Say no to 10 team league

[L_G]

The Highland News are keen to follow up on their article last week regarding the league restructure. There is a postcard campaign which is being led by Supporters Direct (the governing body for Supporters Trusts, so if you are free about 12.45 today, can you make your way to the stadium for a photocall. It would be good if some of you could be in matchday gear, but most definitely not essential.

Please post below if you think you can make it, just to give us an idea of numbers and of course you can renew your season tickets at the same time.

[Jeepsaw]

According to bbc the 10 team spl idea is dead.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/13607806.stm

Now we can look forward to seeing what comedy alternative that toilet of a man doncaster comes up with instead.

[Alex MacLeod]

According to bbc the 10 team spl idea is dead.

http://news.bbc.co.u...ll/13607806.stm

Now we can look forward to seeing what comedy alternative that toilet of a man doncaster comes up with instead.

I hope the alternative is what the 8 'rebel' clubs come up with. A 14 team league.

[Caley Mad In Berks]

Good on the 'rebel' clubs. It seems they have listened to their fans, and got the crazy 10 club league ditched. Let's hope the alternative is more appealing.

I'd say this decision is a victory for fan power and common sense.

[Kirishima]

Aberdeen were one of the main pushers for this debacle. The "figures" they have been and are bangiing on about have never been revealed let alone scrutinised. Any increase in revenue will come from the fans, whether that be bums on seats at the stadium or at home watching on TV. How they thought they'd get more money by giving their customers the opposite of what they wanted I'll never know - typically, they assume the fans money is unconditional - that's the level of their business acumen.

Doncaster and Topping should resign, they have alienated the fans from the SPL and given no tangible evidence for their vastly unpopular stance that they tried to railroad through without any hesitation or consultation.

Edited June 1, 2011 by Kirishima

[CaleyD]

Unfortunately any 14 team proposal is likely to fall on it's ass as well under the current setup that requires a 11-1 majority to action any change. No matter how promising or beneficial it might be, football politics is a petty business and at least 2 of the advocates for the 10 team league will reject everything else simply because they didn't get their own way.

That's why we, as fans, need to continue with the pressure for proper fan representation...not only within our clubs, but within the administrative circles of the sports governing bodies as well.

[12th Man]

The 10 team league is dead. was it ever alive?

[Alex MacLeod]

At leasy fout clubs tried to bully it through. I sincerely hope one of those four are fighting off relegation next season.

[starchief]

Without evening out the financial rewards somewhat, it's all bluster. Remember the early 80s when Aberdeen and Dundee United were European forces, St Mirren and Motherwell were winning cups, Hibs were holding on to some decent players...ah, if only we could have something like that back again. So much more interesting, that I'd go for that, whether it's 10, 14 or 18 teams. But it all depends on getting money to non-OF clubs.

[Alex MacLeod]

Without evening out the financial rewards somewhat, it's all bluster. Remember the early 80s when Aberdeen and Dundee United were European forces, St Mirren and Motherwell were winning cups, Hibs were holding on to some decent players...ah, if only we could have something like that back again. So much more interesting, that I'd go for that, whether it's 10, 14 or 18 teams. But it all depends on getting money to non-OF clubs.

That'll be the days before TV companies destroyed the game with their open wallets. The days when, other than decent highlights programmes, the only games on TV would be cup quarters onwards. The days when even Div 1 had a weekly highlights programme.

[Gabby]

In all honesty, I think this decision to say no to a 10 team league is a grave mistake in the long term.

I have been looking at this and when I take the emotional hysterics and the self interest (that the old firm are quite regularly and quite rightly accused of) I actually think there are some medium and long term benefits to Scottish football. Why do I think this:

1. Scottish football does not have the financial muscle or the available talent to support a 12 team premier competition. It certainly does not have the financial muscle or available talent to support 4 professional and semi-professional leagues. A ten team premier league reduces the amount of players required and therefore provides positions to elite players only. There should not be positions available for players over 36 years of age in an elite competition. As a side note, this would work best in conjuntion with the scrapping of the silly U23 rule.

2. The split goes. 2 rounds of home and away games. 4 home old firms games a season - locked in. This actually increases TV exposure for all teams. The draw for the entire season is known at the start of the year. (Imagine how much earler the HM could be organised!)

3. The available money is distributed to less teams which means the premier league teams have more cash. Ideally a better split of the available cash would be an even better outcome.

In conclusion the dismissing of this idea reeks, as usual, of self interest instead of the benefit of Scottish Football as a whole. I suppose I will be accused on being a mad Aussie with no understanding of Scottish football culture and you would be right. But I also know that the SPL has been going backwards since inception and it has taken Scottish Football as a whole with it.

Discuss.....

[PullMyFinger]

I suppose I will be accused on being a mad Aussie with no understanding of Scottish football culture and you would be right.

At least we agree on something.

[Alex MacLeod]

In all honesty, I think this decision to say no to a 10 team league is a grave mistake in the long term.

I have been looking at this and when I take the emotional hysterics and the self interest (that the old firm are quite regularly and quite rightly accused of) I actually think there are some medium and long term benefits to Scottish football. Why do I think this:

1. Scottish football does not have the financial muscle or the available talent to support a 12 team premier competition. It certainly does not have the financial muscle or available talent to support 4 professional and semi-professional leagues. A ten team premier league reduces the amount of players required and therefore provides positions to elite players only. There should not be positions available for players over 36 years of age in an elite competition. As a side note, this would work best in conjuntion with the scrapping of the silly U23 rule.

2. The split goes. 2 rounds of home and away games. 4 home old firms games a season - locked in. This actually increases TV exposure for all teams. The draw for the entire season is known at the start of the year. (Imagine how much earler the HM could be organised!)

3. The available money is distributed to less teams which means the premier league teams have more cash. Ideally a better split of the available cash would be an even better outcome.

In conclusion the dismissing of this idea reeks, as usual, of self interest instead of the benefit of Scottish Football as a whole. I suppose I will be accused on being a mad Aussie with no understanding of Scottish football culture and you would be right. But I also know that the SPL has been going backwards since inception and it has taken Scottish Football as a whole with it.

Discuss.....

Have to totally disagree with you on most points Gabby.

Ten team league means playing each team four times a season. Fans have indicated they dont want this. Ten team league means teams fill up with tried and tested players and abandon youth development. Nobody wants this. The available money would become less and less in the long term because fans will stay away so gate reciepts will be down. Initial SPL was ten team and it failed then. Nothing indicates it will work again. More OF games will not increase exposure for other teams simply because the TV deal allows for the screening of 36 games a season regardless of number of times each play the OF.

Ten team is dead and long may it remain that way

[Gabby]

In all honesty, I think this decision to say no to a 10 team league is a grave mistake in the long term.

I have been looking at this and when I take the emotional hysterics and the self interest (that the old firm are quite regularly and quite rightly accused of) I actually think there are some medium and long term benefits to Scottish football. Why do I think this:

1. Scottish football does not have the financial muscle or the available talent to support a 12 team premier competition. It certainly does not have the financial muscle or available talent to support 4 professional and semi-professional leagues. A ten team premier league reduces the amount of players required and therefore provides positions to elite players only. There should not be positions available for players over 36 years of age in an elite competition. As a side note, this would work best in conjuntion with the scrapping of the silly U23 rule.

2. The split goes. 2 rounds of home and away games. 4 home old firms games a season - locked in. This actually increases TV exposure for all teams. The draw for the entire season is known at the start of the year. (Imagine how much earler the HM could be organised!)

3. The available money is distributed to less teams which means the premier league teams have more cash. Ideally a better split of the available cash would be an even better outcome.

In conclusion the dismissing of this idea reeks, as usual, of self interest instead of the benefit of Scottish Football as a whole. I suppose I will be accused on being a mad Aussie with no understanding of Scottish football culture and you would be right. But I also know that the SPL has been going backwards since inception and it has taken Scottish Football as a whole with it.

Discuss.....

Have to totally disagree with you on most points Gabby.

Ten team league means playing each team four times a season. Fans have indicated they dont want this. Ten team league means teams fill up with tried and tested players and abandon youth development. Nobody wants this. The available money would become less and less in the long term because fans will stay away so gate reciepts will be down. Initial SPL was ten team and it failed then. Nothing indicates it will work again. More OF games will not increase exposure for other teams simply because the TV deal allows for the screening of 36 games a season regardless of number of times each play the OF.

Ten team is dead and long may it remain that way

If what you say is true Alex then expanding the league to 14 or even 18 teams is a false economy. Less money to go around combined with more teams that fans don't want to see. SPL attendance has been in decline for years. Rather than fans "indicating" this, reduced attendance is what is actually happening at the moment. I would also argue that very little real youth developement occurs at SPL level. While I will submit that ICT has a good current crop of youth this really seems to be the exception rather than the rule.

Teams may fill their squad with tried and tested, because they are tried and tested. In an elite competition, these tried and tested players should elevate to a different level. By playing games at a consistently higher standard they will be better prepared for international football.

I still believe that this should be further explored and tweaked.

Edited to correct spelling

Edited June 2, 2011 by Gabby

[Gabby]

I suppose I will be accused on being a mad Aussie with no understanding of Scottish football culture and you would be right.

At least we agree on something.

We must be doing something right - Australia ranked 20, Scotland ranked beyond 60. This is a fair reflection of the standing of both teams. Especially given the situatin where Scotland receiveds more ranking points for defeating the Faroe Islands than Australia would get for defeating Japan even though Japan is ranked 100 places higher than the Faroe Islands.

[KingBeastie]

At leasy fout clubs tried to bully it through. I sincerely hope one of those four are fighting off relegation next season.

Two of them (Hibs and Aberdeen) were fighting relegation this season. Which makes they're stance even less understandable.

I suppose I will be accused on being a mad Aussie with no understanding of Scottish football culture and you would be right.

At least we agree on something.

We must be doing something right - Australia ranked 20, Scotland ranked beyond 60. This is a fair reflection of the standing of both teams. Especially given the situatin where Scotland receiveds more ranking points for defeating the Faroe Islands than Australia would get for defeating Japan even though Japan is ranked 100 places higher than the Faroe Islands.

The Aussie national team may well be better than the Scottish national team.

That does not mean the league is better. It is not. And that is what this is about... improving the SPL.

[Gabby]

At leasy fout clubs tried to bully it through. I sincerely hope one of those four are fighting off relegation next season.

Two of them (Hibs and Aberdeen) were fighting relegation this season. Which makes they're stance even less understandable.

I suppose I will be accused on being a mad Aussie with no understanding of Scottish football culture and you would be right.

At least we agree on something.

We must be doing something right - Australia ranked 20, Scotland ranked beyond 60. This is a fair reflection of the standing of both teams. Especially given the situatin where Scotland receiveds more ranking points for defeating the Faroe Islands than Australia would get for defeating Japan even though Japan is ranked 100 places higher than the Faroe Islands.

The Aussie national team may well be better than the Scottish national team.

That does not mean the league is better. It is not. And that is what this is about... improving the SPL.

It is impossible to realistically compare the SPL and the A League. The A League is only 6 years old and it competes against 3 other different professional football codes for finances and athletes. Given time I would expect the A League to surpass the standard of the SPL.

[CaleyD]

In all honesty, I think this decision to say no to a 10 team league is a grave mistake in the long term.

I have been looking at this and when I take the emotional hysterics and the self interest (that the old firm are quite regularly and quite rightly accused of) I actually think there are some medium and long term benefits to Scottish football. Why do I think this:

1. Scottish football does not have the financial muscle or the available talent to support a 12 team premier competition. It certainly does not have the financial muscle or available talent to support 4 professional and semi-professional leagues. A ten team premier league reduces the amount of players required and therefore provides positions to elite players only. There should not be positions available for players over 36 years of age in an elite competition. As a side note, this would work best in conjuntion with the scrapping of the silly U23 rule.

I would agree that Scotland is not big enough (however you measure "big") to support 42 professional/semi-professional teams. However, I don't see how trimming the top league and reducing the number of players there fixes anything, and if you also scrap the U21 rule then all you are doing is cutting your own throat in terms of player development at the top end of the game. Teams will become so afraid of relegation that they won't want to risk trying out the younger guys and will instead be spending abroad to bring in "proven" players.

2. The split goes. 2 rounds of home and away games. 4 home old firms games a season - locked in. This actually increases TV exposure for all teams. The draw for the entire season is known at the start of the year. (Imagine how much earler the HM could be organised!)

Home OF games aren't the "pot of gold" everyone thinks they are....and I couldn't actually tell you the last time we sold out in Inverness for an OF game. What's more, there's a good few people who actively avoid OF games these days so the draw is no longer there for OF opposition fans either. When it comes to travelling to away games, I normally try to get to at least one of the away games against each of the opposition and don't bother going to the second one....I rarely bother going to any of the away OF games as it's not the most pleasant of experiences. If we had a 16 or 18 team league I would be pushing to go to 15 or 17 away games, with a 10 team league I'm looking at 9 (seven if you count the fact I'm not fussed about the OF).

Add to that the fact that teams don't want 4 games against each other a season....even the OF (clubs and fans) have publicly stated the don't want it. The police don't want it, Scottish Parliament don't want it...nobody other than the mysterious person Doncaster has been speaking to at the TV companies want it, and even the TV are denying having had any such discussion.

People want more variety, and the only way to provide that is to increase the size of the league. 14 is not ideal as it maintains the split and I don't like the split, but it's at least a step in the right direction.

3. The available money is distributed to less teams which means the premier league teams have more cash. Ideally a better split of the available cash would be an even better outcome.

Yes, this seems to be the argument being pedalled by the pro 10 team brigade at the SPL, but it has absolutely no basis in fact. Why? Because in order to get the changes through they would have to bribe the two teams being cut from the top league by offering them the money they are getting now by way of parachute payments and increased money for winning the 1st Div....so effectively nobody would be any better off.

You then factor in that teams would have 1 home game less in the season, falling attendances through boredom of playing the same teams all the time, less exposure for sponsors due to the league being made up of fewer teams...and you quickly realise that you would more likely be reducing your income.

In conclusion the dismissing of this idea reeks, as usual, of self interest instead of the benefit of Scottish Football as a whole. I suppose I will be accused on being a mad Aussie with no understanding of Scottish football culture and you would be right. But I also know that the SPL has been going backwards since inception and it has taken Scottish Football as a whole with it.

Discuss.....

I would argue the contrary.

Reducing the size of the top league would reduce the likelihood for development of our own young players at the highest level...how does that benefit Scottish Football as a whole?

Surely the "Self Interest" of the fans is the interest that counts the most...how does driving away the fans benefit Scottish Football as a whole?

Reducing league exposure for sponsors by having less teams devalues the product leading to lower income for the sport...how does reducing income for the sport benefit Scottish Football as a whole?

In conclusion, I would say that these are all things that have finally dawned on the majority of current SPL teams. Hence why we've gone from a situation where 8 to 10 teams were for all for it, with a couple on the fence...to a situation where you now have 8 teams against it and all sitting round the table looking for something which actually is for the benefit of the game as a whole.

The amount of money coming in to the game is not the main issue (although like anyone else we always want more)...it's the distribution of that money. The OF take at least 32% of that income, but the reality is that if they were to lose that tomorrow it would make very little difference to their turnover. A mid table finish for someone like ICT brings an income which makes up about a 16 to 18% of our turnover...finishing in the top 2 of the league only brings one or other of the OF about a 3% of their turnover (rough figures). Makes you wonder if the vastly distorted distribution of income is actually designed to help the top teams or hinder the lower teams!!! If you want to start doing things that are for the benefit of the game as a whole, then that's where you need to start.

[Kirishima]

The arguments seem to be becoming quite complex. It is very simple.

If we, the fans, dont buy the tickets, or subscribe to SKY, then the whole thing crumbles. The money, whether it be from sponsors, TV, gate money, merchandise, wherever all depends on the popularity of the game. That is the bottom line, the end of the day, the be all and end all.

Make it popular - see it flourish.

[CaleyD]

That's what I said

[Gabby]

Hi Caley D

I can see what you are saying but I believe your argument is flawed for the following reasons:

1. I don't understand how reducing the league to 10 teams provides less value to sponsors. Companies sponsoring the league want to sponser a quality product regardless of the number of teams involved. Team sponsors sponser a team regardless of all other teams in the league.

2. Yes 2 extra teams will require a parachute payment, this is a one of payment to reduce the number of teams in the league. As such, it no longer becomes an issue after the first season.)

3. Scrapping the U21 rule means that players earn their spots on merit instead of taking up bench spots. If they aren't good enough for the elite competition they shouldn't be playing in it.

4. The OF are still a cash cow. While the stadium doesn't always fill I would hate to see the average crowd for the season without these games.

5. Increased variety doesn't mean better quality. In fact the opposite would be the case. More lower quality teams means more lower quality games that people wouldn't want to watch. Are you seriously saying that fans want regular games against Raith, Falkirk or QoS?

This idea improves Scottish football by exposing elite players to regular games at a higher level. It won't happen overnight but I think it would be a step in the right direction.

What has dawned on the teams is self interest, the SPL was built on self interest and the tradition continues.

Enjoying the debate.

[old caley girl]

Personally I love going to Raith and QOS Gabby much more that Ibrox/Parkhead actually. Cant say the same about Falkirk however!

[Tug]

Hi Caley D

I can see what you are saying but I believe your argument is flawed for the following reasons:

1. I don't understand how reducing the league to 10 teams provides less value to sponsors. Companies sponsoring the league want to sponser a quality product regardless of the number of teams involved. Team sponsors sponser a team regardless of all other teams in the league.

2. Yes 2 extra teams will require a parachute payment, this is a one of payment to reduce the number of teams in the league. As such, it no longer becomes an issue after the first season.)

3. Scrapping the U21 rule means that players earn their spots on merit instead of taking up bench spots. If they aren't good enough for the elite competition they shouldn't be playing in it.

4. The OF are still a cash cow. While the stadium doesn't always fill I would hate to see the average crowd for the season without these games.

5. Increased variety doesn't mean better quality. In fact the opposite would be the case. More lower quality teams means more lower quality games that people wouldn't want to watch. Are you seriously saying that fans want regular games against Raith, Falkirk or QoS?

This idea improves Scottish football by exposing elite players to regular games at a higher level. It won't happen overnight but I think it would be a step in the right direction.

What has dawned on the teams is self interest, the SPL was built on self interest and the tradition continues.

Enjoying the debate.

is the parachute payment not a 3 year scheme where they got so much per year?

[CaleyD]

Hi Caley D

I can see what you are saying but I believe your argument is flawed for the following reasons:

1. I don't understand how reducing the league to 10 teams provides less value to sponsors. Companies sponsoring the league want to sponser a quality product regardless of the number of teams involved. Team sponsors sponser a team regardless of all other teams in the league.

Of course it provides less value to sponsors. A sponsor wants their name/product presented to as many people as possible. We already know that a high percentage of fans don't want a 10 team SPL and aside from the loss of fans of 2 teams in a reduced setup, you will also lose fans from every team that would quickly become board of watching their team playing the same opposition over and over again....the game is already losing fans for that reason with 12 teams and 10 would only make it worse. You're kidding yourself if you think a sponsor values quality of the product over the number of people that see their name/product as a result of any tie-up. You could argue that a league with only the 2 OF teams would deliver the best quality games, but I can't imagine sponsors would be falling over themselves to link up with that!!!

2. Yes 2 extra teams will require a parachute payment, this is a one of payment to reduce the number of teams in the league. As such, it no longer becomes an issue after the first season.)

Parachute payments are a 2 or 3 year deal (forget which). But the 10 team proposal talks about making the money normally paid to 11th and 12th available to Div 1 on a permanent basis to provide winning teams a boost in funds for when they come up as well as when they go down. It effectively removes the argument that with only 10 teams everyone gets a bit more of the pie.

3. Scrapping the U21 rule means that players earn their spots on merit instead of taking up bench spots. If they aren't good enough for the elite competition they shouldn't be playing in it.

So who funds the development of these young players to get them to the stage where they can be considered "Elite"? Are we expecting this to be done by teams in the lower leagues who can barely afford to make ends meet as is? Surely if the "Elite" teams want to develop "Elite" players then they should be doing this themselves and surely any system that encourages..forces..the "Elite" teams to meet their responsibility in these areas is a good thing...not only for the league but for developing home grown talent that are the future of our National team?

4. The OF are still a cash cow. While the stadium doesn't always fill I would hate to see the average crowd for the season without these games.

I really wish people would get rid of this idea that the OF are a "cash cow". The additional income the larger crowds bring also incur vastly increased (and disproportionate) costs for clubs in terms of policing, stewarding, clean up, stadium repairs etc.

5. Increased variety doesn't mean better quality. In fact the opposite would be the case. More lower quality teams means more lower quality games that people wouldn't want to watch. Are you seriously saying that fans want regular games against Raith, Falkirk or QoS?

The error in your argument is that you rank quality ahead of entertainment. I think this demonstrates that you don't grasp, or are refusing to recognise, that the fans are bored with playing the same few teams over and over each season. There's maybe a half dozen teams that could be added to the SPL without impacting any on the "quality"....and a match between Falkirk and ICT can be a helluva lot more entertaining than a match between one of the OF and ICT. We've, historically, done pretty well against the OF given the gulf in resources, but I wouldn't rate very many of those matches as being up there in terms of the most entertaining or providing any more "quality" than any other game. So yeah, give me a match against Raith, Falkirk or QotS instead of a game against the OF any day of the week.

This idea improves Scottish football by exposing elite players to regular games at a higher level. It won't happen overnight but I think it would be a step in the right direction.

What has dawned on the teams is self interest, the SPL was built on self interest and the tradition continues.

Enjoying the debate.

With all due respect, Gabby, I think you are perhaps too far removed from the day to day stuff that goes on with the game in Scotland to understand where the rest of us are coming from. You don't have to go through a season watching the same opposition over and over, you don't get to see first hand how boring and tedious that can be.

You talk about creating an "Elitist" league but give no convincing argument about how that feeds down the chain and helps improve things or is for the benefit of the game as a whole. One of the biggest problems in Scotland is the Gulf that exists between the SPL and Div 1, a gulf that many find it hard to bridge without seriously compromising their clubs existence. A 10 team "Elite" league only serves to increase that gulf and heighten the problem.

Surely any argument for an "Elitist" setup is the argument for Self Interest? I certainly don't see how it could be argued that offering to share the pot (and perhaps grow the pot in the process) among more teams can be seen as self serving...other than from the basis of improving the sport as a whole, and benefiting from the same improvements as everyone else.

As has been said, more concisely, by others. Pursuing a path that the customers don't want isn't going to bring in any more money or any more fans. It doesn't matter how "Elitist" you make it, if people aren't watching it then sponsors aren't going to be interested, TV is not going to be interested and money will quickly dry up and the game will die on it's knees faster than it already is. Any plan that ignores that fact is a plan that is going to fail from the outset.

[starchief]

It's much like I said before, makes little difference if it's a 10 or 14 league with the current financial arrangements. Can't see QoS versus Dunfermline as being nothing more than a bore to most fans. A 14 team league has a lot of meaningless games but so does the current arrangment or the top 10. If Whyte hadn't bought Rangers, then we may well have seen a better scrap at the top with Hearts and DU challenging. As it is, redistributing the money to enable challenges from the bigger teams (Hearts, Hibs, DU, Aberdeen) is the only thing that will save Scottish football (and that would trickle down to the ICT, Motherwell, Killie, Saints teams). Unfortunately, I don't believe the OF boards and especially the OF fans care enough about anything other than racking up silverware to the detriment of the excitement of competition.