Do we need to League Re-construction in the SPFL?

[Dons_1988]

8 minutes ago, Chefki Kuqi said:

Just for clarity on this, the SPL clubs would be the only clubs voting on league reconstruction? Genuinely don't know.

That's not to say Championship clubs would necessarily vote for it either if they could, one need merely look at what Queen's Park are attempting to do with Hampden and if they could squeeze in another OF game or two then I'm sure they would.

You're right that club ownership will likely dismiss this out of hand, only the more well supported clubs who perhaps rely less on OF revenue would even countenance it and that would still probably result in a decrease in the TV deal.

That said it's something I'd like to see so I'll continue to prattle on about it, viable or not.  

Think it would involve all 42 but others would need to tell you the exact mechanism there. 

the first step to it happening would likely need to be Diddy clubs fans making a stand against being fodder for the glasgow clubs in exchange for a little extra cash. Boardrooms are risk averse and fairly incompetent and as long as everyone plays along, nothing will change. 

[craigkillie]

36 minutes ago, VincentGuerin said:

The situation at the bottom of the SPFL needs addressed. It's silly that the team finishing last "maybe" goes down.

Tenth team in League Two should automatically go down.

Highland and Lowland League winners should play a play-off. Winner goes up in place of the tenth team, loser has another play-off against ninth in League Two, winner plays in League Two next year.

Making the geography of relegated teams work is not beyond the wit of man.

Your club along with Rangers and Celtic will now veto this unless the solution involves B teams.

[VincentGuerin]

7 minutes ago, craigkillie said:

Your club along with Rangers and Celtic will now veto this unless the solution involves B teams.

What the f**k do you want me to do about that? I've sent them an email. Piss off.

[Chefki Kuqi]

One thing that I'd add is that medium sized clubs tend to vary in division based upon what coast of Scotland they're nearer to. 

Motherwell, Killie and St Mirren for example all exist in the Premiership, whilst clubs which are perhaps smaller in terms of their support but still significant ie Dunfermline, Falkirk and Raith are in the lower tiers. If they were all in the same top flight I think there would be more revenue for these East coast clubs just due to the proximity of Edinburgh, Dundee and Aberdeen, whilst also likely providing greater away supports for current East coast SPL teams for the same reason. 

I realise that's something of an edge case but I think more needs to give impetus to well supported clubs in the lower leagues. 

Just to clarify the obvious it's not some conspiracy this is the case, it's all of-course decided on sporting merit and clubs like Ayr and Morton I've not mentioned either, albeit I think they'd be beneficiaries of a bigger league too.

Ultimately I'm looking at match days in the ground and again I personally wouldn't be sacrificing much of anything by saying this but I'd prefer if the onus was put on consistently getting well supported teams playing each other. Obviously that has to be done on sporting merit, but broadening the franchise of the SPL would seem a fair way to do that, but yes that would come with a financial penalty for TV revenue. Whether that would extend to gate receipts though, I'm not so sure it's as clear cut. Frankly I think it'd be an interesting piece of research to carry out as to what the trend is for local games as regards attendances, whilst taking other variables into account of course. 

[Todd_is_God]

1 hour ago, VincentGuerin said:

That doesn't flow logically the way you think it does.

If we were starting "from scratch" then we wouldn't be taking into account things like the size of clubs' supports, their income, their committed spend on wages, the effect of putting clubs with massive financial disparity in direct competition to each other, their commercial value to the set-up as a whole, their exposure to cuts in income, the cultural expectations of supporters etc. We'd just be picking a system to fit a certain number of clubs starting on an even footing.

That's not the situation we're in. So, what we'd choose in that scenario isn't really relevant to where we are now.

It's like saying "If your teenage self wouldn't like the job you have now, then you need to quit your job." Sounds inspiring etc until you actually scratch the surface of it as a concept. It's just not how things work.

Broadly speaking, and keeping in mind the massive hassle and rancour involved in getting anything done in Scottish fitba, not to mention the stupidity and amateurism of many involved in it, I'd just leave it as it is. It's fine. Open up promotion and relegation a bit down the chain.

So ignoring anything other than "what's the best way to split these clubs up" you'd go with "let's play teams 4 times a season" and "have 1 automatic promotion / relegation spot"

I don't think you would.

The bit in bold I fully agree with, but it's only practical to do that if we have fewer, bigger leagues.

RE: maximising revenue from the OF - other than increased wages, what is this achieving? Our clubs routinely get knocked out Europe by other minnows, the gap between the OF and the rest is widening, and Celtic are hoovering up trebles on an almost annual basis.

It's also killing competition in the leagues below as relegated clubs are financially stronger than ever, and have now won the title 5 of the last 6 years.

For the majority, the current set up isn't working.

[VincentGuerin]

5 minutes ago, Todd_is_God said:

So ignoring anything other than "what's the best way to split these clubs up" you'd go with "let's play teams 4 times a season" and "have 1 automatic promotion / relegation spot"

No I was just pointing out that your assertion that if this isn't how we'd start from scratch, then it's broken, is incorrect.

Broadly, I think the set-up is ok compared to the viable alternatives.

[craigkillie]

12 minutes ago, VincentGuerin said:

What the f**k do you want me to do about that? I've sent them an email. Piss off.

It's an explanation as to why it likely won't happen in the short-term without some solution (eg the Conference League) which is actually worse than the current set-up. Hearts are a fan-owned club, so I would hope that if their position on this doesn't represent the will of the support then it would be able to be challenged.

[VincentGuerin]

4 minutes ago, craigkillie said:

It's an explanation as to why it likely won't happen in the short-term without some solution (eg the Conference League) which is actually worse than the current set-up. Hearts are a fan-owned club, so I would hope that if their position on this doesn't represent the will of the support then it would be able to be challenged.

I think the League Two teams are maybe more of an obstacle. I have a mate who is involved with one (particularly shambolic) League Two team, and he's been trying to make the case that opening up relegation/promotion might actually be in their long-term interests. Nobody is listening.

 

[craigkillie]

It only requires 75% of the League 1 and League 2 sides combined to support it, so it would need 6 clubs from the bottom two divisions to vote against it. It only takes 2 clubs from the top flight.

[VincentGuerin]

8 minutes ago, craigkillie said:

It only requires 75% of the League 1 and League 2 sides combined to support it, so it would need 6 clubs from the bottom two divisions to vote against it. It only takes 2 clubs from the top flight.

I think we could find six clubs in League Two not in favour of an increased chance of dropping out of League Two.

All the leagues basically take the view that promotion chances for them should be increased and relegation chances not so much.

[Dons_1988]

16 minutes ago, Todd_is_God said:

RE: maximising revenue from the OF - other than increased wages, what is this achieving? Our clubs routinely get knocked out Europe by other minnows, the gap between the OF and the rest is widening, and Celtic are hoovering up trebles on an almost annual basis.

It's also killing competition in the leagues below as relegated clubs are financially stronger than ever, and have now won the title 5 of the last 6 years.

For the majority, the current set up isn't working.

Preaching to the converted but it’s where we are. There isn’t enough innovation, ambition or skill at boardroom level to seriously challenge it.

[Monkey Tennis]

21 hours ago, craigkillie said:

 

The prize money is a drop in the ocean for Celtic and Rangers, you could reduce their prize money to 0 and it would have no impact on their dominance.

This is largely true, but the problem is that people constantly apply this approach of considering whatever is being discussed, in isolation.  

I've seen it done when people mention gate sharing.  I've seen it done when people discuss European income.  

The fact is that the OF's financial dominance comes from several directions.  This practice of dismissing each as irrelevant in itself in terms of the bigger picture, just means we're accepting it.

[topcat(The most tip top)]

On 16/08/2023 at 14:03, Dons_1988 said:

If it was a choice between a 20 team league and the current league set up with a genuinely healthy disparity of resources then it’s a very, very obvious choice. 

It’s always surprised me the emphasis people place on the number of teams in each league. 

It's generally from supporters of clubs who worry about not being able to stay in the top flight, or get into it

Edited August 18, 2023 by topcat(The most tip top)