ICT say "NO" to leagues of 10.

[Bridge_Ender]

Used to think 16 was the best idea but changed my mind to 14 as 16 isn't really workable outside the ideal world scenario. 14 teams have a few different options but I'd like to see the split remain and go 8-6 after 2 rounds then play each other twice again in your group. That would guarantee 40 games for the top 8 and 36 for the bottom 6. By making the top group that bit larger it gives the 4 lucrative Old Firm games as a carrot with the knock on effects on TV money, prize money, etc. for the clubs who make it. For the group in the bottom 6 they are all involved against each other in a very real relegation battle and as we found ourselves, interest and attendances increase when there is something to play for. Automatically 1 up, 1 down with a straight play off between the 12th SPL v 3rd Div 1 and 13th SPL v 2nd Div 1 for 2 other potential relegation/promotion places.

They key, for me, is getting as many competitive games which matter as possible. Football is too expensive for people to attend when there is nothing to play for, no matter how many youngsters or homegrown guys are playing that day.

[Kirishima]

I can absolutely understand the need for competitive games throughout. However, if our aim is to really improve Scottish football that means we must focus on creating something brand new, radical, amazing. This means detatching ourselves from the status quo and years of old. That is what the bigwigs are doing, looking to the past, a past which cannot be replicated (and thank god)

We need to support the smaller teams,not just ICT, but teams like Hamilton, St Mirren, Raith, and even Dundee!! They must be assisted in clearing their debt, having more access to funding, cutting costs, etc etc. It won't happen overnight but it will happen.

We need to rip up the rulebook and start again.

I would say this, have a look at Scotty's MLS post previously. These kind of ideas are what we want, instead we get boring old farts that have no background or grounding in the game, giving us words (but no evidence) as to what they imagine/think is best for the game.

All I want is the SPL to get out of their wee office and create a product based on the customer, and find ways to make it work. Not think up one hugely unpopular idea and then force it upon every club and fan without any discussion or consultation. If this 10-team SPL goes ahead, fans will just walk away. Hope they have enough TV money for that!

As to what CaleyD said, well, as the Daily Record said (God help us) it's up to us to make sure our Chairman knows what we want.

[Sorted]

The choice as I see it is simple.

Support the status quo in a revamped Self Preservation League of two divisions ensuring that all the existing members of the gang keep their funding streams in tact. Or, make a radical decision to make our game an inclusive league where those who show ambition and drive, on and off the field have the chance to get into an expanded top flight.

The first option will ensure that we are subjected to more third rate imports and the same fixtures over and over, year after year. It will keep the gaps between the teirs of clubs in Scottish football exactly as is, especially in monetary terms. Nothing will change.

The second option. Who knows? But surely it can't be any worse than this!!!

[Kirishima]

The second option. Who knows? But surely it can't be any worse than this!!!

That's the very thing, Sorted. Doncaster has said "No one else has put any alternatives up. I think those who want 16 teams in the top flight are deluding themselves."

There are no alternatives because they've only dreamed up one idea. One fatally flawed idea. They keep banging on about TV, TV, TV and pushing one idea, when TV money is probably less than 20% of income now. How about looking after where 80% of the money comes from?? Football existed once debt free and could again. They want clubs to spend, spend, spend when the accountants are saying save, save, save.

[Joe DiMaggio]

The more towns, clubs, players and fans involved in the top flight the better.

A bigger league would give teams the leeway to try to play entertaining football, give local youngsters a run in the first team and reduce ticket prices.

How would a bigger league give teams leeway to reduce ticket prices? It wouldn't at all! 16 team league, as has been said clubs would be losing about £1m. We would have 8 fewer games than we do now so if anything clubs would have to slash budgets which affects the level of player that can be brought in. Ticket prices would not reduce on top of this. Same goes for an 18 team league where we would be playing 4 less game. How on earth does that give clubs leeway to reduce prices??

And as for this myth that clubs will suddenly start playing entertaining football, what a load of nonsense. The standard will be exactly the same in Scotland, you won't suddenly see Barcelona esq style football in the SPL. The amount of meningless games would be huge and that is the opposite to what is needed. Meaningless games aren't exciting bringing in bumber crowds, there has to be something at stake to draw in the crowds. Having 20 meaningless games a season for some teams is not the way forward unless you want to kill Scottish football alltogether.

Edited January 6, 2011 by Joe DiMaggio

[Kirishima]

How would a bigger league give teams leeway to reduce ticket prices? It wouldn't at all! 16 team league, as has been said clubs would be losing about ?1m. We would have 8 fewer games than we do now so if anything clubs would have to slash budgets which affects the level of player that can be brought in.

Having 20 meaningless games a season for some teams is not the way forward unless you want to kill Scottish football alltogether.

So what do you propose? What do you think is the best system? And why? I say 16 is best because it will alow us to re-build broken, debt-ridden teams, by bringing them in from the cold, that is, if we get people in place that also want to save Scottish football. It will also allow teams to forego buying in over-paid imports, and play youth, which are free, and a source of revenue, far greater than TV money, and a lot more stable. Tackling debt, by supporting clubs, by taking away the fear of oblivion, and creating a real effort-based all-leavel youth programme. Ideas such as regional youth leagues, drafts, etc., have all been discussed here. Splits and play-offs to combat reduction in games/competitiveness have also been discussed.

What are your alternatives? Don't be like the SPL and just say no. It's not drugs we're selling...

[Joe DiMaggio]

How would a bigger league give teams leeway to reduce ticket prices? It wouldn't at all! 16 team league, as has been said clubs would be losing about £1m. We would have 8 fewer games than we do now so if anything clubs would have to slash budgets which affects the level of player that can be brought in.

Having 20 meaningless games a season for some teams is not the way forward unless you want to kill Scottish football alltogether.

So what do you propose? What do you think is the best system? And why? I say 16 is best because it will alow us to re-build broken, debt-ridden teams, by bringing them in from the cold, that is, if we get people in place that also want to save Scottish football. It will also allow teams to forego buying in over-paid imports, and play youth, which are free, and a source of revenue, far greater than TV money, and a lot more stable. Tackling debt, by supporting clubs, by taking away the fear of oblivion, and creating a real effort-based all-leavel youth programme. Ideas such as regional youth leagues, drafts, etc., have all been discussed here. Splits and play-offs to combat reduction in games/competitiveness have also been discussed.

What are your alternatives? Don't be like the SPL and just say no. It's not drugs we're selling...

Sorry but that is just pure fantasy. It's been reported clubs would lose £1m by going to a 16 team league, budgets would have to be slashed, the quality of player would reduce dramatically and therfore the quality of the league, crowds would probably drop as well. Yes we would be playing more youth players but at the moment we are seeing plenty of young players get their chance at a young age, the ones who are good enough. The reduction of games will harm clubs and what split has been proposed in a 16 team league? You don't give any example of a workable one. And any idea of playoffs at the top end of the league has already been thrown out. I just don't think 16 or 18 is workable and going by this article on the BBC http://news.bbc.co.u...rem/9339466.stm all member clubs have been persuaded against a 16 or 18 team league so it looks like it's not even an option.

I would prefer a 14 team league, play each other twice (26 games) then split into a 6/8 giving 36/40 games. The lower end have 2 more home games which can ofset not playing the bigger teams and these teams are generally not going to be in Europe, later stages of cups regularly as well. Also have playoffs at botom of spl/top of 1st. The only realistic options at the moment seem to be a 10, 12 or 14 team league.

Edited January 6, 2011 by Joe DiMaggio

[Caley Stan]

I would prefer a 14 team league, play each other twice (26 games) then split into a 6/8 giving 36/40 games. The lower end have 2 more home games which can ofset not playing the bigger teams and these teams are generally not going to be in Europe, later stages of cups regulary as well. Also have playoffs at botom of spl/top of 1st. The only realistic options at the moment seem to be a 10, 12 or 14 team league.

I'm in favour of this proposal, but it is essential that top of the bottom 8 is given meaning. This can be done by making its winners the bottom seeds in play-offs for the last Europa League spot.

[CaleyD]

Don't see how clubs would lose ?1 Million by switching to 16 teams and would love to see the sums they've done to arrive at that one.

Even if they were short sighted enough not to revamp the cup to fill the gap of some of those missing games then bottom 6 clubs will lose 1 OF game and 3 Other games, top 6 lose 2 OF games and 2 Other games.

Even if you remove the argument that more variety would improve crowds, the figures given by Doncaster would mean that clubs would have to lose 50,000+ through the gates in a season (assuming ?20 average ticket price, which is high) to come anywhere close to ?1 Million lost revenue.....from 4 less games? Unless the OF offer a 12,500 allocation to anyone visiting them (which is filled) then not even they are going to lose ?1 Million from the reduction in number of games.

[Joe DiMaggio]

Don't see how clubs would lose ?1 Million by switching to 16 teams and would love to see the sums they've done to arrive at that one.

Even if they were short sighted enough not to revamp the cup to fill the gap of some of those missing games then bottom 6 clubs will lose 1 OF game and 3 Other games, top 6 lose 2 OF games and 2 Other games.

Even if you remove the argument that more variety would improve crowds, the figures given by Doncaster would mean that clubs would have to lose 50,000+ through the gates in a season (assuming ?20 average ticket price, which is high) to come anywhere close to ?1 Million lost revenue.....from 4 less games? Unless the OF offer a 12,500 allocation to anyone visiting them (which is filled) then not even they are going to lose ?1 Million from the reduction in number of games.

I'm not entirely sure but it porbably includes SKY who said they won't pay as much for a 16 team league. A revamped league cup I don't think would make up anywhere near the shortfall as the crowds in that cup are poor, even in derby games.

[Bridge_Ender]

This isn't an opportunity to have a radical redevelopment of the SPL, the proposals put forward by the league so far make this abundantly clear. There is little interest in redevelopment beyond making sure that clubs survive economically. The only Unique Selling Point the SPL has is, like it or not, the Old Firm and any TV deal is dependant on as many matches between the two of them can be squeezed out which means that the knock on effect for the SPL is that the 4 games a season isn't going to change. Why would they limit access to the most desirable part of their business, it's simple supply and demand.

As supporters we might want 14, 16 or 18, but it isn't going to happen. The real fight is to avoid it going to 10, which would be a disaster both economically and, more importantly, from a football point of view. A 14 team league with some imagination going into the split to ensure as few 'meaningless' matches as possible is the best we can hope for.

[RiG]

was just thinking, i know several people have said that 16 teams dont give enough games BUT......

if we re introduced the winter break then would that not be capable of filling the gap?

I think it would especially if we continue with the CIS Insurance Cup and Scottish Cup. The Portuguese League has a top division with 16 teams who compete in two cup competitions and that seems to work. Could be possible but it is quite a simplistic comparison there. Could be other issues that I'm not aware of.

[12th Man]

Just Say No Petition

Any ideas if this has spread to other SPL/SFL forums and any other channels available.

[Scotty]

Given that it now has 1800+ signatures I would say so ......

[DJS]

The more towns, clubs, players and fans involved in the top flight the better.

A bigger league would give teams the leeway to try to play entertaining football, give local youngsters a run in the first team and reduce ticket prices.

Well said, agree totally.

How long till Sky and other broadcasters push for a 10 team English Premiership so they can have Man U, Arsenal, Chelsea, Spurs, Man C and Liverpool all playing each other four times a season? Beware the Birminghams, Wigans, West Broms and Blackpools of this world!

[Joe DiMaggio]

The more towns, clubs, players and fans involved in the top flight the better.

A bigger league would give teams the leeway to try to play entertaining football, give local youngsters a run in the first team and reduce ticket prices.

Well said, agree totally.

How long till Sky and other broadcasters push for a 10 team English Premiership so they can have Man U, Arsenal, Chelsea, Spurs, Man C and Liverpool all playing each other four times a season? Beware the Birminghams, Wigans, West Broms and Blackpools of this world!

Birmingham etc are big enough clubs to sustain top level football and there are plenty others in the championship of a decent size who could fit into the top level. Cowdenbeath and Brechin aren't and will never be a big enough club to operate at the top level.

Comparing us to England is daft as they have over 10 times the population as us and can sustain a top flight of 20 teams. In Scotland we can't and it's just fantasy thinking we can.

[12th Man]

Just Say No Petition

Any ideas if this has spread to other SPL/SFL forums and any other channels available.

Given that it now has 1800+ signatures I would say so ......

Well I hope the local press can squeeze this in the sports section too.

[DJS]

The more towns, clubs, players and fans involved in the top flight the better.

A bigger league would give teams the leeway to try to play entertaining football, give local youngsters a run in the first team and reduce ticket prices.

Well said, agree totally.

How long till Sky and other broadcasters push for a 10 team English Premiership so they can have Man U, Arsenal, Chelsea, Spurs, Man C and Liverpool all playing each other four times a season? Beware the Birminghams, Wigans, West Broms and Blackpools of this world!

Birmingham etc are big enough clubs to sustain top level football and there are plenty others in the championship of a decent size who could fit into the top level. Cowdenbeath and Brechin aren't and will never be a big enough club to operate at the top level.

Comparing us to England is daft as they have over 10 times the population as us and can sustain a top flight of 20 teams. In Scotland we can't and it's just fantasy thinking we can.

Did not suggest a Scottish top flight of 20 teams which, I agree, would be too much. All I am saying is that the broadcasters and the organisations that run football want to pander more and more to the teams they see as the elite sides and stuff the rest.

[Joe DiMaggio]

Why the need for another petition? There was already the supporters survey recently that had about 5,000 participants and showed 80 odd percent were against a 10 team league. Do we really need another similar thing?

[12th Man]

Why the need for another petition? There was already the supporters survey recently that had about 5,000 participants and showed 80 odd percent were against a 10 team league. Do we really need another similar thing?

I would say so, the last one was an opinion poll on suggestions, which wasnt made widely available.

This one is a protest against being told we are getting a 10 team league.

So I would suggest joining every football forum and leaving a petition link and leaving the petition link in comments in online newspaper articles and show Neil Doncaster the real power of the united fans of Scottish football

Perhaps our webmaster would like to pin the link instead of having to find it.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/football/spl-revamp/2011/01/06/scottish-football-revamp-st-mirren-join-spl-rebels-in-call-for-expanded-top-flight-86908-22830684/

Things arent going to well Neil are they.

[Kirishima]

Caley D makes a very valid point in answer to JoeDi Maggio. "I'd love to see where they came up with those sums"

I don't have financial projections for a 16-team league but neither do the SPL for a 10-team league. They are assuming they would get a better TV deal, and they think that fans will like the excitement of 6 teams in the relegation zone all season. They say fans want players from abroad getting high wages. Have you heard them answer these very basic questions?

• 
  
  
• Where is their fan survey?
  
• Where is their chairman and experts survey?
  
• What supposed better TV deal has been discussed with Sky Sports or similar?
  
• We had a 10-team SPL before, it didnt work, so why do it again?
  
• Experts have said youth will suffer with a 10-team league.
  
• How does this address the vital need for a winter break asked for by managers?
  
• Where are the figures backing up their claims?
  
• What financial deal is there for SPL2 teams?
  
• Where are their figures for a 12, 14, 16-team league?
  
• If its purpose is to import/buy (Topping) "highly paid players" (Milne) how does this address the crippling debts of clubs?
  
  

We are being told what is good for us without being shown why. It's like a company trying to sell you an internet package but refusing to tell you how much it will cost, how long it will be for, who it is with and what speed it will be.

If 11 clubs go for a 10-team SPL the fans will not go with them. I hope people in England enjoy watching old Swedish wingers in half-empty cowshed stadiums.

[CaleyD]

You can add.......

• Why are they happy to split the "pot" among 20 teams in a 2-tier set up, but reckon there's not enough to go around 16 teams?

.....to your list.

[ictchris]

I haven't paid a great deal of attention to this as after being a fan of Scottish football for twenty odd years thsi sort of pish happens every couple of seasons. So, if someone could answer these questions I'd be grateful.

- Where will the extra money for SPL2 come from? What extra revenue streams will be opened up for the lower 10 of the 10-10 set up?

- What reasons do the chairmen who are pro-10 teams think reducing the number of teams will improve the quality of football?

- How much more money will a ten team league recieve from broadcasters than currently?

Reading Ronnie McDonald's comments on P&B reminds me of the sort of thing said around the time of the SPL-TV farce. That was going to save Scottish football, remember?

[Caley Stan]

I haven't paid a great deal of attention to this as after being a fan of Scottish football for twenty odd years thsi sort of pish happens every couple of seasons. So, if someone could answer these questions I'd be grateful.

- Where will the extra money for SPL2 come from? What extra revenue streams will be opened up for the lower 10 of the 10-10 set up?

- What reasons do the chairmen who are pro-10 teams think reducing the number of teams will improve the quality of football?

- How much more money will a ten team league recieve from broadcasters than currently?

Reading Ronnie McDonald's comments on P&B reminds me of the sort of thing said around the time of the SPL-TV farce. That was going to save Scottish football, remember?

-Doncaster has mentioned a figure of around £3million extra for SPL2. According to HibeeJibee over on P&B (who seems to be spending every waking hour immersed in this topic) this figure amounts to a transferral of the £1.5 million currently received by the 11th/12th teams in the SPL to 1st/2nd in SPL 2. The rest apparently comes from concentrating all SFL sponssorship money into the SPL 2. The proposal basically gives 8 SFL teams the chance to sail away and leave the rest of teams in the league to rot.

-I don't think quality of football is on the agenda. The chairmen are primarily concerned with increasing income in the short term. Reconstruction wasn't being discussed seriously at that level until Setanta collapsed.

-It was implied on Sportsound last night that Sky/ESPN are in favour of a 10 team league. If they have given guarantees of a significantly better deal then that would explain why some chairmen were so confident of winning the vote.

Edited January 7, 2011 by Caley Stan

[Alex MacLeod]

was just thinking, i know several people have said that 16 teams dont give enough games BUT......

if we re introduced the winter break then would that not be capable of filling the gap?

I think it would especially if we continue with the CIS Insurance Cup and Scottish Cup. The Portuguese League has a top division with 16 teams who compete in two cup competitions and that seems to work. Could be possible but it is quite a simplistic comparison there. Could be other issues that I'm not aware of.

Not sure we can make the comparrison with Portugal or any other country Andrew. None of those countries have a system whereby two teams get the lions share of all revenue to keep them on top. No other country has a league totally dominated by two teams.