As SPL clubs meet to discuss the future set-up and that 88% of supporters are against the proposed (farcical imo) 10 team "revamp" what really could be done? 92% of fans feel they haven't been consulted properly either. So, rather than a discussion of how bad things are, what is everyones vision for a proper set-up and critique of others ideas put forward?

Regional Youth League

1. 
   
   
2. 14 regional teams (Ayrshire, Borders, Central Scotland, Dumfries+Galloway, Dunbartonshire+Argyll+Bute, Fife, Grampian, Glasgow, Highlands+Western Isles, Lanarkshire, Lothian, Orkney+Shetland, Renfrewshire, Tayside.
   
3. Players signed to SPL teams prohibited from entry
   
4. Ages 12-14, 14-16, 16-18 (three leagues)
   
5. Play each other once in summer (13 games, neutral venue, over one month, intensive training, 60 min matches)
   
6. Top four teams 16-18, play semi-final and final. Televised.
   
7. Run in conjuction with schools, councils, clubs
   
   

16-18 age group enter draft after summer league finishes, lowest ranking semi-pro ranking club in players region has first pick (think NFL)

Clubs pay fee for player (means tested)

Non-picks go to amateur league draft in region (free)

Naturally, 16 team SPL, home/away, one division of 14 (2-up/3-down), two pro-amateur divisions of 14 under on same level (i.e East/West or North/South of 12 with winners promoted, runners up play-off)

30 Professional teams/14 semi-professional/2 x 12 pro-amateur/amateur (?)

Professional teams pay tax (1% of gate, 1% of TV money, 1% of transfer fees received from outside Scotland, etc, etc to semi-professional teams and likewise for semi-pro to pro-amateur, Pro players pay 1% of wage)

• 
  
  
• Professional teams with between 3000 - 6000 support can register as community clubs and get exemptions on fees etc.
  
• Clubs in debt must reduce deficit by 5% per year
  
• Wages not exceeding 45% of turnover
  
• Maximum 3 non-EU players in starting squad
  
• Minimum 5 home-grown players (trained for 2 years 16-18 or signed through regional league) in squad
  

ON bbc

Scottish Premier League clubs are moving towards a 10-team top tier after appearing to rule out an extension to the current 12-team set-up.

All clubs met at Hampden for the first time in the ongoing discussions over league reconstruction.

And SPL chairman Ralph Topping believes clubs believe that a 16 or 18-team league is not financially viable.

A working party has proposed two divisions of 10 and a vote is expected at the next gathering on 17 January.

Several managers have expressed doubts about a return to a 10-team top division and many fans are against the idea.

Get rid of the ugly sisters. We have 10 teams at the start of every season who have no chance of winning the league. What's the point?

Edited January 4, 201115 yr by Top Six Next Year

Get rid of the ugly sisters. We have 10 teams at the start of every season who have no chance of winning the league. What's the point?

You've changed your tune !! Remember that bet we have where you said Dundee United would finish above Celtic in the league ? ?50 I believe it was .

"If you look at Scottish football, a 16-team league wouldn't work economically and it would have a knock-on effect in terms of the quality of players you can attract." (SPL chairman Ralph Topping)

"The cake gets much smaller and is cut into more slices," (SPL CEO Neil Doncaster re: 16/18 team league)

So the two most important things are 1) buying players in from outside Scotland and 2) having less teams sharing the money. That's the ticket!!

"If you look at Scottish football, a 16-team league wouldn't work economically and it would have a knock-on effect in terms of the quality of players you can attract." (SPL chairman Ralph Topping)

"The cake gets much smaller and is cut into more slices," (SPL CEO Neil Doncaster re: 16/18 team league)

So the two most important things are 1) buying players in from outside Scotland and 2) having less teams sharing the money. That's the ticket!!

I know nobody wants to see the club's go under but lets be honest here, if the fans are getting sick of seeing their team play everyone at least 3 times a season how the hell is it going to be better seeing your team play each other 4 times? while i admit the 2nd point u have made would make more money i fail to see how this is going to help at all. On top of the 4 games u would then have the 2 cups which at worst could mean another 3 meetins between 2 clubs you are talking 7 meetings potentially between 2 clubs which is ridiculous. I think that the fans should have a big say on it as well seeing as they are the one's effectively paying for most of this.

what i want to know is how this is going to attract more fans?

as it is fans are fickle enough as it is... how many people have stayed away after a bad run or when something else crops up? if we have more opportunities to see teams then there is less likely-hood of feeling the need to go to EVERY game thus reducing revenue. i for one will be thinking twice about a season ticket next year, if the ten team gets through i dont know if i want to put my self through a season with a 1 in 4 chance of relegation. it is not progress imho

My last post was sarcastic. I'm totally against a league of 10 and everything the SPL have said. Lets look at other countries' leagues, with a similar population...how many teams?

Norway: 16

Slovakia: 12

Denmark: 12

Finland: 14

Croatia: 16

The whole idea of a 10 team league is is to deprive 2 teams of TV money. They have mentioned nothing about youth football, facilities, crippling club debt, ticket prices, investment, fans wishes, or anything remotely comprehensive. They messed up last time stupidly trying to hold SKY Sports to ransom, and nearly drove every club to the wall as a result, make no mistake, they don't have the good of the game in mind and aren't competent. It's a crime they are allowed to continue running/ruining the game.

suggesting 10 teams as the solution when the customer base they want to attract and retain is hugely against it tells you all you need to know ... its not about the game, its about the money. end of story. You can have review after review after review but until there is one that is customer focused and is designed to develop the game and embrace the customers who pay to watch it, its only going to get worse.

I like the suggestion in post 1, its pretty thorough and I can see several ways in which it might actually have huge long term benefits not only for Scottish football as a whole but also the national team and every other team in the league structure.

I would also look to MLS on this side of the pond ... not for the salary cap or various strange rules about how many of certain 'types' or designations of players you may have in your squad, or even the draft system .... none of that could be transplanted successfully in its current format into another league as far as I am concerned. However where they do get things right is in stipulating that every new team in MLS must - as part of their conditions of entry - setup a youth academy to promote the game and bring on the youngsters. Toronto FC already signed two of their youths to contracts last season and had another two or three playing in friendlies or in CONCACAF games and that is after only 3 years of it up and running properly .... The club, the league, and ultimately the US and Canadian national teams are going to benefit from this in the long run as more an more homegrown players come through ...

I know we cant expect every team in Scotland to have a youth academy but if you take the regional youth league idea from the first post, add in some of the money from later in that post then Scottish Football might just save itself from within ....

and to those that gave Kirishima negative points for his post (I gave you a green dot btw) ... I would ask you ... what is YOUR solution ?

Mike Grant (ex Inverness Courier and now Chief Football Writer with The Herald) made a very good point on Good Morning Scotland today when he suggested that this proposed reversion to the previous ten team top league is perhaps as much as anything being driven by TV companies who want four Old Firm games in a season. I would add that if the TV companies can get rid of a couple of "riff raff" at the same time they would probably also be happier to have more of their other televised games as the Old Firm against what they perceive to be the "bigger clubs".

I would also be very surprised indeed if the Old Firm themselves didn't emerge from any change to ten teams with more money while the other side of the coin (literally) is that the fans would be left with a format which the vast majority of them don't want and which they and so many of the game's respected professionals believe would result in an inferior, defensive product.

So it rather looks to me as if this could well be a case of money and those who already have a considerable capacity to acquire it dictating to the rest of the Scottish game.

We could also be looking here at a legacy of the collapse of Setanta inasmuch as TV revenues have shrunk and in its desperation to restore these, the SPL might just be prepared to allow the TV companies to call the shots to a greater extent.

Certainly this does appear like a further step for Scottish football away from the interests of the fans in the stands and in the direction of the televised game.

And as far as Caley Thistle are concerned, for how long can a club with the kind of budget ICT has stave off a season of finishing 10th as opposed to 12th? I would suggest that the likelihood of another relegation within the first five years would be significantly higher and it would also be correspondingly more difficult to get back up.

And as for the promises of better resources, especially parachute payments,to be given to the second tier... does anyone seriously believe that SPL2 would be significantly different from SFL1?

I'm still for a 14 team league and split it top six bottom 8 after home and away this means the bottom 8 teams have takings for 1 extra home game and top 6 have 1 home game less, or looking at it another way the top 6 including the other 4 will have 1 home game less in a league of 10

Which is certainly a lot fairer than 3 x11 then you might play at home you might not for the next 5,

Is 36 and 40 games fair ? if you count every game played in a season including Europe,and 2 cups I would imagine there is quite a contrast per club bottom half 40 top 36, it may actually even things out.

As for Walter Smith saying that Aberdeen and United had their greatest success in a 10 team league, A certain team in 3rd place in a current 12 team league may blow that theory clean out of the water, especially with more European games looming.

Charles, that's the point Stewart Milne made on the news tonight.

Get rid of the ugly sisters. We have 10 teams at the start of every season who have no chance of winning the league. What's the point?

You've changed your tune !! Remember that bet we have where you said Dundee United would finish above Celtic in the league ? ?50 I believe it was .

Wishful thinking on both counts.

One thing I seem to be missing in all this is the proposed format. They are talking about having two ten team SPL leagues. Thats twenty teams sharing the pot of gold that the SPL rake in so how does it make more money for the top teams? Secondly dont they also need agreement from the SFL to go this route?

One thing I seem to be missing in all this is the proposed format. They are talking about having two ten team SPL leagues. Thats twenty teams sharing the pot of gold that the SPL rake in so how does it make more money for the top teams? Secondly dont they also need agreement from the SFL to go this route?

Did the SFL agree when the SPL was formed initially?

They are also assuming that another 8 teams want to join the SPL set-up and that second division and third division will be happy with two teams relegated without any promotion.

I totally disagree with a 10team spl! 90% of fans disagree with it. 10 teams equals more competition which means that younger players will simply nae get the chances meaning that the National side will suffer as we will not produce top players! I think no change or a bigger 16team spl!

Thanks for the green dots!! In no way am i saying my idea is the best way, red dots are fine , but surely there are alternative ideas we should be mulling over in order to improve Scottish football. And therein lies the rub.

Fans: Improve Scottish football for the benefit of all, not for the few

SPL: Change Scottish football for the financial benefit of the elite clubs and the SPL.

Alex, I'm not sure, but I imagine an SPL & SPL2 set-up would see SPL teams get Sky Sports money, and SPL2 get BBC Alba money (i.e. scraps). 12th man makes a much better suggestion in a paragraph than McLeish did in one year. As Charles pointed out, Colt teams and a 10 team league is another way of saying "we only need a 10 team league to have the OF play each other 4 times (min), everyone buy foreign players and we get Sky back!!"

Almost all of the major clubs are tens of millions in debt.. That is going to catch up with clubs soon, and it won't be pretty The only way out of this is to do everything humanly possible to get them out of it by planning for it now.

The likes of Craig Gordon ?9m, Alan Hutton ?9m, Barry Ferguson ?6.5m, Duncan Ferguson ?4m, James McCarthy ?1.2m are the answer. That's why it's imperative to stop buying foreign players (which Topping has stated he wants), revolutionise youth football, and to have a 16 team league to allow teams breathing space to develop youth on-field without worrying about being relegated for doing so. If we can work out ways to help smaller teams to do likewise, pride, passion, and identity will return.

I really fear that the SPL juggernaut won't stop, so it's up to SPL fans to pressure their Chairman to vote NO to this. Time is running out to save the greedy few from destroying the sub-30 teams they care not for.

Alex, I'm not sure, but I imagine an SPL & SPL2 set-up would see SPL teams get Sky Sports money, and SPL2 get BBC Alba money (i.e. scraps). 12th man makes a much better suggestion in a paragraph than McLeish did in one year. As Charles pointed out, Colt teams and a 10 team league is another way of saying "we only need a 10 team league to have the OF play each other 4 times (min), everyone buy foreign players and we get Sky back!!"

Almost all of the major clubs are tens of millions in debt.. That is going to catch up with clubs soon, and it won't be pretty The only way out of this is to do everything humanly possible to get them out of it by planning for it now.

A discussion on a potential structure was put to the SPL AGM in 2006. The document was the result of several strategy meeting that took place between 2003 and 2006 and basically saw the league setup as follows:

• Setup 12 + 10 (SPL1 & SPL2) moving to 10 + 12
  
• Invitation issued from SPL to 10 teams in SFL to make up the numbers.
  
• No promotion for 2 years but 1 team relegated to move from 12+10 to 10+12
  
• SPL2 criteria - All seated stadia, minimum 3000 capacity, Pitch Protection (not necessarily heated). 1 year grace period to bring stadiums up to scratch at start of new structure.
  
• Once 10 team SPL established and 12 team SPL2 established, clubs in each league play each other twice home and away each season so 36 games in SPL1 and 44 in SPL2.
  
• Possible additional cup competition for 22 teams in SPL1/SPL2
  
• Regional structure below SPL2
  
• Automatic 1 up 1 down promotion/relegation between SPL2 and regional league
  
• Playoffs between 2nd bottom in SPL2 and 2nd placed team in regional league
  
• Pyramid structure below regional leagues allowing for progression based on merit
  

The rough figures worked out at the time showed an expected revenue in SPL2 of about ?1.6m from sponsorship, broadcasting rights, betting and cup competitions and a projected running cost of a bit over ?300K leaving a prize pool of about ?1.2m rising over time to about ?2m. (The equivalent projected prize pool for SPL1 was ?15.5m rising to ?16m).

The split of the money in SPL2 was to be fairly similar to current SPL model with the top two teams taking the lions share (17% / 15%) and then the 3rd team taking 9.5% with the share dropping by ? a percentage point each place after that.

Based on that model, the top team in SPL2 would receive around ?325,000 and the bottom team around ?86K. Parachute payment (from SPL1 to SPL2) was projected to be ?250K. By comparison, the top team in SPL1 would get around ?2m and the bottom team around ?535K in a 12 team setup rising to ?3m and just under ?1m in a 10 team setup.

Obviously things have moved on since 2006 ... we have seen movement in terms of sponsorship, the Setanta collapse, and probably other things so the financial numbers are probably wrong now but it seems the current suggestion still has its roots in this model ......... and as far as I can tell from reading and re-reading it, the #1 priority is maximising the money side of things rather than actually developing the game and revitalising it from the grass roots upwards.

Very interesting. As you said Scotty, this is a drive to increase the income of the clubs and SPL. But TV money at its peak was just 20%-30% of total income. It's well less now.

The SPL are telling chairman, here's an extra ?200k but in return you'll have to gamble on being relegated to the wilderness and you'll have to therefore spend to avoid that. Ralph Topping, Chairman of SPL, a man that only every had just one employer William Hill want the return of Tore Andre Flos, Laudrups, Suttons in the belief that Sky will be running back with cash-a-plenty.

PWC said the only way out of this crisis is to cut-costs. Stop paying exorbiant wages, groundshare, merge, sell and re-build, produce assets (players) to be sold. Hamilton got three seasons worth of TV money for one player, Hearts got 18 seasons worth. We have to let youth be played, and sold. That will only happen with a bigger league. There are markets out there to sell players to, but they're only interested in buying the Huttons, Wilsons, Gordons, McCarthys, i.e. young players that are playing week in week out and doing well. They'll do well given time and not fighting relegation every game they lose, to be replaced with Dutch Diddys.

I have e-mailed George Fraser, very politely and positively, to ask him to vote no. That's where the battle will be won or lost at this stage.

I have e-mailed George Fraser, very politely and positively, to ask him to vote no.

It would appear, then, that your wish will be granted.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/scot_prem/9339466.stm

Caley Thistle have also just issued a statement to the media which I would imagine will be on the official club website before long.

Fans dont want this so are they going to go ahead and risk the possibility that gate reciepts will fall. Are Aberdeen, Rangers and Celtic going to bring the same numbers to Inverness twice in a season. Already we see a decline from that support. I think it will only worsen. Dundee U would bring a couple of thousand in previous seasons. I dont think that will be the case this season let alone after the changes. If the fanbase drops then the gain from other investments means nothing.

Thanks Charles. I'm relieved to see that Geoff Brown saying " I would like to think we have a consensus" was just words.

• 
  
  
• Ralph Topping's argument is based on bringing in players from outside Scotland.
  
• Stewart Milne has said they need money for "highly paid players."
  

It is this opinion of the game that is ruining it. Their idea of the SPL is full of highly paid players from anywhere but Scotland. That's also why Aberdeen and the majority of clubs are riddled by debt.

It seems we are seeing the true colours of Chairmen now. George Fraser has done ICT proud by standing for what is right.

It seems we are seeing the true colours of Chairmen now. George Fraser has done ICT proud by standing for what is right.

Totally agree - and not only as a quote in the media but put on the official club website for all to reference. Obviously it is for the Board to decide but the Chairman is the one who attends the SPL meetings and he will be briefing them on what went on, what is on offer and his recommendation. Based on the comment about how ICT is a community-based club it is clear that he for one was not convinced that a 14-16 team league was financially non-viable, as the SPL were quoted as saying in the initial press reports (spin?).

Evidence of bully-boy tactics already from the SPL and their puppet-masters, the two ugly sisters.

This one has a long and I fear bitter way to go yet . . .