League Reconstruction 20/21 season

[djchapsticks]

Just now, kingjoey said:

A 14 team league, if thought about logically and not with blinkers on, is obviously too many. The largest small league that is workable is what we have now, 12. If that is to be increased, the only acceptable number of teams would be 18, as both 14 and 16 are unworkable. But the problem with 18 is that we wouldn’t have a Sky deal as they wouldn’t accept only two Celtic v Rangers league matches per season. So we are stuck with the 12 team league. Anyone that can’t see that a 14 or 16 team league is unworkable belongs to the population in the country inhabited by the Emperor and his new clothes.

I'm wholly against a split after 26 games, which would be the only way they'd want to go ahead with it. 

26 pre split and 12/14 post split is going to be a lot more problematic than 33/5.

The current split certainly isn't perfect but at least the post split games have an air of excitement now and then. A 5 round shootout where most of the time, there's plenty to play for. 

That will definitely be diluted with 14 games being played and 4-5 teams every season will be playing out dead rubbers. 

[Green Day]

And as mentioned by myself and others last night, the potential loss of a home match against one of Rangers or Celtic is at a cost of £75-£100k for some clubs.

I still struggle to see why some clubs would vote to potentially lose money, however we will find out for sure next week.

[Lex]

A 14 team league, if thought about logically and not with blinkers on, is obviously too many. The largest small league that is workable is what we have now, 12. If that is to be increased, the only acceptable number of teams would be 18, as both 14 and 16 are unworkable. But the problem with 18 is that we wouldn’t have a Sky deal as they wouldn’t accept only two Celtic v Rangers league matches per season. So we are stuck with the 12 team league. Anyone that can’t see that a 14 or 16 team league is unworkable belongs to the population in the country inhabited by the Emperor and his new clothes.

Spot on. 14 and 16 team leagues are awful and unworkable. They are demonstrably worse than the current set up.

18 or 20 or even 22 are workable but will never be voted through for the reasons you mention.

12 is clearly the best solution and I am sure we will stick with that for the foreseeable future.

[Dons_1988]

1 minute ago, Green Day said:

And as mentioned by myself and others last night, the potential loss of a home match against one of Rangers or Celtic is at a cost of £75-£100k for some clubs.

I still struggle to see why some clubs would vote to potentially lose money, however we will find out for sure next week.

I don't think it'll happen.

 

[JamesM82]

Just now, Green Day said:

And as mentioned by myself and others last night, the potential loss of a home match against one of Rangers or Celtic is at a cost of £75-£100k for some clubs.

I still struggle to see why some clubs would vote to potentially lose money, however we will find out for sure next week.

I think that might be the biggest stumbling block, but on the other hand those clubs would be a bit less likely to be relegated. 

That's assuming that the plan doesn't change the promotion/relegation rules, i.e. it would still be one down automatic (14th) and one into a playoff (13th). I think that's a safe assumption because increasing the relegation to (say) 2 automatic would give teams another reason to vote against it.

[Guest JTS98]

6 minutes ago, JamesM82 said:

I think that might be the biggest stumbling block, but on the other hand those clubs would be a bit less likely to be relegated. 

That's assuming that the plan doesn't change the promotion/relegation rules, i.e. it would still be one down automatic (14th) and one into a playoff (13th). I think that's a safe assumption because increasing the relegation to (say) 2 automatic would give teams another reason to vote against it.

The relegation point is going to be key. If it stays one automatic plus one play-off, then that's pretty good news for the smaller sides in the league. Taken over the period of a decade it means they'd be less likely to be relegated and if they did get relegated then they'd be going into a weaker second-tier with the same promotion opportunities as now, meaning a return is more likely than it is now.

Over a decade there's a good chance that's of more financial benefit than the loss of an Old Firm visit per season.

Put simply, they'll get relegated less often and have a better chance of promotion when they do. That's not an unreasonable thing to vote for from a self-interest point of view.

Edited June 11, 2020 by JTS98

[Coventry Saint]

12 minutes ago, Stanislav Petrov said:

I can’t wait for this coming season. Thankfully sporting integrity has prevailed. 

The worst team in the league has been duly relegated?

[Cowden Cowboy]

7 hours ago, Pet Jeden said:

So, by that logic You would reward the team below just as much as the team above it? You would happily award the Premier league title jointly to Celtic and Rangers? The Championship jointly to Dundee Utd and Inverness? Yes, there is an inherent contradiction with that logic and with the Hearts position. To be fully consistent, maybe Hearts should be arguing for null and void. But anyhow, there is a practical difference between not rewarding a team (not promoting) and actually punishing a team (relegating).

One mans not rewarding is another mans punishing 

[Green Day]

2 minutes ago, JamesM82 said:

I think that might be the biggest stumbling block, but on the other hand those clubs would be a bit less likely to be relegated. 

That's assuming that the plan doesn't change the promotion/relegation rules, i.e. it would still be one down automatic (14th) and one into a playoff (13th). I think that's a safe assumption because increasing the relegation to (say) 2 automatic would give teams another reason to vote against it.

Absolutely, and that is a positive.

However, as well as losing ticket income from these big matches it is also inevitable that these clubs will need to work a lot harder to sell trackside advertising and hospitality without the current system where either live TV or extended highlights are shown when they play one of Rangers/Celtic a third time.

[Stanislav Petrov]

2 minutes ago, Coventry Saint said:

The worst team in the league has been duly relegated?

You can’t relegate after 30 games. The team that has been bottom after said amount of games has avoided relegation twice in the last three years. When hibs got relegated in 2014 they were 7th after 30 games. 

[JamesM82]

2 minutes ago, JTS98 said:

The relegation point is going to be key. If it stays one automatic plus one play-off, then that's pretty good news for the smaller sides in the league. Taken over the period of a decade it means they'd be less likely to be relegated and if they did get relegated then they'd be going into a weaker second-tier with the same promotion opportunities as now, meaning a return is more likely than it is now.

Over a decade there's a good chance that's of more financial benefit than the loss of an Old Firm visit per season.

Essentially what has gone on over the last month or so is a political argument between the bigger clubs (Aberdeen + OF) and the smaller clubs. Bigger clubs were trying to force the smaller clubs to eat shit (temporary reconstruction), but the smaller clubs have stood firm. OF appear to have caved in and are possibly now willing to accept permanent change, which will mean a cut in their prize money and them losing one home game each season.

Now the smaller clubs have to decide whether to take this deal, or gamble on sticking with 12 and hoping that any legal action by Hearts doesn't muck things up.

[Coventry Saint]

Just now, Stanislav Petrov said:

You can’t relegate after 30 games. The team that has been bottom after said amount of games has avoided relegation twice in the last three years. When hibs got relegated in 2014 they were 7th after 30 games. 

[Dons_1988]

1 minute ago, Stanislav Petrov said:

You can’t relegate after 30 games. The team that has been bottom after said amount of games has avoided relegation twice in the last three years. When hibs got relegated in 2014 they were 7th after 30 games. 

There's a long list of 'injustices' in how the league season finished.

However, the clubs voted to end the league and implement the final placings and the consequences that come with that. In the Premiership, Hearts is the most prominent, but it's still just another on a list of unfortunate consequences of ending a season early.

A number of clubs have sympathy with Hearts position (I do too) and attempts have been made to reconstruct, however for a whole myriad of reasons it's not been possible. It might still happen but I can't see it.

If it doesn't, time for everyone to move on.

[Guest JTS98]

2 minutes ago, JamesM82 said:

Essentially what has gone on over the last month or so is a political argument between the bigger clubs (Aberdeen + OF) and the smaller clubs. Bigger clubs were trying to force the smaller clubs to eat shit (temporary reconstruction), but the smaller clubs have stood firm. OF appear to have caved in and are possibly now willing to accept permanent change, which will mean a cut in their prize money and them losing one home game each season.

Now the smaller clubs have to decide whether to take this deal, or gamble on sticking with 12 and hoping that any legal action by Hearts doesn't muck things up.

It's politics, self-interest, and fear all round.

No idea how this is going to play out but I think there are clear advantages to quite a few of the clubs of a move to 14. Any of the clubs who usually finish in the bottom half, for example.

I think the media reports we're seeing suggest there's some influential support behind this and I think we can't rule out that there are considerations beyond this really driving the issue. Was the colts proposal a red herring to soften everybody up for this?

 

 

[Mr. X]

The diddy premier clubs supporters desperately defending their clubs share of the Old Firm cream, wonderful stuff. 

 

 

 

[Stanislav Petrov]

1 minute ago, Dons_1988 said:

There's a long list of 'injustices' in how the league season finished.

However, the clubs voted to end the league and implement the final placings and the consequences that come with that. In the Premiership, Hearts is the most prominent, but it's still just another on a list of unfortunate consequences of ending a season early.

A number of clubs have sympathy with Hearts position (I do too) and attempts have been made to reconstruct, however for a whole myriad of reasons it's not been possible. It might still happen but I can't see it.

If it doesn't, time for everyone to move on.

And how would you feel if it was Aberdeen? Would you want Mr Cormack to fight your corner? 
 

Why are people surprised hearts are acting in their self interest when everyone else is doing the same? The league was ended to protect Celtics ten in a row. 

[ropy]

22 minutes ago, Lex said:

 

 

Spot on. 14 and 16 team leagues are awful and unworkable. They are demonstrably worse than the current set up.

18 or 20 or even 22 are workable but will never be voted through for the reasons you mention.

12 is clearly the best solution and I am sure we will stick with that for the foreseeable future.

 

 

12 is best, but 16 is better than 14 if change is needed

[Dons_1988]

Just now, Stanislav Petrov said:

And how would you feel if it was Aberdeen? Would you want Mr Cormack to fight your corner? 
 

Why are people surprised hearts are acting in their self interest when everyone else is doing the same? The league was ended to protect Celtics ten in a row. 

I have never expressed any surprise at Hearts fighting their corner. Of course they will, that doesn't mean it's the great injustice of our time.

I'm sure if it was Aberdeen I'd feel hard done by, but again my biased feelings on that matter would be pretty irrelevant.

[Guest JTS98]

7 minutes ago, ropy said:

12 is best, but 16 is better than 14 if change is needed

What's your thinking behind this?

As far as I see it, 14 gives 38 games for the lower section, 36 for the top section, and an even split of fixtures home and away.

16 gives us a problem in any sense. 1) 30 games being too few. 2) 44 being too many. 3) 37 being unfair in that post-split fixtures would always disadvantage some clubs by making them play teams they are directly competing with away from home more than at home. That wouldn't last past the first season.

Edited June 11, 2020 by JTS98

[Stanislav Petrov]

2 minutes ago, Dons_1988 said:

I have never expressed any surprise at Hearts fighting their corner. Of course they will, that doesn't mean it's the great injustice of our time.

I'm sure if it was Aberdeen I'd feel hard done by, but again my biased feelings on that matter would be pretty irrelevant.

Your club would fight it. You’re not subservient to the Old Firm like hibs and st mirren are.