DosserJoe Posted January 6, 2011 Report Share Posted January 6, 2011 All, Please be aware that I met with Neil Doncaster yesterday afternoon on behalf of Motherwell Supporters Trust. The following information is my take on the meeting and not necessarily representative of the views of MST and it's members. Firstly, it is important to make it clear that the SPL invited all Supporters Trust chairmen to meet with Neil after the interim results of the Supporters Direct survey were made public. This may or may not be the reason behind his invitation to meet, but none-the-less it is good that supporters are finally being invited to contribute to what is an important subject to us all. Neil opened the meeting by taking me through the facts and figures of what has been proposed by the SPL working party. I'll start by running through with you all the clear positives of the proposal... Finances Firstly, the proposal will not lead to a dramatic increase in revenue or prize money for the top 10 clubs. In most cases all top 10 clubs will earn essentially the same amount of money as they do now in TV & Sponsorship from the centre. The key benefit to the clubs is the amount of money that clubs in the lower divisions will receive. The "SPL 2" will be significantly better off than the clubs in this division are at the moment. The only clubs that would be worse off are the 2 clubs relegated as part of the reconstruction in their first year. This reduction in revenue however is much more attractive than the financial penalty of relegation under the current set-up Play-off's at the bottom of the division will also be attractive to broadcasters and will be key to securing extra TV revenue. I would also suggest that from a fans point of view, this will make the games at the end of the season crucial for at least 4 clubs and in turn lead to an increase in attendances at this time. Competition From a fan's perspective, the relegation play-offs would be exciting. They would also lead to a potential for two new clubs to enter the fold each year, which is one element that needs to be addressed under any set-up. One-up, one down is simply not attractive. SPL 2 would see a number of teams vying for promotion and on occasion you could find a "bigger" club being relegated. In this years scenario, you could have an Aberdeen being relegated, which will make SPL 2 attractive to the potential of a TV deal. The other clear benefits of the proposal can be summarised... Colt Teams playing in the 3rd division U21 Rule scrapped Early Start Winter break And so to the negatives and the things missing... Revenue Whilst I am in no doubt, security for clubs being relegated and stability for the remaining 10 is attractive; I believe that not enough thought has been put into how many fans will walk away from the game on the back of the stagnation. I asked Neil what the average income for a club was on Gate Receipts and TV money. As an average, he told me that £2m of gate receipts and £1m of TV revenue was the norm. Personally, I am upset that the TV companies have been consulted all through the process on what they want for their £1m; us fans however have not been consulted on what we want from our £2m! Neil and Henry McLeish' argument that has been peddled in the press of the 16 team division leading to a reduction in games is flawed. A 16 team SPL can incorporate a split, which would lead to 38 games, hence no reduction in games and potentially an increase in competitiveness. Please see attached as just one example I received from a Trust member in advance of the meeting. Neil claimed that the TV companies have said they would pay less for a flat 16, less for a division with a split and more for a division that will guarantee 4 Old Firm & 4 Edinburgh derby matches, along with play-offs. My concern with this is that the people involved with this panel asked the TV companies a loaded question. I believe they didn't provide them with reasonable options on what a 16 team split could look like for selfish reasons. Their concern is that mid-table teams would suffer from too many irrelevant games at the end of the season, and that at the bottom there is not enough quality outwith the 16 biggest teams to make relegation a spectacle. On top of that, the teams (O.F. excepted) are all worried about losing the revenue from 1 home game against Rangers & Celtic. Oppose this to a 10 team division where they will potentially gain an Old Firm game they don't have just now. My concern with this is that Celtic and Rangers attendances are on the slide big style just now and this carrot is becoming less attractive. Gone are the days when their season tickets had a waiting list and 50-60,000 packed the stadiums every week. This pattern is sure to be reflected in away games and will only get worse if they agree to televise more games. Competition Go back to my point earlier. We, the £2m slice, should be far more important to the clubs. The key thing that is missing from the 10 team SPL is an increase in competitiveness at the top. In my opinion it will make the race for the title more of a foregone conclusion that it is right now. I for one am bored of seeing the Old Firm run away with it every year and would love it if a team like Hearts could mount a serious challenge against them. I would love it even more if Motherwell could too, but sadly 1991 to 1993 is but a distant memory. Neil wouldn't come out and say he agrees with me, but it was clear he does. The division will become a precession and we will all continue to live on the coat tails of the big 2. That's not his fault, that's the fault of the SPL chairmen who are too interested in the financial side of the game and less interested in developing a spectacle that we would all enjoy to watch. A 16 team division in any variation, split or no split, would deliver a true chance of other clubs running the Old Firm close once in a while. Neil clearly wasn't interested in looking at the merits of a 16 however and was only interested in trying to convince me that the 10 team option was the best for all. The only thing that I agree with him on with his objection to a 16 team division is that attendances at the bottom end of the division with games against the likes of Queen of the South (had to pick on someone - sorry) would be far lower than a game against the likes of St Mirren. This could lead to some teams (those that finish 6th to 10th) receiving less money through the gate. On the flip side, I personally believe that is a risk we should be willing to take. 4 teams suffering from a drop in attendances in the seasons they finish in the middle bracket is surely better than 10 teams all suffering a drop year on year on year... TV revenues would only increase, in my opinion, on the back of the division being more flexible on Kick Off times and match days, rather the quality of product. Again, this is to the detriment of the paying punter. Given that there are so few broadcasters with their hat in the ring, I doubt this additional revenue will actually transpire. Finally. I asked the question of Neil as to how many modern European divisions were operating a 10 team division. Before the meeting I was only aware of Austria. He told me about Switzerland and how their attendances have increased. Granted he is right. But he failed to point out that much of this is on the back of 4 teams vying for the title every year and most teams operating out of new stadiums on the back of hosting the Euro championships. In summary at the end of the meeting, Neil asked me if I would prefer a 10 team division or a 12 team status quo. I had to say based on the evidence, a top 10 is better than the status quo. On reflection, I think this question was asked in a rather loaded format, much in the same way I suspect the SPL questioned the TV companies. I suppose that question to me is like asking me if I would like to chose between the two worst options on the table. The bigger, bolder, option has been overlooked by the custodians of our teams and a genuine look at a progressive model in consultation with TV companies and Fans together prevented. I personally hope the vote is doomed to fail and that the whole issue is revisited in an open and transparent manner from day 1, including fans from all clubs and all generations. I'll finish off by re-iterating these are my views from the meeting and not necessarily representative of MST and it's members. The MST board will be debating the issue of reconstruction and will be launching a members consultation to allow us to make a statement that is representative of the majority view on what members would prefer to see encompassed in the new structure. Scottish_Football_RestructureV2.ppt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MelvinBragg Posted January 6, 2011 Report Share Posted January 6, 2011 Interesting read. One thing leapt out at me though. The U21 rule scrapped is on the list of positives. In a league where fear will be word of the day, to scrap this rule which has gone some way to encouraging teams to blood young players seems to me personally to be the kiss of death for the development of young players. But I'm sure will suit Celtic with their massive squad. Not so much Rangers these days, but I'm sure in future they'll find themselves in a position where they have a squad big enough to consider the U21 rule an inconvenience. I'm sure Walter Smith has stated as much in the past... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fatcalf Posted January 6, 2011 Report Share Posted January 6, 2011 The MST board will be debating the issue of reconstruction and will be launching a members consultation to allow us to make a statement that is representative of the majority view on what members would prefer to see encompassed in the new structure. 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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richie Posted January 6, 2011 Report Share Posted January 6, 2011 Play-off's at the bottom of the division will also be attractive to broadcasters and will be key to securing extra TV revenue. Surely this would be impossible though Mr Doncaster... I mean this would most likely not involve the Old Firm who are the be all and end all of TV revenue Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Well_Jaggy Posted January 6, 2011 Report Share Posted January 6, 2011 100% agree with Fatcalf. That has been my thinking all along too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Diggle Posted January 6, 2011 Report Share Posted January 6, 2011 Excellent stuff Joe thanks. All of it really interesting and giving an insight into what's going on. I think its far to say that clubs (including ours) and the SPL administrators have been stung / taken aback by the reaction On first read through the following statement jumped out the most and kinda sums up up just how vigourously the tail is indeed wagging the dog. Neil claimed that the TV companies have said they would pay less for a flat 16, less for a division with a split and more for a division that will guarantee 4 Old Firm & 4 Edinburgh derby matches, along with play-offs. And yeah, as always yer man fatcalf's on the money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ya Bezzer! 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? The problem with an 18 team league is we just don't have enough teams in the big to medium size. There are probably only 18 teams in the country that are capable of attracting crowds of more than a 1,000 on a regular basis. The problem then arises if we relegate two of those teams into a nothing league below where almost all the other clubs are only attracting crowds in the hundreds then you get two possible outcomes. 1) The lower league is completely uncompetitive and the teams that get relegated come straight back up or 2) The relegated teams fail to get promotion and probably go out of business or are forced to go part time and are dragged down to the level of the 'minnows' league they are in. If the top league is restructured you have to make sure there is still a decent level below it otherwise the whole thing comes tumbling down. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fatcalf Posted January 6, 2011 Report Share Posted January 6, 2011 The problem with an 18 team league is we just don't have enough teams in the big to medium size. I didn't ask for the obvious negatives to be brought up, all formats have positives and negatives, 18 teams is the simplest and in my opinion the best way to go. I'm not debating it. Just stating my opinion which has not changed since we moved to the Premier League in the first instance back in 1975. We have a great opportunity here and if we don't get it right we're fucked. ANd if we don't get more teams in the top flight and start sharing the wealth around we won't have 10 teams worthy of a top league in a short while. Oh and I was against Britain joining the EU back then as well and still haven't changed my mind, kinda stubborn that way Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MelvinBragg Posted January 6, 2011 Report Share Posted January 6, 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... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weeyin Posted January 6, 2011 Report Share Posted January 6, 2011 100% agree with Fatcalf. That has been my thinking all along too.So Walter Smith is in good company with you pair. I'd love to see the 18 team league too. I hate the split, but would even take a 14 team league with a 7/7 split over a 10-team effort any day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Well_Jaggy Posted January 6, 2011 Report Share Posted January 6, 2011 clever man that. Want's an 18 team league AND he's quitting Rangers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shaka Posted January 6, 2011 Report Share Posted January 6, 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... to be fair Norway dont have the Bigot brothers raping + pillaging their league/country tho Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DosserJoe Posted January 6, 2011 Author Report Share Posted January 6, 2011 Interesting read. One thing leapt out at me though. The U21 rule scrapped is on the list of positives. In a league where fear will be word of the day, to scrap this rule which has gone some way to encouraging teams to blood young players seems to me personally to be the kiss of death for the development of young players. But I'm sure will suit Celtic with their massive squad. Not so much Rangers these days, but I'm sure in future they'll find themselves in a position where they have a squad big enough to consider the U21 rule an inconvenience. I'm sure Walter Smith has stated as much in the past... Gordon Young backed up the idea at the panel night for one. U21 players are put on the bench to make up numbers with no intention of playing them. Instead, they should be put into a Colt team playing against men in competitive football, rather than playing bounce games. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shaka Posted January 6, 2011 Report Share Posted January 6, 2011 The other clear benefits of the proposal can be summarised...Colt Teams playing in the 3rd division - To Help Old Firm hoover up young talent + give them a game U21 Rule scrapped - to Help Old Firm justify their larger more expensive squads Early Start - (ok will help everyone) but especially helps Old Firm get ready for euro games Winter break - (again,good idea) but especially helps Old Firm who can fuck off and play money spinning friendlies in warmer climates So the Old Firm went into the meetings and told everyone EXACTLY what they want to help them boost finances and we rolled over and had our tummys stroked? fucking scandalous,tho unfortunately not surprising! And from Doncaster, a 10 team league wont actually increase our revenue? itll help Falkirk + Raith Rovers get a lot more money? so Motherwell,in agreeing to this would be agreeing to a league that would kill top flight scottish football, give teams i dont give a fuck about more money,wont benefit us at all and would alienate a chunk of our support,actually LOSING us money? i cant understond this train of thought!!!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shaka Posted January 6, 2011 Report Share Posted January 6, 2011 Gordon Young backed up the idea at the panel night for one. U21 players are put on the bench to make up numbers with no intention of playing them. Instead, they should be put into a Colt team playing against men in competitive football, rather than playing bounce games. no,they should be loaned out to other teams like hundreds of superstar players currently are and have been! If its good enough for Beckham etc,its good enough for our bous! Colt teams only benefit the old firm, could MFC afford a full squad of players for such a team? or is it not more beneficial to cream the best 6 or 7 guys from our 19`s team and give them a seasons football with a lower league team,who in turn contribute to their wages as well as their football education? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DosserJoe Posted January 6, 2011 Author Report Share Posted January 6, 2011 And from Doncaster, a 10 team league wont actually increase our revenue? itll help Falkirk + Raith Rovers get a lot more money? so Motherwell,in agreeing to this would be agreeing to a league that would kill top flight scottish football, give teams i dont give a fuck about more money,wont benefit us at all and would alienate a chunk of our support,actually LOSING us money? i cant understond this train of thought!!!!!! Just to try and level his (their) view on this. TV revenues could increase if the division becomes more competitive. The view they paint is that with a tight division, a team in 6th place could be playing right up to the final day with a chance of Europa or Relegation. This would lead to an increase in people coming through the gate and TV companies said they would pay more for the Play-Offs. I actually agree to a point on this... the gates would go up at the end of the season if the teams are involved in something meaningful. My worry is but that less people will buy a season ticket and go to less games... Net loss as far as I am concerned. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dosser1886 Posted January 6, 2011 Report Share Posted January 6, 2011 18 is too many 16 at a push, even then there would be some truly awful excuses of football games, even worse than we get put through at the moment. I'm actually a fan of the current split as it brings a bit of excitement into a pretty dreary season. With less money going around due to the loss of TV money the quality of players on the park will inevitably be even worse than it is currently. People will moan and not go to the games and off we go. I get where fatcalf is coming from but it's way too simplistic, you will never get the old firm to agree to sharing the gate money, like it or not we rely on them but they also rely on us but to a lesser extent. Hopefully the SPL 10 could be the first step in a longer term plan who knows. Also a fair bit more money flying about in Norway that there is in Scotland, and as others have said no manky bastards to monopolise the show. Oh and P.S. cheers DosserJoe for the info. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shivute Posted January 6, 2011 Report Share Posted January 6, 2011 But surely the current 12 team set up has this excitement - was it last season or the season before where 11 teams out of the 12 had something to play for going into the last couple of games. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shaka Posted January 6, 2011 Report Share Posted January 6, 2011 Just to try and level his (their) view on this. TV revenues could increase if the division becomes more competitive. The view they paint is that with a tight division, a team in 6th place could be playing right up to the final day with a chance of Europa or Relegation. This would lead to an increase in people coming through the gate and TV companies said they would pay more for the Play-Offs. I actually agree to a point on this... the gates would go up at the end of the season if the teams are involved in something meaningful. My worry is but that less people will buy a season ticket and go to less games... Net loss as far as I am concerned. or more likely,team in 6th place, or even 5th for that matter is so shite scared of being dragged into the relegation play off fight a place or 2 below them that they will park the bus and bludgeon their way to a point! We will have a champ league spot to the league winner (rangers or celtic) , a europa league spot to runner up ( rangers or celtic) then a europa qualification spot for 3rd (would involve 3rd,4th and MAYBE 5th) then the bottom 3 involved in relegation and play offs meaning potentially the bottom 5 in a fight to the death. Not really a huge carrot for playing good open football or blooding youth!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inthebasement Posted January 6, 2011 Report Share Posted January 6, 2011 DosserJoe, not in any intending to pick an argument, but you state throughout your post, as if it is a matter of fact, that an expanded league would result in a more competitive league at the top end, and that a ten team league will make things even easier for the ugly twins. What is the basis for this view? I honestly can’t see any reason why this would be the case. I am also highly sceptical of the proposals by the way, and think the only way forward for the SPL is for the diddy teams to group together and fight back against the Old Firm by forcing through a truly redistributive proposal. They have made it a matter of public record that they consider the league beneath them and will leave given half a chance, but they are unwanted elsewhere. This provides the diddys with a perfect hand that they may never have such a strong opportunity to play. It is disgraceful the way in which Heart’s play off proposal, (one of several proposals with the potential to energise the SPL), was so easily swept aside by the Old firm establishment and media just by repeatedly stating that it is ‘ludicrous’. Here are two other equally ‘ludicrious’ proposals which get plenty of support because they suit certain parties: 1. The champs league can be won by a team who finished third in Spain. 2. Two team from Glasgow want the right to be champions of England. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuwell Posted January 6, 2011 Report Share Posted January 6, 2011 I’d go for a 14 team league with the teams playing each other twice then, The top 6 splitting off and play each other a further twice. A total of 36 games - two less but with more meaningful games should increase attendances. The other 8 join with the top 2 from SPL2 and start from scratch playing each other twice (total 42 games which would give them extra income) and the top 8 at the end rejoin SPL1 for the next season. This will give all fans more interesting games, TV their 4 OF games, at least 2 Hibs/Hearts derbies and the chance of some good scraps for the Europa cup place/places. It should also give the teams playing in Europe more time to prepare for their games. SPL2 would consist of 12 teams playing each other twice before the top two go up and the remaining clubs of SPL2 join with 2 winners of regional leagues to form a league similar to SPL1 bottom sides. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DosserJoe Posted January 6, 2011 Author Report Share Posted January 6, 2011 My view is that in most seasons, the Old Firm will defeat each team 4 times each. I.e. 8 losses for each team or 24 points of a gap almost automatically. Perhaps that may be a simplistic view, but few would disagree that most teams will lose as a minimum the 4 away games, i.e. 12 points. Then they would probably manage to escape the home games with a net draw. This goes for the team that finishes 3rd in the table I'm afraid too. In a 10 or 12 team division, there is little gap in quality between 3rd and 12th. Expanding the division would have a three fold benefit... Less games against the Old Firm would give any club on a decent chance of being closer to them by virtue of the fact they play them less. This would mean in the seasons a club manages to take points off of the Old Firm, and put up a decent fight against everyone else; they will be in with a shout. Secondly, with a bigger gap between 3rd and 16th, you would find the 3rd placed team better placed to go on a run that will take them closer to the Old Firm. Third, finally and perhaps most importantly; playing each other twice rather than 3 or 4 times per season would enhance the tactical side of the game. The clubs are all too familiar with each other right now and you rarely see a manager in the SPL outsmart another with their tactics, observations and team set-up. Combine that with the idea presented of a 16 team, 30 game season, with a title play-off or split with another 8 games and your onto a winner. If a team was in touching distance of the Old Firm when they come to the end of the season, the games against them take on a new meaning and by default become more exciting for the fans, the telly and the players would get properly pumped up and give it a better go. As I mentioned. The 10 team does appear better than the status quo of the 12. I'm just annoyed that there appears to have been no open debate on variations of a 16 with a play-off or a straight 18 or 20. Instead we are told increasing the number of teams will reduce revenue which, in my opinion, is selective lying by the SPL. Again tonight we hear Doncaster reiterating that a 16 will cost clubs £1m each. This is true if you take a 16 team in isolation with no Play Off at the top and bottom. Add that in and I firmly believe there is a viable alternative that will inspire the fans that will not cost £1m and may increase gates on the whole. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gdalli10 Posted January 6, 2011 Report Share Posted January 6, 2011 The other clear benefits of the proposal can be summarised...Colt Teams playing in the 3rd division U21 Rule scrapped Early Start Winter break disagree big time with the parts in bold Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spv Posted January 6, 2011 Report Share Posted January 6, 2011 18 is too many 16 at a push, even then there would be some truly awful excuses of football games, even worse than we get put through at the moment. I'm actually a fan of the current split as it brings a bit of excitement into a pretty dreary season. With less money going around due to the loss of TV money the quality of players on the park will inevitably be even worse than it is currently. People will moan and not go to the games and off we go. I get where fatcalf is coming from but it's way too simplistic, you will never get the old firm to agree to sharing the gate money, like it or not we rely on them but they also rely on us but to a lesser extent. Hopefully the SPL 10 could be the first step in a longer term plan who knows. Also a fair bit more money flying about in Norway that there is in Scotland, and as others have said no manky bastards to monopolise the show. Oh and P.S. cheers DosserJoe for the info. You see I disagree, get them to do it easily no. But if the collective of scottish senior clubs agreed to it and stood firm then they could essentially tell the old firm to like it or lump it. We might need them but they certainly need us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steelboy Posted January 6, 2011 Report Share Posted January 6, 2011 Less games against the Old Firm would give any club on a decent chance of being closer to them by virtue of the fact they play them less. This would mean in the seasons a club manages to take points off of the Old Firm, and put up a decent fight against everyone else; they will be in with a shout.Secondly, with a bigger gap between 3rd and 16th, you would find the 3rd placed team better placed to go on a run that will take them closer to the Old Firm. should it not be the best team that wins the league? 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.