HibeeJibee Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 Because the lower leagues in a England are a utopia of financial prudence and entertainment. Also expense. Tickets often pricier than here; longer distances; 46-game seasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craigkillie Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 The pathetic excuses that the SPL teams make, about not being able to afford players from the lower leagues in England, just dont cut it. If they spend the same amount of money on youth development as they do on 2nd rate foreigners, then they will probably end up with players that they could quite easily sell for a good profit. Its not rocket science, teams from the smaller European Leagues have been doing it for years. When clubs talk about not being able to compete with lower league English clubs, it is usually in terms of keeping their best players. You'd need to have been walking about with your eyes and ears shut for the last 5 or 6 years not to have noticed the number of SPL (and SFL) youth products who have been sold to English clubs which can afford to treble their wages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FBadgers Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 whats bugging me is no proposal is evermentioned without a split. Is a split a must have. 3 leagues of 16 Invite 6 non league teams in, Spartans, IrvineMeadow, Auhinleck, Kelty Haerts etc. Play each team once home and away, and make theearly rounds of each of the 3 cup comps 2 legged. That means a minimum of 17home games for spl teams, and 18 in leagues below. and very few 4 times aseason game 2 up and 2 down. playoff with 3rd bottom team, and3rd/4th/5th of league below. One or maybe 2 relegated from bottom league withsome non leagurs getting in Simple!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BerwickMad Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 Sorted that for you. You're out of touch here. Playing teams four times a season is boring and pathetic. Games like derbies are diluted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HibeeJibee Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 You're out of touch here. Playing teams four times a season is boring and pathetic. Games like derbies are diluted. With P&B popular opinion? Possibly. Thankfully the proposals retain 4x playing in tiers 1 + 2. It's unfortunate they suggest a 'big league' of 18 at tier 3, that seriously underwhelms me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
QOS Sean Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 It is a con. Sucker in the small clubs with some financial offering. No, will not happen . The bottom 18 will be starved of money and handed to the 24. Remember as things stand the 6,000 minimum still stands. As for the Scottish Cup that offers no hope as the 24 automatically enter at the last 32 stage leaving 8 places only available. The bottom league is being dumbed down to eos sos level. They want fans to follow teams in the 24. Will not work but that is the plan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
utdtillidie Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 What a couple of condescending twats Reagan and Doncaster are. Saying fans need to be educated about the new setup and we wanted more games not the less that a 14-16-18 league would give. They are literally hearing what they want to hear. Was raging listening to them on Sportsound. That gimp Gordon Smith just sounded like he was the SPL's mouth piece. He also suggested there will be one up from the 18 league because it wouldn't be fair on the lower of the 3 leagues of 8. The end is nigh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
relichtie Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 It is a con. Sucker in the small clubs with some financial offering. No, will not happen . The bottom 18 will be starved of money and handed to the 24. Remember as things stand the 6,000 minimum still stands. As for the Scottish Cup that offers no hope as the 24 automatically enter at the last 32 stage leaving 8 places only available. The bottom league is being dumbed down to eos sos level. They want fans to follow teams in the 24. Will not work but that is the plan. If this is the case, the fans will have to get motivated again and tell their respective clubs its not on. The SFL clubs told Reagan and Doncaster where to get off last summer. Time to put them straight again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpungoMcGoo Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 He also suggested there will be one up from the 18 league because it wouldn't be fair on the lower of the 3 leagues of 8. That's absolutely ridiculous. The whole concept is predicated on the idea of more movement. Every report I've seen so far has said 4 up 4 down across the board. If that's the proposal there's no way on Earth the current SFL3 will vote for it for a start. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
utdtillidie Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 It is a con. Sucker in the small clubs with some financial offering. No, will not happen . The bottom 18 will be starved of money and handed to the 24. Remember as things stand the 6,000 minimum still stands. As for the Scottish Cup that offers no hope as the 24 automatically enter at the last 32 stage leaving 8 places only available. The bottom league is being dumbed down to eos sos level. They want fans to follow teams in the 24. Will not work but that is the plan. Im not sure the 6k seater would work. At the moment, and correct me if im wrong, but there is only 22 teams in Scotland that currently have 6,000 or above and that includes Queen's Park and The Rangers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
QOS Sean Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 Im not sure the 6k seater would work. At the moment, and correct me if im wrong, but there is only 22 teams in Scotland that currently have 6,000 or above and that includes Queen's Park and The Rangers. 20 of the current top 22 plus Queens Ayr Clyde Queens Park Rangers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 He also suggested there will be one up from the 18 league because it wouldn't be fair on the lower of the 3 leagues of 8. That's not right surely? I thought there was meant to be play-offs at every stage. I do think there's a danger that the new cliff face might be between the 2nd tier and the 3rd one, rather than between the top and second as is the case just now. What's needed of course is no cliff face anywhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 20 of the current top 22 plus Queens Ayr Clyde Queens Park Rangers I'm not sure if I follow. Are you saying Queens and Ayr currently each have 6,000 seats? Apologies if I've misread your meaning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HibeeJibee Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 I do think there's a danger that the new cliff face might be between the 2nd tier and the 3rd one, rather than between the top and second as is the case just now. That's a definite risk, particularly if "the Championship" is mostly/completely full-time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gorilla Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 The OP's idea is mental. How he can think that clubs would be willing to join to form new teams, especially joining the likes o Rangers and Celtic and making one team is just crazy beyond belief. The same can be said for the rest of his amalgamations then their is the St. Johnstone one where they have somehow moved to Ayrshire that is just unbelievable. How the OP can justify their thoughts here is unknown "thinking outside the box" aye thats right but this is more off the planet thinking. What supporters and clubs would actually agree to this and the destruction of years of club history. Mind you todays proposal is a little bit strange too for me. Yes it is good to join SPL and SFL get back to having 2 governing bodies the SFA and then the League setup. The split is actually quite good 12-12-18 makes sense mind you I would have preferred 14-14-14, makes it equal. The 12-12-18 proposal is OK but the whole joining of the top two tiers and then the splitting of them is a tad confusing, Just let me see if I have this right we start the season with a top league of 12 (say current SPL sides) conference league of 12 (say SFL 1 and top 2 teams from SFL2) and everyone else in a nationwide league. So after each club in the top flight and conference has played each other twice the two leagues would sort of merge and split in to a 8-8-8 and then play each team in their mini league twice again and after all that 4 teams go down from the top flight in to the conference and then presumably the same will go down to the nationwide league. Don't see this getting of the ground but if it does it should make things a bit better mind you none of it really matters as at is providing Rangers with a faster route back to the top of Scottish football where they can get back to dominating the game along with their cohorts Celtic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
QOS Sean Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 I'm not sure if I follow. Are you saying Queens and Ayr currently each have 6,000 seats? Apologies if I've misread your meaning. It was mentioned on Radio Scotland . One of the panel said if a team won the 3rd teir they would not get promoted if they did not have 6000 capacity. Gordon Smith replied they would maybe have to look at it again. 6000 capacity is what was said but did not say 6000 seated Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 It was mentioned on Radio Scotland . One of the panel said if a team won the 3rd teir they would not get promoted if they did not have 6000 capacity. Gordon Smith replied they would maybe have to look at it again. 6000 capacity is what was said but did not say 6000 seated Right, I get you - capacity, rather than seats. It tends to confirm my worry though that the drawbridge is again being pulled up, just in a different place. Stadium criteria has the potential to confine lots of clubs to the bottom tier perennially. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vikingTON Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 Sorted that for you. What does the size of country have to do with how many times teams should play each other a season? I'll answer it for you: nothing. The idea that Scotland is too small to support two national leagues of, say, 18 teams, when it already supports four national leagues totaling 42 teams is ludicrous nonsense, as usual, from yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vikingTON Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 You're out of touch here. Playing teams four times a season is boring and pathetic. Games like derbies are diluted. HJ isn't "out of touch" though: HJ deliberately poisons the well of the debate by setting false boundaries in which some plans are 'reasonable' and others are not. That these boundaries match what he considers to be best practice is obviously not a coincidence. If HJ were peddling mental ideas like restoring fully sectional (as opposed to regionalising) League Cup matches then that'd at least be an honest, misguided approach. Instead we have tinkering at the sidelines of the game dressed up as some form of empirical exercise to create the perfect system, based on a ludicrous argument that certain sizes of countries should have a certain size of league, a certain schedule, a certain number of times playing each other, based on 'precedent' from entirely irrelevant leagues in other parts of Europe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheHoodedClaw Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 When the so called split arrives, at whatever date, what if a ceretain club is three games behind everyone else because of weather postponements or whatever, would they be forced to play three games in a week, or even four to make the date ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.