FUM Posted January 6, 2011 Share Posted January 6, 2011 Sky/ESPN won't pay as much for a bigger league. Imagine trying to explain to them that we are cutting the Old Firm down to two a season instead of four. The reply would be that they're cutting our money. Less TV money to be shared by more teams, it makes no financial sense to have a bigger league. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cum Doctor Posted January 6, 2011 Author Share Posted January 6, 2011 The 18 team league suggestion is hilarious. I have to ask again, how exactly does it help anyone? More meaningless games? Less games over the season meaning less gate money to go on top of the more meaningless games? For a start, the chairmen wouldn't accept it and quite rightly so, so it would never go through. Plus as suggested, TV money would become an even bigger issue than it already is. Â Cutting it down to a 10 team league would be fine if you ask me. As for teams becoming part time, that's surely up to the teams themselves, no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gary v1 Posted January 6, 2011 Share Posted January 6, 2011 How can you know 4 teams voted against it when the vote isn't until January 17? Dundee United are the only club to have released a statement to say they'll be voting against it.  Good point. Just sources within the clubs saying they'll oppose it then. http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/s...rem/9339466.stm  Hopefully they do. As has been said the 18 club idea is unworkable. Dilutes the league and reduces the big money games to 2 a season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Ron Simmons Posted January 6, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted January 6, 2011 Some "outside the box" thinking needs to be done to rejuvinate Scottish football. Â Bit of a bizarre proposal that may be absolutely detested, but how about something along the lines of the following? Â A 24 team "premier division" that is split into four groups. The construction of these groups is via seeding, initially decided by performances in the league/cups up till this date. Â Each team in these 6 team groups plays eachother twice, and the top two teams in each group go on to play in a "Knockout" phase to eventually decide who the winner of the league is. This could open up the league a bit more, and also create a unique format that people might have an interest in. Â The bottom placed teams in each group also play eachother, with two being relegated. Â There is one "lower division" of 18 teams, and underneath this there is a regional league system, so that teams are always only one league away from the premier division, and in theory one could set up a team and bring them to the top. Â This would make the prospect of joining Scotland's main league more appealing to junior clubs. Â OK, the proposal is maybe a little out there, but what the hell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patiirc Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 Sky/ESPN won't pay as much for a bigger league. Imagine trying to explain to them that we are cutting the Old Firm down to two a season instead of four. The reply would be that they're cutting our money. Less TV money to be shared by more teams, it makes no financial sense to have a bigger league.  Have they said as much? Or is this an 'educated scaremongering superunknown guess?' Scotland has already had problems with a number of TV deals not going the way they should and the league having to bail teams out. including the pulling out of the sky deal c 2002 because they wanted more money and falling flat on their arse.  There is an agenda for change and instead of doing something meaningful with it, they are going backwards or at least proposing to do something 'safe'. Going back to ten, marginalises the other clubs and makes the whole thing more parochial and irrelevant and will kill eventually the clubs outside the top flight, but 'Hey, I'am alright Jack, cos I'am already there' is the way forward isnt it  Old Firm down to two, with a maximum of four games per season with cups would surely make the whole thing more appealing, much in the way that people argue that WWE should trim some PPV's because of overkill. It could make things really special again and give the game a kick up the arse.   The 18 team league suggestion is hilarious. I have to ask again, how exactly does it help anyone? More meaningless games? Less games over the season meaning less gate money to go on top of the more meaningless games? For a start, the chairmen wouldn't accept it and quite rightly so, so it would never go through. Plus as suggested, TV money would become an even bigger issue than it already is. Cutting it down to a 10 team league would be fine if you ask me. As for teams becoming part time, that's surely up to the teams themselves, no?  Scottish football has only been 3 and then 4 league for a relatively short time (changed from 2 leagues of 18 from 1975), its clear that the smaller league model isnt working as well as it should as the lowere leagues are starting to be cut adrift from the rest, making football there a very different beast. The league have perenially fucked about with the format since then and none of it could be considered to have truly worked or else they wouldnt be considering changing it again a decade after the last erm 'problem solver'  18 teams is beneficial for the whole league, you have 2 games with each team per season a wider variety of games, less chance of boredom, more options for tv games per season than just the Old Firm and 'higher profile games'x4 way to spread the wealth/ which could lead to increased exposure world wide..  With more teams in the top league the standard of football will have to increase overall to keep up with those already there and not just make up the numbers, this would help the standard of Scottish football to improve, especially if ' other teams were to start making it to Europe on a regular basis as there could be arguments on a league that big for another European place even if its only a Europa League qualifying berth. Scotland is currently 15th in the Uefa coefficient) It's not surprising and cant be unrelated to the fucking about with the league format that no truly world class players have come out of Scotland since the 1970's  But yeah, it's hilarious isnt it? I'm still loving all these TV money would be shafted arguments. I already mentioned the 2002 Sky thing above and then there was the Setanta debacle and taking a deal worth significantly less because of the' headless chicken must take any TV deal offered' syndrome. Thus far the SPL has cost the league about Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sgmilne Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 I like the idea that Gordon Smith raised. Â 2 leagues of 12 that split into 3 leagues of 8. A Championship group (allowing for 4 Old Firm games and - form allowing - 4 Edinburgh Derbies) a playoff group (where the bottom 4 of the top league face the top 4 of the second league) and a relegation group. Â A 36 game season. Â That allows for exciting games with something to play for at two seperate points of the season. Â Yes it's complicated, but it's more exciting than a 10 team league. Â I understand where Neil Doncaster is coming from, but you have to listen to the paying customer first and foremost. If the people who actually buy the tickets are saying 'No, we dont want that' then that is hugely significant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 Why bother with all this "2 leagues of 12 that split into 3 leagues of 8" pish? Â Just keep the 12 team set-up, do away with the stupid top 6 split and add a play-off for the team who comes 11th in the SPL and the team who finish 2nd in Division 1. Â We could also do away with Scottish cup replays, and throw in a winter shutdown. Â Summer football is the way ahead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sgmilne Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 Why bother with all this "2 leagues of 12 that split into 3 leagues of 8" pish? Just keep the 12 team set-up, do away with the stupid top 6 split and add a play-off for the team who comes 11th in the SPL and the team who finish 2nd in Division 1.  We could also do away with Scottish cup replays, and throw in a winter shutdown.  Summer football is the way ahead.  Because that would make it a 44 game season, which is considered too many games by most, it wouldn't be any more exciting for fans or broadcasters, and there would still be financial oblivion for those relegated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 Well, drop it to 10 instead of 12 then. Â I'm sold. Get the 10 team league up & running! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daaaaaad! Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 FYI, they're actually not allowed by UEFA rules to do four games against every team within the 12 team set up. That's why the split happens - UEFA recognise it as a playoff system (of sort) and therefore the league is allowed to continue. It's not some mental idea set up by the SPL just for the LOLs, it's actually necessary for the league to have more than just three of each fixture per season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 My own personal opinion is that we won't get a more exciting league as long as we play each other four times a year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members martyngnr Posted January 7, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted January 7, 2011 Rangers have a bid for David Goodwillie rejected....  BBC Clicky  Dundee United have rejected a bid from Rangers for their striker David Goodwillie, BBC Scotland has learned. The Ibrox club are believed to have made a verbal offer for the player, who has scored 11 goals this season.  However, the figure Rangers have offered is believed to be around half of United's Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daaaaaad! Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 BBC Scotland 'has learned'? We have no money. How could we be bidding for Goodwillie? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 I heard that Rangers were signing Cammy Bell from Kilmarnock, which may signal their intention to offload Alan McGregor? I suppose that would give them some money to try and sign Goodwillie. Â Celtic have managed to sign 17 year old Tony Watt from Airdrie, who Rangers were apparently chasing as well. Â One for the future of course... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members unfitfinlay Posted January 7, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted January 7, 2011 Sky/ESPN won't pay as much for a bigger league. Imagine trying to explain to them that we are cutting the Old Firm down to two a season instead of four. The reply would be that they're cutting our money. Less TV money to be shared by more teams, it makes no financial sense to have a bigger league.  Have they said as much? Or is this an 'educated scaremongering superunknown guess?' Scotland has already had problems with a number of TV deals not going the way they should and the league having to bail teams out. including the pulling out of the sky deal c 2002 because they wanted more money and falling flat on their arse.  It's common sense. Sky are a business. If the SPL suddenly decides to half the amount of "big games" then why would they continue to pay the same amount to show them? That would be mental.  Yes, the SPL has already had problems with TV deals and some teams are still feeling the effects of the Setanta falling apart even now. Dundee United make a profit of around 50 grand last year, despite finishing third and winning the Scottish Cup. How many teams do you honestly think would survive if Sky cut the TV money even further?  There is an agenda for change and instead of doing something meaningful with it, they are going backwards or at least proposing to do something 'safe'. Going back to ten, marginalises the other clubs and makes the whole thing more parochial and irrelevant and will kill eventually the clubs outside the top flight, but 'Hey, I'am alright Jack, cos I'am already there' is the way forward isnt it  From what they've said, part of the plan is to strengthen the teams in the First Division by introducing Play Offs up the way and, I'm assuming, giving relegated teams parachute payments on the way down. It makes sense. What's the point of extending the SPL if the teams you bring up are still shit?  I don't think this proposal is a great long term solution but it DOES address the two biggest problems we have currently: Teams going into administration and our falling coefficiant. Once we get those things under control then we can worry about the league being too boring etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.