SPL Expansion. Good for us?

[Jeepsaw]

"The Scottish Premier League met on Wednesday to discuss plans to revitalise football in Scotland.

Representatives from all 12 clubs gathered at Hampden, with league reconstruction top of the agenda."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/scot_prem/9108392.stm

How do our fans think this would affect us as a club?

And what would we like to see the league expanded to and what format?

I personally would like to see an 18 team league without a split but maybe with an end of season play-off for european places (2nd - 6th) much like in the Eredivisie, 2up 2down, 1 home and 1 away fixture with each team.

Doubt the OF would favour this though and maybe other clubs wouldn't because of the revenue of hosting the OF twice at home.

I think we'd definitely hold our own in this kind of set up and push for Europe each season.

Also we would probably no longer be one of the so called 'wee teams' in the league.

I knows similar topics have been discussed before but because this is happening today i thought i would start a new one.

What's your views?

JEEPS

[starchief]

Already posted mine in depth but for me:

- 2 seasons in a year, straddling a summer break (and missing the depths of winter too)

- a 10-12 team SPL with 12-16 SFL

- Regional leagues below that.

Therefore, you get twice the amount of silverware in a year, plus, if your team is relegated, a chance to get out of that sooner rather than later. You also only play a team twice a season.

Reduce the number of 'historical' clubs like Stenny or Alloa, where the population has moved away. These stop other clubs from being able to remain full-time by bringing little support. If a club that wants to remain full-time drops to SFL2 or even 3 these days, it's a bitter struggle to have any ambition.

Just increasing the amount of meaningless mid-table games won't add any more excitement. That's not radical enough. In fact, that's why the SPL was introduced all those years ago (before it was just the initials natch).

[CaleyD]

Minimum of 18 would be my vote, but that's not going to happen any time soon.

The BBC have it spot on with the 14 teams and it has been pretty much agreed and only requires rubber stamping.

A move to 14 teams with the unequal split is, IMO, even more ridiculous than the current setup. They talk about making changes for "the good of the game", but little or no attention is given to the customers desires. Not only is that not good for the game, but is very short sighted when it comes to the business aspect.

14 teams will do NOTHING to improve things, an 8/6 split will do NOTHING to improve things and we'll all be sitting here in another year or two talking over the next stupid idea they come up with.

The fact of the matter, as far as I am concerned, is that they (the SPL) can't be seen to do nothing and would rather put through a ridiculous change which will have next to no impact on the SPL clubs, than make proper changes for the long term...even if that did come with some short term negatives.

[Tug]

14 teams is a very clever move

it allows them to appear to be doing something to widen the appeal and the fan base but by keeping the split (be it even or not) it means that we will still be seen as a laughing stock..possibly to an even bigger extent

if the lower half of the league has the bigger split then if i am right we could have the ridiculous situation where the teams in 7th and 8th have more points than the team in 6th.

in my opinion we need to do a few things

• a winter break
  
• play each team once home and once away
  

weather thats a league of 16 or 18 i dont know but i think instead of focusing on numbers we should be looking at what would make the league more appealing

[IMMORTAL HOWDEN ENDER]

Standing sections

[kilda]

Standing sections

Sit down for the Caley Jags.:biggrin:

[Kingsmills]

Sixteen team league playing each other once home and away with a decent winter break.

Might reduce income a bit but would, in my opinion, lead to better quality football.

[DornochCaley]

16 team league. A 14 team league is not big enough but 16 will be. If we go for the 14, then within 10 years it will get boring again. 16 teams with two going up and two going down will make the league a whole lot better.

[+DoofersDad]

16 team league. A 14 team league is not big enough but 16 will be. If we go for the 14, then within 10 years it will get boring again. 16 teams with two going up and two going down will make the league a whole lot better.

Please enlighten us as to where you propose the top two in the SPL will go up to.

[Alex MacLeod]

"The Scottish Premier League met on Wednesday to discuss plans to revitalise football in Scotland.

Representatives from all 12 clubs gathered at Hampden, with league reconstruction top of the agenda."

http://news.bbc.co.u...rem/9108392.stm

How do our fans think this would affect us as a club?

And what would we like to see the league expanded to and what format?

I personally would like to see an 18 team league without a split but maybe with an end of season play-off for european places (2nd - 6th) much like in the Eredivisie, 2up 2down, 1 home and 1 away fixture with each team.

Doubt the OF would favour this though and maybe other clubs wouldn't because of the revenue of hosting the OF twice at home.

I think we'd definitely hold our own in this kind of set up and push for Europe each season.

Also we would probably no longer be one of the so called 'wee teams' in the league.

I knows similar topics have been discussed before but because this is happening today i thought i would start a new one.

What's your views?

JEEPS

I would go with your 18 team idea with two being relegated and the third bottom having to play off with 2nd, 3rd and 4th from league below. This gives the bottom teams something to fight for and retains interest till the end of season. The idea of play-offs for european places would also keep the interest levels up.

As for OF games. Only the OF lose out. For the rest, as things stand at the moment, they have an OF team visit three times a season, unless they make top six. With playing each twice they will have an OF visit twice so they lose out on one game. As it costs those clubs more to host the OF, additional police and security etc, I wonder what the loss in revenue would amount to. I actually think that the losses would be offset by keeping the interest, and therefore the crowds, alive right to the end of season.

Unfortunately any change will never go far enough. The few people who run the game in this country have too much to lose. Until there is only one ruling body and one committee making the rules the game will continue in decline.

[Jeepsaw]

Yup i can't see us increasing the league by more than 14 as long as they have the 11 out of 12 vote when 2 of the 12 are always going to opt to play each other 4 times a season.

And yes i would have thought it would be beneficial for attendance levels and excitement for the other teams.

I can only hope that they at least scrap the split!

[Sorted]

Bad news as far as I can see if the current proposals are to be accepted. Would obviously have a differing view if we were fighting for promotion but now we are back and competing well, I see no benefit.

A total revamp is what is required. 18/20 team league with team playing each other twice. A decent winter break even if it's purely for the benefit of the players and their families. Two down, with a play off for the second relegated team and at the top end, a play off involving 2nd-5th for European places. Should mean some competition throughout the season, a little less monotony and room for ambitions teams to climb up the league structure.

Never happen as turkeys don't like Santa!

[12th Man]

A 14 team league will certainly reignite the interest in 1st division football and gives a lot of hope to 1st division fans regarding top flight football and still keeps it competitive.

With 16 -not enough games are played.

18 -wouldn't tally up

20 -would work in theory 38 games but not in practice, we don't have enough quality teams to add 8 and it means the likes of Brechin could win promotion to the SPL the following year which would dilute the quality in the SPL

If I make up some figures, say the SPL put ?2,000,000 in to a pot and all the teams get a cut, making a 20 team league the pot still sits at ?2,000,000 so its less to share.

The same goes with tv rights.

A SPL 2 league cup could be created.

A top 8 bottom 6 split gives hope to the smaller SPL teams of getting in to the top half but 6 and 8 would make more sense considering the smaller teams will have to play more games to get the money in through the gate and the best 6 teams should be involved in cup games for a longer period, it also rests players for international games.

I'm in favor of 14

[Alex MacLeod]

A 14 team league will certainly reignite the interest in 1st division football and gives a lot of hope to 1st division fans regarding top flight football and still keeps it competitive.

With 16 -not enough games are played.

18 -wouldn't tally up

20 -would work in theory 38 games but not in practice, we don't have enough quality teams to add 8 and it means the likes of Brechin could win promotion to the SPL the following year which would dilute the quality in the SPL

If I make up some figures, say the SPL put ?2,000,000 in to a pot and all the teams get a cut, making a 20 team league the pot still sits at ?2,000,000 so its less to share.

The same goes with tv rights.

A SPL 2 league cup could be created.

A top 8 bottom 6 split gives hope to the smaller SPL teams of getting in to the top half but 6 and 8 would make more sense considering the smaller teams will have to play more games to get the money in through the gate and the best 6 teams should be involved in cup games for a longer period, it also rests players for international games.

I'm in favor of 14

Is that not a bit unfair and elitest on teams like Brechin. There are many people out there with the impression that we dilute the present league. If they were competing at the higher level they'd likely cut their cloth to suit. 18 teams with playoffs as suggested earlier would work perfectly well.

[ictchris]

I am sceptical about the idea that league reconstruction will revitalise Scottish football. I don't think there are hordes of potential supporters waiting for the SPL to be changed to include more First Division teams before coming to games. Scottish football actually holds up pretty well in terms of average attendances to similarly sized countries in Europe, even if you exclude the crowds from Ibrox and Parkhead. If you include these then Scotland has the highest average crowds outside of the Big Five leagues of England, Germany, Spain, France and Italy. We also do OK in terms of average crowds within our league - there are clubs in the Greek top league, for example, who get average crowds of less than 1000.

The main issue with Scottish football is that the quality of play. There are two ways to improve this - better young players coming through and generate more revenue to buy better players. I don't think changing the structure of top flight football will influence better young players coming into the side and I am also pretty sceptical about the revenue generation of including more teams in the SPL. Adding Dunfermline and Falkirk, say, to the current SPL roster isn't going generate that much more revenue for the game. There will be two more bottom six sized clubs with a bit more cash to spend on players but in terms of generating more TV money or pushing up average crowds, I don't think it would have an impact. People aren't interested in watching Falkirk v St Mirren on ESPN or Dundee United v Dunfermline on Sky Sports - if they were then you can bet that the TV companies would have forced a change happen by now.

I don't really have an answer as to what will improve Scottish football, increase revenue, increase crowds. I think that clubs like Caley have to be realistic about what we can achieve, I think that every fan and member of the BoD would agree with that. We aren't going to storm to the title but we can become a solid member of the SPL, challange for top half finishes and cups. What would revitalise Scottish football would be a club challenging the Old Firm - the last significant increases of average attendance in the SPL came when Hibs had Tony Mowbray as boss and made a run for third place and when Hearts finished second in the table in Romanov's first full season. Of course, Mad Vlad's reign has descended into farce, with unsustainable debts and Hibs have had to break up their side in order to balance the books. Also, the SPL potential for generating revenue took probably a fatal hit from a series of ludicrious decisions in terms of TV money in the last ten years - turning down a Sky deal in favour of setting up 'SPL TV' (thanks Roger Mitchell for that one) and signing up to a Setanta pie-in-the-sky deal when Sky had a good offer on the table. Probably the last chance for the SPL to really improve left the building with those mistakes. Clubs like Aberdeen, Hearts, Hibs and Dundee Utd are now too indebted to ever challenge the Old Firm, leaving us in a kind of limbo.

Bit of a rambling post, I accidentally deleted what I was going to say earlier, doh.

[MabawswaRichie]

lead to better quality football.

Can I ask in what way?

Better coaching will improve the football, not playing against more teams.

[Huisdean]

I wonder how much of this coaching thing is a red herring. We probably have more coaches in the game than ever before but the quality of football has not improved nor, more importantly has the skill levels of the players. I think the caoches in Scotland have got things wrong, and blame for this must be laid at the feet of the SFA. In my opinion, our coaches (whether it is at individiual clubs/community coachesetc)basically come through the SFA system. While this is better than no coaching, it seems to me that they do not focus on improving the techniques of players but more on systems/formations etc. I get embarrased when i see some players try to control a ball, are so one footed it's untrue and these are skills which can be coached, relatively easily but we do not seem to do this. Improving the technique of a player is the one thing that will lift an average player and make him a much better player. I would use Kevin Keegan as a great example of that as he was not a naturally talented player but worked hard at his game and got the rewards due to him.

[CaleyD]

No one thing is going to bring about improvements, but that doesn't mean the SPL/SFL/SFA should continue to just tinker with things for the sake of it....which seems to be what they are doing.

I would love to see the analysis work they have done for different league sizes/formats which apparently includes all the pros and cons for each, because I can't for the life of me fathom out how they came up with 14 as the best option.

There's 101 things we just don't know/understand, and which the SPL don't know/understand...and without such information they are not in a position to make informed decisions. Perhaps their time would be better spent properly surveying the fans and gathering that information instead of making changes based on presumption and self interest.

[MabawswaRichie]

I wonder how much of this coaching thing is a red herring.

None I'd suggest. If you properly coach a player how to play football, he will become a better player. In Scotland, players are left to rely on their 'natural ability' and just get told to get stuck in and show 'plenty of heart' by their coaches. That's where we falter as a nation.

[starchief]

I'm not too sure it is the coaches fault. We seem to have more than our fair share of Scottish coaches and managers doing well in England. It's not everything and I'm sure coaching can be improved but I don't see that as the major problem.

In the past (but I'll use names of today, rather than Division 1 etc), Don Cowie, for instance, would not have chosen a bottom Championship club over a top SPL club. There was a natural progression. Andy Dorman, the same. Kevin Thomson, potential captain of Rangers, wouldn't have gone to a mid-table Middlesborough.

It's not just about these players though. Their lack of ambition (and I can fully - or at least partially - understand their reasons - cash!) means many less able players are thrown in too early. They don't have a chance to develop alongside better players, and then leave themselves for another unambitious club.

Imagine a league where, when not needed by the OF, Robson, Morrison, Dorman, Adam, Webster, McManus, Cowie etc etc went to Aberdeen, Dundee Utd, Hearts and so forth. This instantly beings up the ability of younger players in a way that coaching never could. 20 years ago, Aberdeen would have been able to attract a midfield of Hartley, Cowie and Adam. That would instantly benefit Fyvie or Pawlett. Instead, these guys, barely out of school, are supposed to be the stars of a European chasing team.

I look forward to Henry McLeish's report. He's our last hope for a long time. Gordon Smith had some great ideas but the SFA structure was too wrapped up in preserving itself (really, he should have gone to press sooner with a 'these dinosaurs have to go or Scottish football dies' speech - his only chance of winning). The SPL is too scared about it's own cash flow to look longer term. I just hope McLeish's is better than his proposals for youth development (?1/2B during a financial crisis for a hobby - what nonsense!).

I've posted my solutions to death but summer football would allow Scotland to have a loan of some players plying their trade in England for at least part of the year, whilst being of interest to Sky/ESPN/BBC etc, when the EPL is on hiatus.

[Jay_7]

I'm not too sure it is the coaches fault.

In what way?

There is a quite obvious problem with the coaching in Scotland and simply saying "but there's Scottish coaches in England doing well" doesn't mean that the coaches here are doing a good job.

As Mabawsa pointed out, the only players you see coming through youth systems these days are the one's that have the physical attributes. Usually heavily weighted to being able to run for a long time at different paces.

The point I'd raise, is why do we waste time in training sessions getting players to run pretty much constantly. Your level of fitness, once achieved does not disappear over night or even over the course of a week. Why then, do we not use some training sessions to introduce players to a ball and say "Look lads, this is what you'll be kicking about on Saturday, let's see what you can do with it..."?

The real problems with Scottish football are so brutally obvious it genuinely pisses me off that nothing is being done about it.

Sod it, let's just go out and spend the half billion quid "required" to repair Scottish football on the say so of some no-mark ex footballer.

Edited October 28, 2010 by Jay_7

[DornochCaley]

16 team league. A 14 team league is not big enough but 16 will be. If we go for the 14, then within 10 years it will get boring again. 16 teams with two going up and two going down will make the league a whole lot better.

Please enlighten us as to where you propose the top two in the SPL will go up to.

What an idiot :laugh:

Well.... you know what i mean!