Spl Reconstruction

[Griffin]

Alright guys, not a regular poster on here by any means but I've been thinking a lot about SPL reconstruction recently, where we want to take our league and how to improve the game. It seems pretty universal that everyone is opposed to the suggested 12-12-18 league reconstruction and if they somehow manage to push it through it is, frankly, a farce. It's been done before and hasn't worked. It's a shit idea.

 

In terms of taking our game forward i'm thinking more along the lines of a change to the rules that teams play by and generally a change in our footballing culture.

 

Why does everyone think that the EPL is the best league in the world and that the SPL potentially one of Europe's worse? Why, despite having a few of the best years in our clubs history along with two 3rd place finishes, are our attendances still dwindling at an alarming rate? Why are the attendances throughout Scottish football as a whole (Including Celtic) dwindling at an alarming rate?

 

The answer is simple, lack of any meaningful competition for the top spot. Fuck sake, even the Celtic fans are getting bored of winning and that's saying something! This coupled with high ticket prices and generally a poor standard of football.

 

So what are we going to do about it? I don't know the answer, nobody does (especially the tosspot that is Neil Doncaster). I will however throw out a few ideas:

 

Wage Caps. The reason why football games are so expensive to attend is because 70 whatever % of club turnover is going to the players. This needs to end, the clubs can't afford it and the fans certainly can't afford it. Maybe if we cape wages and put everybody on a level playing field (a concept alien to football as a whole) then we can get some half decent competition that won't result in the 2 biggest teams taking it a canter.

 

Revamp the Youth system. This idea is pretty out there, I'll admit, but why not give it a bash. Take the development of youth players out of the hands of individual clubs and leave it to the SFA. This will save us as clubs from spending that extra money that we don't have and condense the resources at our disposal. The players can train with the SFA to say 19/20 then be distributed to the clubs on some sort of draft type basis (additional excitement wooo). I would hope this would give our national team a boost aswell as, if anyone seen the Scotland squad for last night's friendly Vs. Greece, it made for depressing viewing. Hopefully national academies dotted around the country, youngsters getting the best coaching playing against the other best young players can produce a better end result.

 

Reduce the no. of teams in senior football. Aye it's a bit shite telling the likes of Arbroath etc. that they're no longer in the senior footballl ranks but at the end of the day they're just holding the game back. Some tough decisions need to be made and this is one of them. I'm thinking 2 big leagues or 3 smaller ones with a total of about 20-30 (max.) senior teams. I'm not a completely heartless tyrant however, let's set up a junior structure that will allow progression through the leagues to the senior ranks (ala English Conference). These junior leagues would be regional.

 

Some of these ideas are ridiculous, unthinkable even, but at the end of the day the game in it's current state is fucked with a capital FUCKED. It's only going one direction. Instead of copying the failed ideas of other, similarly sized nations lets come up with something of our own. Something creative and hopefully innovative.

 

Maybe we can even use some of our new found wealth to remove Rotheram's new stadium and put it in it's rightful resting place; Ravenscraig (after painting it Claret and amber, of course!).

 

This turned into a miniature essay, apologies for that. Thoughts?

[johnstone]

Apathy mate. There are very few people who give a fuck about football in general in Scotland.

 

I agree about competition though. It's the single biggest factor in our game that is bringing it down.

 

All we need is 4-5 teams up there competing to make it interesting. The scandal is how teams like Hibs, Hearts and Aberdeen have been run. They should be at least pushing Celtic, but us and teams like Inverness with much smaller budgets have been out performing them recently.

 

My solution. Get rid of Celtic and rangers and watch our game flourish. Might be at a worse level but it will be as pure as the driven snow as mother superior once said.

[Mic2904]

Apathy mate. There are very few people who give a fuck about football in general in Scotland.

 

I agree about competition though. It's the single biggest factor in our game that is bringing it down.

 

All we need is 4-5 teams up there competing to make it interesting. The scandal is how teams like Hibs, Hearts and Aberdeen have been run. They should be at least pushing Celtic, but us and teams like Inverness with much smaller budgets have been out performing them recently.

 

My solution. Get rid of Celtic and rangers and watch our game flourish. Might be at a worse level but it will be as pure as the driven snow as mother superior once said.

 

As much as I am looking forward to the Home games against the Ugly Sister, I completly agree with that point. I would only disagree, if we manage to get some sort of level playing field through money distribution, but to be honest we will never have a revenue stream like The Rangers or Shellic. They are 2 massive clubs, no wonder the English dont want them in their league, as I firmly believe over a couple of years they will give most teams a run for the money... not neccesarily on the pitch, but in regards to revenue.

[Onthefringes]

As much as I am looking forward to the Home games against the Ugly Sister, I completly agree with that point. I would only disagree, if we manage to get some sort of level playing field through money distribution, but to be honest we will never have a revenue stream like The Rangers or Shellic. They are 2 massive clubs, no wonder the English dont want them in their league, as I firmly believe over a couple of years they will give most teams a run for the money... not neccesarily on the pitch, but in regards to revenue.

 

Light years away. The BIG team in Manchester generated £100 million in matchday revenue alone last season. Whole host of reasons why the mould firm aren't wanted down there too...

[Coolhandluc]

Totally common sense post Griffin, something that is sadly lacking in those in power at the SFA. Why don't you forward it to Doncaster and Reagan - maybe delete the toss pot comment and go easy on the expletives mind .

Better still, bring up your ideas at this fans forum that's in the offing

[gilmour]

 

Premier League agrees new financial regulations

The Premier League says its clubs will be punished with a points deduction if they breach new spending controls.

 

Each team will not be allowed to make a total loss of more than £105m over the next three seasons and must limit their player wage bills from next season.

 

"If people break the £105m we will look for the top-end ultimate sanction range - a points deduction," said Premier League boss Richard Scudamore.

 

 

Analysis

Gordon intereThe rules are designed to improve the financial sustainability of clubs.

 

Investment in areas such as stadia and academies will be exempt.

 

The aim is a 'break even' model similar to the Financial Fair Play regulations introduced by Uefa for sides in European competitions. The FFP allows only a £38m (45m euros) loss - significantly less than the Premier League's new limit of £105m between 2013 and 2016.

 

Agreeing to cost controls marks a major change for Premier League clubs - they made cumulative losses of £361m in the 2010-11 season - and Scudamore is adamant the system will be enforced.

 

"As with all things in our rulebook, you will be subject to a disciplinary commission," the Premier League chief executive warned clubs.

 

"Normally we stay silent on sanctions as the commission has a free range but clearly if there is a material breach of that rule we will be asking the commission to consider top-end sanctions."

 

Scudamore confirmed there would be an "absolute prohibition" on teams reporting losses of more than £105m over the next three years, with the first sanctions possible in 2016.

 

Of the 20 top-flight sides, only Manchester City, Chelsea and Liverpool have reported losses of more than £105m over the last three years, according to the most up-to-date published accounts.

 

It emerged that the vote for the financial regulations could hardly have been closer with only 13 of the 20 clubs voted in favour, with six against and Reading abstaining.

 

The 'yes' vote only narrowly achieved the necessary two-thirds majority of the 19 votes cast.

 

It is understood that Fulham, West Bromwich Albion, Manchester City, Aston Villa, Swansea City and Southampton all voted against. Chelsea, who had initially been viewed as opponents of financial fair play regulations, voted in favour.

 

"A new owner can still invest a decent amount of money to improve their club but they are not going to be throwing hundreds and hundreds of millions [of pounds] in a very short period of time," said Scudamore.

 

"While it has worked for a couple of clubs in the last 10 years, if that's going to be done in the future it's going to have to be over a slightly longer term without the huge losses being made.

 

 

Financial regulation key

"I think at £105m you can still build a very decent club with substantial owner funding but you have to do it over time, not in a season."

 

Chelsea won the Premier League two years after Roman Abramovich acquired the Stamford Bridge outfit, and Manchester City's title success came three years after Sheikh Mansour's takeover.

 

Any club making a loss of above £5m a year will have to guarantee those losses against the owner's assets, which should help prevent the situations that afflicted Leeds and Portsmouth.

 

"In some ways that's the most significant part, this is a three-year rolling system of secure funding - it's one year at the moment," Scudamore added.

 

Clubs whose total wage bill is more than £52m will only be allowed to increase their salaries by an accumulative £4m per season for each of the next three years (2013-14: £4m, 2014-15: £8m, 2015-16: £12m).

 

However, that only applies to revenue centrally distributed by the Premier League - essentially TV income - and does not cover extra money coming in from increases in commercial or matchday income.

 

The 'short-term cost control' measure applies solely to clubs with a player wage bill in excess of £52m in 2013-14, £56m in 2014-15 and £60m in 2015-16.

 

West Ham's co-owner David Gold said that the proposals for controls had received backing of the majority of chairmen.

 

"We have all voted and it was overwhelmingly supported, not by all the clubs - some are a little concerned - but the vast majority of the clubs voted in favour," he explained.

 

"It's not a salary cap, it's a restraint on over-spending. If clubs increase their revenues then they can increase their spending.

 

"We have got restraint, that's the important thing. What's driving the whole thing is we've got to avoid another Portsmouth."

 

Minister for Sport Hugh Robertson commented: "I am pleased that Premier League clubs have agreed further financial regulations that will help ensure they are run on a more sustainable basis.

 

"The Government has been clear that we want clubs to be on a secure financial footing for the long-term health of the game. This is a welcome and positive move."

 

 

 

[David]

Scotland's top two clubs will sacrifice £1million under plans to restructure our leagues.

 

And six more in the top eight will also take a hit to pass an additional £400,000 down the divisions.

 

Figures outlining the cash concessions at the heart of the reconstruction plans have been published for the first time and clearly outline the willingness of those at the top of the tree to take less money to make it happen.

 

Should the new 12-12-18 proposals go through Scotland’s champions stand to receive £315,000 less from the prize-money pot.

 

But astonishingly the runners-up will be hit to the tune of £682,000. Drops ranging from £83,000 to £35,000 will also be taken by the rest of the clubs who finish in the top eight.

 

In a bid to level the playing field more money will go to clubs in the 12-team second tier. Their prize pot will rise a staggering £319,000 from just £68,000 to a whopping £387,000.

 

And while teams in the proposed 18-club National League will see their slice of cash stay the same the distribution is clearly designed to give the clubs hovering around the fringes of the top flight or those who drop out a fighting chance of staying stable.

 

It is not yet clear if the bulk of finance will be allocated to clubs based on their positions in the top two leagues at the end of the first phase of the season before the 8-8-8 split or on their final placings at the end of the campaign.

 

The proposals also detail how any additional revenue made by the league will be redistributed in three stages.

 

The first extra £900,000 will be given to clubs in the Play-off 8 league, with the winners gaining an additional £200,000 and the bottom side £25,000.

 

The next £200,000 is to be distributed evenly among the bottom 18 clubs with each gaining £11,100.

 

If a further £900,000 is made it will be divided between the Premiership 8 with the eventual champions adding £200,000 and the team finishing eighth pocketing £25,000.

 

But it is the confirmation that the country’s top eight teams each season stand to relinquish a total of almost £1.4m in prize money to the next 12 on the ladder that is the eyebrow-raising positive.

 

Dundee chief executive Scot Gardiner believes the release of the financial plans proves greed and self-interest are the last things on the minds of clubs as they try improve Scottish football.

 

Gardiner said: “In the past six months I’ve had a foot in both camps with Dundee in terms of the SPL and the SFL and I would never have believed it was possible to get consensus as the game had become so polarised.

 

“Only through people giving up some serious money have we managed to get something like consensus. We’re very good at knocking one another and knocking the game but there has to be credit handed out because we are talking huge amounts of money.

 

“How hard must it have been for some clubs to say yes to this for next season? People are talking about giving up big sums of money when the SPL is not exactly swimming in the stuff.

 

“They are agreeing to take medicine in order to make things better.

 

“The accusations levelled towards this reconstruction are that it is desperation. I would suggest not many people in times of desperation take a massive cut in wages.

 

“It takes courage to do what is being done and, in spite of what is being said by a vociferous group who are against it, a lot of hard work went in to get that consensus and it is a positive thing. If people are being greedy and looking after themselves why would they be giving away seven figures?

 

“There should be acknowledgement that this is not the greedy mob. People have had to swallow hard.”

 

Clearly clubs are prepared to take a hit to help and, even before the reconstruction issue, SPL teams voted months ago to change the distribution of this season’s prize money.

 

Although cash for the SPL winners stays the same, the runners-up will get less than stated at the beginning of the campaign, with the cut being spread through the division.

 

Gardiner says everyone is pulling together and SPL criteria is even being overlooked in the proposed new top flight.

 

He added: “We’re saying, ‘You don’t have to spend £200,000 on undersoil heating. But spend £20,000 on covers which do the same job’.

 

“You are bending whatever way you can to try to make it viable and have clubs with decent facilities that don’t need to go into debt to chase a dream.

 

“And if you stay in the First Division, or the Championship as it would be known, for a couple of years it won’t kill you to be there.”

So, under these new proposals Celtic will be giving up £315,000 less per season, whilst the best of the rest will lose out on more than double that?

[joewarkfanclub]

Absolutely ridiculous if true.

 

There should be equally spaced increments from 1-12 so that good performance is rewarded but not to the extent that it prohibits competition.

 

If this goes through the gap between Celtic and the rest just gets bigger.

 

Mental!

[David]

Absolutely ridiculous if true.

 

There should be equally spaced increments from 1-12 so that good performance is rewarded but not to the extent that it prohibits competition.

 

If this goes through the gap between Celtic and the rest just gets bigger.

 

Mental!

And the deal would conveniently come to an end just in time for Rangers winning promotion to the SPL (unless they slip up along the way of course), at which point they'll have to rejig the numbers and ensure that the gap in financial reward between the top two isn't as much.

[Wellfan1984]

He asks how hard was it for the clubs, well for Celtic not at all. The 11 SPL clubs outside Celtic are a bunch of fuds, and the fact they are selling this as a good thing...

[fatcalf]

So let me get my head round this, we have already agreed to 2nd place being worth a lot less following Rangers demise? And then we've agreed that 2nd place should lsoe a lot more on top of that? So in effect we're already potentially losing out if we keep our place, kind of kept that quiet eh?

 

 

In simple terms everyone bar ra Shellic is prepared to take the biggest hit to make it work. And as David points out, when Rangers are due to take their 'rightful' place again this deal won't apply and we'll back to the massive disparity between the top 2 places and the rest. Still stinks.

 

 

Anyone know exactly what we're playing for as things stand?

[weeyin]

Doesn't the new change in voting structure mean Sevco can't railroad any changes when they are back in the top flight though?

[fatcalf]

Doesn't the new change in voting structure mean Sevco can't railroad any changes when they are back in the top flight though?

 

They'll just offer their bum chums a bit more dosh to help them oot. Is there a change in the offing likes?

[weeyin]

They'll just offer their bum chums a bit more dosh to help them oot. Is there a change in the offing likes?

 

I heard part of the reason clubs like ours are voting for the weird league structure is because part of the deal also gets rid of the 11 - 1 majority requirements.

 

So if 7 clubs don't want the OF to get a bigger split, they can vote it down.

[Brazilian]

I heard part of the reason clubs like ours are voting for the weird league structure is because part of the deal also gets rid of the 11 - 1 majority requirements.

 

So if 7 clubs don't want the OF to get a bigger split, they can vote it down.

 

a cynical man who feels he was misguided by the lack of detail presented around the top of the SPL giving up most of the prize money to fund this, may question just what the voting structure is really going to be like going forward.

 

does it stay at 12 with a switch to 11-1 voting or does it effectively become 24 SPL clubs and what would the voting be? 22-2? or 23-1!!!!

 

what happens during the 3x8 section to the votes? if it remains 12 votes

 

what are these reserved issues surrounding votes?

 

as I say a cynical man may question it, afterall why would any normal punter have reason to question or distrust anything thats being setup and scarcely/sporadically being communicated by the upstanding guardians of our game

[weeyin]

I'd be more cynical if the Well Society had allowed me to listen to the information at the last meeting. I'm working with 3rd hand information at the moment.

[fatcalf]

 

 

why would any normal punter have reason to question or distrust anything thats being setup and scarcely/sporadically being communicated by the upstanding guardians of our game

 

 

No reason, no reason at all, just curious

[nethertonwellfan]

This proposal gets a whole lot worse. Was this mentioned at the Well trust meeting?

[Steve Diggle]

I'm all for redistribution of wealth.

 

I just don't like the idea of all the clubs having to dress up like chickens and try to collect eggs from a rotating turntable that's being sprayed with water.

 

i.e. we shouldn't have to proceed with a frankly mental competition format to sort out an even split of the cash.

 

The 'through the turnstyle' supporter is being further marginalised by sponsors playing brinksmanship with our clubs. Their main concern is Tv exposure.

 

The main priority should be filling our stadiums on a match day.

[Frazzie]

I'd be more cynical if the Well Society had allowed me to listen to the information at the last meeting. I'm working with 3rd hand information at the moment.

 

Care to elaborate on that? I have been drifting in and out of this debate so think I might have missed something.

[David]

Care to elaborate on that? I have been drifting in and out of this debate so think I might have missed something.

I'm not entirely sure, but I think he had voiced his displeasure over the lack of international conferencing facilities offered for these meetings when the club actively were trying to convince non-local fans to join the Society in the first place.

 

He had no means of hearing or seeing what was said at the meeting and had to rely on others telling him.

[numpty]

He had no means of hearing or seeing what was said at the meeting and had to rely on others telling him.

Indeed. I also emailed Alison to ask if we could all at least be emailed or otherwise pointed at a copy of Leeann's presentation deck after the meeting (whether or not it would have made any sense without her talking over it), but I guess they never got around to that, either.

[Frazzie]

Ah right, I see. I hadn't really thought of that. I suppose that is unfortunate.

[weeyin]

Care to elaborate on that? I have been drifting in and out of this debate so think I might have missed something.

 

When they Well Society meeting was called to discuss these proposals, I asked if they would set up a conference call or some sort of internet stream so the overseas members (and domestic members who live some distance away) could participate.

 

The answer was "Naw".

 

At the very least they could have recorded it and shared the presentation materials.

[East_Stand_Al]

When they Well Society meeting was called to discuss these proposals, I asked if they would set up a conference call or some sort of internet stream so the overseas members (and domestic members who live some distance away) could participate.

 

The answer was "Naw".

 

At the very least they could have recorded it and shared the presentation materials.

 

In fairness I believe the answer was they did not have the resources to do so at present but it was something that they would look at and aim to do in the future, this is an issue that has been raised at the last 2 WS meetings.

 

The compromise was to have major points tweeted throughout the meeting.