trafficlight Posted January 6, 2011 Report Share Posted January 6, 2011 Thanks for that Joe, a wee quick look at the download hurt my eyes so I closed it quickly.As for consultation here's my view so you don't need to ask me later. 18 team league play each other twice, no splits, no nothing, just a plain, simple old fashioned football league. We share gate money between participating clubs cos no team can play themselves. Don't care if there;s no TV, we fans put in more money and should be heeded first. If the OF don't like it tell them to FATCALF, they need us more than we need them. Football's a simple game made complicated by idiots, how true is that old statement? Less of this communist nonsense, Mr Calf, it'll never work Surely the modern game is about market forces, tv rights, and customers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Busta Nut Posted January 6, 2011 Report Share Posted January 6, 2011 I'm really not happy with this Relegation play off, what a lot of shite Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madwullie Posted January 7, 2011 Report Share Posted January 7, 2011 I don't get the hatred for the split at all. IMO it's the best thing that has happened to football in years. It increases competitiveness (teams vying for relegation / europe play their main rivals for these "honours"), packs the season with meaningful games, and frankly, I don't see the rationale behind the TV companies saying they'd pay more for a league without a split. The TV want exciting games, and what's more exciting than 90% of teams having something to play for right down to the very last kicks of the ball as happened the other year. Also, I wish people would stop peddling this "16 team league would allow teams to blood youngsters" myth as if there are no youngsters playing in our league any more. This may have been true 10 years ago when teams were spunking money they didnt have on foreign journeymen, to use the cliche, but have you seen our squad this year, and that of most of the teams around us. No-one can afford to pay these foreign journeymen any more and are already blooding youngsters. Christ, think of the players we've punted in recent times, most of them have risen through our ranks in 10 / 12 teams leagues. If certain youg scottish footballers aren't getting blooded, it's because they are shit at football. Chucking them into meaningless end of season games against Raith Rovers isn't going to turn them into Iniesta. It's the coaching and training that needs to change to facilitate this, not creating a footballing graveyard below a bloated top league that our country can't sustain. 12 teams with split, 14 teams 6/8 split is the best we can do. 10 teams is a total nonsense. It was pish boring years ago so we moved away from it, what exactly has changed in the interim that it is now going to be the saviour of Scottish football? Frankly I think we should just stick with what we have and add in a playoff for relegation, or better still make it two straight down. This would increase turnover of teams and go some way to getting rid of the monotony of playing the same teams over and over again. BTW 14 7/7 or 16 8/8 split would never happen for two reasons. Think of the fuss Boyle kicked up when we were given more away games than home games the other year, this wasn't equitable and would be the norm in a 16(8/:doh:. Can't see either of the bigots agreeing to be playing their rival away twice and once at home. Also, for 14 7/7 you simply can't have teams sitting out when others are playing for reasons of competitive integrity. These debates always come down to utopians vs realists. What the utopians need to realise is that 16, 18 or 20 teams would financially cripple the clubs, meaning much poorer players playing for much less money in a markedly lower quality set up. The reality of the fare on show were massive expansion to happen would quickly makes supporters of this realise their mistake. I'm a realist. I'd love to see a top league of 20 decent sides locking horns every year, but the fact is Scotland can't support that many teams in a top league (relegation from it would be armageddon for most clubs), and football is a business now and we need to have money coming into it in order for us to be able to watch matches the standard we are used to. A certain thing that must happen, no matter how nasty a taste it leaves in out mouths, in order for us to be able to get that money in to enable us to watch the same standard of football as we are used to. This is four OF games. As much as it pains me to say it, we need these 4 OF games a season to bring in decent TV money, unless we want to be paying more money at the gate to watch verging on semi-pro football week in week out. This means we have to have a small league to facilitate this. It's shit for the utopians, I know, but it's something they just need to swallow down. And before any one says well fuck the OF we don't need them, we don't need to pander to them etc, yes we do, be realistic about this ffs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Well-Made Posted January 7, 2011 Report Share Posted January 7, 2011 Also, I wish people would stop peddling this "16 team league would allow teams to blood youngsters" myth as if there are no youngsters playing in our league any more. This may have been true 10 years ago when teams were spunking money they didnt have on foreign journeymen, to use the cliche, but have you seen our squad this year, and that of most of the teams around us. No-one can afford to pay these foreign journeymen any more and are already blooding youngsters. The thing is, is it a myth? Until we try it we'll never know. The last time we had a league of 10, how many clubs had as many youngsters playing first team football as you see now? With a league of 10, more cash (supposedly), chairmen are going to look to keep their team in the top league. As a result the manager will be under pressure to play more negatively (as seen before). play older players who in return will want more wages than say a Murphy or a McHugh. So this extra cash gets eaten up with those extra costs. We go back to watching our club bringing in folk towards the end of the career rather than the excitement of seeing our next batch of youngsters coming through. Then in a few years time look at the league being revamped again to bring some excitement to it and the whole sorry mess starts again. For the National Team we once again see a decline in the quality of players available to us (yeah, it can get worse than it is just now). A lot of the problem with our National Team is down to the fact that our clubs ignored the ethos of growing our own. Scrapping the U21 rule will also lead to our supposedly bigger clubs once again ignoring their own youth system and raping the rest of us for any young player we deem worthy enough of playing in a team of 30 to 35 year olds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lobey_Dosser Posted January 7, 2011 Report Share Posted January 7, 2011 Cheers for the feedback Joe, nice to know that we are being represented. I'm all for a 16 team league but I reluctantly accept it's not going to happen. The manner in which it has been disregarded though is what disgusts me. With regards a 10 team league, I'm not a fan of playing each other 4 times a season but the proposed SPL10 is better than the status quo of the ludicrous split and 1 up 1 down. However, Doncaster & Co are not selling it in the right manner. Having more money to bring in players of a higher calibre players seems to be the headline, this is far from the top of my wishlist. I'd much prefer a promise that any proposed increase in income is directed towards a new pricing policy. Dwindling attendances is the very reason the game is dying and I don't understand why this point isn't at the top of the agenda. In conjunction with that, I don't see how any SPL member can vote on reconstruction without a TV deal in writing. Final point on youth, while the under 21 rule is far from flawless, to scrap it completely is just bonkers and goes against exactly what we should be striving for. Colt teams are not the way forward for provincial clubs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amber_nectar Posted January 7, 2011 Report Share Posted January 7, 2011 Does anyone think that the biggest problem is the one up one down promotion/ relegation. Why not just give the teams in the first division a better chance of getting promoted. Stick with the 12 team league but have 2 teams relegated and two teams promoted. You could even have another promotion/relegation place with third bottom playing third top in an end of season play off. We also need our reserve league back or an under 21 league with the ability to have say four over aged players playing in each game. This loaning players out gets on my wick as well. You shouldn't be able to loan players out. Each team has a squad of players to choose from this usually includes a number of younger players. Give them the chance. Getting loan players in only prevents your own home grown players the chance to play first team football. Whilst a player that is not ours get first team football. This should not happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ya Bezzer! Posted January 7, 2011 Report Share Posted January 7, 2011 Norway has a population of under 5 million. And it manages to run a 16 team top league. And as far as I'm aware, football isn't quite the obsession in Norway as it is in this country... Attendences are much, much better in Norway than in Scotland, if you exclude the Old Firm. Almost all the top league clubs get 7,000 - 10,000 and the average across the league is over 10,000. Bare in mind that the biggest club in Norway, Rosenborg, get about 18,000 per game so that average is much more representative of the league as a whole than here where Rangers and Celtic more or less represent 65% of the entire attendance for the league. As some people tried to point out, when we eliminated Alesund earlier in the season we were defeating a considerably bigger club than ourselves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fatcalf Posted January 7, 2011 Report Share Posted January 7, 2011 All right for the utopians v realists debate here's some realism. Fans are walking away in their droves just now, a 10 team league will exacerbate that trend. Are you going to be happy with empty stadiums in a few years? Will TV really want to show Scottish Football with no crowds, no atmosphere and those who do attend forced to pay exorbitant costs to watch something akin to a semi-pro league only difference being those players with limited ability are still being paid far more than their talents deserve? Same outcome as proposed by a realist so I suppose the gemme is well and truly a bogie. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Diggle Posted January 7, 2011 Report Share Posted January 7, 2011 The obsession with satisfying the TV companies and the desperate begging for their money is pathetic to watch. The fact that we have gotten ourself to this place is totally disgraceful. Armchair fan(nies) are more important than the thick eejits that manage to get their arse to the games. The options on the table right now appear to be 'firing squad or lethal injection' Heaven forbid someone asks the people who watch the game on the telly for more money as opposed to the paying punter. The whole thing is upside fuckin down lets kill the game for the benefit of armchair Old Firm fans Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madwullie Posted January 7, 2011 Report Share Posted January 7, 2011 All right for the utopians v realists debate here's some realism. Fans are walking away in their droves just now, a 10 team league will exacerbate that trend. Are you going to be happy with empty stadiums in a few years? Will TV really want to show Scottish Football with no crowds, no atmosphere and those who do attend forced to pay exorbitant costs to watch something akin to a semi-pro league only difference being those players with limited ability are still being paid far more than their talents deserve?Same outcome as proposed by a realist so I suppose the gemme is well and truly a bogie. I don't support a ten team league, I'm simply outlining why a 16 or more team league is a definite no go despite how much we want it. Are fans walking away in their droves? Crowds are broadly up based on the recent figures. Fact is, TV killed football long ago, only the hardcore remain going to games week in week out (and I don't include myself in that), local people don't go to watch their local club and football fans who don't necessarily follow a particular side can turn on the TV 4 nights a week and watch a game. They don't need to pop along to their local ground to get their weekly fix of football any more. And frankly, increasing the size of the top league and introducing more meaningless games isn't going to solve that. Depressing as it is, we just have to learn to piss with the cock we have until such time as the OF get their move away, be it to some European Super League thing or England. Then we'll see a drastic drop in the quality of player we have, but more exciting and competitive games dished up by the lucky few who manage to stay full time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fatcalf Posted January 7, 2011 Report Share Posted January 7, 2011 I don't support a ten team league, I'm simply outlining why a 16 or more team league is a definite no go despite how much we want it. Are fans walking away in their droves? Crowds are broadly up based on the recent figures. From where I'm sitting yes and there will be more if we move to a 10 team league I suspect. You outline why 16 is a no go and I outline why 10 is a no go, my reasons are better than yours. Anyway I'm in favour of 18, far less reasons for a no go there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madwullie Posted January 7, 2011 Report Share Posted January 7, 2011 10 is a definite no-go. Staying as we are but adding in another relegation spot is the only way forward. 18 team league while amazing in our heads just isn't financially viable. We need realistic solutions that will make the fans as happy as possible within the parameters that will make TV keep giving us the money we need to survive in our current guise. That requires 4 OF games a season, whether we like it or not. If we want our club to stay alive in its current we need to accept that sucking on the OF teat is necessary until such time as they finally GTF. That doesn't mean we should bend over and take their ten top league like good little bitches, but that we need to find a compromise that will allow them their four games, give us a product Sky will pay decent money for, but also keep the fans as happy as possible. Pie in the sky 16/18/20 doesn't give that I'm afraid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fatcalf Posted January 7, 2011 Report Share Posted January 7, 2011 But 10 or 12 is still pie in the sky cos fans are switching off to 'the product' if you like. There is no solution that will meet everyone's needs, the status quo is killing the game, a bigger league opens it up to more clubs and would look after Scottish Football on a wider scale. Narrowing it down to an elite makes the game weaker as has been proived. The proposal for two 10's acknowledges that in some ways, but is flawed, open it up and spread the wealth, for the sake of our national game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nethertonwellfan Posted January 7, 2011 Report Share Posted January 7, 2011 10 is a definite no-go. Staying as we are but adding in another relegation spot is the only way forward. 18 team league while amazing in our heads just isn't financially viable. We need realistic solutions that will make the fans as happy as possible within the parameters that will make TV keep giving us the money we need to survive in our current guise. That requires 4 OF games a season, whether we like it or not. If we want our club to stay alive in its current we need to accept that sucking on the OF teat is necessary until such time as they finally GTF. That doesn't mean we should bend over and take their ten top league like good little bitches, but that we need to find a compromise that will allow them their four games, give us a product Sky will pay decent money for, but also keep the fans as happy as possible. Pie in the sky 16/18/20 doesn't give that I'm afraid. What about the proposal a member of the Trust came up with which gave us a 16 team league and 4 OF games as season? I thought it was a really good proposal. Not if you finished 6-10 granted but hey no system is perfect. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steelboy Posted January 7, 2011 Report Share Posted January 7, 2011 Attendences are much, much better in Norway than in Scotland, if you exclude the Old Firm. Almost all the top league clubs get 7,000 - 10,000 and the average across the league is over 10,000. Bare in mind that the biggest club in Norway, Rosenborg, get about 18,000 per game so that average is much more representative of the league as a whole than here where Rangers and Celtic more or less represent 65% of the entire attendance for the league. . surely if you want to compare like for like you should exclude the two biggest teams in norway? why exclude the old firm, almost 1 in 50 people in scotland regularly attend ibrox or parkhead. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy_P Posted January 7, 2011 Report Share Posted January 7, 2011 I'm still really uncomfortable with the idea of Colt teams playing in the Third Division. The positive spin is that it will allow youngsters to play in a competitive environment against more senior players and in front of healthier crowds than they might get at U19 level. The cynic in me however simply see's it as the anchor the Old Firm need when they eventually jump ship from the SPL. Let them have reserve sides in Division Three and before you know they'll be allowed to get up to Division One (or SPL2 if you like). If they bugger off south then you'll inevitably have calls to let them in what's left of the SPL so what's left can still graciously be allowed to continue to be subsidised by their travelling fans who can longer afford to watch them and what crumbs will be on offer from whatever TV deal is offered. I certainly don't ever want a situation where Motherwell end up playing Rangers or Celtic reserves in a competive fixture. What a slap in the face that would feel like. Who's to say the fans of Arbroath, Albion Rovers or Berwick fans would want it either. What a dream fixture having Inverness reserves travelling a couple of hundred miles south to play Stranraer in a mid-table battle in the middle of January would be eh? Nah, this Colt idea is certainly not for me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steelboy Posted January 7, 2011 Report Share Posted January 7, 2011 i'm fairly certain most 2nd and 3rd division teams would wipe the floor with our (and every other spl clubs) u19s. in the average u19 squad one or two boys make it in the spl, two or three might end up in the lower leagues and the rest of them don't make it at all in senior football. i've seen our u19s this season and there are some tidy players but i think they'd get a horsing off the likes of arbroath and airdrie. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steelmen Posted January 8, 2011 Report Share Posted January 8, 2011 We need expansion not reduction and a more even split of the money but with a 11-1 to one voting system it is never going to happen. Fans have to vote with their money. Stop going to games in our masses and they will get the picture, quickly. My money is on a 18 team top league, 22 team second division (or SPL 2 if you fancy) and then regional leagues below that incorperating junior teams with the chance to get into the big leagues. I suppose you can fling reserve teams in here, if it is good enough for Spain it is good enough for us. Will there be meaningless games? sure but i am sure Hamilton, St Mirren etc will bite your hands off for a meaningless game right now. With Derby games only coming twice a season their will more excitement generated by them, and as my father in law pointed out it will encourage more people back to football (depending on the price) because it is more of an event since it is your 1 trip to inverness, aberdeen this season. The relegation system needs to be like other countries too. 3 teams down, 2 stright up with the next 4 in a play off system. The quaility will improve (can't get much worse for some) because once you are safe you will play with a bit more freedom and dare i say it blood the youngsters that are performing well in the reserves/U19's. This works for other leagues extremely well and could work for us, but the old firm need to start sharing out the cash. just my thoughts. Lee Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thewhitepele Posted January 8, 2011 Report Share Posted January 8, 2011 We need expansion not reduction and a more even split of the money but with a 11-1 to one voting system it is never going to happen. Fans have to vote with their money. Stop going to games in our masses and they will get the picture, quickly. My money is on a 18 team top league, 22 team second division (or SPL 2 if you fancy) and then regional leagues below that incorperating junior teams with the chance to get into the big leagues. I suppose you can fling reserve teams in here, if it is good enough for Spain it is good enough for us. Will there be meaningless games? sure but i am sure Hamilton, St Mirren etc will bite your hands off for a meaningless game right now. With Derby games only coming twice a season their will more excitement generated by them, and as my father in law pointed out it will encourage more people back to football (depending on the price) because it is more of an event since it is your 1 trip to inverness, aberdeen this season. The relegation system needs to be like other countries too. 3 teams down, 2 stright up with the next 4 in a play off system. The quaility will improve (can't get much worse for some) because once you are safe you will play with a bit more freedom and dare i say it blood the youngsters that are performing well in the reserves/U19's. This works for other leagues extremely well and could work for us, but the old firm need to start sharing out the cash. just my thoughts. Lee Sounds ok but there is one plain and simple reason that any league reconstruction that means teams only playing each other twice a season will never be voted for,the tv companies would never stand for losing two old firm games a season.Sad but true..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted January 8, 2011 Report Share Posted January 8, 2011 Personally, I cannot fathom why people are calling for a 16, 18, 22 team SPL2. Look at the clubs that would be in that division: Montrose, Forfar, Brechin, Peterhead, etc. A team such as ourselves relegated into such a league may well face fatal consequences. That's the point Doncaster is making and I have to agree with him. Romantics are saying they'd love a change of scenery but that should be saved for cup competitions only. Looking at attendance figures for this season, there are only 23 clubs who average more than 1,000! So, if we have a top flight of 16 or 18, the division below will have games played in front of crowds in their hundreds. I want a refreshing 16 or 18 team top-flight as much as the next guy, but it's what comes below that is what worries me. I think the best compromise would be an SPL1 of 16 teams and an SPL of only 10. Below that, a regional pyramid system. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nethertonwellfan Posted January 8, 2011 Report Share Posted January 8, 2011 Personally, I cannot fathom why people are calling for a 16, 18, 22 team SPL2. Look at the clubs that would be in that division: Montrose, Forfar, Brechin, Peterhead, etc. A team such as ourselves relegated into such a league may well face fatal consequences. That's the point Doncaster is making and I have to agree with him. Romantics are saying they'd love a change of scenery but that should be saved for cup competitions only. Looking at attendance figures for this season, there are only 23 clubs who average more than 1,000! So, if we have a top flight of 16 or 18, the division below will have games played in front of crowds in their hundreds. I want a refreshing 16 or 18 team top-flight as much as the next guy, but it's what comes below that is what worries me. I think the best compromise would be an SPL1 of 16 teams and an SPL of only 10. Below that, a regional pyramid system. We have more chance of getting relegated from a 10 team league rather than a 16 team league. A 10 team league will kill Motherwell. Just take into account the amount of well fans that will chuck it if a 10 team league comes into being. If we get relegated anytime it will be a disaster financially so the bigger the league = the less chance of being relegated and vice versa. So I don't agree with your opinion Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted January 8, 2011 Report Share Posted January 8, 2011 We have more chance of getting relegated from a 10 team league rather than a 16 team league. A 10 team league will kill Motherwell. Just take into account the amount of well fans that will chuck it if a 10 team league comes into being. If we get relegated anytime it will be a disaster financially so the bigger the league = the less chance of being relegated and vice versa. So I don't agree with your opinion Erm, fancy explaining what you don't agree with? I never said anything about our chances of being relegated in a 10 team league compared to a 16 team league? Nor did I say that any relegation into a lower league would not be financially disastrous for us. And anyway, (and I'm not just directing this at you personally, nethertonwellfan) is it not a bit hypocritical of Motherwell fans to be claiming for a league structure to suit our club, when we chastise the Old Firm for trying to structure things just to suit themselves? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nethertonwellfan Posted January 8, 2011 Report Share Posted January 8, 2011 Erm, fancy explaining what you don't agree with? I never said anything about our chances of being relegated in a 10 team league compared to a 16 team league? Nor did I say that any relegation into a lower league would not be financially disastrous for us. And anyway, (and I'm not just directing this at you personally, nethertonwellfan) is it not a bit hypocritical of Motherwell fans to be claiming for a league structure to suit our club, when we chastise the Old Firm for trying to structure things just to suit themselves? Your first 2 paragraphs of the comment I quoted ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted January 9, 2011 Report Share Posted January 9, 2011 My first two paragraphs are talking about an SPL2. I was talking about the dangers of having a large second division. You don't agree with a large second division being dangerous? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nethertonwellfan Posted January 9, 2011 Report Share Posted January 9, 2011 My first two paragraphs are talking about an SPL2. I was talking about the dangers of having a large second division. You don't agree with a large second division being dangerous? Just read your full post I'm drunk leave me alone There should still be a bigger top league than 10 !! That's what I disagreed on 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.