A wind of change?

[TopSix]

FANS VIEWS VITAL TO SPL FACELIFT SAYS GEORGE

Caley Thistle chairman George Fraser feels that the club would "look positively" on expanding the SPL.

He was commenting on SPL chief executive Neil Doncaster telling a Scottish Parliament debate that there was "a wind of change" for a bigger SPL, though there were issues on implementing this.

George Fraser said:"Caley Thistle would be keen to have a constructive look at any proposal for extending the division to make it more attractive and also for making things more financially palatable for the relegated club, following our own experience.

"But we'd need a discussion on the precise details before fully committing ourselves.Having just come up from the First Division, we certainly know that there are SFL clubs capable of being full time SPL outfits."

Mr Doncaster has also indicated support for an earlier start to the SPL to help the Scottish teams in Europe and possibly create space for a midwinter break.

George Fraser responded:"We wouldn't be selfish over an early start if it helps our clubs' Euro challenge. Beginning in mid July might also attract bigger crowds in better weather.

"The midwinter break is always difficult in the timing. But the Caley Thistle board accepts that there must be change in the game and we have to listen to the opinions of the paying customers.

"I'd be more than happy to take on board what the fans are saying. In this challenging financial environment, we have to look at improving the football product for them. If there is a consensus for particular change, then this club will react positively."

Neal Doncaster told the Scottish Parliament that expanding the SPL from 12 teams to 16 would mean teams playing 30 games a season instead of 38. This would mean four fewer home games and the financial loss that would involve.

http://www.ictfc.co.uk/articles/20100818/fans-views-vital-to-spl-facelift-says-george-_2208825_2126738

Just read this article online. Following on from the 5 live programme last week on the SPL preview, I'm kind of in favour of an expanded SPL. I think summer football would be better and the crowds would be bigger. What are the thoughts of others? I think this suggestion of an earlier start with a break in winter isn't such a good idea.

[Jeepsaw]

It's the logical thing to do and i reckon all but 2 spl clubs will be in favour of it. It would hopefully create a more exciting league in terms of competitiveness and you'd expect teams to be playing more attacking football because of this.

There would also be 2up 2down in a 16 team (or more?) league.

I'm sure there was mention at some point of introducing a playoff for european places much like in the dutch eredivisie. Not sure how successfull or well recieved that has been over there but at least puts more teams in mix. Though i can't say i'm a fan of the split but i'm sure they have their playoff after the standard fixtures have been played out.

Also it must have more of a pull for supporters to attend games when you only play each team at home and away once each.

[Tug]

personally i am in favour of the winter split .. in all honesty we have had it imposed in recent years anyway with the weather so why not wise up save cash and make it official.

as for the expanded league i would like to see it, i think that the spl could probably cope with 16 or even 18 teams...18 teams home and away would make for a decent season and throw into that one up one down but a play off for the second place/second bottom and things would take on a different meaning and there would still be incentive toward the tail end of the season to keep pushing

[PullMyFinger]

An 18 team league would initially lower the standard of football but there would be a few upsets along the way. In the longer term which is what the restructuring is all about, I am convinced the quality would improve and more importantly we would see a lot more of the homegrown talent coming to the fore improving the national team. Playing teams once at home and once away would increase the attraction of going to the games too.

[caley100]

The obvious downside as mentioned above is the fewer games problem, the clubs would need to balance the books by increasing the cost of tickets, no extra income could be gained from sponsorship as they would be getting less games to advertise.

And as money is king, dont look for huge changes in the near future.

[Bladeinexile]

As an outsider looking in to the SPL i think expanding the amount of teams would be to the detrement of the smaller clubs. Surely most of Hamilton/St Johnstones/Caleys big payday gate receipts are from hosting the old firm and the edinburgh/dundee sides? Currently theres the possibility of 2 home games a season with these bigger clubs. Throw in Dunfermline, Partick or Raith and the attendences would be nowhere near that for the likes of Celtic, Rangers, Hearts, Dundee Utd would it? Money aside, would it really improve the level of football? Currently as i said above, the smaller clubs players come up against the old firm players (sweeping generalisation i know) who are mainly filled with internationals. Playing against a higher level of player can only improve your game as a player. Bring down the overall level of the players in the league would surely reduce the quality, no?

As an aside, the pyramid system in general needs a huge shake up in scotland. how can a team finish bottom of the 3rd division year after year after year without being relegated? it works in england with the non-league sides combining for the blue square premier allowing promotion to the football leagues. i know there is the highland league up here and other amatuer leagues in scotland that are all seperate but surely this could be looked at?

[+Gringo]

FANS VIEWS VITAL TO SPL FACELIFT SAYS GEORGE

....But the Caley Thistle board accepts that there must be change in the game and we have to listen to the opinions of the paying customers. "I'd be more than happy to take on board what the fans are saying. In this challenging financial environment, we have to look at improving the football product for them.

Get rid of over zealous stewards. Gid rid of the 'Sit Down and Shut Up' rule. Get rid of the practice treating fans like leapers and let us enjoy ourselves. Bring back the terracing. There's a few to be going on with.

With regards to a Winter break, I do not think this will work primarially because nobody knows exactly when Winter will arrive.

An 18 team SPL would, I believe, be the way forward but everyone knows that this league is run by the 'so called' big two and what they say will hold more weight than any other SPL club put together. An 18 team league would give you 34 games which is only 4 short of the current fiasco. But they'd only get two OF derbies instead of four so we all know what the answer will be....don't we?

[Caley Stan]

The obvious downside as mentioned above is the fewer games problem, the clubs would need to balance the books by increasing the cost of tickets, no extra income could be gained from sponsorship as they would be getting less games to advertise.

And as money is king, dont look for huge changes in the near future.

Yeah, any changes in the structure of the SPL will be geared towards making more money. A 16/18 team league is simply not on the agenda for this reason. Discussions will centre around the introduction of play-offs for relegation and Europe and maybe expansion to 14 teams with a 6/8 split.

[buckett]

What about a 20 team top division like we used to have and lump the rest into a second division of 24. That would be 38 games a season for the top division and losses from less games against the Old Firm would be partially offset by the possibility of more derby games.

In our case there would be a half-decent chance of Ross County being in the same division so we'd have a couple of derby games in a season.

There would have to be an opportunity for ambitious non-league teams to enter as well, at the expense of waste-of-spaces like Elgin City so we'd need to have promotion to and relegation from the second division annually.

[starchief]

I wrote my ideas here: http://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/blog.php?b=8215 but basically, I'd like a top 10 SPL with a top 12 SFL (regional below) but, here's where it gets radical, the current season (shifted to a summer rotation) would be split in two. So instead of 36 games a season, there would be 18. One home, one away. Think about it. That's more silverware, more championship battles, more relegation dogfights. When a team goes down, then the impact of half a season to plan on a reduced budget could be more manageable. Assuming a 10-16 (probably 12 by my calculations) team second division, gives us two competitive leagues, with a relegation place and a play-off relegation/promotion endpiece for extra excitement.

There are problems with UEFA rules on how many games need to be played in order to quality for a European place. However, whether that could be negotiated away may be a possibility.

A comparison with other similar-sized competitive leagues:

Austria: 10 and 12 teams in two divisions (regional below)

Denmark: 12 and 16 teams in two divisions (regional below)

Norway: 16 and 16 teams in two divisions (regional below)

Scotland: 12 in the top and four divisions of 10 below.

[Scotty]

As an outsider looking in to the SPL i think expanding the amount of teams would be to the detrement of the smaller clubs. Surely most of Hamilton/St Johnstones/Caleys big payday gate receipts are from hosting the old firm and the edinburgh/dundee sides?

I would disagree.

The game last weekend is a bit of an anomaly. It was our first back in the SPL and that probably bumped the crowd a bit. Our average gate Vs Celtic is a little over 7000 (Rangers is also comparable if a little higher). Compare that to Aberdeen at around 6000, Hearts at 5000 or Hibs at 4500 .....

On those figures alone you could argue your point pretty well in terms of revenue ... BUT that does not take into consideration the cost of staging the game. We require far more police, stewards and various other staff for a matchday versus the OF than we do against other teams ... so a crowd bump of 1000-2000 at ?20 a ticket is maybe a maximum of ?40K more for a game but how much of that is eaten up in increased costs ?

As it stands at the moment you are guaranteed 3 home games against the OF each season. 2 x Cetic and 1 x Rangers in one season, and 2 x Rangers and 1 x Celtic in the following season. If you reach the top 6 you may also get another home fixture but that is not guaranteed. so what we are really talking about in any reformation of the league - most of which would have us playing each team home and away once - is the loss of a single game against one of the OF which is worth perhaps an extra ?40K minus any increased costs compared to any other game.

Could we survive on that ? I think we could, especially if it meant that the SPL was more competitive and teams at the bottom end - like us - were not constantly fearing relegation and the economic impact that this would have.

Personally, I favour two leagues of 20 (yes that means we lose 2 teams), playing 19 home and 19 away games with relegation and playoffs come the end of the season. A playoff game where you are scrapping for survival against a team from a lower league could easily generate at least a portion of the profit lost from a game V the OF if it is promoted in the right fashion.

I would also favour a route for junior, or non-league teams to reach the senior leagues. The bottom of the lower division should also have relegation and/or playoffs so that other teams could aspire to reach the senior structure.

I would go even further and say I dont care if the OF do bugger off to England or some form of European Super League .... Initially it would be devestating for Scottish football but lets not forget that in terms of payouts from sponsors and TV, the league is weighted so that nearly 80% of the payouts go to the teams finishing 1st and 2nd !!! The sponsorship pie might not be as big without the draw of the OF but if everyone was getting a fair slice of it rather than the scraps again the impact would not necessarily be as severe as we might think. Wouldnt it be nice to be able to say about the SPL that we could actually consider winning it just like we have now won the 1st division (twice), or that we have a chance at lifting a cup or qualifying for Europe etc .........

Get rid of over zealous stewards. Gid rid of the 'Sit Down and Shut Up' rule. Get rid of the practice treating fans like leapers and let us enjoy ourselves. Bring back the terracing. There's a few to be going on with.

With regards to a Winter break, I do not think this will work primarially because nobody knows exactly when Winter will arrive.

I dont think you need to bring back terracing, and I dont think that will ever fly, but you can still get an atmosphere even with seats there if you can indeed address the stewarding and petty rules aspect of the "matchday experience". I hate to bring Toronto FC into yet another topic but sorry folks, thats my weekly footie experience now and I believe its relevant. MLS rules dictate that stadia must be all-seated but enforcement is done at the discretion of the club. At TFC I think they have got it about right. In the "posh" seats in the main stand you are indeed told to sit down and be "respectful" but there are designated supporters sections (the whole of the south stand for example) where you are allowed, even encouraged, to sing and chant, wave flags, make as much noise as you can and generally enjoy the game. The players do react to it and I have lost count of the number of times that players and management of TFC or the opposition have mentioned how intimidating and important the home fans are at a game. Hell the owners of the club even advertise the boisterousness of the fans as a selling point to potential fans !!!!

Regarding the winter break - I believe there should definitely be one and weather statistics show that it should not be at Xmas, but in late January or throughout the month of february which in a normal year is the worst weather month in Scotland.

[Caley Stan]

A top league of 20 is not viable for a country of Scotland's size. Even with 3 relegation places it would contain a huge number of meaningless mid-table fixtures. England, Spain, Italy and France get away with it because they have so many European places. The other thing that these countries have in common is large populations. Almost all European countries with smaller poulations operate with 10-12 teams in their top flights and experiments with expansion has generally resulted in falling attendances. We just don't enough people or enough big clubs to make a 20 team top flight attractive. A 20 team league with 3 up 3 down would see clubs like Forfar and Brechin playing in front of a handful of fans in ramshackle stadiums. Televison and sponsorship would run a mile.

The discussion that is taking place within the SPL at the moment is about how to make the SPL more competitive and therefore more attractive to fans, television and sponsors - expansion to 16/18/20 clubs just isn't on the agenda. Any change will be minor and focused on convincing clubs to vote for play-offs for Europe and relegation. At best, this will mean a 14 team league with a 6/8 split after 26 games.

[12th Man]

Loads of different views with lots of +s and -s,

I really cant see the perfect answer. Too many SPL teams will kill the SFL and have a detrimental affect on the SPL.

An 18 team league? Less TV money,not as many big games,less gate money and less games. Falkirk,Dundee,Dunfermiline,Partick,Qos and County join us, taking all of those out of the SFL, means the 7th team in the SFL could win promotion to the SPL the following season, which is the team that currently just about avoids the playoffs for div 2 ??

SPL 14 Teams. After 26 games the league splits into SPL 1 and SPL 2, (yes at least recognize that something has happened and name it) top 6 and bottom 8,

SPL1,The top 6 is where you want to be,high gate figures, TV coverage and no unfair home/away advantage that we currently have after the split. only 36 games you may say but if you think about it,the best 6 teams in Scottish football should be good enough to stay in the cup games longer than the rest and 2 games less for some teams may be a blessing, they also have more fans attending for the last 10 crucial games as mentioned above.

SPL2, The bottom 8, a cup is now created and will become as important at the 1st division cup is to us, with all to play for, 1 relegation and 1 play off with 2nd pl SFL.

2 extra games to compensate for smaller attendances, which will grow as the cup final nears. 14 games.

The SFL 1 only loose the best 2 teams, which means, more competition the following season to win promotion to the SPL and more excitement involved with the hope of reaching the playoffs in 2nd place. 10 teams remain to keep it competitive.

SFL 2/3 option 1

The new SFL 2 is created with 20 teams with promotion and relegation to junior league.

SFL 2/3 option 2

North & East,and South & central, leagues created to cut down on traveling costs and hopefully more derby games, winners involved in playoffs with bottom 2 in SFL 1.

League teams reassessed each year as SFL1 relegation may alter boundaries.

This should freshen things up from top to bottom.

[Caley]

If the league structure has to be changed, the only viable option is 14 teams with a 6/8 split after 26 games as CaleyStan says. Clubs would play each other twice post-split giving 36 games for the top half and 40 for the bottom half. This solves the problem of teams having an uneven balance of home and away fixtures.

The problem for the likes of ourselves would be fewer games against the top sides, assuming we don't finish top 6.

[TSTtiger]

I think a 16 team league is the way to go.Dont think we have as many as 20 sides capable of living in the SPL.

Play each other twice which would increase attendances, four times is boring and decreases the excitement. The shortfall in games could be made up by a restructuring of the cup/s with two legs an option.

I'd also like to see us limit the amount of foreigners allowed in a team and see the SFA forge better links with local councils and the education authorities to provide all kids with playing time during and after school under SFA guidance and with use of local club facilities where appropriate to try and improve the national game.

[ictchris]

A top league of 20 is not viable for a country of Scotland's size. Even with 3 relegation places it would contain a huge number of meaningless mid-table fixtures. England, Spain, Italy and France get away with it because they have so many European places. The other thing that these countries have in common is large populations. Almost all European countries with smaller poulations operate with 10-12 teams in their top flights and experiments with expansion has generally resulted in falling attendances. We just don't enough people or enough big clubs to make a 20 team top flight attractive. A 20 team league with 3 up 3 down would see clubs like Forfar and Brechin playing in front of a handful of fans in ramshackle stadiums. Televison and sponsorship would run a mile.

The discussion that is taking place within the SPL at the moment is about how to make the SPL more competitive and therefore more attractive to fans, television and sponsors - expansion to 16/18/20 clubs just isn't on the agenda. Any change will be minor and focused on convincing clubs to vote for play-offs for Europe and relegation. At best, this will mean a 14 team league with a 6/8 split after 26 games.

I agree with CaleyStan. A twenty team league would consist of the current SPL plus Falkirk, Dundee, Pars, Queens, COunty, Partick, Raith and Morton. TV isn't interested in most of the SPL teams at the moment there is not a chance in the proverbial that a game betwen, say, Raith and St MIrren or us and Partick would be an attraction for anything. The point about ramshackle stadiums is also a good one - I can just picture the eye-rolling and head slapping from ESPN and Setanta execs everytime they showed one of the Old Firm play at Accies or Falkirk and were faced with a camera covered in rain, shots of grassy slopes and half empty stands. It doesn't look good - at least our three stand job looks OK on telly and has a nice view.

I think that the SPL could just introduce a play-off between the 11th SPL side and the runners up inthe SFL. That would be a good step and would liven up the bottom of the table.

[TopSix]

I couldn't see county being admitted.

[12th Man]

I couldn't see county being admitted.

Why not I think a lot of County fans should be admitted.

[bauhaus]

Now matter what ideas crop up it will be guided by the television money. They will want the 4 old firm games for the biggest commercial audience, as its our most sellable product. So adding other ideas, increasing the league too much means that after one season two " weaker " teams will come into the equation. this season that could potentialy be Cowdenbeath and Stirling? nothing against them but if they deserve their place by good play they deserve their place. Suggestion of 14 splitting into 6/8 seems to be the best option for tv money, but why not the other way 8/6? SKY and ESPN will be the driving decision, but it will change.

[Charles Bannerman]

I tend to favour two 14 team leagues. Teams could play each other twice and then split 6 and 8 with teams playing each other twice more. The only slight reservation I would have there is that the bottom 8 would then have in the case of the top league two games and the lower one four games more than at present.

If clubs were prepared to have an odd number of three encounters, then there could be only one post split game giving 31 and 33 but that may reduce revenue too much.

There is then relegation and promotion of course between the two leagues and also between the bottom 14 and regional leagues like the East and the HL.

So two leagues of 14? What happens to the other 14 clubs?

I think there are too many national league clubs in Scotland at the moment and that the scope for mergers is considerable (hey folks.. we know it's not too painful and can do a lot of good! )

There are at least two areas which are oversubscribed - Montrose/Arbroath/Forfar/Brechin and Alloa/Stenhousemuir/Stirling Albion/East Stirling. The choice should be given to the other 14 as to whether they want to disappear on their own into the East of Scotland or the HL etc and battle for promotion to the SFL from there... or amalgamate with a club which makes the top 28 already.... or amalgamate and then go into a regional league and stand a better chance of promotion to the SFL.

Within a few years there could well be a much stronger SFL2 and probably stronger regional leagues as well.

There are a few questions.

* Should the SFA, as the supreme governing body, take total control, abolish the SPL and SFL and run its OWN 2 division league, hence reducing the number of governing bodies?

* What would the response be if WICK ever won the HL and promotion to national leagues?

* If there was all this talk of amalgamation, might it create some pressure for a parallel amalgamation of ICT and Ross County.

Edited August 19, 2010 by Charles Bannerman

[DornochCaley]

Expand the leagues and create a pyramid system. Simple

[Caley]

I think there are too many national league clubs in Scotland at the moment and that the scope for mergers is considerable (hey folks.. we know it's not too painful and can do a lot of good! )

There are at least two areas which are oversubscribed - Montrose/Arbroath/Forfar/Brechin and Alloa/Stenhousemuir/Stirling Albion/East Stirling. The choice should be given to the other 14 as to whether they want to disappear on their own into the East of Scotland or the HL etc and battle for promotion to the SFL from there... or amalgamate with a club which makes the top 28 already.... or amalgamate and then go into a regional league and stand a better chance of promotion to the SFL.

Within a few years there could well be a much stronger SFL2 and probably stronger regional leagues as well.

The obvious problem with merging the Angus clubs for example, is that each of the 4 clubs is situated in a small town miles from the other (Arbroath 22785, Montrose 10845, Forar 13206, Brechin 7199. Is a Montrose fan going to want his club to merge with Arbroath??

[starchief]

I think there are too many national league clubs in Scotland at the moment and that the scope for mergers is considerable

The obvious problem with merging the Angus clubs for example, is that each of the 4 clubs is situated in a small town miles from the other (Arbroath 22785, Montrose 10845, Forar 13206, Brechin 7199. Is a Montrose fan going to want his club to merge with Arbroath??

The big problem with so many small clubs is that if an ambitious team (i.e. a team capable of F-T footie) drops, like Partick, Morton or Raith, to the lower reaches, they are in huge trouble as they are surviving on virtually no traveling support from the smaller teams, whilst the home attendances also drop against lower quality opposition (well, it is the entertainment industry with little chance of entertainment).

I'm not that sure about TV money being the crux. Okay, maybe Sky won't be interested (or on a much reduced deal) and the money will be less. But that would definitely leave the BBC more interested. I also think TV would probably prefer summer football, so they could show that after the EPL is over, yet it's not happened.

Edited August 20, 2010 by starchief

[Charles Bannerman]

The obvious problem with merging the Angus clubs for example, is that each of the 4 clubs is situated in a small town miles from the other (Arbroath 22785, Montrose 10845, Forar 13206, Brechin 7199. Is a Montrose fan going to want his club to merge with Arbroath??

The choice should be theirs. Merge or fall by the wayside. I'm not sure people in Inverness really have too much sympathy for the lame ducks who are the very probably the same lame ducks which kept Inverness (eg Jags in 1973) out of national league football for decades - admirably described by David Stewart in his District Council days as "this second division protection racket."

[Alex MacLeod]

A top league of 20 is not viable for a country of Scotland's size. Even with 3 relegation places it would contain a huge number of meaningless mid-table fixtures. England, Spain, Italy and France get away with it because they have so many European places. The other thing that these countries have in common is large populations. Almost all European countries with smaller poulations operate with 10-12 teams in their top flights and experiments with expansion has generally resulted in falling attendances. We just don't enough people or enough big clubs to make a 20 team top flight attractive. A 20 team league with 3 up 3 down would see clubs like Forfar and Brechin playing in front of a handful of fans in ramshackle stadiums. Televison and sponsorship would run a mile.

The discussion that is taking place within the SPL at the moment is about how to make the SPL more competitive and therefore more attractive to fans, television and sponsors - expansion to 16/18/20 clubs just isn't on the agenda. Any change will be minor and focused on convincing clubs to vote for play-offs for Europe and relegation. At best, this will mean a 14 team league with a 6/8 split after 26 games.

I agree with CaleyStan. A twenty team league would consist of the current SPL plus Falkirk, Dundee, Pars, Queens, COunty, Partick, Raith and Morton. TV isn't interested in most of the SPL teams at the moment there is not a chance in the proverbial that a game betwen, say, Raith and St MIrren or us and Partick would be an attraction for anything. The point about ramshackle stadiums is also a good one - I can just picture the eye-rolling and head slapping from ESPN and Setanta execs everytime they showed one of the Old Firm play at Accies or Falkirk and were faced with a camera covered in rain, shots of grassy slopes and half empty stands. It doesn't look good - at least our three stand job looks OK on telly and has a nice view.

I think that the SPL could just introduce a play-off between the 11th SPL side and the runners up inthe SFL. That would be a good step and would liven up the bottom of the table.

Think you may find Falkirk has three stands and a bigger crowd base than us.