed for a while and we can get on the structure we have with less moaning.

i don't think we can keep up with the talent drain, that's one of the biggest problems effecting the league. look at our squad, we haven't replaced quinn, hughes, clarkson or o'brien. right now anyone who is good enough to sit on a bench in the championship won't sign a new deal at fir park. who's to say it won't get to the point where anyone good enough to play in league two won't play here either?

1. in court this year dundee united said the costs of hosting rangers on halloween 09 were 16 thousand quid against ticket income of £200k plus. so playing the old firm is still lucrative. 2. we can't afford to lose 20% of income. you would imagine the way the club is being run that other costs at at minimum already so the 20% reduction would have to be off the playing budget. you would be looking at cutting the amount spent on the squad by a third. that would be true if there were only 16 clubs in the world. what would really happen is that even more scottish players would head south to get the wages on offer there and we wouldn't be able to attract anyone of a decent standard up here. so we would have got 7 points for drawing 6 each with hibs and only 4 for beating them one nil. that makes sense.

the premier league/division started in 1975.

you're actually living in a golden era! since we went into admin we have achieved some impressive things. 4 semi finals in 8 years which matches our total in the previous 40 years (i think). we got into our 9th cup final. it was only our second in 50 years. 25 consecutive top flight seasons. in the 27 years between the formation of the premier league and going into admin we finished in the top half of the league 4 times. since we came out of admin we have matched that and could possibly beat it this year. last season was the first time we qualified for europe 3 times in a row. when we knocked out aalesund it was the first time we had progressed against a full time professional club.

the total amount of income from tv + radio is the same as the total gate receipts. for season 08/09 gate receipts totalled 1.438m and tv/radio 1.429m. 10 or 12 doesn't really bother me, if it means we don't need to play accies and midden for a while then it can't be all bad.

meechan, innes, halsman and carswell are all cheaper and deserve a chance to see if they can be better. it could also be gow's wage + fitzy's wage = 2 good players. i remember butcher giving shaun fagan a new contract in 06 and the same patter getting banded about why we should keep him. he barely kicked a ball for us and since he's left he's flopped at clyde, galway and east fife.

for a bit of perspective on the defence in 26 games we have only conceded more than one goal 6 times. rangers, celtic and hearts have all conceded multiple goals 5 times.

they didn't play together in that match.

paul quinn? jim hamilton? andy goram?

hateley was meant to be doing that. lasley was playing ahead of him in these games.

that's a fair point. look on the brightside though, we only have to pay tom half a million pounds over the next 30 months before we can start a thread saying don't extend his contract. there should be a greeting smiley.

blackman - it'd ideal if he extended and got his form back. on the other hand watching performances like yesterday for another 5 months doesn't appeal. overall i don't really care. gow - if we sign him we have major, major problems. fitzy - has looked no bad in his last couple of appearances but can we really justify extending a guy who has made half a dozen appearances in 18 months and is never likely to be better than average. every penny counts these days.

has charlies nicholas stole cloudy's log in? craggs was one of the better players against rangers and celtic, far too early to be writing him off.