EdTheDuck Posted February 10, 2013 Share Posted February 10, 2013 Theres a distinct possibilty that will happen anyway regardless of whether this proposal goes ahead or not. I am extremely suspicious about the obscene rush to bring this in for the end of next season. Ditto I do not believe for a second that the apparent various financial, voting and governing body concessions are as a result of a sudden bout of SPL altruism Summat's up... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craigkillie Posted February 10, 2013 Share Posted February 10, 2013 The suggestion is that the speed of the reconstruction is because the clubs feel they will be able to secure a better pooled sponsorship deal if the merger goes through - presumably because of the presence of Rangers in the lower leagues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HibeeJibee Posted February 10, 2013 Share Posted February 10, 2013 Albeit surely there could be an administrative merger (and thus 1 'product' selling) without the divisional reordering needing to happen in 3 months time? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
relichtie Posted February 11, 2013 Share Posted February 11, 2013 The suggestion is that the speed of the reconstruction is because the clubs feel they will be able to secure a better pooled sponsorship deal if the merger goes through - presumably because of the presence of Rangers in the lower leagues. If the proposal is so good it would stand up to scrutiny. The fact is that trying to rush this through immediately arouses suspicion that there are flaws. The leaders of the various associations dont exactly inspire confidence that they are acting in the best interest of all of the clubs either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apache Don Posted February 11, 2013 Share Posted February 11, 2013 Theres a distinct possibilty that will happen anyway regardless of whether this proposal goes ahead or not. I am extremely suspicious about the obscene rush to bring this in for the end of next season. If it's delayed a season, next season's SFL3 in it's entirety, would be completely meaningless from first game to last. Whereas 'rushed' through for next season, only the last ten or so matchdays will have no meaning. It could in fact be argued it's already mostly meaningless, as The Rangers have already won it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HibeeJibee Posted February 11, 2013 Share Posted February 11, 2013 If it's delayed a season, next season's SFL3 in it's entirety, would be completely meaningless from first game to last. Whereas 'rushed' through for next season, only the last ten or so matchdays will have no meaning. It could in fact be argued it's already mostly meaningless, as The Rangers have already won it. Not necessarily. Only if: [1] no 1994-style 'special' play-off or promotion slot [2] it's 12-12-18 not 12-12-10-10 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apache Don Posted February 11, 2013 Share Posted February 11, 2013 Not necessarily. Only if: [1] no 1994-style 'special' play-off or promotion slot [2] it's 12-12-18 not 12-12-10-10 [1] Not an option, as according to all the ruling baddies (whoops, bodies), 'reconstruction will not be used as a tool to speed up Rangers' accession to the top flight.' 2) I was assuming we were talking about 12-12-18, as according to said ruling bodies, it's that or no change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HibeeJibee Posted February 11, 2013 Share Posted February 11, 2013 I meant a 1994-style 'special' play-off or promotion slot next season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EdTheDuck Posted February 11, 2013 Share Posted February 11, 2013 [1] Not an option, as according to all the ruling baddies (whoops, bodies), 'reconstruction will not be used as a tool to speed up Rangers' accession to the top flight.' 2) I was assuming we were talking about 12-12-18, as according to said ruling bodies, it's that or no change. The 12-12 (8-8-8 ) is non-negotiable (apparently) - however, when the SFL suggested 12-12-10-10 the SPL were extremely indifferent supportive ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazil85 Posted February 11, 2013 Share Posted February 11, 2013 I don't get the sponsorship angle? 'So you guys have voted in an extremely unpopular league structure against the majority of fans wishes, fans were crying out for a bigger league which would have reengaged fans and caused a stir in all of Scottish football. You ignored this. You picked a failed league structure that everyone knows has failed twice in two attempts in 25 years....... Ye sure we'll take over from Clydesdale bank and put our name against this pishy format that no one wants, that will get us more business!' What idiot would put his business to this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mushroom Posted February 12, 2013 Share Posted February 12, 2013 [1] Not an option, as according to all the ruling baddies (whoops, bodies), 'reconstruction will not be used as a tool to speed up Rangers' accession to the top flight.' 2) I was assuming we were talking about 12-12-18, as according to said ruling bodies, it's that or no change. [1] Rangers will be in SFL2 by then. [2] I think they're open to 12-12-10-10, which is a shame, Playing each other 4x a season is ludicrous at PT level. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpoonTon Posted February 12, 2013 Share Posted February 12, 2013 How much money is going to be trickling down, do we know? I would suggest the First Division isnt exactly going to be the land of milk and honey some people are making out. The fact that the SPL clubs had to be handed a sweetener that included a possibility of avoiding relegation even after finishing bottom of the league speaks for itself. This is the first point that struck me when I heard of the proposal, the possibility of no promotion or relegation. I believe this to be the biggest problem, of many, thrown up by this proposal. The financial incentive for first division clubs is significant. An extra £419k for 2nd tier (first stage) winner, currently £100k for first division winner, is a huge improvement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLip69 Posted February 12, 2013 Share Posted February 12, 2013 The financial incentive for first division clubs is significant. An extra £419k for 2nd tier (first stage) winner, currently £100k for first division winner, is a huge improvement. So the money is bribery for taking away the automatic promotion place? Sounds about right, it's not about the glory anymore it's about the balance sheet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpoonTon Posted February 12, 2013 Share Posted February 12, 2013 So the money is bribery for taking away the automatic promotion place? Sounds about right, it's not about the glory anymore it's about the balance sheet. I would prefer 2 leagues of 12 with the current SPL-type split. But I also think that the 8-8-8 split provides a (slightly) better opportunity for promotion that the current set-up. The point is that there are good things on the bargaining table - fairer financial distribution, relaxing of stadium rules, merging SPL and SFL into one body etc. We should not pass up this opportunity (providing that the voting system isn't too unfairly balanced). Any further reconstruction from this point on becomes easier, and if we strengthen the 2nd tier clubs, the options also become greater. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burnie_man Posted February 12, 2013 Share Posted February 12, 2013 http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/opinion/league-reform-why-bigger-is-better-for-all-our-teams.1360655944 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted February 12, 2013 Share Posted February 12, 2013 So the money is bribery for taking away the automatic promotion place? . And replacing it with up to four - I'll take it. This conviction you have that there'll be less movement between the top two divisions as a result of this new system, strikes me as thoroughly bizarre. I'm willing to bet that there'll be more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burnie_man Posted February 12, 2013 Share Posted February 12, 2013 And replacing it with up to four - I'll take it. This conviction you have that there'll be less movement between the top two divisions as a result of this new system, strikes me as thoroughly bizarre. I'm willing to bet that there'll be more. I'm willing to believe that there is more chance of no clubs being promoted than four. Look at Dundee gubbing Morton recently, it doesn't bode well, and that is why the system is fatally flawed (amongst other flaws). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HibeeJibee Posted February 12, 2013 Share Posted February 12, 2013 http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/opinion/league-reform-why-bigger-is-better-for-all-our-teams.1360655944 He begins the article by saying the issue should be taken out of SPL and SFL hands, and adjudicated by the SFA. This seems to rather miss the point that the SFA's own review called for 10-10...?!?! EdtheDuck on here has myth-busted this "big leagues make people challenge the OF" things before. Yet whoever wrote this article says that "by simple mathematics, you could assume that the gap between top and the rest would be halved". He could assume - wrongly. He also makes statements like "all the best leagues play each other two times". What he actually means, of course, is that all the big leagues of big countries play each other two times. This proves nothing. The remainder is concerned with justifying "less pressure"... in otherwords, meaningless games and some clubs seasons being finished long before the end approaches... which doesn't make sense from a competitive or financial point of view. It probably doesn't from a development point of view either - again, SFA's review called for 'best v best', and I don't think Hibs would've developed better players in recent years with less money and fewer testing encounters against teams of greater quality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLip69 Posted February 12, 2013 Share Posted February 12, 2013 And replacing it with up to four - I'll take it. This conviction you have that there'll be less movement between the top two divisions as a result of this new system, strikes me as thoroughly bizarre. I'm willing to bet that there'll be more. I would be wary of taking your bet if it was a straight knockout tournament, its not its over 14 games. I cant see any but the strongest teams coming through that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted February 12, 2013 Share Posted February 12, 2013 I would be wary of taking your bet if it was a straight knockout tournament, its not its over 14 games. I cant see any but the strongest teams coming through that. I think the idea of who's strongest will be less clear-cut with better distribution of income. I'd be amazed if all 4 lower tier seides get up in any given year, but I'd be almost as surprised if all 4 stayed down. Over say five years, I'd be pretty sure that more than five 2nd tier sides would get up - the number who'd currently manage it. I simply don't see less movement via this proposed system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.