SPFL 16-16-10

[HibeeJibee]

Under McNamara's proposal, their 7 meetings with Celtic would have been replaced by a much better... wait for it... 6. Wow.

Away fans are not the major contributory factor with crowds. But regardless, it's clear Tanadice would have bigger home and away turnouts for those 2nd meetings - "boring" or not - than those new smaller teams instead.

[jamamafegan]

Also HJ I think your view is a bit narrow-minded. Naturally these games you've suggested would have significant differences in crowd levels. I'd put that down to the number of away fans going to the games. It's about attracting home fans as well. I'm not particularly bothered about going to Saints vs Aberdeen again if I've already seen the same fixture earlier in the season. If I know however that I'll only have one opportunity to see Saints play Aberdeen in a season I'll probably make more of an effort to get time off work to go to the game. That's just the way I see it, but I reckon other supporters are like that as well.

[HibeeJibee]

Also HJ I think your view is a bit narrow-minded.

Considering the facts isn't narrow-minded at all.

2014-15 Dundee United attendances

Dundee - 1st meeting - 12,964

Dundee - 2nd meeting - probably 12k?

Celtic - 1st meeting - 12,098

Celtic - 2nd meeting - lets say 11k?

Aberdeen - 1st meeting - 11,996

Aberdeen - 2nd meeting - lets say 10k? more?

Motherwell - 1st meeting - 8,367

Motherwell - 2nd meeting - 7,176

St Johnstone - 1st meeting - 7,161

St Johnstone - 2nd meeting - 7,623

Inverness - 1st meeting - 7,276

Ross County - 1st meeting - 7,179

Ross County - 2nd meeting - 6,187

Hamilton - 1st meeting - 7,109

Hamilton - 2nd meeting - 5,623

St Mirren - 1st meeting - 6,808

Partick - 1st meeting - 6,756

Partick - 2nd meeting - 6,517

Kilmarnock - 1st meeting - 6,664

Quite clearly those 'replacement' matches crowds generally would be lower. Not to mention having 4 or 8 fewer matches in the first place.

Their 2nd meetings will average about 8,300 which is considerably higher than their 1st meetings against smaller clubs, most of whom will carry more travelling supporters than the likes of St Mirren (3rd lowest currently), QotS, Falkirk & Raith anyway.

Of course overall crowds would need to rise 12% or 27% just to balance-out the reduction in games from 38 to 34 or 40.

In reality the effect of the measure would clearly be to reduce the average attendances at Tannadice, as well as reducing the number of home games.

[SpoonTon]

For away fans it's about the novelty of visiting a stadium. If you know that you might be visiting Tannadice for example on only one occasion during the season then you might be like "I like Tannadice, and unless we get them in the cup I'll not get the chance to go this season. I better arrange to make this game."

At the moment it's like "well, I've been to Tannadice already this season. Don't really fancy going again, so I'll probably just save my money and not go." The novelty wears off. Especially when you end up drawing these teams in the cup and, like United this season, you end up playing them a ridiculous amount of times.

I've always had sympathy for the novelty argument, but I don't think it stands up on its own. The thing is, repetition is only boring when there's little or no point to it. When Morton were fighting Partick Thistle for the title our games against them got more and more exciting as the season went on. And the crowds increased with every meeting. This is because novelty is a minor factor, but having something at stake, that's a major factor. The most important element is the competition between clubs. This also comes through local rivarly. And this is the point for me, the structure of Scottish football should always be skewed towards creating competition and rivarly, because that's where there's something at stake. Of course, we don't want to milk it to death, but playing a club four times over the course of a year is certainly fine when there's something at stake. We might play Stranraer 3 times in the next month, as it stands in the league it will be 3 times in 2 weeks that we play them. There won't be much complaints about repetition, despite the fact that'll make it 6 meetings in the season (as a side point, there is actually the potential to play the same team 10 times in a season at this level). And lets not forget that bigger leagues would take an element of novelty away from the cups, as it's less likely that you will draw a club from a different league.

But here's an essential point here, and one that can be overlooked. One of the problems in the top flight is that, with the league already won before a ball is kicked, there's much less to play for than there is in other leagues. Why extend that? Shouldn't the priority be to keep it exciting between the leagues? Ideally I quite like the idea of a top flight of 16 teams, but apart from anything else the idea seems nonsensical to me when there isn't really a league title to play for.

I do like the idea of playing a greater number of teams, but playing more times when there is more at stake. I like the idea of splitting the league after 22 games and playing an additional 10 (but that is financially very difficult at present). I also liked the idea of the 12-12/8-8-8 split, but that wasn't popular at all. As it stands I think we have just about the best compromise.

[sjc]

The only way I could ever envisage a return to a league of 18/20 with 1 home & 1 away fixture per season would be if Celtic & Rangers left Scottish football.

Even then I'd have my doubts about it happening.

[lionel hutz]

12 or 14 are the only semi-sensible options on the table. Keeps a Full-time 2nd Tier and rules out too many meaningless games.

I used to have a lot of sympathy for the 16 Split but it creates too many meaningless games

18-20, Utd, Dundee, Aberdeen, Saints, Hearts, Hibs, Celtic and Rangers wouldn't vote for it due to the loss in revenue from fewer derbies per season. Gulf in quality from top 6 compared to bottom 5 would be huge. Also leads to a part-time second tier.

10 teams, taking us back to the dark ages IMO.

[sjc]

12 or 14 are the only semi-sensible options on the table. Keeps a Full-time 2nd Tier and rules out too many meaningless games.

I used to have a lot of sympathy for the 16 Split but it creates too many meaningless games

18-20, Utd, Dundee, Aberdeen, Saints, Hearts, Hibs, Celtic and Rangers wouldn't vote for it due to the loss in revenue from fewer derbies per season. Gulf in quality from top 6 compared to bottom 5 would be huge. Also leads to a part-time second tier.

10 teams, taking us back to the dark ages IMO.

I agree. I've long advocated that 3 Divisions of 14 with a 7-7 split and play offs then a regional pyramid under that.

[Jacksgranda]

When I first started going to football it was an 18 team First Division and a 19 team Second Division with sectional league cups. Gates were split 50/50 and footballers wages weren't that big compared to the average wage. There were no live televised matches, travel wasn't so easy, and there wouldn't have been so many other attractions. Games were played at 3.00 o'clock on a Saturday and 7.30 pm on a Wednesday. That was what I grew up with, and I have a nostalgic wish that things were still the same.

You could still end up playing 3 teams 4 times because of the league cup sectional games and even 5 times if you got drawn in the Scottish Cup, and indeed 7 times when the (short lived) Summer Cup was on the go!

I suppose the fact that you had 17 opponents hid the fact that you were playing 3 teams four times, today this seems to be a major complaint, maybe because teams have so few opponents the second/third/fourth meetings come round fairly quickly.

I was never taken with 12/10 team divisions, but I cannot see things ever going back to big leagues of 16/18. Trying to ensure the majority of games kick off on a Saturday at 3 o'clock might help, there seem to matches every day of the week at the oddest times and live football on TV every day.but I think things are too far gone to return to the "traditional" ways of the 50s and 60s.

There wasn't so much coverage of English football, not to say European matches, when I was young, people would have been far more parochial and would tended to have supported their local club. The printed media, and radio, was king as regards football reporting, you would have got reports and team lines on every Scottish league match back then - and I mean proper reports, not quotes from the managers, and punny headlines.

Now youngsters are as likely to "support" Barcelona as Brechin City.

I can see football support heading the same way in Scotland as it is in Northern Ireland (apart from the big city teams probably), where there is a hard core of Irish League fans, a fairly large indifferent "I like to see Coleraine/Ballymena/Portadown win" but seldom go and a very large "wouldn't know where The Showgrounds is - I'm a Rangers/Liverpool/Manchester United supporter".

[RabidAl]

What would generate a bigger crowd for United - second visits of e.g. Celtic, Aberdeen, Dundee and St Johnstone or their replacement by e.g. St Mirren, QotS, Falkirk, Raith?

How much would McNamara's budget have to be reduced by if the number of clubs got increased by 4 or 6 simultaneously with the number of games being reduced by 8 or 4? (Not to mention the proliferation of meaningless mid-table matches for many).

Has he considered either? I suspect not.

EDIT: Also LC crowds are low enough now, without adding boring groups or as he suggests 2nd legs. (Which is also playing teams more repetitively?!).

I think that winning teams and having the opportunity of success generates the largest crowds.

I'd expect to see similarly large crowds at Dundee United in a 16-team top division because they'd probably be a team that wins more often than not: supporters will turn out in good numbers for games vs QoS or Falkirk because they're expecting to continue a winning run and pushing at the top of the table.

And they'd likely win more games and get closer to a push for the title (which generates larger crowds in itself) because they'd have to play the strongest teams less often and weaker teams more often. Also, the thought of playing Falkirk or Raith is not unattractive - they're good clubs with decent supports.

[RabidAl]

I've always had sympathy for the novelty argument, but I don't think it stands up on its own. The thing is, repetition is only boring when there's little or no point to it. When Morton were fighting Partick Thistle for the title our games against them got more and more exciting as the season went on. And the crowds increased with every meeting. This is because novelty is a minor factor, but having something at stake, that's a major factor. The most important element is the competition between clubs. This also comes through local rivarly. And this is the point for me, the structure of Scottish football should always be skewed towards creating competition and rivarly, because that's where there's something at stake. Of course, we don't want to milk it to death, but playing a club four times over the course of a year is certainly fine when there's something at stake. We might play Stranraer 3 times in the next month, as it stands in the league it will be 3 times in 2 weeks that we play them. There won't be much complaints about repetition, despite the fact that'll make it 6 meetings in the season (as a side point, there is actually the potential to play the same team 10 times in a season at this level). And lets not forget that bigger leagues would take an element of novelty away from the cups, as it's less likely that you will draw a club from a different league.

But here's an essential point here, and one that can be overlooked. One of the problems in the top flight is that, with the league already won before a ball is kicked, there's much less to play for than there is in other leagues. Why extend that? Shouldn't the priority be to keep it exciting between the leagues? Ideally I quite like the idea of a top flight of 16 teams, but apart from anything else the idea seems nonsensical to me when there isn't really a league title to play for.

I do like the idea of playing a greater number of teams, but playing more times when there is more at stake. I like the idea of splitting the league after 22 games and playing an additional 10 (but that is financially very difficult at present). I also liked the idea of the 12-12/8-8-8 split, but that wasn't popular at all. As it stands I think we have just about the best compromise.

I like your thinking ST (always a new point a view!) but don't entirely agree.

Whilst you're right that playing whoever 6 times won't generate complaints from fans if they're head-to-head for promotion - it's exciting to see that - I don't think that all clubs should be subjected to playing each other 4 times when they aren't directly competing for something.

So if you had, for example, a 16-team top tier* with an 8-8 split, you'd have teams of varying quality and aspiration playing each-other just twice, with the mini-leagues of 8 giving that more meaningful head-to-head excitement that you're talking about. Add to that play-offs for the last place in Europe that would put 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th head-to-head and you get your 4 meaningful matches against your direct rivals each season. And only 2 matches against those who aren't your rivals in any way.

(*30 games, plus 7 post-split; 1st-4th and 9th-12th after 30 matches earning the additional post-split home game)

[Sergeant Wilson]

Scottish football doesn't have excitement. It has tension brought about by the fiancial impact of failure.

[ShawfieldAggro]

I like your thinking ST (always a new point a view!) but don't entirely agree.

Whilst you're right that playing whoever 6 times won't generate complaints from fans if they're head-to-head for promotion - it's exciting to see that - I don't think that all clubs should be subjected to playing each other 4 times when they aren't directly competing for something.

So if you had, for example, a 16-team top tier* with an 8-8 split, you'd have teams of varying quality and aspiration playing each-other just twice, with the mini-leagues of 8 giving that more meaningful head-to-head excitement that you're talking about. Add to that play-offs for the last place in Europe that would put 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th head-to-head and you get your 4 meaningful matches against your direct rivals each season. And only 2 matches against those who aren't your rivals in any way.

(*30 games, plus 7 post-split; 1st-4th and 9th-12th after 30 matches earning the additional post-split home game)

Your argument smacks of the panic that ensues around the arranging of the current post-split fixtures when the pesky small clubs edge out the favourites for a top six (or in your case top eight) place. That said, in a perverse way, i see bit of light in your thinking. It doesnt really apply to Scotland at the minute, but i've often thought that in bigger-leagues, the top six from the previous year should open and close the season v each other in the opening and closing five weeks. This may provide the direct competition you point out whilst keeping the door open for clubs outwith this to join them. Mathematically it would be fairly straightforward to apply here, and hopefully carry further aspirations for clubs who get promoted.

[TheLip69]

I preffered it when you knew who you'd be playing on the last day of the season before the first day of the season.

The split leaves too much room for manoeuvre. Run ins can be manipulated and certain teams can get favourable draws while others won't. It is absolutely shameful that Kilmarnock cannot be given a home match on the 50th anniversary of their league title win. I've never been a fan of the split, I'd rather see us play 44 games than 38. Less friendlies and an earlier start then our clubs might have some competitive matches under their belts by the time the European qualifying ties come round.

[10menwent2mow]

I think the only conceivable option is to go to 14 with a 7-7 split after 26 matches. It maintains 38 games in a season and would guarantee 2 home and 2 away matches against opponents in your half.

I don't however think it's a good idea. For me, the split would come too early in the season and you could end up with more teams in the situation that Hamilton are this season. Miles clear of relegation and in the bottom half. At least Hamilton will only have 5 meaningless games for them instead of 12. Also, the opponents for Hamilton have plenty to play for this not rendering the games totally meaningless. It looks bad enough at the moment when you have bottom 6 teams go on a good post split run but if you had a team picking up 30 points from 12 games in the bottom half they'd probably have enough points for a European place but finish 8th.

I'm no huge fan of the split but I think it works quite well, it gives teams something to aim for at this part of the season and we're going to have a great fight for 4th place and a cracking fight to avoid the playoff. The only teams realistically facing a few meaningless games are The Top 2, Hamilton and St Mirren.

[ShawfieldAggro]

The 14-14-14 model doesnt seem to have even been on the blackboard af any meetings for any more than 5 minutes. A split, i don't believe would be necessary....play 26 rounds until the end of January, then play the final 13 rounds from tbe second February week until mid-May, with each team at round 26 being numbered 1-14 on their placing. Those in the top half get seven home games, those in the bottom get six. But....each team would play their home games against the teams directly beneath them....in the case of 9th place, for example, they'd face 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 1 at home....and all the others away.....team 14, consequently, would play the top six all at home, and everyone else away. Just an idea.

[Mr Bairn]

I'd go to 16 and scrap the split altogether. 30 games is ample if you go to a sectional LC

[RabidAl]

^ Sounds reasonable to me - but I might still include play-offs for the last European place to keep the mid-table interesting.

The current Development League table (minus team #17, ICT, sorry) shows that it could be okay...

http://spfl.co.uk/reserve-and-youth/development-league/development-league-table/

E.g.

1 CL

2 EL

3 PO₁ (h)

4 PO₂ (h)

5 PO₂ (a)

6 PO₁ (a)

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14 PO

15 RL

16 RL

The European play-offs would ensure that the last team qualifying to represent us in Europe could actually win under the pressure of a knock-out match...

[10menwent2mow]

I'm not a fan of European playoffs. I'm sorry but if a team finishes high enough in the league to justify a Euro place over an entire league season I think they are entitled to it.

I'd have been furious if having missed out on 2nd spot in the last minute against Motherwell. We then had to play in play-offs against Dundee Utd, ICT and St J who finished 10,11 and 15pts behind us.

[parsforlife]

I'm not a fan of European playoffs. I'm sorry but if a team finishes high enough in the league to justify a Euro place over an entire league season I think they are entitled to it.

I'd have been furious if having missed out on 2nd spot in the last minute against Motherwell. We then had to play in play-offs against Dundee Utd, ICT and St J who finished 10,11 and 15pts behind us.

I believe play-offs should introduce a maximum points you can be behind before you are illegible.

[TheLip69]

I'm not a fan of European playoffs. I'm sorry but if a team finishes high enough in the league to justify a Euro place over an entire league season I think they are entitled to it.

I'd have been furious if having missed out on 2nd spot in the last minute against Motherwell. We then had to play in play-offs against Dundee Utd, ICT and St J who finished 10,11 and 15pts behind us.

I seem to remember spmeone posting on here once about European playoffs.

If I remember correctly they said UEFA don't allow it.