27 games. 14,10,10,10

[Cosmic Joe]

20 minutes ago, Bairn in Exile said:

I am all in favour of 2 up, 2 down, but in a 10 team league that gives you a guaranteed 40% change of teams which is quite high. It does, however, slightly reduce the boredom factor of a 10 team league that many of us complain about at the moment.

Maybe this would work: Next season, 14 – 10 – 10 – 10 and use the same promotion / relegation criteria as now. This would help right the wrongs of finishing this season early.

The following season, 14 -10 – 10 – 10 and keep the same promotion / relegation criteria between the Premiership and the Championship. Down the leagues, from the Championship to League 2, each team is playing to be placed in either a 14 team Championship or a 16 team League 1. Every club would know what is at stake from the start of the season and would help to avoid the complaints from Clyde, Peterhead and Forfar that we had this season.

The season after that, 14 – 14 – 16 and going forward with 1 up, 2 down between all the leagues and teams in 2^nd – 5^th playing in the play-offs for promotion. The play-off format to be the same between all the leagues, except between League 2 and HL/LL where both the champions of each league are promoted with the 2 relegated teams from League 2 going to the appropriate league below. 

And the one nearest the mantlepiece is the winner

 

[Diamonds are Forever]

1 hour ago, Bairn in Exile said:

I am all in favour of 2 up, 2 down, but in a 10 team league that gives you a guaranteed 40% change of teams which is quite high. It does, however, slightly reduce the boredom factor of a 10 team league that many of us complain about at the moment.

 

To me that is the main argument for 2 up, 2 down. The big criticism of small leagues is the boredom of playing the same teams 4 times a season, plus potential play-off games and cup games putting that up to 6 or 7 sometimes. If you change 40% of the league every season then that reduces the issue. If you finished mid-table, then next season 4 out of the 9 opposition teams would be new. Obviously in a one off season you are still playing teams 4 times, but over the course of 4 or 5 years there would be a far greater turnover of teams and you aren't going to have the same level of monotony of playing the same teams every single year. Plus during that time you'd be more likely to be relegated or promoted which would give you a new set of teams to play.

I'm not actually sure what I'd prefer, the play-offs were a great addition in terms of excitement and I'm sure financially aswell. But on the other hand I've always felt being able to finish 4th in a 10 team league and get promoted is a bit ridiculous, that's like finishing 8th in a 20 team league and getting promoted. A team in 2nd could finish miles ahead of the team in 4th but be hit by some injuries at play-off time, or have a shocker of a referee decision and the whole season is undone. And it lowers the turnover of teams between divisions which increases monotony.

If we are going to stick with the leagues of 10 then I think there is a good debate to be had on this. My arse is firmly on the fence, I'd probably side towards keeping the play-offs at the moment, but with every year we are stuck in this division I move more towards the 2 up, 2 down model!

 

Edited June 13, 2020 by Diamonds are Forever

[rockson]

9 hours ago, Bairn in Exile said:

 This might require a slight rejig of the teams in HL/LL but I think this happens between the 5^th and 6^th tiers in England at the moment.

 

 

Whatever happens in England there's no mechanism for this in Scotland. Consider what is the southernmost team in the HL at the moment and the northernmost in the LL and how far apart they are. Plus there's a boundary  at the line  of the middle of the Tay Bridge determining which of those two leagues  a demoted team has to go into.

As that regulation stands an LL team can't be shovellled north nor an HL team south.  Both leagues have to suck it up if a team is relegated into them and adjust the number promoted into them that season if it's the LL.  (Not so for the HL which is not at capacity and doesn't accept promotions anyway just now.)

[CM.]

SPFL expected to confirm a 27 game Championship next season starting in mid October. Could league 1 and 2 possibly follow?

Not sure if they're aiming for fans to be allowed back by then or not. Surely some/most Championship clubs wouldn't be able to operate playing closed door fixtures with no income?

[Sergeant Wilson]

8 minutes ago, C. Muir said:

SPFL expected to confirm a 27 game Championship next season starting in mid October. Could league 1 and 2 possibly follow?

Not sure if they're aiming for fans to be allowed back by then or not. Surely some/most Championship clubs wouldn't be able to operate playing closed door fixtures with no income?

If testing is still necessary most won't be able to play even with crowds.

[sirscottyoung]

Said this in our thread but.

The spfl need to say for lower league teams.

If you want to play this season put yourselves forward.

If you don't you will start in the bottom league next season.

You would end up with a league 1 of teams wanting to play and a league 2 of teams sitting waiting.

HOWEVER.

If you wait you will get no spfl payments for the season or the very minimum available.

AND.

Should Brora and Kelty wish to play then they can go into the league set up if needed to make up numbers. No team is going to say no to an extra few games that can make up some more much needed income.

 

[jagsfan57]

SPFL expected to confirm a 27 game Championship next season starting in mid October. Could league 1 and 2 possibly follow?
Not sure if they're aiming for fans to be allowed back by then or not. Surely some/most Championship clubs wouldn't be able to operate playing closed door fixtures with no income?

If they are only playing 3/4 of the league do they just get 3/4 prize money.

One thing I don’t get is how each of the leagues seem to be able to pick when they start and how many games they play.

[Passionate]

55 minutes ago, Sergeant Wilson said:

If testing is still necessary most won't be able to play even with crowds.

Any word on the juniors starting yet sarge,   is testing going to be mandatory at that level..

[Nowhereman]

Said this in our thread but.

The spfl need to say for lower league teams.

If you want to play this season put yourselves forward.

If you don't you will start in the bottom league next season.

You would end up with a league 1 of teams wanting to play and a league 2 of teams sitting waiting.

HOWEVER.

If you wait you will get no spfl payments for the season or the very minimum available.

AND.

Should Brora and Kelty wish to play then they can go into the league set up if needed to make up numbers. No team is going to say no to an extra few games that can make up some more much needed income.

 

So if you don’t have enough money you are relegated And to make it worse you will get no payments from the spfl because you can’t afford to play. Good way of consigning several clubs to the scrap heap

[nofixedability]

1 minute ago, Nowhereman said:

So if you don’t have enough money you are relegated And to make it worse you will get no payments from the spfl because you can’t afford to play. Good way of consigning several clubs to the scrap heap

They would be joined swiftly by any part time team daft enough to claim they could play under current restrictions ( or the next couple of stages).

[stuartcraig]

Said this in our thread but.

The spfl need to say for lower league teams.

If you want to play this season put yourselves forward.

If you don't you will start in the bottom league next season.

You would end up with a league 1 of teams wanting to play and a league 2 of teams sitting waiting.

HOWEVER.

If you wait you will get no spfl payments for the season or the very minimum available.

AND.

Should Brora and Kelty wish to play then they can go into the league set up if needed to make up numbers. No team is going to say no to an extra few games that can make up some more much needed income.

 

Alternatively they could avoid being c*nts and say nothing of the sort.

[Jack Burton]

Said this in our thread but.

The spfl need to say for lower league teams.

If you want to play this season put yourselves forward.

If you don't you will start in the bottom league next season.

You would end up with a league 1 of teams wanting to play and a league 2 of teams sitting waiting.

HOWEVER.

If you wait you will get no spfl payments for the season or the very minimum available.

AND.

Should Brora and Kelty wish to play then they can go into the league set up if needed to make up numbers. No team is going to say no to an extra few games that can make up some more much needed income.

 

Basically if you have a financial backer you can skip 1 or 2 leagues. All the other part time teams, tough shite.

Why stop at Brora and Kelty? Maybe we should invite the likes of Darvel in to make up the numbers.

[sirscottyoung]

3 minutes ago, Jack Burton said:

Basically if you have a financial backer you can skip 1 or 2 leagues. All the other part time teams, tough shite.

Why stop at Brora and Kelty? Maybe we should invite the likes of Darvel in to make up the numbers.

Only said they could join IF there wasn't enough spfl teams to make up the league.

Both of them should be at least getting a shot at a play off for the league.

People just seem to be reading bits of what I said.

 

In my opinion it should be....

 

Do you want to play?

Yes or no?

If no your in league 2 and getting a payment something like the equivalent of being bottom of the leagues for the season. (brechins payment this year) that would more than cover the basic costs.

 

If yes then get a squad ready for the league1 campaign.

 

If we mothball both league's for a year.

What happens when say alloa come bottom of the championship do they get relegated and nobody comes up?

Does the pyramid have to sit and wait till the end of the 21/22 season play offs to see if a team has an opportunity to go up?

 

[The Moonster]

4 minutes ago, sirscottyoung said:

Only said they could join IF there wasn't enough spfl teams to make up the league.

Both of them should be at least getting a shot at a play off for the league.

People just seem to be reading bits of what I said.

 

In my opinion it should be....

 

Do you want to play?

Yes or no?

If no your in league 2 and getting a payment something like the equivalent of being bottom of the leagues for the season. (brechins payment this year) that would more than cover the basic costs.

 

If yes then get a squad ready for the league1 campaign.

 

If we mothball both league's for a year.

What happens when say alloa come bottom of the championship do they get relegated and nobody comes up?

Does the pyramid have to sit and wait till the end of the 21/22 season play offs to see if a team has an opportunity to go up?

 

Who the f**k doesn't want to play? Everyone would kick off tomorrow if we got the go ahead. You're suggesting relegating clubs who perhaps don't have the finances to play behind closed doors, which I imagine is most clubs in this league. It's stupid point of view and with any luck nobody at any level of authority will entertain it.

[TxRover]

18 minutes ago, sirscottyoung said:

If we mothball both league's for a year.

What happens when say alloa come bottom of the championship do they get relegated and nobody comes up?

Since Falkirk are in League One, and per Falkirk fans the  standard SPFL process is to f**kover Falkirk, Alloa wouldn’t be relegated.

Wondering if, given the plans for a 27 game Championship, they won’t roll out a half season for Leagues One and Two. 18 games for the biscuit, hopefully avoids most of the testing costs and allows reasonable crowds.

[Jack Burton]

Only said they could join IF there wasn't enough spfl teams to make up the league.
Both of them should be at least getting a shot at a play off for the league.
People just seem to be reading bits of what I said.
 
In my opinion it should be....
 
Do you want to play?
Yes or no?
If no your in league 2 and getting a payment something like the equivalent of being bottom of the leagues for the season. (brechins payment this year) that would more than cover the basic costs.
 
If yes then get a squad ready for the league1 campaign.
 
If we mothball both league's for a year.
What happens when say alloa come bottom of the championship do they get relegated and nobody comes up?
Does the pyramid have to sit and wait till the end of the 21/22 season play offs to see if a team has an opportunity to go up?
 

What happens to the team that finishes bottom of league 1 in your scenario?

Clubs will be forced to play to preserve their league place. You'll end up with teams paying buttons or amateur players just to fulfil fixtures.

[Gordon EF]

I'm not totally sure I understand the reasoning behind the October start for the championship. Is the assumption that the first quarter will be played behind closed doors and testing will be required before every game? Looking towards admitting crowds and relaxing testing by new year?

Because, on the assumption that generally, clubs in higher leagues have more and spend more money than clubs in lower leagues, in the absence of a TV deal, I don't see how playing behind closed doors is any better for championship clubs than L1 and 2 clubs, given than generally, wage budgets will be proportional to income.

Testing might be the bigger issue for lower league clubs given that it's a fixed cost which, generally Championship clubs should be in a better position to pay for. 

I wonder if Arbroath and Alloa were the two who voted against an October start.

 

[jagsfan57]

Who the f**k doesn't want to play? Everyone would kick off tomorrow if we got the go ahead. You're suggesting relegating clubs who perhaps don't have the finances to play behind closed doors, which I imagine is most clubs in this league. It's stupid point of view and with any luck nobody at any level of authority will entertain it.

I am not sure it is any stupider than anything that has happened so far

[Passionate]

19 minutes ago, Gordon EF said:

I'm not totally sure I understand the reasoning behind the October start for the championship. Is the assumption that the first quarter will be played behind closed doors and testing will be required before every game? Looking towards admitting crowds and relaxing testing by new year?

Because, on the assumption that generally, clubs in higher leagues have more and spend more money than clubs in lower leagues, in the absence of a TV deal, I don't see how playing behind closed doors is any better for championship clubs than L1 and 2 clubs, given than generally, wage budgets will be proportional to income.

Testing might be the bigger issue for lower league clubs given that it's a fixed cost which, generally Championship clubs should be in a better position to pay for. 

I wonder if Arbroath and Alloa were the two who voted against an October start.

 

If clubs are clever they set aside the 50k for testing, the money wasn't budgeted for in the first place.......  

 

Things are changing quickly at the moment with covid, thankfully for the better.

The governing body have now to find out quickly who can play a 27 game league,  small crowds are allowed in Phase 3 of Scotland routes remember.    If clubs want to bail out for the season fine, do not scupper it for the rest,

 

A few clubs have committed to this season Airdrie, East Fife, Montrose, Thistle  ,Falkirk, Cove etc they have all signed a number of players who will need paid fully in October.... Not sure about the rest of the clue commitment to playing..  It's looks like you need 8 clubs to vote it through,  Will it pass,    does Doncaster and his cronies give a monkeys...  Give clubs a chance ffs

[jagsfan57]

I'm not totally sure I understand the reasoning behind the October start for the championship. Is the assumption that the first quarter will be played behind closed doors and testing will be required before every game? Looking towards admitting crowds and relaxing testing by new year?
Because, on the assumption that generally, clubs in higher leagues have more and spend more money than clubs in lower leagues, in the absence of a TV deal, I don't see how playing behind closed doors is any better for championship clubs than L1 and 2 clubs, given than generally, wage budgets will be proportional to income.
Testing might be the bigger issue for lower league clubs given that it's a fixed cost which, generally Championship clubs should be in a better position to pay for. 
I wonder if Arbroath and Alloa were the two who voted against an October start.
 

I imagine it is because the furlough scheme ends in October.
I guess the grants from Budges friend is to cover some of the testing costs