14 Team SPL

[Tichy_Blacks_Back]

It looks like the SPL could at last be set to increase to 14 clubs from season 2011-12 with some sort of relegation play-offs also involved.

14 Team SPL

I prefer a 7-7 split to keep it tidy but a 6-8 split means that there are no 'free' weekends and two teams finishing their seasons a week early. Under the current proposal it would mean the top 6 will play 36 matches with the bottom 8 playing 40.

I think it is a good situation for both ICT and scottish football. The top 6 becomes a more coveted position as there will be a definite second home game against the old firm (if they are good enough to make the top 6) that will keep the money men at the clubs happy and a 14 team league improves the clubs chances of remaining in the SPL (assuming of course that the team remains strong enough). As we have seen there are several decent clubs in the SFL and the likes of Dundee and Dunfermline would add to the SPL. Also interestingly if this proposal goes through it will effectively mean there will be no relegation from the SPL in 2010-11.

Also from a personal point - starting this season live SPL games have been shown on Showtime Sports over here at the weekends so live ICT games will now be available in the Middle East from next season - who would have thought that in 1994.... :cry03:

It needs a 11 to 1 vote to succeed and the Old Firm have indicated they are not against change so how do you think ICT will vote?

Edited April 30, 2010 by Tichy_Blacks_Back

[+jagster]

I would hope they vote for it as realistically a top 6 finish will always be hard to achieve for a club of our size and with there being 8 teams in the lower half it would always give more of a fighting chance to survive - again that would depend if it was 1 down with a play off or 2 automatic relegation places,

I think change is required in some shape or form and maybe this might just be what is needed :cry03:

[FoolPhysio]

Question I have is how call-offs and games in hand would affect the split, where there would be pressure to have re-arranged games around the same time as cup competitions. Case in point - Ross C*unty playing 4 games in one week to complete the season.

Of course this is a bit extreme and was due to a particularly prolonged period of winter weather, so just a point for consideration.

Otherwise, all for it - play-offs can add excitement (and hope) to the 2nd top and 2nd bottom places.

[RednBlackComeback]

That works out at 40 games for the teams in the bottom 8! Although any change is welcome I don't think that goes far enough. Playing teams 4 times a season has become boring. With a 14 team spl the split comes after 26 games then the bottom 8 have another 14 games in a relegation battle. Why not make it a 16 team league and play each other twice = 30 games. All games could be played on saturday/sunday and with less league games there could be scope for a winter break?

[Kingsmills]

A 14 team league would certainly be a step in the right direction provided there is more than a single relegation place.

I would favour the bottom two going down automatically with the third botom playing off against the second top of the First Division.

[DALNEIGHCALEY]

That works out at 40 games for the teams in the bottom 8! Although any change is welcome I don't think that goes far enough. Playing teams 4 times a season has become boring. With a 14 team spl the split comes after 26 games then the bottom 8 have another 14 games in a relegation battle. Why not make it a 16 team league and play each other twice = 30 games. All games could be played on saturday/sunday and with less league games there could be scope for a winter break?

Less league games = less revenue .

[Harry Chibber]

That works out at 40 games for the teams in the bottom 8! Although any change is welcome I don't think that goes far enough. Playing teams 4 times a season has become boring. With a 14 team spl the split comes after 26 games then the bottom 8 have another 14 games in a relegation battle. Why not make it a 16 team league and play each other twice = 30 games. All games could be played on saturday/sunday and with less league games there could be scope for a winter break?

Less league games = less revenue .

not necessarily.. I doubt season ticket prices will drop by that much and fewer games makes points from games vital which could see an increase in attendances.

I don't know how everyone else feels but because I travel from Glasgow I am more tempted to go to a match if I haven't already seen the opponent play against us.. so with an additional 2 teams in the league that makes me more likely to turn up for another 2 games over the season.

[Council Juice]

A 14 team league would certainly be a step in the right direction provided there is more than a single relegation place.

I would favour the bottom two going down automatically with the third botom playing off against the second top of the First Division.

If the bottom 2 were to go down automatically, surely the top two from the league below would come up? with 3rd bottom playing 3rd top?

[+HawkeyeTheGnu]

14 teams is a bit of a half-bottomed answer really.

The solutions should be either a 16 or 18 team league, with teams playing twice, and no stupid split.

40 games is too many for the bottom 8, and a 7-7 would be impractical as on team would have to sit out each week, which would scupper the idea that all teams play at the same time on the last day to avoid collusion.

[Harry Chibber]

14 teams is a bit of a half-bottomed answer really.

The solutions should be either a 16 or 18 team league, with teams playing twice, and no stupid split.

40 games is too many for the bottom 8, and a 7-7 would be impractical as on team would have to sit out each week, which would scupper the idea that all teams play at the same time on the last day to avoid collusion.

Agree, Would love a 16 team SPL

[Alex MacLeod]

IMO 40 games, especially if teams have good cup runs, are too much in a season. Then to add playoffs for some.

18 team league gives 34 games + enough scope to build in a playoff system for bottom teams.

16 team league gives 30 games then split 8 + 8 and play each once = 37 bottom team down, top of lower league up. Second bottom play off with next 3 in lower league.

[Libero]

Agree, Would love a 16 team SPL

I would too, do you think it'll ever be adopted though?

Unfortunately i think the current mid-lower table clubs would never vote for it.

[TopSix]

The top tier needs to be freshened up. Im all for a 14 team league but they should scrap the split.

[Tichy_Blacks_Back]

A 16 team league is a possibility but only if other elements of the game are changed - SPL rules would require to be changed, stadiums would require upgrading and external funding would have to be provided in order that we don't have a situation where there is no promotion because of stadium criteria.

This will not be done overnight so the 14 team proposal is a good stepping stone until the scottish game is sorted out with proper restructuring and consolidation. I am not sure if 18 teams will ever be a possibility in the modern game and still retain healthy competition.

But which ever way we go will be an improvement as the current situation is not the answer for the future of scottish football as well as the SPL/SFL.

[ICTPaisley]

For an excellent league set up go here

http://community.caleythistleonline.com/in...showtopic=17561

[caley100]

IMO 40 games, especially if teams have good cup runs, are too much in a season. Then to add playoffs for some.

18 team league gives 34 games + enough scope to build in a playoff system for bottom teams.

16 team league gives 30 games then split 8 + 8 and play each once = 37 bottom team down, top of lower league up. Second bottom play off with next 3 in lower league.

Aye.. no bad but forget the 4 team playoff getting over 40 games there, playoff between 2nd bottom and second top - one game done and dusted!

[Wyness13]

Love the idea of more teams in the SPL; but still having a split?!

This is one of the major issues that makes the SPL Europe's most unfair league and it should be altogether scrapped!

I think a 16 or 18 team SPL with no split and 3 relegation spots (one of which being a play-off place).

[Council Juice]

I'd go with the 16 team with the 8-8 split play each other once but it would throw up the we played them 3 times away debate again.

Thats the main problem. I think it would be interesting to have bottom 2 down, Top 2 up. Next bottom 2 go to play offs with 3rd 4th teams in SFL1.

Chance of 4 teams going down makes competition far greater. And you get a situation of 4 down 4 in Europe.

No idea how a split would ever be implemented fairly while not being too many games. unless it was 14 teams but then bottom 7 complain about losing revenue to bigger teams for home and away.

[CaleyStag]

Definitely get rid of the split! :33: Still angry about the 05/06 season when we finished with enough points to finish 4th. :swear02:

[Libero]

Definitely get rid of the split! :33: Still angry about the 05/06 season when we finished with enough points to finish 4th. :swear02:

Spot on.

All the split does is put a barrier up to prevent mid table clubs on the lower side of the split from striving to reach European spots/a higher placing and more money while also giving a safety net to mid table clubs on the top side of the split.

Surely this doesnt assist fair competition?

Out of interest does anyone know of another league where a split is used?

[BornCaley]

Am i right in suggesting that ICT would not get the option to vote as they would not be officially an SPL team until the start of season 10/11

a 14 team league would be great for all concerned in my opinion.

[DJS]

Voted No.

Change certainly needed but this is not the way. Get more teams in.

[1aberdonian]

Total nonsense! We only need ten teams in this league to keep the standard high. I mean, nobody wants to watch a bunch of pub football teams all running around the pitch chasing the ball. If you remember the early days of the premier league attendances went up in correlation with, in my opinion, the level of skill.

Lets keep a high standard here and not dilute the league with also rans.

[CaleyD]

A resounding NO from me....14 team league is even more ludicrous than what we have right now.

If you split it 7/7 you end up with "free" weeks....which is fine until you get to last days where one team misses out on the excitement of possible final day deciders etc.

If you split it 6/8 then you end up with a league where some teams will have played more than others....defeats the whole point of a "league".

Furthermore, if the SPL are to restructure then it has to be done as part of a total revamp of the Scottish setup to remove the temptation of the SFL just opening up additional spaces to fill the gaps created by an increased SPL. Scottish football struggles to support 42 senior teams as is, and adding more to the current setup doesn't make any sense.

Unfortunately nobody has the balls to do what needs done, and the decision makers are voting based on self interest and will never do anything that risks reducing revenue....clubs are so finely balanced financially that they simply couldn't afford to risk even a season of reduced income, even if it meant long term benefits.

All in all, it's just another indication that a 3 association setup is the fundamental root of the problems the game faces in this country.

[Harry Chibber]

Total nonsense! We only need ten teams in this league to keep the standard high. I mean, nobody wants to watch a bunch of pub football teams all running around the pitch chasing the ball. If you remember the early days of the premier league attendances went up in correlation with, in my opinion, the level of skill.

Lets keep a high standard here and not dilute the league with also rans.

why limit the pool of players in the league??

More teams means a greater variety of players, managers opinions/tactics etc.