BBC Sport - SPL Reconstruction

Still needs an 11-1 vote so by no means certain to be adopted. Think it sounds pretty positive and could work well, not too excited by the 10 team side of thing but realistically it doesn't change that much from a footballing perspective.

Get shot of Aberdeen and Hamilton?

Among the other details still to be settled upon is how to revert from the current top 12 to a league of 10, with one possibility being the relegation of three teams at the end of the season prior to change, with just one coming up.

Unsurprisingly, some clubs traditionally fighting to avoid relegation are sceptical about the wisdom of voting for a smaller league, but it is hoped they can be persuaded if a system can be devised whereby relegated teams receive greater compensation, to ease the blow of playing in the lower tier.

It's funny at this time of year to be talking about Turkeys and Christmas.

Wish they would stop "tinkering" and just get it sorted properly.

Talking about anything less than a top tier of 16 teams is, IMO, a waste of time. If they can afford to pay larger parachute payments, they can afford to support a larger league.

Wish they would stop "tinkering" and just get it sorted properly.

Talking about anything less than a top tier of 16 teams is, IMO, a waste of time. If they can afford to pay larger parachute payments, they can afford to support a larger league.

As it stands I agree totally with CD.

Assuming this went ahead and two SPL's are created does the second one get television rights and TV monies? Will the other teams get a fair share or will the current system of pandering to the OF continue?

Smith moaned yesterday that having a small squad and having to play in europe took a lot out of his team so if they cant afford a bigger squad then surely less games would be a better option.

Wish they would stop "tinkering" and just get it sorted properly.

Talking about anything less than a top tier of 16 teams is, IMO, a waste of time. If they can afford to pay larger parachute payments, they can afford to support a larger league.

As it stands I agree totally with CD.

Assuming this went ahead and two SPL's are created does the second one get television rights and TV monies? Will the other teams get a fair share or will the current system of pandering to the OF continue?

Smith moaned yesterday that having a small squad and having to play in europe took a lot out of his team so if they cant afford a bigger squad then surely less games would be a better option.

Rangers could always exclude themselves from certain cups if they are a wee bit tired,but its tough s##t as far as Im concerned, If they want to try and win 3 cups this year and have a good run in europe for extra money, then its more games AND more cash for them, they cant have it both ways, they must have some youngsters that could pull on a jersey for them, instead of using the same overpaid cheats all the time.

What ever happened to the talk of green and blue huns having reserve teams in the leagues? Infirm reserves in SPL2?

I would imagine any club with less than 5000 home fans will vote against, even the mid sized clubs aren't immune from relegation, United have been very close a few years ago and look where Hibs and Aberdeen are currently sitting there could be no buffer for them in a few years and it would be a sad, sad, day, saying good bye to 3 SPL teams in the same year no matter how much money is put on the table.

2 teams are also getting kicked out of the current 1st division.

I'm all for two top ten divisions - only split the normal season into two smaller ones. A 16 team league will only create more meaningless games. Not sure that will be too appealing. Anyone desperate to see an end of season Hamilton v Queen of the South for the difference between 12th and 14th place? Can't see any demand.

We just have to have summer football though. Big name loan stars from the Premiership, people like Cowie coming back for the close season to ICT to stay fresh. Games in the sun. Why is it taking so long??

The whole "more meaningless games" argument kinda annoys me.

Firstly, unless you have a league of 2 with 1 promotion/championship place and one relegation place then you always run the risk of "meaningless" games in any league.

Secondly, they are only meaningless to any team who doesn't have enough pride to be out there giving their all in every game, regardless of where they sit in the league....and if that's the attitude then we're as well going with a two team league.

Finally, you are more likely to attract people along to watch a "meaningless" game between two teams who haven't already played each other 3 times in the season.

If we want to bring more money in to the game and make it more appealing to advertisers, sponsors and the media then we have to offer more variety. Time and again those running the SPL (and those running the respective clubs) have made short sighted decisions which have only served to cripple the long term prospects of the game. Not once when they have come up with one of their "magic solutions" has it ever been based on asking the fans what they want to see, or what might bring them out to more games. There's been a complete lack of any kind of sensible marketing decisions in the sport in Scotland for as long as I can remember.

Fans aren't interested in watching 4 (or more) matches a season against the same opposition, TV isn't going to find enough variety in such a set up to justify any sort of increased investment in the game, and it doesn't take a marketing genius to work out that advertising to 10 sets of fans doesn't carry as much value as marketing to 16+ sets of fans.

Dress it up any way you like, there's no justifiable short or long term benefit to be had from reducing the number of teams in the top tier.

In my solution (used in some South American leagues), the season is divided into two, so you only play each time twice a season. More titles, more relegation, more excitement. The second division would also mean more promotion, so exciting there, plus dropping down means the possibility of getting back up again sooner rather than later.

There might not be meaningless games to a team but unless we're only appealing to those who already go to matches or television companies that already pay, I can't see those matches attracting any more supporters or tv cash. That's why the SPL was originally set-up in the Seventies. It was getting dull with too many matches that meant nothing.

I think it would complete the demise of Scottish Football.

Let's get back to the League most fans want.

A top division of 16-18 teams playing each other twice with 2 up and two down to a second division of the remaining sides.

Wasn't there someone on here recently who claimed a 16/18 team league would improve the quality of the football?

In my solution (used in some South American leagues), the season is divided into two, so you only play each time twice a season. More titles, more relegation, more excitement. The second division would also mean more promotion, so exciting there, plus dropping down means the possibility of getting back up again sooner rather than later.

There might not be meaningless games to a team but unless we're only appealing to those who already go to matches or television companies that already pay, I can't see those matches attracting any more supporters or tv cash. That's why the SPL was originally set-up in the Seventies. It was getting dull with too many matches that meant nothing.

Just for the sake of clarity are you saying initially have a league of 20, play 19 games and then split mid season to become SPL 1 and 2 and play a further 18 games 37 in total.

or

Have spl 1 and 2 with 10 teams each and have 2 seasons in a year so the cup gets lifted twice and so a team could be promoted in May and relegated in December

I think all this is more to do with Scotlands ranking and how it affects the best in the European cups, earlier start, more match sharpness, winter break may tie in with the champions league game, less teams means in theory playing against better quality opposition more frequently, relegation virtually impossible for the top 2 and a mini Rangers and Celtic in the lower leagues, this all seems to suit the old firm very well.

Having been around longer than most of you, I've seen every iteration of organisation in Scottish football since the early 50s. None has been sillier than the current set up with the SPL splitting for the last 5 games.

The one I remember most fondly, from my youth, was a straight 2 divisions (A and B it used to be then)of about 18 teams. There was no automatic promotion from non league in these days which I think was a mistake. I'd now favour 2 divisions of 16, with play offs, with regional non league below that with a north v south play off between the non league teams at the end of the season for one place in the 2nd division.

Have spl 1 and 2 with 10 teams each and have 2 seasons in a year so the cup gets lifted twice and so a team could be promoted in May and relegated in December

That's it. Sounds exciting doesn't it? Every match is a battle for a trophy or relegation.

I'm all for two top ten divisions - only split the normal season into two smaller ones. A 16 team league will only create more meaningless games. Not sure that will be too appealing. Anyone desperate to see an end of season Hamilton v Queen of the South for the difference between 12th and 14th place? Can't see any demand.

We just have to have summer football though. Big name loan stars from the Premiership, people like Cowie coming back for the close season to ICT to stay fresh. Games in the sun. Why is it taking so long??

No big name player from any league would go on loan over thier close season. It wouldn't keep them fresh at all, it would burn them out. No club would allow it and no player would even consider doing it.

And don't use Beckham as an example becasue the MLS has a shorter season and longer close season than the leagues in Europe and he was only doing it to try and force his way into the england side. It is a totaly different scenario in Europe.

Dundee United did it with Scandinavian players a few years ago. Loans also happen all the time. I suspect Robbie Keane may well have ended up at Celtic in the close season had we had summer football. Injured stars? Young talent needed competitive games? Players in the shop window being given a chance to impress? Stick 'em up to Scotland, see how they get on.

not really to sure that two 10 team leagues is the way forward... when every man and his dog is suggesting expansion the SPL goes the opposite way but masks it with a second tier.

Dundee United did it with Scandinavian players a few years ago. Loans also happen all the time. I suspect Robbie Keane may well have ended up at Celtic in the close season had we had summer football. Injured stars? Young talent needed competitive games? Players in the shop window being given a chance to impress? Stick 'em up to Scotland, see how they get on.

Fantastic idea....let's give the Scottish game another excuse to ignore the development of our own up and coming players!!!

(That was sarcasm, btw)

Yeah, coz it really damages young players to play alongside better ones. Remember when Man Utd were playing kids alongside Cantona? I remember the names - Giggs, Scholes, Neville, Beckham...but where are they now?

That was saracsm too.

So if this proposal were to go through it would probably result in three teams being relegated next season and one being promoted to make up the ten. How can you expect 11 SPL clubs to vote for that? As has already been said, turkeys, Christmas and all that.

I don't want to see Caley Thistle playing the same team four times each season. I want a bigger league with more players given the chance to play SPL football and more communities the opportunity to see it.

I would be horrified if ICT voted for this nonsense.

Yeah, coz it really damages young players to play alongside better ones. Remember when Man Utd were playing kids alongside Cantona? I remember the names - Giggs, Scholes, Neville, Beckham...but where are they now?

That was saracsm too.

Eh? Where are all the young Scottish players going to fit in if we are filling teams up with youngsters from down south who you claim should be stuck up to Scotland? Do you really think that Scotland should actively market itself as a shop window for other nations/associations, which could only (further) strangle our own development?

No. Clubs are just as free to do that now too. Have a look at Celtic. Not many Scots there.

The current situation is that clubs are able to bring in as many foreign players as they like (note: I'm not in favour of this - I believe it should be limited to help our development). The difference between a summer league and our current setup is that European clubs might be prepared to lend us better players (I'm sure you can think of the reasons why).

If you disagree, fine. But it seems that you're trying to twist my words. I never mentioned "filling teams up with youngsters". I suspect much the same would happen at the moment. Mostly Scottish players with one or two loans here and there. Instead of it being a trawl around English Division One for that loan, it might instead be a player in the shop window or injury recovery from the Premiership.

No filling teams up, no disregard for youth development, no change in the amount of loans currently happening. Just the opportunity for a better class of player to come up here for a few months. Something that would aid youth development.

Pretty raging about this. Everything I heard indicated a 16-team format was what was wanted.

But of course, no, a 10 team league. We had that!!! Waste of time, I thought Doncaster had some gumption. Here's hoping it's booted out.

I havent really read thro this thread. But just wanted to air my view. And that veiw is, Im one of the peeps wanting the SPL EXPANDED....to possibly 16 teams, not shrunk to 10. Thats a joke! Fook knows where this latest idea has sprung from....as far as i knew...expnsion was the preffered option?