According to the BBC, the SPL have agreed a new TV deal with Setanta to begin at the end of their existing arrangement in 2010. From 2010/2011 onwards the TV deal will be worth in excess of ?30,000,000 a season; more than double the existing figure. While that's (very) small beer compared to the English Premiership it still means almost ?2,000,000 a year for even modestly placed clubs from 2010 onwards.

Imperative therefor that ICT don't lose their SPL status over the next two seasons or we will lose half our current turnover at a stroke. I just hope that Brewster has what it takes to keep us in the top division otherwise the consequences will be more dire than ever.

If common sense, rather than pure greed and self interest, prevailed then 2010/2011 would be a perfect opportunity to expand the SPL to 16 clubs with each club still substantialy better off than they are now. That said, given the track record of the SPL, my money's firmly on pure greed and self interest with common sense trailing in a distant last.

This cash will only serve to screw up the game in Scotland even more than it is now because those with the power to "do good" with it will only have self interest in mind.

As much as I would love to see a top league of 16 or 18 teams you can bet we're more likely to see an SPL1 & 2 with 10 teams in each.

The real beneficiaries of the extra money will be players and agents.

SPL 1& 2 with ten teams in each would, although not ideal, be an improvement on the present arrangement.

SPL 1& 2 with ten teams in each would, although not ideal, be an improvement on the present arrangement.

Thats a step backwards. We should be looking to expand the SPL, not reducing it!

20 teams under the SPL structure and benefiting from the TV money would be an expansion.

Ad rather see a 16 team SPL than Spl 1 & 2  :021:

If you read my original post you will realise that so would I but that SPL one and two would be an improvement on what we have now.

Two leagues of 10 makes no sense whatsoever from a footballing point of view and the only reason I could see for it would be to preserve the 4 matches against the OF for those in the top league.  i.e. a decision based on keeping the richer clubs rich and the poorer clubs at arms length.

We currently play 38 league games a season....so if they were thinking about increasing the SPL to 20 member clubs it would make far more sense to just go with a straight league of 20 and play everyone twice.

If they did it that way and maintained the current method for dividing up the money from Sponsorship/TV - 48% divided equally with the rest split depending on league finish - then not only would the team in 20th place receive an amount slightly more than 12th place get at the moment, but everyone else would be better off based on current league position.....in fact you'd have to slide more than 7 places to be worse off.

So, you immediately have a financial offset for those clubs scared of losing revenue from not having 2 extra OF matches at home, negating that argument.  Plus I honestly believe that playing a wider variety of teams in a season would add to attendances.

Not only would everyone in the SPL be better off (including new teams) but if (and I know it's a big if) the SFL teams could maintain current income streams then they would also all be better off....reducing the gap between the bottom of the SPL and the top of the SFL.....although it would likely take a couple of season for what would effectively be 2nd Div teams to play catch-up on the bottom of the newly expanded SPL......and it may also depend largely on whether or not they could maintain current income streams.

The main problem with a 20 strong top league is that, while there may be 16 teams in Scotland at any one time, who could hold their own in a top division, it's very hard to think of a 20 strong league without the bottom 4 or 5 being simple canon fodder.

Perhaps to begin with, but you'd have similar problems in a 10 team SPL2 until teams found their feet and started to utilise the additional funding made available from being part of the setup.

Livingston, Partick, Dundee, Dunfermline & St Johnstone have all been in the top league in the last 10 years and wouldn't be out of their depth there now IMO.

That leaves just 3 additional teams to find and I don't think the likes of QotS or Morton would be too far behind with a little financial boost.

ICT were in no great shape until we made it to the SPL, and there's no reason it couldn't be the same for others.

I would be in favour of two national leagues of 16 each playing each other twice giving 30 league games a season. I suspect, if that ever came to pass, the top league would be full time with the second tier a mix of full time and part time clubs.

Below that there should be north and south regional leagues with the winner of each gaining access to the second tier assuming they met a few essential minimum criteria.

Whilst I agree with what you say, it's not really the discussion we're having here.

I don't think too many fans would argue that two top leagues of 16 is the way forward, but it's not going to happen.  Firstly it reduces the number of games by too much and secondly it would mean clubs having to give up a couple of home fixtures against the OF which are big earners for them.

Whilst you might be able to convince clubs to do one or the other, your never going to be able to persuade them to do both....and that's what a 16 team SPL would represent.

Reduced revenue from the loss of 4 home fixtures, 2 of which would be against the OF = too big a hole in the pocket, and that's the only language club boards speak these days.

That leaves 3 options.

1.  We leave things as they are.

2.  We increase SPL membership and have 2 smaller leagues.

3.  We increase SPL membership and have 1 larger league of 18/20 teams.

Option 1

Pros - Lots more money for everyone

Cons - Boredom of playing the same few teams every season and watching crowd sizes dwindling.

Option 2

Pros - A wider distribution of money coming in to the game, whilst not expecting existing member clubs to take a cut.

Cons - See Option 1.  It may take a season or two for teams near the bottom to catch up.

Option 3

Pros - See Option 2.  Wider variety of opponents reduces boredom and could very likely increase attendnaces over the season.  No reduction in number of fixtures.

Cons - It might take teams nearer the bottom a season or two to "catch up"

We've already seen Gold in the papers trying to breathe new life into the idea of the SPL2 and if I was a betting man I would say that whilst they were sitting down with Setanta to discuss this improved deal they gave them certain assurances that they would look to increase the SPL membership to give Setanta a wider audience and more punters to fleece.  If that's true, then something is going to happen in the next couple of seasons.  What scares me is that it's more likely that we'll end up with 2 leagues of 10 as the "big" clubs will want the best of both worlds....they'll want the additional revenue from the improved deal and they'll want to maintain those lucrative OF home fixtures, and no more so than for the twins of darkness who benefit most from it.

Setanta aren't just handing over twice the money for nothing and there's still a twist to come in regards to the agreement IMO.

If it's the decision that we go with 2 leagues of 10 then I for one can't see me still maintaining much interest in going to the football every week/fortnight as I already find the prospect of seeing the same teams so often extremely tedious.  Prices already send fans looking for alternative Saturday entertainment, yet clubs seem intent on giving people even more reasons/excuses to spend their hard earned elsewhere......it's madness.