no-brainer
-
Posts
11 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by no-brainer
-
-
2 hours ago, Oldster said:
If they could beef up the second level a bit to give big clubs like Falkirk and Partick and Raith a better chance to stay at that level. That sounds like gerrymandering and probably is but I think maybe Airdrie and Clyde lost a lot of support from being stuck below that level. I'm hopeful that the big juniors clubs will add interest as I think they'll come through quite quickly.
I think a larger tier 2 is desirable to help big part-time clubs transition to full-time football: the additional finance from consistently playing alongside full-time clubs with their larger travelling supports should help.
I take it having more full-time clubs is desirable to the game in order to help develop youngsters.
1 -
2 hours ago, FairWeatherFan said:
The Group Stages of the League Cup and the early rounds of the Challenge Cup use midweek dates. That's the main reason for the North/South split to try and cut down on that travel for the smaller part-time teams.
While it does minimise the extremes of Elgin v. Stranraer. It has still seen the likes of Albion Rovers be classed as a North team for the Challenge Cup.
Right - part-time players have full-time jobs during the week so can't be taking a full day (and night?) off to travel the longest distances; but it's only for a couple of games anyway, rather than the full season of a regionalised league, even though it does give some really long away trips. Seems like a muddle.
Maybe they should go with three regions for the lower league and use local/district cups as qualifiers for the league cup.
0 -
Then why do the SPFL split their League Cup group stages and Challenge Cup early rounds on a north-south? There must be something in that.
Mind you, the lower level of the former Under 20s League was split east-west so that could be a contradiction (unless Elgin and Peterhead weren't involved, then it would be in line with a three-way split).
Maybe it's another of these fait accompli things, decided by the SPFL board and imposed on their members.
0 -
2 hours ago, Andy groundhopper said:
A difficult one for Scotland, is a reconstruction based on keeping the top 2 divs full time etc or does it need to go further and bring the lower level HL,LL,EOS leagues much closer to the spfl. Now that a pyramid system is in place, you can see the once Junior's upping their game re ground improvements etc. Personally I don't like the current spfl fixtures set up, maybe a North and South Division in the future to help clubs finances and reduce travel costs.
I've been of the opinion that regionalisation below the top two levels is desirable for part-time clubs' finances. My reasoning has been that, regardless of where players are drawn from, the club still has to pay the increased travel costs of the team bus travelling more longer journeys in a national League when compared with fewer shorter journeys in a regional league; also, income should be higher for clubs whose teams play more local matches, because the away support of local rivals is much larger than the away support of clubs from the other side of the country in a national set up.
Furthermore, part-time clubs only seem to compete nationally when they are subsidised by the SPFL (for League matches) or by the SFA (for Scottish Cup matches); in all other circumstances (League Cup groups, Challenge Cup early rounds, reserve matches, non-league competitions) they compete on a regional basis. I have taken this as evidence that they cannot compete nationally, consistently, without subsidy that (I assume) makes up a larger proportion of their income than that of full-time clubs, who are normally better supported, and also as an attempt to produce more local derbies in competitions where interest/crowds are low and costs would otherwise be high.
For those reasons, some degree of regionalisation at tier 3 could be desirable - even if it's a couple of conferences, divided in the same way (i.e. north-south) as the League Cup group stages, with a changing cast for each conference depending upon who (and from where) is promoted or relegated. It could an exciting change, and the improved finances resulting from the change could produce more full-time clubs to promote to the Championship.
0 -
I wonder - what are Fans' Views (as per Forum title) on what would be the fairest way to finish this season, now that the SPFL and Scottish Cup have been suspended?
For my part, since the League are within reach of every team having completed three rounds of fixtures, I think it would be fairest if they did indeed complete 3 rounds of fixtures behind closed doors up to the point where every team had played every other team three times. The titles and promotion/relegation issues could be decided at that point, rather than after 4 rounds of fixtures as normal.
I would like them to have pay-per-view, behind-closed-doors coverage of all of the final Premiership matches, any lower-league matches of interest, all play offs and the remaining Scottish Cup matches; this would, I think, allow all pay-per-view revenues (of which there would be plenty) to be divided between SPFL member clubs where they were earned for League matches and between all Scottish FA member clubs where pay-per-view revenues were earned for Scottish Cup matches.
This, it seems to me, would enable all competitions to be finished fairly, give adequate time for this to happen (televising 3-4 League rounds, and Scottish Cup rounds will take time but fewer rounds overall will create space in the fixtures diary), and all clubs with player-contracts to honour will still earn revenues from these televised matches even though there will not be punters coming through the gates.
That's the best I can do, but it seems fair.
0 -
On 11/03/2020 at 16:11, FairWeatherFan said:
The regionalised nature of the League & Challenge Cups were relatively recent additions and were done in the hopes of drumming up "derbies" in the early rounds no one cares about.
Which is surely the point, and the SPFL seem to have grasped it: derbies help to improve attendances as more away fans are local and so more of them 'travel' to away games who would not otherwise travel the longer distances in a nationalised set up.
On 11/03/2020 at 22:32, Cyclizine said:No, the group stages are relatively new and we brought in to increase the number of meaningful games, essentially pre-season. They have been successful at this, with better attendances than friendlies.
I'm not sure what you're saying about playing nationally: are you implying the only reason that clubs are playing nationally is because they get more exposure and funding in a national league? That's fairly obvious and isn't a reason to regionalise, quite the opposite.
Yet again you quote the lower costs, less travel and higher attendances, but there is no evidence this would be the case. Costs might be lower, but then so would income. Travel doesn't really change significantly and you really don't know the Scottish game if you think many lower league clubs bring a significant following to any game.
There is no argument for regionalising the current SPFL setup, other than giving some spreadsheet pyramidista a warm tingling sensation in their nether regions.
As above - yes, travel does change significantly with regionalisation, with fewer of the longest journeys and more of the shorter journeys; fans of lower league sides, believe it or not do travel to away matches, and more of them turn out for derbies than they do for matches with teams further away - therefore, yes, travel costs are reduced for clubs playing more locally, and income is increased likewise. As you would expect.
I am saying that those part-time clubs who compete nationally are happy to continue doing so because their costs are assisted by the money they receive from the SPFL; I haven't mentioned 'exposure'; I happen to agree that that, in itself, is no reason to do the opposite by regionalising; for the reasons outlined above, however, there is a financial benefit to be had by part-time clubs in the SPFL by regionalising tiers 3 and 4, should they have the gumption to realise it, or at least by operating conferences split east/west or north/south (as the SPFL are prone to do). Parallel conferences, split it this way, could easily operate fluid boundaries from season-to-season, rather than fixed regions, with the composition changing depending upon the location of promoted/relegated teams, so keeping the conferences fresh.
Leaving regionalisation to one side, operating parallel conferences of 10 at tier 3, rather than the current leagues One and Two, would give 20 part-time clubs at the start of each season the realistic goal of reaching the Championship, which would surely boost attendances and interest in that level of the game. For example, adapting the 12-12-18 proposal mentioned above into a 12-12-10/10, could see the top team in each conference automatically promoted, with the next two teams from each conference playing off (2nd in Conference A v 3rd in Conference B, and vice versa) to meet 10th place in the Championship; meanwhile, the bottom clubs of each conference could meet to decide who plays the winner of the Highland/Lowland playoff, or the loser of the conference relegation play off could just be relegated automatically to be replaced by the winner of the Highland/Lowland play off.
So, in my view, not only is there good evidence that the current part-time clubs playing nationally are subsidised in order to do so, there is also more they could do right now in order to boost their own income: at least, via the far more attractive proposition of parallel conferences that, yes, will boost their status as all 20 clubs will be in tier 3, and will be more attractive to supporters and media (a 'race to the Championship') as a result; at most, by actually regionalising using a floating boundary (e.g. North/South pools, as per League and Challenge Cup), which will further enhance their finances, as explained above.
The regionalised nature of the League & Challenge Cups were relatively recent additions and were done in the hopes of drumming up "derbies" in the early rounds no one cares about.
No, the group stages are relatively new and we brought in to increase the number of meaningful games, essentially pre-season. They have been successful at this, with better attendances than friendlies.
I'm not sure what you're saying about playing nationally: are you implying the only reason that clubs are playing nationally is because they get more exposure and funding in a national league? That's fairly obvious and isn't a reason to regionalise, quite the opposite.
Yet again you quote the lower costs, less travel and higher attendances, but there is no evidence this would be the case. Costs might be lower, but then so would income. Travel doesn't really change significantly and you really don't know the Scottish game if you think many lower league clubs bring a significant following to any game.
There is no argument for regionalising the current SPFL setup, other than giving some spreadsheet pyramidista a warm tingling sensation in their nether regions.
0 -
It's not the same stuff: it's a conversation; contribute something relevant or take your bitter-sniping elsewhere, please.
Also, isn't a tautology where something is self-evidently true/redundant, like 'a cat is an animal' - I don't think calling regional leagues 'national' is a tautology but is, rather, a contradiction.
Is it not the case that the need for regionalised League Cup and Challenge Cup early rounds and regionalised lower-level development/reserve leagues is evidence that competing on a national basis is not affordable for part-clubs without the subsidies that they receive for competing in the League and in the Scottish Cup? My guess is that regionalisation is the true outlook for part timers, but that it is obscured by the money on offer from the SPFL and Scottish FA - which is why there is no clamour from national part-timers for regionalisation with the benefits that would bring in terms of lower travelling costs, increased derbies and away attendances from local part-time outfits.
Regarding the rejection of the 12-12-18 proposal, I think it was the Ross County chairman and the (at the time) St.Mirren chairman who voted it down; only two dissenters were required in order to veto it. The Ross County chairman's reason was that season ticket holders would not know at the beginning of the season what they were paying for, given that they could be playing any of 23 other teams in the final 8-8-8 section/14 matches. That sounded a little hollow to me, given the nature of the current top tier and its split; it surprised me that they never returned to the proposal when those two clubs were out of the top division, and even now they could do so given that St.Mirren have changed their man at the top and that the SPFL were looking to expand the second tier to 12 teams fairly recently.
(A couple of pages back someone mentioned changes (s)he'd like to see to the League Cup - what changes should we make?)
-1 -
I repeat - so the West of Scotland League will really just be a glorified district league for west-central clubs. It seems a grandiose name for such a limited catchment area - given that the South of Scotland district covers Dumfries and GallowAyr (e.g. Bonnyton).
It seems odd to have a West of Scotland (i.e. Strathclyde/Greater Glasgow) district league sitting alongside a South of Scotland district league in the west area, yet in the east area the East of Scotland League covers the entirety of the Lothians, Borders, Forth Valley, Fife and (some of) Tay districts. So I'd be expecting the winners of the South and West districts to play off first, before meeting the winner of the East region, in order for the play offs to be fair.
Rationally, you'd have either a West of Scotland League encompassing all districts within that region (e.g. South, Strathclyde) and East of Scotland League covering all districts in that region as it almost is now (except for North of Tay district), OR you'd have the individual districts playing off within their overall regions for the right to play off against the top team from the other Lowland region (East v West).
I don't view an application process as by 'merit': I'm referring to promotion for amateurs and juniors via winning a league and progressing through their districts and on into the regions that way; the issue with Threave and no doubt many others is to not give them so big a jump that they guaranteed to fail without the help of some sugar daddy - from district to region to sub-/semi-national (South, to West region, to Lowland) is more manageable than from district to semi-national (South, to Lowland).
I disagree that the Lowland League is anything more than a stop-gap, and in years to come I think you'll find that it will split into Lowland West and Lowland East sections; this will probably have to happen in order to accommodate the North of Tay district, but won't do until the larger west juniors are more fully integrated into pyramid. (Also Interesting to note that Banks o' Dee were invited into the Highland League, but Golspie weren't; wondering where the North of Tay path is here, and concluding that they will end up under the Lowland East aegis).
No - there's plenty more to do in terms of providing a path for the juniors and amateurs into the pyramid, so no quite as worked through as stated above.
But credit to them for having the gumption and fortitude for progressing things this far; hopefully it goes well tomorrow.
0 -
So the West of Scotland League will really just be a glorified district league for west-central clubs?
And a club such as Threave will still face a large jump in costs from playing in the South of Scotland district league to the semi-national Lowland League. I'd prefer to see a West of Scotland League as a regional feeder, sitting between district leagues (e.g. SoSFL) and the Lowland League.
And I've always felt that the Lowland League was just a sort of place holder - so a West of Scotland League would eventually take over from the Lowland League, for the West region, once there is enough depth of licenced clubs.
Having the South of Scotland district, a West of Scotland district and an East of Scotland region all feeding into a sub-national Lowland League looks like a guddle-fankle to me; there again, the best things in life seem to evolve naturally (nights out, marriages) rather than be planned rationally, so it may work out over time.
(And I'd still like to see a route in for juniors and amateurs, on merit, but I admit that may yet be some way off.)
-6 -
Am I right in thinking that the South of Scotland League and West Juniors will fit in underneath the new/mooted tier 6 West of Scotland League?
Because I take it that the West of Scotland League will cover the entire west and south region in the same way that the tier 6+ East of Scotland League (debatably) covers the entire east region, with the Highland League covering (albeit at tier 5+) the north region?
So promotion to the Lowland League will come about through winning the West and East regional tier 6s, rather than a mishmash of South, West and East and possibly West Junior leagues all promoting into the Lowland League (since we know that the South isn't all that strong, and the juniors may deliberately not meet licencing criteria causing blockages, etc).
0
League reconstruction: Let's hear your view
in Scottish Football - Fans' Views
Posted
Pollok's website used to state that their average attendance was 500+; simultaneously, Bo'ness's (?!) website stated that they were the best-supported club in junior football; I always assumed that Clydebank would be thereabouts attendance-wise too - because they were recently seniors, but that is a non-sequitur I guess.
But how those attendances would translate to doing well or poorly when competing in a national SPFL, I don't know.
I like the long-term 'sugar daddy' approach for clubs like East Kilbride with the potential fan base to support full-time football, but not for clubs where the support could never be there to sustain their investment.
I think the home support within the attendances at Livingston must be less than half of the figure you mention, so it makes me wonder how small a club could be and still manage full-time football in the Premiership (but they'd have to make it there first).
I had thought more full-time clubs were a sign of a healthier game in Scotland, but I now think it's as you say regarding their sustainability; I also thought they were desirable in terms of developing young players - because of full-time training in order to improve their technique, with more opportunity to be picked to play matches each week when team-mates are at a slightly lower level.