ICT to block move to 10 team SPL ?

[Scotty]

According to the P&J, ICT are to vote to block the move towards a 10 team SPL ....... {LINK}

Graham Bennett has backed the current 12 team setup saying that a league of 10 would not be good (which is understandable to all teams who usually find themselves mid table or at the lower end), but he also said he was against a league of 16 which seems to be the fans' favourite option. He is against 16 because of the lost revenue for games against Celtic and Rangers ......

Seems quite strange when it was former Caley Thistle chairman David Sutherland who tabled the proposal for a 10 team SPL and 12 team SPL2 ..... Under that proposal, SPL2 would start with 10 teams, and the SPL with 12. For the first two seasons, there would be no promotion from SPL2 but there would be one relegation meaning year 1 would be 12-10, year two 11-11 and year three and thereafter would be 10-12.

Cant say I like the 12 team setup as it is at the moment, and I would agree with Grassa that 10 is also not a good number as there is a significantly higher risk of relegation which would probably lead to a far lower quality of football as teams would be content to try and grind out 1-0 wins etc.

From my point of view, the whole system needs a shakeup from the ground up but I dont think anyone has the bottle (or the support) to make that happen .... I favour 3 leagues of 16 with a pyramid system below that but clearly (and understandably) clubs will probably never vote for that as it means they lose precious games against the OF ...... so whats the solution ???

discuss ....

[Scotty]

have added a poll with some of the suggestions I have heard and have also given users the opportunity to change their vote.

This will allow users to suggest other options which can be added to the poll if they are sensible. Users could then change their vote if they decided the new option was better than their original choice  !!!

[Harry Chibber]

16 Team SPL, no split with a better league cup format.  The less games the more important each one will be and the cheaper season tickets will be, thus a rise in attendances.

Sign the petition Link :003:

[kencar]

Bit of a quandary all in all  :024:

Going to a 10 team league would just increase the tedium of playing the same teams week in week out, coupled with the fact we have to be one of the clubs at risk of going out of the top league.

Increasing the size of the league does look the most attractive on paper but as has been mentioned above you lose a LOT of revenue reducing the number of fixtures especially missing out on at least a couple of old firm games which like it or not keep some clubs heads above water.

[Caley Stan]

This old chesnut. It seems to come up every season and watching them debate it on scotsport last night was tortuous. I've always favoured a 16 team set-up because playing the same teams 4 (or even 3) times is just boring for fans and players. Anyone excited about the Motherwell game?

Have to agree with HC that a revamped League Cup, possibly with a group stage, would be the way to make up for the loss of income caused by a reduction in league fixtures.

Of course this is all fantasy because regardless of what fans, players or even managers think, clubs will never vote to reduce their incomes. 

[+Gringo]

Have to agree with HC that a revamped League Cup, possibly with a group stage, would be the way to make up for the loss of income caused by a reduction in league fixtures.

The League Cup never attracts good crowds because many games are played mid-week. If some fixtures could be played on a Saturday it could work better but crowds would still be lower than an SPL fixture. I can't see a revamped League Cup being of much benifit.

[Caley Stan]

Yeah, it's a bit of a long shot really. How do we make teams care about the League Cup again?

Maybe if Platini & Taylor manage to swing us a couple of extra UEFA Cup spots it would help.

[maimie]

so far I'm the other....

Gordon Smith came up with a good suggestion - a bit complicated on the face of it but...

He has been talking about the Austrian-Swiss set up an eight-four split with two tiers of twelve teams.

The top eight would fight for the championship and European places and the bottom four join the top four of the other twelve in a play off for promotion and relegation issues, sounds like it could work, its been very successful over there, and it must be better than what we've got.

:021:

[Scotty]

Hows this for an idea ......... bear with me as its a work in progress  :015:

3 x leagues of 16 with a pyramid system to allow non-league teams a route to senior leagues. You play each team twice (1xH, 1xA) for a total of 30 games. (15 home games). In the SPL this means you are guaranteed one game against each of the OF at home. (1 game less than the current guarantee of 3 games in total V OF if you are in bottom six)

Divisional Cup (for each league) seeded in 4 groups of 4 based on final league positions of the previous season. You play each team twice in round robin format. meaning at least two more home games against teams from the top 8 of the previous year. Total games 6. (3 home games)

(based on 05/06 season)

Seed1 - Celtic, Hearts, Rangers, Hibs

Seed2 - Kilmarnock, Aberdeen, ICT, Motherwell

Seed3 - Dundee Utd, Falkirk, Dunfermline, Livingston

Seed4 - Team 13, Team 14, Team 15, Team 16,

Two qualify from each group and play it out on a straight knock-out basis. A UEFA Cup slot is awarded to the winning team. The law of averages says that Rangers / Celtic might be likely to make the last eight so you have a good chance of getting yet another home game against them if you draw them. As its a cup game, you may even prefer to draw them away from home as the revenue would be split.

Scottish Cup - no change

League Cup - replaced by the divisional league cup (above)

Thats 18 home games guaranteed every season with at least two league games at home Vs OF and the potential for a few more depending on the cup draws (keep the club accountants as well as the fans happy hopefully). Come the end of the season the bottom two teams in each division are relegated and the top two in the division below are promoted. If a team doesnt have the stadium criteria for their new division they are given 12 months to complete this or are automatically relegated the following season.

the third bottom team in each division plays off against the team in third place in the division below - home and away - winner takes (or keeps) the spot in the higher division.

[Caley Stan]

It's Great! Bring it on.

[+Gringo]

That sounds ok in theory and could work very well.  :022:

[+CaleyD]

I agree that a 16 team league wouldn't be ideal, but an 18 team league would prevent a drop in the number fixtures aswell as going a long way towards reducing the tedium.

On the lost revenue from attendance argument - playing 17 different teams at home in a season would reduce the element of picking and choosing which games you are going to attend (i.e. no "have seen them already this season, or we'll see them next time").  As a result it would also, IMO, add value to the season ticket as I know of a few people who don't bother buying one for the reasons stated above (can't be ersed going to see same teams twice in a season).

The current setup gives people a reason not to attend matches and a move to a larger number of teams removes that.  In a climate where itis hard enough to attract people along, the fewer excuses you provide them with the better.

Onthe lost revenue due to increased split of sponsorship, it is my opinion that a larger better structured league would increase interest and be of more value to sponsors which would in turn increase investment on their part.

I fail to see why people need to try and re-invent the wheel every time this comes up for discussion.  The more complicated you make it, the less people understnad it and the less interested they become.....K.I.S.S.

[Harry Chibber]

Hows this for an idea ......... bear with me as its a work in progress  :015:

3 x leagues of 16 with a pyramid system to allow non-league teams a route to senior leagues. You play each team twice (1xH, 1xA) for a total of 30 games. (15 home games). In the SPL this means you are guaranteed one game against each of the OF at home. (1 game less than the current guarantee of 3 games in total V OF if you are in bottom six)

Divisional Cup (for each league) seeded in 4 groups of 4 based on final league positions of the previous season. You play each team twice in round robin format. meaning at least two more home games against teams from the top 8 of the previous year. Total games 6. (3 home games)

(based on 05/06 season)

Seed1 - Celtic, Hearts, Rangers, Hibs

Seed2 - Kilmarnock, Aberdeen, ICT, Motherwell

Seed3 - Dundee Utd, Falkirk, Dunfermline, Livingston

Seed4 - Team 13, Team 14, Team 15, Team 16,

Two qualify from each group and play it out on a straight knock-out basis. A UEFA Cup slot is awarded to the winning team. The law of averages says that Rangers / Celtic might be likely to make the last eight so you have a good chance of getting yet another home game against them if you draw them. As its a cup game, you may even prefer to draw them away from home as the revenue would be split.

Scottish Cup - no change

League Cup - replaced by the divisional league cup (above)

Thats 18 home games guaranteed every season with at least two league games at home Vs OF and the potential for a few more depending on the cup draws (keep the club accountants as well as the fans happy hopefully). Come the end of the season the bottom two teams in each division are relegated and the top two in the division below are promoted. If a team doesnt have the stadium criteria for their new division they are given 12 months to complete this or are automatically relegated the following season.

the third bottom team in each division plays off against the team in third place in the division below - home and away - winner takes (or keeps) the spot in the higher division.

That's very much along the same lines of my thinking, would possibly have the playoffs similar to the system used in the Campionship just because the amount of sucess they have had with it over the years but apart from that you are bang on IMO.

[+The_Sponge]

18 teams gets my vote, make it into a real league at last, then have a division 1, division 2 & North/South Conference-style feeder divisions.

[RiG]

Hardly surprising ICT have said no to the suggestion - we are now part of the Self Preservation League after all.

[Kingsmills]

I would back an 18 team top division even if it did mean more limited income.

[Harry Chibber]

Hardly surprising ICT have said no to the suggestion - we are now part of the Self Preservation League after all.

what did you vote for?

[RiG]

Other - i.e. 18 teams. but no changes will ever happen because any Non OF team in the SPL wants the games against the OF for the money. They won't give that up.

[Kingsmills]

Unfortunately so, it's a pity that ICT now seem to have adopted the same attitude as the others.

[Harry Chibber]

Other - i.e. 18 teams. but no changes will ever happen because any Non OF team in the SPL wants the games against the OF for the money. They won't give that up.

well if you voted against 10 teams and so have most the other people on this board then why is ICT's opinion one of self preservation?

They more than likely just think it is a stupid idea

[Guest Arab4Ever]

Other - i.e. 18 teams. but no changes will ever happen because any Non OF team in the SPL wants the games against the OF for the money. They won't give that up.

18 teams is too many to have in a top league surely. with that many teams there will be far too many meaningless games and the league wont be competitive enough. The old firm will still run away with the league and that will leave only 2 european spots for everyone else to fight over. i dont think a play off system for euro places involving say the teams finishing 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th would be viable because it would be a farce if the team finishing 6th got into europe ahead of the one in 3rd.

[RiG]

well if you voted against 10 teams and so have most the other people on this board then why is ICT's opinion one of self preservation?

They more than likely just think it is a stupid idea

The are trying to preserve their games with the Old Firm and relying on those games to make money for the club. They don't want the league structure to change because they will lose out on OF cash by having less games against them or they will face a scenario whereby the might be relegated and not have any games against the OF at all.

18 teams is too many to have in a top league surely. with that many teams there will be far too many meaningless games and the league wont be competitive enough. The old firm will still run away with the league and that will leave only 2 european spots for everyone else to fight over. i dont think a play off system for euro places involving say the teams finishing 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th would be viable because it would be a farce if the team finishing 6th got into europe ahead of the one in 3rd.

The Old Firm will runaway with the league regardless of its setup. I don't see how there will be any meaningless games with a larger number of teams. They will surely be more meaningful than the round of games your club is about to play over the next few weeks? At least they could go up in the table and get more prize money as opposed to knowing you are stuck in 7th and can go no higher.

[Harry Chibber]

well if you voted against 10 teams and so have most the other people on this board then why is ICT's opinion one of self preservation?

They more than likely just think it is a stupid idea

The are trying to preserve their games with the Old Firm and relying on those games to make money for the club. They don't want the league structure to change because they will lose out on OF cash by having less games against them or they will face a scenario whereby the might be relegated and not have any games against the OF at all.

The Old Firm will runaway with the league regardless of its setup. I don't see how there will be any meaningless games with a larger number of teams. They will surely be more meaningful than the round of games your club is about to play over the next few weeks? At least they could go up in the table and get more prize money as opposed to knowing you are stuck in 7th and can go no higher.

(Removes proverbial foot from mouth)

Sorry RIG just read the article in full, didn't realise ICT were against increasing the format, I thought it was just the 10 they were opposed to.  Bit disappointing to be honest, watching Scotsport last night I thought Bill Leckie made a lot of sense asking that teams look at the better option for football rather than finances. (I know crazy to think some sense would come out of Scotsport)

[ictchris]

Would the SPL this season really be that much better for having St Johnstone, Hamilton Accies, Ross County and Clyde in it?  If you increase the number of teams in the league and reduce the number of games you are simply bringing poorer sides into the league and reducing the money for teams to try and build better clubs. 

I think that the current set up is fine.

[buckett]

I'm sure ICT's reason for blocking a 10 team SPL would be more to do with the fact that we'd then be 2 places closer to relegation!

Why not keep it simple though - a 20 team SPL renamed Division 1 and the remaining teams in something called Division 2. And of course a pyramid system where relegated teams go down to a participating "non" league appropriate to their location.

Perhaps a gradual reduction of teams - 20 in each division. That would mean 38 games each season for everyone, and the fixture lists would remain true from day 1 to the last day.

2 automatic promotions/relegations and 2 from each division in playoffs.

There's probably just about 20 teams that could justify a place in the top league - don't forget that income lost from less OF games would in part be compensated by more 'local derbies' - we may occasionally share a platform with Elgin City, Ross County or Peterhead.

And can't we bin this ridiculous notion of "SPL 2" - doesn't "premier" mean first, or best? "SPL 2" just debases the term.