SecretCEO

I would begin to think about closing the EoSFL to new applications from clubs now. The focus should be shifting to linking up with amateur leagues below, as feeders to the EoS in order to complete the pyramid fully.

In terms of the boundary between the new tier 6 divisions, the original spirit and agreement of the pyramid as described by Stewart Regan was to have a floating boundary between the HL and LL, so it could be flexible at lower levels too. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.scotsman.com/sport/football/league-reconstruction-regan-optimistic-yes-vote-1571608%3famp

Yes, I agree with your interpretation of those events. If the representatives of St. Mirren and if Ross County could have seen the bigger picture that day, then they would have been on the same side as the representative of Aberdeen, and we now would have a different voting structure for certain key votes. They chose to base their decision on the new league structure as proposed at that time, which was of course their prerogative, but which would have been much more open to any future change had they agreed to the change in voting structure at that time. The BBC article seems to me to reflect the details well. A 10-2 voting system would certainly be unconventional, yet it would give some balance back towards the rest. But colts or B teams shouldn't really be in the pyramid: I don't think I could support your proposed trade-off.

I can't see what's in it for the L2 teams, they will end up losing 3 home games for a start. They are less likely to be relegated when there are more teams in their division yet the same pyramid playoffs remain in place. And you would have to think that at least one of the six new sides in the division would be worse than what's already there. Dangerous proposal.

I think you may be right. It's what I feared, and is why I was suggesting, effectively, League 2 clubs offer to play against a non-pyramid division of elite colts, as part of their regular season. Just saying "no" isn't enough to deter these people, but a counter-proposal that answers their arguments may do.

Bottom national senior tier - you are quite right. I was thinking if it as a Conference of 16, below the Championship, below the Premiership. 38 games, I make it, since every colt team would only face every senior team once (so just 8 senior-colt games per senior Conference side, plus 30 senior-senior games within the Conference each). Anyhow, overtaken by events it seems...

An idea for you to tear down or ignore. Because this colts question looks like it will be asked ad infinitum, ad nauseum. Take the initiative, and offer to play the elite colts teams each season in points-earning matches. But where the colts stay strictly within their own non-pyramid divisions. So you might have a sixteen team bottom senior tier, playing every side in their division x2, and playing each of eight elite colts teams x1. The senior-senior matches would be at weekends, the senior-colts matches across 16 midweeks. The elite colts would also play one another x2, and have their own relegation, promotion, etc. So the seniors would earn points towards their own league by taking a result against the elite colts, and vice versa. It might give youngsters the experience and player development that those pushing the colts idea are looking for, but without damaging the senior leagues since no colt teams would actually be in the pyramid.

That's right, mate. Sorry for the confusion.

They would earn points for the games against development sides

Thanks - sixteen midweek fixture dates seems to make sense. It should keep the within-league games that supporters are more interested in scheduled on weekends. A Development League as a third side to the pyramid is interesting. I would worry about a youth team actually being promoted to the SPFL, although perhaps it isn't likely because the pyramid play offs would be of a high enough standard to prevent it. It would be good, in that context, to give the best youth teams something real to aim towards and that motivation could spur their development. Perhaps a Development League could encompass the youth, or combined academy, teams down through to the Lowland League and beyond, linking up the divisions initially and then leaving it to run. It would be good to give sixteen to nineteen year olds who aren't quite developed enough for first team football genuinely competitive divisions to play in, with promotion and relegation issues to drive their engagement.

What about if our bottom senior national division had sixteen teams, playing every opponent twice. And if we had a non-pyramid top development league of eight teams, playing every opponent twice. Then we asked those seniors to play each youth team once as part of their points-earning regular season. These could be eight midweek games across their season, giving the seniors a 38 game season each. The top development teams would therefore have sixteen games each per season against senior pros, and a thirty game season each in total. There could be a second level of development teams who would aim for promotion to that elite level. Unless perhaps the Lowland League would want to participate in something similar. That's a bit sketchy, so maybe fits with all the changes to the league's attempts at player development and the changing faces at our national association's equivalent. It always seemed like there were good intentions, yet I could never see the final step in their development programmes. For me, it would be a mandatory quota of two or three Scots teens in first teams. Maybe supported by a seniors v youths pathway, as described above, which doesn't compromise the integrity of the pyramid.

I'm trying to think of a way to outflank the idea that colts teams in the league will lead to better players for the Scotland national team. The present situation doesn't provide too much assistance with this task. I wondered if there was a way to have colts teams playing competitively against first teams on a regular basis - without them being part of the pyramid. It would have to be some sort of a parallel league, but I can't figure it. The best possibility for player development that I could think of was to have a mandatory quota of teens in matchday first teams. Hardly original, but it may give youths the required game time at a higher level than colt teams could ever provide.

@Thistle Scotland Europe I enjoyed reading that. Some well argued ideas. Liked the Atlantic League Cup, with possibility of African teams being involved: you'll be interesting Mr Doncaster with that one. Shorter Premier season and more clubs involved; League One North and South. All interesting. Colts aren't for me, but I admire your patriotism in that context. Cheers.

I think your Premiership could take on a bit more of Darren's play off suggestion, in terms of the final European place. If you think about it, fifth in the Premiership does have quite a good chance of qualifying for Europe directly when one of the top four wins the Scottish Cup. So why not have sixth, seventh, eighth involved in those play offs? Rather than having fifth qualifying directly and other teams facing meaningless games. The way you've described it, the middle eight would only be playing one another one more time after the split, so single leg play off games to qualify for Europe wouldn't see them playing one another any more than four times in the league season.

A 14 team Premiership, 36 games for every team - 8/6 split after 26 games each: Top 8 - play every team once more, to reach 33 games each - then a 4/4 split - 1st-4thplay against one another for a fourth time; 5th-8th play one another for a fourth time: 36 game season per team - 5th either qualifies for Europe directly, or plays off against 4th, for the final European place depending upon who wins the Scottish Cup; Bottom 6 - play every team twice more, for 10 more games and a 36 game season each - an additional automatic relegation place to keep things exciting, and to give more clubs a chance at coming up every year (and so relegation is less of a blow).

Certainly - we're talking about expansion to 44 clubs, so the distribution of prize money would need looked at anyway. I happen to think an 8/6 split at the second level would generate its own interest and so money would follow, therefore it wouldn't necessarily be a case of dividing up the same pie into thinner slices.

But an 8/6 split all-but guarantees 20 home games against full timers for those in the top 8, which is better financially for those serious about promotion and about staying in the Premier when they are promoted than either your suggestion or the present Championship. The bottom 6, while being exciting in terms of 3 of those teams being involved in relegation issues, could be seen as a sort of intermediate step/mini league for part timers wishing to progress.

They won't, that's true. Sorry I if offended you mate.

You've contradicted yourself on the number of clubs again... What you're missing, though, is that a split gives as competitive games as playoffs do - and enables a variety of sizes of league. For a top 18 you'd need to find a way to have Celtic v Rangers four times without a title decider where everyone goes crazy. I don't know if the top 4 after 34 games could then go on and play again at home and away, with a carefully curated fixtures list to avoid any trouble. With there being a 5th Euro place now, there might be scope for additional playoffs from 5th downwards. The middle division of 10 in your suggestion could be rollicking. Maybe 1st and 2nd to be promoted automatically, with 3rd playing off against 16th from the Premier. And 9th, 10th relegated automatically, with 1st and 2nd coming up automatically from L1, playoffs between 7th in Championship and 3rd-5th of L1. No worries about a stale fixtures list in that division!

Your first suggestion was for a 46 team SPFL! Fine then - stick with 12 at the top as it's easier than wholesale change for now. Focus on reforming the other divisions into a 14 team Championship and 18 team L1 to give the benefits already mentioned. Only requires an increase to 44 clubs.

By gradual increase you mean promoting more teams into the SPFL year-on-year, or do you mean an SPFL with a 10 team Premier, 14 team Championship, 18 team League One? I like your reasoning for having 14 teams at the second level, but I agree with the poster who said you can't really have so many relegated automatically from a Premier of only 10 teams. I would have a 14 team top level, split at 26 games into a top 6 / bottom 8, playing every team in their section again twice (36 game season for every top 6 team, 40 games for bottom 8 teams). Relegate 13th, 14th of Premier automatically, with 12th going into playoffs against 3rd, 4th, 5th of a 14 team Championship. Championship would do the opposite with the split - top 8 after 26 games play again twice for a 40 game season, bottom 6 do likewise for a 36 game season. That way I think you create a fluid situation between the bottom 8 Premier / top 8 Championship that keeps both of them interesting after the split, and where full time teams are well supported financially in terms of playing against other full timers 4 times a season with big opportunities for promotion. 13th, 14th in Championship relegated automatically, 12th go into playoffs with 3rd, 4th, 5th in an 18 team League One. Bottom 2 of L1 automatically relegated, 3rd bottom goes into 5 team play off with Highland and Lowland 2nd and 3rd place teams, winners of Highland and Lowland promoted automatically.

I have been reading about the most recent proposal to revamp the Champions League, and I can see it being a better option than an Atlantic league if they tweak it a little. I'd make it a permanent pre-Christmas Champions League of 36 teams, with a separate post-Christmas Champions Cup of 16 teams. For the permanent Champions League, split the 36 teams into 4 divisions of 9 - for the inaugural season, the top division would be composed of those 9 clubs with the highest coefficient at that time, the second division would be composed of the next 9 clubs with the next highest coefficient, and so on. Subsequent seasons would see promotion and relegation between these teams/divisions as per a normal league - a defacto European Super League, but... ...whilst each season, 2 teams could be promoted and relegated between each of the divisions, with the bottom 2 teams relegated out of the fourth division every year... ...any Champions League/Super League team that fails to finish within the top places of their domestic league (e.g. within the top 4 places for England, Spain, etc - as per usual requirements for their European qualification) would then they drop out of the Champions League/Super League altogether for the following season, and the remaining Champions League teams would move up a place accordingly. In this way, performing well in domestic leagues remains vital to clubs who aim for European success. Teams play one another within their division just once, either at home or away. That gives 4 home games each against teams of a similar level, and so is fair. For the post-Christmas Champions Cup, the top 4 teams of each of the four Champions League divisions qualify. They can be seeded, and play home and away within each tie, as usual, through to a one-off showpiece final. Thus, each season there will be winners of a highly competitive Champions League, winners of a Champions Cup, divisional winners within the Champions League lower divisions, battles for promotion, battles for Champions Cup qualification, and battles to avoid relegation out of the Champions League altogether. Qualification to access the lowest Champions League division would be for teams whose country didn't have their full coefficient-allocation of teams already in the Champions League, so England couldn't have a fifth club in there, Scotland couldn't have a third, etc unless their country-coefficient merited it. But there could be many places available in that fourth division each season if, for example, Atletico and Liverpool and others failed to finish in their respective domestic top 4 "Champions League" places - i.e. they would drop out of the permanent Champions League altogether if they failed to defend their right to be there by having a poor domestic season. I can see why bigger clubs want to play one another more often, just like the better countries did before the Nations League was conceived of, but I wouldn't like to see domestic competition diminished by a European Superduperleague. I'm assuming that at least one of the Old Firm would manage to be near-permanent participants in a 36-team European league such as this, and so an Atlantic league wouldn't be attractive to them any longer.

I wonder if the term 'depression' really captures the illness: my experience of it is a feeling of disconnectedness or numbness first, feeling down second. I had a really bad time with it for a few years, found myself over-thinking all the small things and raking over my past, yet not really being in the present at all, and seeing no future. A psychologist told me that I should try to think about my life more objectively rather than subjectively scrutinising things - but the odd thing about (only my?) depression was that I couldn't really think subjectively in terms of just being in the moment/mindful of what I was doing, because I was continually in this sort of detached objective mindset of distracted thinking. I've managed to subdue it over the years by using routine, outdoor exercise, no caffeine and being t-total to iron out my mood swings, and by finding things I am interested in to occupy my mind. I don't want to have a conversation about it because it still scares me how low the self-analysis can take me, but I hope anyone who has depression holds on and takes the wee steps they need towards a life that suits their needs. Sorry for diving into your thread.

23's a decent score. I was stuck on 22 as my best for a long time but I'm down to 20 now, with a huge cascade after my 19th chosen number and then only about 8-10 empty squares remaining before I made my 20th choice of number. So I think it's possible to finish the whole grid by adding just 19 numbers, but it'd need to be about perfect in terms of your number selection. Unlike you, I hadn't paid much attention to how many deduced numbers result from each specific chosen number's cascade - so that's another direction you've taken the game in already. I just find it a relaxing way to fill in a spare half hour between whatever else I'm doing. Okay. Enough from me on this Thanks all.

Exactly. The reason I tried it in the first instance was because I'd run out of sudoku puzzles, so thought I'd see if I could generate my own. I find it much more entertaining to look at where the number I choose to input would have the biggest impact/cause the greatest cascade of numbers to fall into place than I do completing the traditional game as set by someone else. I'm assuming you're right and there's an algorithm for it, but I wonder if it's something with a deceptively high number of possibilities - like the grains of rice on chessboard squares problem. Anyhow, the numbers along the top, 1-9, outside the grid are just me keeping track of the second 1-9 to stop me adding in too many 2s or 5s, etc initially; the number outside the grid to the top left corner is the number of clues or leads that the initial 18 numbers generate - which I like to think shows the potential of a given initial set of 18. I don't think there's money to be made from it, just open source is fine by me and thought I'd share it with anyone interested.