....not what I personally wanted to see, but think it's better than doing nothing.

 

Only way to do anything different would be to get SPL and SFL around the same table....and self interest isn't going to permit that any time soon.

 

Status quo isn't an option for me as we need a model that distributes cash further down the line.  I'm guessing some concession had to be made to allow Celtic (and others who can't see beyond it) the four OF games when The Rangers return to top flight, so 16 or 18 team league would have been off the table in order to get a unanimous decision.

 

Be interesting to see the finer detail in due course, but expect we'll have to go through all the BS that press and others will dig up while we wait for that.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/20581620?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

Two leagues of 12......splitting mid-season into 3 leagues of 8?

 

If that's the structure they are planning, it certainly maximises the number of meaningful games, adds a good bit of variety to the teams you play and potentially generates 4 promotion/relegation places. Could be interesting, and I'm not against giving it a shot.

Its not going to shoehorn Rangers back into top flight any sooner than they would be under the current system if this paragraph is anything to believe:

 

The SPL would invite clubs to enter the league, determined by their league positions prior to the start of any re-organised season.

It hopes that this would head off criticism from those who might argue that re-organisation is being used as a vehicle to accelerate Rangers' return to the top division.

 

If started next season Rangers would be div 3 so they would stay in the 18 league then need to win that to come into SPL 2 the following season. If started following season and assuming Rangers top two of div 2 they would start in SPL 2.

 

Like CD says its a start but it doesnt get away from the split and playing each other three or four times. The two main gripes of most fans.

Trying to understand the 3 leagues of 8. Top eight playing for European places. Middle eight playing for survival in top flight. Bottom eight playing for what? Relegation to 18?

Yes, I think so.

 

Scottish club rugby has had a similar kind of split for the last couple of years.

Assuming that common sense prevails on the details of how it is done, I actually quite like it !

 

• The top 8 would be vying for European slots - an increase on the current 6 teams in the top half of the split. We have finished 7th or 8th a few times so this would be good for us.
   
• The middle 8 would be competing to finish in the top half of their mini league and get up to, or remain in, the top tier. for lower league teams, thats a better chance to be promoted than the current 1 up 1 down. For SPL teams, it would also be a lifeline to stay in the top tier as theoretically they should stand a better chance of competing with the other teams in the mini league and would be able to do that over a run of 14 games instead of a one-off or two-legged playoff.
   
• The bottom 8 seem to only be playing to avoid relegation, but that too should be important .... depending on the number of slots ..... ?

The one thing I would like to see come out of this though is that any new setup does not penalise teams in the second (or third) tier if their stadium is not compliant, nor does it make them have a plan in place in March or April for a league they wont know they are going to get into until the end of May .... encourage teams to have compliant stadiums, but where they dont, then give them some leeway to develop stadiums during their first term in the SPL1 using the increased revenue to help, rather than bouncing them back to the lower league. Promotion and Relegation should be on merit (or lack thereof) not based on how much plastic is surrounding your park (at least initially).

No word of a Pyramid system for entry into lower league for ambitious clubs to prevent the stagnation at the bottom of the pond?

Bit reluctant to try and second guess and go on press peculation/rumour....but from the (little) info out there.....

 

• At start of season you have two leagues of 12
• After 2 rounds of games (playing each other once home and away) league splits into 3 leagues of 8
• Top 8 from SPL 1 make up top league
• Bottom 4 from SPL1 + Top 4 from SPL2 make up middle league
• Bottom 8 from SPL2 make up lower league

• At end of season Top 4 from middle league join top 8 to make SPL1 for next season
• Bottom 4 from middle League and Top 4 from lower league make up first 8 in SPL2
• Bottom 2 from lower league are relegated
• Places 5 & 6 go in to a play off situation
• 2 Promoted teams + 2 from Play Offs join SPL2 for next season.

• After "split" the top league keep all points earned to that point
• After "split" the lower league keep all points earned to that point
• Unsure how points situation will work for the middle league

• There would be 3 titles awarded, one for winner of each of the post split leagues

This would leave the SFL to do pretty much as they wished with the 18 teams left from the existing 42...my guess is that they would have little option other than to go down the route of a league of 10 and regional/pyramid below that.  It's not for the SPL to dictate and given how difficult it seems to be to come to a consensus, then I don't think the SPL should even make any suggestions.

 

It's the money distribution model that will make for the most interesting reading, IMO, and it would have to be evened out a fair bit to keep the SPL competitive across both leagues.

 

Sponsorship of leagues raises another question and it could only work with a single company sponsoring everything due to the move from 2 leagues to 3 leagues mid-season.

 

Repetition of fixtures would remain in top and lower leagues after the split....but interest should be maintained by the chase for Europe (in top league) and fighting away from relegation/playoff (in lower league).

The one thing I would like to see come out of this though is that any new setup does not penalise teams in the second (or third) tier if their stadium is not compliant, nor does it make them have a plan in place in March or April for a league they wont know they are going to get into until the end of May .... encourage teams to have compliant stadiums, but where they dont, then give them some leeway to develop stadiums during their first term in the SPL1 using the increased revenue to help, rather than bouncing them back to the lower league. Promotion and Relegation should be on merit (or lack thereof) not based on how much plastic is surrounding your park (at least initially).

 

Purely opinion, but I get the feeling that the SPL is coming around in terms of the ridiculousness of the current criteria.  We're seeing a lot of talk, and pilots, for standing and it's been a while since I've seen or heard of any communication from the SPL about cracking down on standing.  Once they get over that issue, then the argument for high numbers of seats in all-seater stadiums has to go with it....and whilst I think it'll be a long time before they allow a return of terracing, I do think we'll see a move towards "you need all seater, but it's up to you to decide how many seats you want/need".

 

There's already been some talk of doing away with the need for special safe standing seats and trials of designated standing areas being allowed (subject to local authority and police agreement) within current structures/setups.....although I would qualify that by saying that I await written confirmation on this point from the person (Paul Godwin, head of Supporters Direct) who talked about it at the recent Fans Parliament night at TCS.

After the season Toronto FC just had (and the previous 5 for that matter), there can be plenty to grumble about, and like football fans the world over, we do, but one thing that TFC have got correct is how they apply the rules with regards to standing.

 

The stadium is all-seated and holds about 22,000. I am not clear if the MLS rules specify they must be all seated, but I think they probably do as the seating rule is enforced all over the ground with the exception of designated "supporters sections". 

 

However, the entire south end of BMO Field is designated as a "supporters section" and next year they are extending it by a further 3 sections. Our tickets, and all paperwork like seating maps etc state this: "Seat Holders in these sections will be permitted to stand persistently throughout matches, as well as use pre-approved flags, banners and drums. For those who would like to sit in these sections, it's important to understand that their view may be obstructed during the match."

 

Over 6 seasons I have been to all but a handful of TFC's home games, and despite my section being totally full for most games (perhaps over-full in some cases), there has never been a safety issue caused by standing that I can remember ....

It will be interesting how they plan to run the middle group of 8.  They won't be able to do it on points accumulated to date, as they would have been acquired in two different leagues of 12.  Perhaps the simplest is that they all start from scratch, although this too may be seen as unfair.

I vaguely remember seeing something about points being halved and some explanation to the logic for that, but can't recall the details.

It will be interesting how they plan to run the middle group of 8.  They won't be able to do it on points accumulated to date, as they would have been acquired in two different leagues of 12.  Perhaps the simplest is that they all start from scratch, although this too may be seen as unfair.

 

Personally, I would see that as the only fair way.

 

In the top mini-league and the bottom one you could argue that the points accrued were all taken in the same number of games, against exactly the same teams, as each team plays the other twice, so you could leave those points be .... but the middle mini league has half its teams gaining points in Tier 1 and the other half in Tier 2 before the split .... there is no fair way to start any of these teams with any points whatsoever. Coming up with some half-baked or complicated algorithm will be unfair to one set of teams in some way so maybe everyone in each league should start back at zero. 

 

There's an opportunity here to make things interesting .... teams and fans love silverware, so why not give them that .... take a leaf out of the Mexican book and have two seasons within one like a modified Apertura and Clausura. Tier 1 and 2 winners are the Apertura champions of their leagues and then after the split you go to the Clausura portion which has the 3 leagues .. all starting on 0 and all having exactly the same chance at winning their respective divisions against teams that are in it. Everyone plays the same teams so everyone's points were gained in a normal manner ..... Hell you could even have an Apertura/Clausura playoff to decide overall champion if the winning teams were different with one going into the CL and the other the qualifiers for the CL. 

 

Something like this might even benefit youth development .... A team who know they are pretty much a shoe-in to qualify for Tier 1 after the split would be less reticent about giving a few games to youngsters and resting superstars for later in the campaign ....

Not ideal but if SPL cash is being shared among 24 clubs rather than 12 that has to be progress. There must be provision for ambitious non league clubs to enter the league through a pyramid system and end of season play offs are a must.

I seem to remember the suggestion that come the split all points would reset to nil.

 

As to standing areas, Germany's top leagues all have standing area's because they believe in having area's that are a lot cheaper than the rest of the stadium to allow for those on low wages to attend matches regularly. In recent times there has been government pressure to make stadia all seater but they've so far managed to resist that by puting in additional barriers.

 

The other thing about the German teams is that all bar a couple are run by fans. Fan representation is 51%. Only two teams are privately owned. Volkswagen own Wolfsburg and Bayer Pharmaceutical own Bayer Leverkusen. Other companies have ownership of a part of a club but cannot gain a controlling interest. Apparantly this fan power not only helps in the club decision making but also on pressuring and lobbying politicians on stadia legislation. Not many politicians are going to risk their position by making laws that upset the football public.

You could have just posted the link - http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/david-conn-inside-sport-blog/2012/dec/01/german-fan-owned-clubs-bundesliga

You could have just posted the link - http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/david-conn-inside-sport-blog/2012/dec/01/german-fan-owned-clubs-bundesliga

Why, I only wanted to share a very small part of it.....not the whole book

booooooooooooo

Regards to standing, on saturday there must have been about 300 people squeezed into 150 spaces and not once did i feel in 'danger'. The only thing that i felt was a danger was the seats in front (whenever we scored i was always bashing my shins off the seats). It was like being in an old 1980s terrace, all squashed in, jumping about and swaying. IT WAS FECKING BRILLIANT! I dont understand why the scottish prem was made to have seats compulsory when you think of the low attendances compared to England where all seated stadia is really needed to control 30,000 or so people.

And how are the SPL going to manage this new idea? Will SPL2 clubs such as cowdenbeath need 6000 seated seats? That would be ridiculous!! Like someone said above it should be up to the clubs how much seats and standing they want, although i would say that there should be the option of seats and standing in both home and away sections!

There was nothing wrong with CS pre-2005. We hosted aberdeen, celtic, rangers and plenty other big crowds with no problems! Oh how i would give anything to be back in the bridge end enclosure :D ahhhh the nostalgia

Not many politicians are going to risk their position by making laws that upset the football public.

 

This is where you are unfortunately wrong, as politicians of BOTH big parties are right now blackmailing the German footballing authorities to pass a so-called security pack which has to include prohibition of standing areas or having the number of police doubled. Of course, the police union is behind it, and there is much more on the table which I will not write about in a non-German footballing forum.

The result will be that after the winter break the German stadiums will be half empty, or even worse.

I believe from what ive read the problem in germany is not because of 'standing' but because the Ultras are consistently using pyrotechniks. And the pyros that the germans use would put our smoke bomb to shame. They have flares, flare guns, flashbang, fireworks the lot and they send them off when and where they like often haulting games. In britain you have police, first aiders and stewards. In germany you have all that but also Firemen because of the constant threat of flares being thrown onto pitch or in the stands.

I get the feeling the authorities have had enough and are threatning taken away terraces if the ultras dont stop it. I dont think they genuinly want to take away terraces but are using it more of a bluff than anything!

Doncaster also opined thet "we are aware of the  fans' wish to redistribute income more equitably" or words to that effect.

 

If all the income was distributed more equally then the need for clubs to nearly bankrupt themselves trying to comply with the rules would change  and there would be a resurgence of spirit within all of these clubs, some of which have a reputation as past greats and have been in existence for a very long time.

e.g East Fife--can you imagine  them coping with the extra financial demands imposed by these rules  when their average gate is 500 or so?

 

Whether that will ever happen is definitley questionable I think. But if he is aware of this yearning why is there no mention of it in this draft of future plans--apparently? Without this the statement is relatively meaningless.

I believe from what ive read the problem in germany is not because of 'standing' but because the Ultras are consistently using pyrotechniks. And the pyros that the germans use would put our smoke bomb to shame. They have flares, flare guns, flashbang, fireworks the lot and they send them off when and where they like often haulting games. In britain you have police, first aiders and stewards. In germany you have all that but also Firemen because of the constant threat of flares being thrown onto pitch or in the stands.

I get the feeling the authorities have had enough and are threatning taken away terraces if the ultras dont stop it. I dont think they genuinly want to take away terraces but are using it more of a bluff than anything!

 

Pyros have had a tradition in Germany and many other countries on the continent. There has never been an issue until some law and order politicians decided to make everything illegal in order to justify a return to pre-democratic times. Pyros are still legally used in other countries like e.g. Switzerland and don't cause any major problems. The demands of the police unions also include things like naked scans for anyone they don't like, something UNO has clearly marked and not compatible with basic human rights. And as I said, this whole thing is not about football, but much more. Remember the 1930s...

Doncaster also opined thet "we are aware of the  fans' wish to redistribute income more equitably" or words to that effect.

 

If all the income was distributed more equally then the need for clubs to nearly bankrupt themselves trying to comply with the rules would change  and there would be a resurgence of spirit within all of these clubs, some of which have a reputation as past greats and have been in existence for a very long time.

e.g East Fife--can you imagine  them coping with the extra financial demands imposed by these rules  when their average gate is 500 or so?

 

Whether that will ever happen is definitley questionable I think. But if he is aware of this yearning why is there no mention of it in this draft of future plans--apparently? Without this the statement is relatively meaningless.

What we talk about in this thread is the SPL plan. I can't see the SFL agreeing with it, so it won't happen.

No word of a Pyramid system for entry into lower league for ambitious clubs to prevent the stagnation at the bottom of the pond?

There's definitely moves afoot down at the SFL end of things. The HFL clubs have all got their licence and one or two clubs here in the south like my club Whitehill Welfare are moving towards it, while Spartans and Preston have got theirs. In probably two years there will be a Lowland League which will comprise only licensed clubs. The winners of the north/south leagues are set to play off for entry to the SFL. Most people think this is going to happen.

 

Doncaster also opined thet "we are aware of the  fans' wish to redistribute income more equitably" or words to that effect.

 

If all the income was distributed more equally then the need for clubs to nearly bankrupt themselves trying to comply with the rules would change  and there would be a resurgence of spirit within all of these clubs, some of which have a reputation as past greats and have been in existence for a very long time.

e.g East Fife--can you imagine  them coping with the extra financial demands imposed by these rules  when their average gate is 500 or so?

 

Whether that will ever happen is definitley questionable I think. But if he is aware of this yearning why is there no mention of it in this draft of future plans--apparently? Without this the statement is relatively meaningless.

What we talk about in this thread is the SPL plan. I can't see the SFL agreeing with it, so it won't happen.

 

 

What the SPL are proposing here is a plan which does not depend on acceptance by the SFL.  What will happen is that the SFL will be left with 18 registered teams and a decision on what to do to accommodate them.  IMO, they will have little/no option but to put a regional/pyramid system in place.

 

Not how I would like to have seen things progressing, and it would be nice if everyone could get around the table and leave self interest at the door but that is never going to happen and the only people (other than the SFA) in a position to push through change...even if not necessarily exactly the change we all want...are the SPL.

 

The only alternative is to do nothing and watch the game continue it's slow agonising demise.