"And as to current SFL3 clubs voting yes - why? After Rangers move up from an 18 team league, each remaining team will have far less chance of promotion than currently."....but if they did get promoted, they would only be one further promotion away from the top flight than a further two, so that might be something they will take into account maybe??
This whole thing has been brought about by low viewing figures on Sky and Clydesdale Bank's withdrawal. I don't believe that Sky wont have been involved in some capacity. The blueprint will have been seen by them and a value will have been apportioned. This value will be the carrot that will be dangled to the Div 2 teams who as Davie says, will be the stumbling block ,
It would be exciting because quite simply these games between top 4 and bottom 4 would have real purpose
I would certainly pay extra attention to see what was happening in those games
Its rather stale just now regarding those areas in the leagues , anything that gives the games a bit of box office appeal is fine by me
Its been cited that all Spl clubs will vote in favour of this change ....and i would expect all other clubs to follow suit
Why would you vote against it ?? under what circumstances wouldn't you want your club to enter into this??
Its rather stale just now regarding those areas in the leagues , anything that gives the games a bit of box office appeal is fine by me
So you'd be happy to see Rangers back in the SPl next season ?!
There would still be relegation this year I imagine. as soon as the season ends the current seasons laws would take effect.An example of this would be the season just gone where Dunfermline were still relegated.
Risk.
Simple.
SFL2 teams know that next season they get 2 home games against Rangers.
Under new scheme, 8 of the 10 current SFL2 teams will not. They will get 1 home game v Rangers next season.
Don't think that's a lot - QP att before Rangers game 500, at Rangers game 30k. Elgin, before 270, at, 4500.
SFL1 teams know that probably following season THEY get 2 home games against Rangers. Under new set up 8 won't.
So unless the carrot more than makes up for this loss of revenue in the short term, why WOULD SFL clubs vote for it?
And of course all SPL clubs will say yes - it is THEIR cockamamie idea in the first place, and more or less guarantees the current top 10 plus btm 2 / top 2 SFL1 top tier status on & off for next 2 -3 seasons minimum.
The SPL clubs can't afford to only play each other twice a season. Any reconstruction votes will have this at the forefront.
Whatever we have it will be playing each other 4 times for the top clubs.
"So you'd be happy to see Rangers back in the SPl next season ?!"
I want rangers in the top league yes but also believe you should do the time for your crime
Certainly dont believe you should be fast tracked into the SPl just because you have a big fan base
Davie.....you're right , Queens made more money in the game against us than they have in 10 years ! But the Sky money will have to be used to sweeten these " non believers".
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
KP why not? 4 times a season only works when your 2 home games v each team are big crowds.
If you could play less home games, but with bigger crowds each game, the total over a season may be higher, with less variable costs.
Example Aberdeen visit say St Mirren and take say 1000 away fans twice. If they visited once and took 2000 fans, is that not a better thing?
Celtic....aaaah ! Since our crime is now much less than was first alleged don't you agree that business sense should prevail or is it that you want us back but not too soon ?
An 18-20 team league wouldnt work in scotland far too many clubs that wouldnt be able to accomodate the likes of celtic,rangers, aberdeen etc etc. Or would be able to compete with the bigger clubs.
One top league of 16 with a split after everyone plays home and away(this means sky still gets its 4 old firm games a season). Same as the belgian league. One league of 18 below that. Then regional leagues below this. That would bring the number of professional clubs down from 42 to 34 which would be a more sustainable model.
One governing body should focus getting clubs to amalgamate through financial incentives for better stadiums and training facilities.
Pricing caps on all games and fair voting rights for all clubs. This is the way forward.
This proposed new league structure is basically about giving the impression of doing something while not doing very much at all. It wont however be the death of scottish football as some seem to be screaming its just another missed oppportunity for real change.
16 team top div. Work down from there.
Screw the 4 OF games per season - in any event, it will be another 2 season at the earliest before this happens and I am pretty sure Sky will survive.
Pricing caps - single body - voting rights - all agreed - but none of this mentioned anywhere in the latest Hampden horror story.
" Since our crime is now much less than was first alleged"
You really dont get why you are in the 3rd tier do you??
Hint : Its nothing to do with the big tax case
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
In my view, the extra income involved in the possible higher attendances of a St Mirren playing Aberdeen only twice a season as opposed to four times will be offset by the money lost from Sky, as like it or not Sky are only paying for Rangers and Celtic against any opposition.
SPL clubs want Celtic and eventually Rangers again twice at home because they know they will get crowds through the door and tv money too.
The belgian league actually splits into 3 sections:
Seasons run from late July to early May, with teams playing 30 matches each in the regular season, and then entering play-offs 1, play-offs 2 or the relegation play-off according to their position in the regular season. Play-offs 1 are contested by the top 6 clubs in the regular season, with each club playing each other twice. Play-offs 2 are contested by teams ranked 7 to 14 in the regular season, divided in two groups of 4 teams playing each other twice. The relegation play-off consists of 5 matches between the 15th and the 16th-placed team in the regular season.
With a slight adjustment scottish football would be a lot more interesting and better off in the long term.
meandcoop - i want old firm games , i want to have the challenge of rangers in the SPL , i want the feeling of when we lose a game it really matters and will have a bearing on our overall season .
But i dont want your club just being thrown back in the SPl because of these things . I think its right you are where you are but i also look forward to your return ,ok>
"An 18-20 team league wouldnt work in scotland far too many clubs that wouldnt be able to accomodate the likes of celtic,rangers, aberdeen etc etc. Or would be able to compete with the bigger clubs."
I'm sorry, but for me that point is utter nonsense.
Division three clubs have managed to accomodate Rangers with one exception, Elgin, selling too many tickets.
This whole "the wee clubs cant accomodate us" point to me is just utter lunacy.
You've got Premier League clubs travelling to non-league "stadiums" in the FA cup at the weekend there, and there is not a single negative point to be said about it, no worries or qualms about fans being accomodated nothing, the occassion is all thats spoken about, the romance of it and how massive a day it is for the smaller club.
Thats EXACTLY whats been the case at division three clubs ground this season when Rangers come calling, nothing but positive for the clubs (again with the exception of Elgin being a bit too greedy on a one off occassion).
If the old firm can be accomodated for cup games, if Rangers can be accomodated in division three easy enough, they can be accomodated for league games, at any club, at any ground, ANYWHERE in Scotland, saying "they cant be accomodated" is just utter p!sh!!
One off games yes fine enough. But long term fans want to sit in new and safe stadiums.
Can a Celtic fan tell me whether they will buy season tickets for this new set up or not?
My take on this is that the first half of the season before the split is solely to determine who is in the top 8? Celtic will always be in the top 8, so the first half of the season is effectively meaningless as the teams will all start from zero again right?
Why would any Celtic fans buy a full season ticket in that case? Would it not be better to buy tickets for the European games in the autumn/winter period and then buy a half season ticket for the deciding 8 home games?
Obviously some fans will buy tickets for every game regardless, but surely there will be a dip as people pick and choose what games they go to. For Celtic (and eventually Rangers) the first half of the season will be a series of pre-season friendlies that are meaningless. Even the two Old Firm games will have no impact on who wins the league.
It's a ridiculous idea that will never work. Why we cannot just bite the bullet and have a 16 team top division playing twice with a January break is beyond me. Scottish football will never be as wealthy as English football and the beaks need to accept this
Tornado....Nothin to do with the big tax case? The one that prejudiced the chances of gettin a cva? The phantom bill which pushed hrmc to liquidate us?
That wan?
Keep in mind your a div 3 club , the world doesn't revolve around you
===
And in that revelation ...
It would be exciting because quite simply these games between top 4 and bottom 4 would have real purpose
===
And how does that make it exciting for you ? I.e Celtic ... You'll be 20point clear by the split in an 8 team division with the same teams with the usual nothing to play for. It offers nothing different for you and integer top 6 teams. How is that either a better or more exciting product ? It's a sham
Sign in if you want to comment
League Reconstruction stitch up ...
Page 2 of 3
posted on 9/1/13
"And as to current SFL3 clubs voting yes - why? After Rangers move up from an 18 team league, each remaining team will have far less chance of promotion than currently."....but if they did get promoted, they would only be one further promotion away from the top flight than a further two, so that might be something they will take into account maybe??
posted on 9/1/13
This whole thing has been brought about by low viewing figures on Sky and Clydesdale Bank's withdrawal. I don't believe that Sky wont have been involved in some capacity. The blueprint will have been seen by them and a value will have been apportioned. This value will be the carrot that will be dangled to the Div 2 teams who as Davie says, will be the stumbling block ,
posted on 9/1/13
It would be exciting because quite simply these games between top 4 and bottom 4 would have real purpose
I would certainly pay extra attention to see what was happening in those games
Its rather stale just now regarding those areas in the leagues , anything that gives the games a bit of box office appeal is fine by me
Its been cited that all Spl clubs will vote in favour of this change ....and i would expect all other clubs to follow suit
Why would you vote against it ?? under what circumstances wouldn't you want your club to enter into this??
posted on 9/1/13
Its rather stale just now regarding those areas in the leagues , anything that gives the games a bit of box office appeal is fine by me
So you'd be happy to see Rangers back in the SPl next season ?!
posted on 9/1/13
There would still be relegation this year I imagine. as soon as the season ends the current seasons laws would take effect.An example of this would be the season just gone where Dunfermline were still relegated.
posted on 9/1/13
Risk.
Simple.
SFL2 teams know that next season they get 2 home games against Rangers.
Under new scheme, 8 of the 10 current SFL2 teams will not. They will get 1 home game v Rangers next season.
Don't think that's a lot - QP att before Rangers game 500, at Rangers game 30k. Elgin, before 270, at, 4500.
SFL1 teams know that probably following season THEY get 2 home games against Rangers. Under new set up 8 won't.
So unless the carrot more than makes up for this loss of revenue in the short term, why WOULD SFL clubs vote for it?
And of course all SPL clubs will say yes - it is THEIR cockamamie idea in the first place, and more or less guarantees the current top 10 plus btm 2 / top 2 SFL1 top tier status on & off for next 2 -3 seasons minimum.
posted on 9/1/13
The SPL clubs can't afford to only play each other twice a season. Any reconstruction votes will have this at the forefront.
Whatever we have it will be playing each other 4 times for the top clubs.
posted on 9/1/13
"So you'd be happy to see Rangers back in the SPl next season ?!"
I want rangers in the top league yes but also believe you should do the time for your crime
Certainly dont believe you should be fast tracked into the SPl just because you have a big fan base
posted on 9/1/13
Davie.....you're right , Queens made more money in the game against us than they have in 10 years ! But the Sky money will have to be used to sweeten these " non believers".
posted on 9/1/13
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 9/1/13
KP why not? 4 times a season only works when your 2 home games v each team are big crowds.
If you could play less home games, but with bigger crowds each game, the total over a season may be higher, with less variable costs.
Example Aberdeen visit say St Mirren and take say 1000 away fans twice. If they visited once and took 2000 fans, is that not a better thing?
posted on 9/1/13
Celtic....aaaah ! Since our crime is now much less than was first alleged don't you agree that business sense should prevail or is it that you want us back but not too soon ?
posted on 9/1/13
An 18-20 team league wouldnt work in scotland far too many clubs that wouldnt be able to accomodate the likes of celtic,rangers, aberdeen etc etc. Or would be able to compete with the bigger clubs.
One top league of 16 with a split after everyone plays home and away(this means sky still gets its 4 old firm games a season). Same as the belgian league. One league of 18 below that. Then regional leagues below this. That would bring the number of professional clubs down from 42 to 34 which would be a more sustainable model.
One governing body should focus getting clubs to amalgamate through financial incentives for better stadiums and training facilities.
Pricing caps on all games and fair voting rights for all clubs. This is the way forward.
This proposed new league structure is basically about giving the impression of doing something while not doing very much at all. It wont however be the death of scottish football as some seem to be screaming its just another missed oppportunity for real change.
posted on 9/1/13
16 team top div. Work down from there.
Screw the 4 OF games per season - in any event, it will be another 2 season at the earliest before this happens and I am pretty sure Sky will survive.
Pricing caps - single body - voting rights - all agreed - but none of this mentioned anywhere in the latest Hampden horror story.
posted on 9/1/13
" Since our crime is now much less than was first alleged"
You really dont get why you are in the 3rd tier do you??
Hint : Its nothing to do with the big tax case
posted on 9/1/13
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 9/1/13
In my view, the extra income involved in the possible higher attendances of a St Mirren playing Aberdeen only twice a season as opposed to four times will be offset by the money lost from Sky, as like it or not Sky are only paying for Rangers and Celtic against any opposition.
SPL clubs want Celtic and eventually Rangers again twice at home because they know they will get crowds through the door and tv money too.
posted on 9/1/13
The belgian league actually splits into 3 sections:
Seasons run from late July to early May, with teams playing 30 matches each in the regular season, and then entering play-offs 1, play-offs 2 or the relegation play-off according to their position in the regular season. Play-offs 1 are contested by the top 6 clubs in the regular season, with each club playing each other twice. Play-offs 2 are contested by teams ranked 7 to 14 in the regular season, divided in two groups of 4 teams playing each other twice. The relegation play-off consists of 5 matches between the 15th and the 16th-placed team in the regular season.
With a slight adjustment scottish football would be a lot more interesting and better off in the long term.
posted on 9/1/13
meandcoop - i want old firm games , i want to have the challenge of rangers in the SPL , i want the feeling of when we lose a game it really matters and will have a bearing on our overall season .
But i dont want your club just being thrown back in the SPl because of these things . I think its right you are where you are but i also look forward to your return ,ok>
posted on 9/1/13
"An 18-20 team league wouldnt work in scotland far too many clubs that wouldnt be able to accomodate the likes of celtic,rangers, aberdeen etc etc. Or would be able to compete with the bigger clubs."
I'm sorry, but for me that point is utter nonsense.
Division three clubs have managed to accomodate Rangers with one exception, Elgin, selling too many tickets.
This whole "the wee clubs cant accomodate us" point to me is just utter lunacy.
You've got Premier League clubs travelling to non-league "stadiums" in the FA cup at the weekend there, and there is not a single negative point to be said about it, no worries or qualms about fans being accomodated nothing, the occassion is all thats spoken about, the romance of it and how massive a day it is for the smaller club.
Thats EXACTLY whats been the case at division three clubs ground this season when Rangers come calling, nothing but positive for the clubs (again with the exception of Elgin being a bit too greedy on a one off occassion).
If the old firm can be accomodated for cup games, if Rangers can be accomodated in division three easy enough, they can be accomodated for league games, at any club, at any ground, ANYWHERE in Scotland, saying "they cant be accomodated" is just utter p!sh!!
posted on 9/1/13
One off games yes fine enough. But long term fans want to sit in new and safe stadiums.
posted on 9/1/13
Can a Celtic fan tell me whether they will buy season tickets for this new set up or not?
My take on this is that the first half of the season before the split is solely to determine who is in the top 8? Celtic will always be in the top 8, so the first half of the season is effectively meaningless as the teams will all start from zero again right?
Why would any Celtic fans buy a full season ticket in that case? Would it not be better to buy tickets for the European games in the autumn/winter period and then buy a half season ticket for the deciding 8 home games?
Obviously some fans will buy tickets for every game regardless, but surely there will be a dip as people pick and choose what games they go to. For Celtic (and eventually Rangers) the first half of the season will be a series of pre-season friendlies that are meaningless. Even the two Old Firm games will have no impact on who wins the league.
It's a ridiculous idea that will never work. Why we cannot just bite the bullet and have a 16 team top division playing twice with a January break is beyond me. Scottish football will never be as wealthy as English football and the beaks need to accept this
posted on 9/1/13
Tornado....Nothin to do with the big tax case? The one that prejudiced the chances of gettin a cva? The phantom bill which pushed hrmc to liquidate us?
That wan?
posted on 9/1/13
Keep in mind your a div 3 club , the world doesn't revolve around you
===
And in that revelation ...
posted on 9/1/13
It would be exciting because quite simply these games between top 4 and bottom 4 would have real purpose
===
And how does that make it exciting for you ? I.e Celtic ... You'll be 20point clear by the split in an 8 team division with the same teams with the usual nothing to play for. It offers nothing different for you and integer top 6 teams. How is that either a better or more exciting product ? It's a sham
Page 2 of 3