mfc Posted January 4, 2011 Report Share Posted January 4, 2011 Tell me this, how do you expect a country the size of Scotland to sustain a 16-18 team league? Countries the size of Spain, England & Itlay currently opperate with 20 team leagues, but these countries are massive in terms of population. We simply cannot sustain a 16-18 team league, with the current number of teams we have in Scotland. Some have got to go out of business or be merged for that approach to be a success! how can we not sustain a 16 team spl we have teams like dundee,falkirk and dunfermline that are just as big as a few of the current spl teams and would be a welcome addition Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperCC Posted January 4, 2011 Report Share Posted January 4, 2011 Tell me this, how do you expect a country the size of Scotland to sustain a 16-18 team league? Countries the size of Spain, England & Itlay currently opperate with 20 team leagues, but these countries are massive in terms of population. We simply cannot sustain a 16-18 team league, with the current number of teams we have in Scotland. Some have got to go out of business or be merged for that approach to be a success! Look at the teams currently all around us in the UEFA coefficient table and you will find that the majority of them operate with 14/16/18 team top leagues and all of them are on the up whilst Scottish football is tumbling down the rankings! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mic2904 Posted January 4, 2011 Report Share Posted January 4, 2011 You know what, 10, 12, 14, 16 or 18 teams changes nothing. You can dress it up anyway you want, but the product will remain exactly the same, in fact potentially an 18 team league would only excacerbate the dominance of the 'Big Two'. Scottish football needs radically re-built from the bottom up. But what are the real issues? The argument that the dominance of the 'Big Two' detracts from the quility of the league may not ring true. Look at the EPL, only 3-4 teams can realistically win that league out of 20. That is the exact same ratio as 2 teams dominating 10 teams. So having a realistic chance of winning anything doesn't seem to curtail the English, Spanish or Italian leagues. What sets those leagues apart is primarily the size of the country, as it enables larger support, which equals more revenue, which means bigger stadia, bigger wage structures and ultimatley better football. Is Scotland now just too small to support the number of professional teams. Maybe the implosion of Scottish football would be the best thing that ever happened, as the number of teams that re-form, when and if it is re-built, could be limited, thus strenghtening the support base of the new teams, resulting in increased revenue, better/bigger stadia and a bigger wage structure......thus generating a better product. I truely believe Scottish football needs something much more radical than the number of teams in the league, to enable it to be re-born as a product which suits all involved and make Scottish Footbal stronger as a whole. Perhaps a bigger amature set up similar to Germany would suit our league structure, with pro clubs limited to no more than say 20? So......back to my original point, the size of the league changes absolutly hee haw. Much more radical re-thinking is required, but it wont happen as the powers that be are only concerned with self preservation! No body has the guts to rip it all up and start again. Maybe we could do worse than look at the american system where the players are owned by the league, and that the team that finishes bottom gets 1st pick from the draft next year, meaning that no team can dominate. Now that would be far more exciting! No? I think you could copy the whole NFL structure, incl contracts, division, drafts etc. Even the point that there is no relegation, which basicly means a team can go down the route of rebuilding without having the fear of being liquidated. I would also love a salary cap. I guess its just to big a change! BUT: Personally I do like the 2 10 team league system, maybe they shouldnt be underneath each other, more next to each other, if you know whta i mean. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tweed Posted January 4, 2011 Report Share Posted January 4, 2011 But to sustain 16 you need 20 because you need these teams that come up to be competitive and you need there to be somewhere competitive for them to go if they go down. But I think 16 is a lose lose financially: 4 home games lost 1 or 2 v Old Firm Telly money reduced I agree we need expansion but from the start we've got if we lose all that then some clubs will go to the wall. If we'd had this debate fifteen years ago in a boom phase then clubs should have been more willing but I suspect Kilmarnock if they lost four games and some telly money would go out of business - and I doubt they'd be alone. And its all well and good saying they vote for self preservation but I imagine some teams are voting for survival and the telly deal that comes from four OF games could see some teams defunct. I know people will counter we should change the voting rights so that a greater share is received by the provincial teams but again we pay the price for mistakes made years ago which effectively gave the OF right of veto and they won't sell themselves down the river the way we did. I think the change from 12 to 10 though is change for change's sake as there is going to be no marked difference apart from removing the split and its controversies and is being done to tick the change box. If the decision is that expansion is unfeasible we should stick with the 12 and spend the time working on the grassroots recommendations which should improve quality in every division. Having watched the Edinburgh, Glasgow and Lanarkshire derbies at the weekend the standard was drab so that is a goal worth aiming for. We can change the relegation criteria - e.g 2 up 2 down We can create a 2nd tier under the SPL - as proposed Earlier start date - as proposed. There are lots of good ideas in these recommendations but the number of the teams is the one that grabs the headlines and is the one that is wrong. As an aside we need a terrestrial highlights package when kids can watch to try and give them the bug. I got into football watching Scotsport on Sundays at 5pm. If I was an eight year old now where would I get introduced to Scottish football? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Special aka Posted January 4, 2011 Report Share Posted January 4, 2011 Goes without saying the repetition is a major factor, ............ Major reason why I so look forward to Cup draw and chance to go somewhere different. A 10 team top flight will only increase the monotony of what we currently endure. If I was still a regular attender, reckon I would actually prefer to compete in SPL2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dinnae-punt-it Posted January 4, 2011 Report Share Posted January 4, 2011 how can we not sustain a 16 team spl we have teams like dundee,falkirk and dunfermline that are just as big as a few of the current spl teams and would be a welcome addition I didn't say we cannot sustain a 16 team league. I said we cannot sustain a 16 team league with the current number of professional teams in Scotland! SuperCC may be 100% right. The stranglehold of the Old Firm may be the biggest problem we face. The number of supposed Ranger or Celtic supporters that don't actually go to games is disgusting. I lived in Holland for a while, and he is right. Most people supported the team of their town/city! How can that supported trend be reversed? I don't have the answers? I simply don't think just increasing the size of the league will change anything on its own! Maybe it just can't be fixed, as the 'Big Two' have killed it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dinnae-punt-it Posted January 4, 2011 Report Share Posted January 4, 2011 But to sustain 16 you need 20 because you need these teams that come up to be competitive and you need there to be somewhere competitive for them to go if they go down. But I think 16 is a lose lose financially: 4 home games lost 1 or 2 v Old Firm Telly money reduced I agree we need expansion but from the start we've got if we lose all that then some clubs will go to the wall. If we'd had this debate fifteen years ago in a boom phase then clubs should have been more willing but I suspect Kilmarnock if they lost four games and some telly money would go out of business - and I doubt they'd be alone. And its all well and good saying they vote for self preservation but I imagine some teams are voting for survival and the telly deal that comes from four OF games could see some teams defunct. I know people will counter we should change the voting rights so that a greater share is received by the provincial teams but again we pay the price for mistakes made years ago which effectively gave the OF right of veto and they won't sell themselves down the river the way we did. I think the change from 12 to 10 though is change for change's sake as there is going to be no marked difference apart from removing the split and its controversies and is being done to tick the change box. If the decision is that expansion is unfeasible we should stick with the 12 and spend the time working on the grassroots recommendations which should improve quality in every division. Having watched the Edinburgh, Glasgow and Lanarkshire derbies at the weekend the standard was drab so that is a goal worth aiming for. We can change the relegation criteria - e.g 2 up 2 down We can create a 2nd tier under the SPL - as proposed Earlier start date - as proposed. There are lots of good ideas in these recommendations but the number of the teams is the one that grabs the headlines and is the one that is wrong. As an aside we need a terrestrial highlights package when kids can watch to try and give them the bug. I got into football watching Scotsport on Sundays at 5pm. If I was an eight year old now where would I get introduced to Scottish football? Some good points in there Tweed! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weeyin Posted January 4, 2011 Report Share Posted January 4, 2011 Major reason why I so look forward to Cup draw and chance to go somewhere different. A 10 team top flight will only increase the monotony of what we currently endure. If I was still a regular attender, reckon I would actually prefer to compete in SPL2 That's certainly one of the reasons I enjoyed our stint in the First Division. Lots of nice wee trips to old-school grounds that have since disappeared. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dinnae-punt-it Posted January 4, 2011 Report Share Posted January 4, 2011 I think you could copy the whole NFL structure, incl contracts, division, drafts etc. Even the point that there is no relegation, which basicly means a team can go down the route of rebuilding without having the fear of being liquidated. I would also love a salary cap. I guess its just to big a change! BUT: Personally I do like the 2 10 team league system, maybe they shouldnt be underneath each other, more next to each other, if you know whta i mean. I think it would be great, but your probably right, too big a change I guess. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orinoco Posted January 4, 2011 Report Share Posted January 4, 2011 i wonder if the distribution of TV monies was discussed? after all money is their only motivation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juan Kerse Posted January 4, 2011 Report Share Posted January 4, 2011 One change I would make, is to make sure that all matches are played to a finish. If this means penalties, so be it. I've always hated the one point for a draw system. I would award a straight two points to the eventual winner of the game. No win, no points. A daft thing I've always thought was if a game ends 0-0 (or any draw) but especiallu 0-0 (I hate 0-0s) both teams get one penalty each. If they both score it ends 1-1 and obviously it can stay 0-0 or a team wins 1-0. At least the fans see some action, nothing wore than a 0-0!! Anyway as for the 10 team pish. Are they actually TRYING to shut the door on Scottish football!! Do these people know that we are fed up (actualy they do, due to numerous surveys and polls) and can easily get our football fix on channel 401-405 for the rest of time if it gets any worse! 16 team is a no-brainer! For an absoulte certainty it would mean more chalenging at the top as teams don't have to play the Old Firm so much. This in itself would create more excitement never mind ridding of the ridiculous situation of playing the ame teams over and over. Yes there will be less TV money, who cares - the players take a wage cut. If this means a lesser 'quality' of player then whatever - hardly champions league stuff at the minute. There will always be 11 geezers wanting paid to play SPL football... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperCC Posted January 4, 2011 Report Share Posted January 4, 2011 As an aside we need a terrestrial highlights package when kids can watch to try and give them the bug. I got into football watching Scotsport on Sundays at 5pm. If I was an eight year old now where would I get introduced to Scottish football? Will always remember watching Arthur Montford with my Dad on a Sunday afternoon and have to agree that a highlights package on either a Saturday night (maybe repeated on a Sunday) or bringing back the Scotsport slot must be part of any new tv deal. Kids nowadays only ever see the scum live on Sky and so the cycle begins! Bring back Glen Michaels Cartoon Cavalcade as well........ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orinoco Posted January 4, 2011 Report Share Posted January 4, 2011 bring back live cup draws on the radio after the games on a sat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weeyin Posted January 4, 2011 Report Share Posted January 4, 2011 bring back live cup draws on the radio after the games on a sat.Even better - after all the games have kicked off at 3pm on a sat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carlukemurray Posted January 4, 2011 Report Share Posted January 4, 2011 I think this table highlights the fact that Scotland simply doesn't have the football clubs or population to support a large Premier League. You can assume that some clubs attendances would go up when promoted (see Accies for an example) but the fact is that they are still too low to bring in large amounts of TV and advertising income. We need to look at getting bums on seats at football games, this will have a knock on effect on income, keeping and improving players, advertising and hopefully the standard of football. Motherwell's average attendance has gone down by almost 12% - a result of early kick offs and TV screening of the Old Firm games, price of tickets/on the gate, standard of football and the economic climate. Only 10 clubs have an average attendance of over 5,000. Dundee and Dundee United should merge and I hate to say it but it would make vast economical sense for Lanarkshire to have one large football club. Top 20 Scottish Football Clubs by Average Attendance - 2005/06-2008/09 Club Average 05/06 Average 06/07 Average 07/08 Average 08/09 Average Celtic 58,150 57,925 56,675 57,670 Rangers 49,245 49,955 49,145 49,535 Heart of Midlothian 16,765 16,935 15,960 14,400 Aberdeen 12,730 12,475 11,995 12,930 Hibernian 13,565 14,585 13,885 12,685 Dundee United 8,200 7,145 8,530 8,655 Kilmarnock 7,070 7,565 6,180 5,725 Falkirk 5,515 5,385 5,570 5,640 Motherwell 6,250 5,875 6,600 5,520 Saint Mirren 3,800 5,610 4,545 5,410 Inverness Caledonian 5,060 4,880 4,755 4,455 Dundee 3,795 3,880 4,250 3,955 Hamilton Academical 1,715 1,715 2,470 3,825 Saint Johnstone 2,665 2,810 2,915 3,515 Dunfermline Athletic 6,195 6,105 3,580 3,110 Partick Thistle 2,610 2,590 2,610 2,965 Queen of the South 1,805 2,210 2,030 2,680 Greenock Morton 2,760 2,765 2,730 2,250 Raith Rovers 1,625 1,935 1,785 2,225 Ross County 2,300 2,305 2,245 2,165 Domestic league matches only Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juan Kerse Posted January 4, 2011 Report Share Posted January 4, 2011 We simply cannot sustain a 16-18 team league, with the current number of teams we have in Scotland. Some have got to go out of business or be merged for that approach to be a success! I said we cannot sustain a 16 team league with the current number of professional teams in Scotland! See I don't buy this ' we have too many teams in Scotland' Yes there are 42 'senior' teams. This means fuck all. At least 15 of these 'Senior' teams have equivilents in terms of player wage, grounds and attendances in England in villages and leagues you have never heard of. Nothing wrong with two 'big' leagues of 16 and then a regionalised pyramid system thereafter. Less teams to look after in the 'senior' set-up will be a good thing. Germany, Spain etc.. all have only 2 or 3 at most 'senior' leagues then a regionalised system underneath. Why we still 4 leagues is beyond me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Special aka Posted January 4, 2011 Report Share Posted January 4, 2011 Will always remember watching Arthur Montford with my Dad on a Sunday ........... Bring back Glen Michaels Cartoon Cavalcade as well........ R U son of Palladin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dinnae-punt-it Posted January 4, 2011 Report Share Posted January 4, 2011 See I don't buy this ' we have too many teams in Scotland' Yes there are 42 'senior' teams. This means fuck all. At least 15 of these 'Senior' teams have equivilents in terms of player wage, grounds and attendances in England in villages and leagues you have never heard of. Nothing wrong with two 'big' leagues of 16 and then a regionalised pyramid system thereafter. Less teams to look after in the 'senior' set-up will be a good thing. Germany, Spain etc.. all have only 2 or 3 at most 'senior' leagues then a regionalised system underneath. Why we still 4 leagues is beyond me. So when we last had an 18 team league..........was it any good?!?!?! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weeyin Posted January 4, 2011 Report Share Posted January 4, 2011 So when we last had an 18 team league..........was it any good?!?!?!Yes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dinnae-punt-it Posted January 4, 2011 Report Share Posted January 4, 2011 See I don't buy this ' we have too many teams in Scotland' Yes there are 42 'senior' teams. This means fuck all. At least 15 of these 'Senior' teams have equivilents in terms of player wage, grounds and attendances in England in villages and leagues you have never heard of. Nothing wrong with two 'big' leagues of 16 and then a regionalised pyramid system thereafter. Less teams to look after in the 'senior' set-up will be a good thing. Germany, Spain etc.. all have only 2 or 3 at most 'senior' leagues then a regionalised system underneath. Why we still 4 leagues is beyond me. How do you propose to organise a 16 team league? Play each other twice? 30 Games? Hmmmm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dinnae-punt-it Posted January 4, 2011 Report Share Posted January 4, 2011 Yes. Why was it changed then? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Special aka Posted January 4, 2011 Report Share Posted January 4, 2011 Why was it changed then? Think it was to eliminate meaningless games towards end of season. 10 team Premier League was started in mid 70's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dinnae-punt-it Posted January 4, 2011 Report Share Posted January 4, 2011 Think it was to eliminate meaningless games towards end of season. 10 team Premier League was started in mid 70's. I didn't know the reason, thanks for filling me in! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weeyin Posted January 4, 2011 Report Share Posted January 4, 2011 I didn't know the reason, thanks for filling me in!That was part of it. The other part, of course, was financial. When teams started to keep their gate receipts (rather than split them 50/50) playing the OF at home 4 times a year was a big deal (or at least, became much more important). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dinnae-punt-it Posted January 4, 2011 Report Share Posted January 4, 2011 That was part of it. The other part, of course, was financial. When teams started to keep their gate receipts (rather than split them 50/50) playing the OF at home 4 times a year was a big deal (or at least, became much more important). Do you think too many historical mistakes have been made to ever get back to something that works for all, not just the big two and the other 10 hanger ons? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.