Comment deleted by Site Moderator
I have no reason to be bitter towards the man, but a few of you will enjoy these salty, salty tears from Craig Levein: https://twitter.com/libertine95/status/1272548594990698501
Zach.....a compromise would be compensation paid but they remain in the championship next season. That's probably their minimum demand. Course if you compensate Hearts every other team affected in some shape or form will demand compensation.
Stating the bleeding obvious but this is gonna fvck up the start of the season.. Fixtures due out early July I heard
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 2 hours, 30 minutes ago
comment by Zachsda(change our mindset, treat this seriously) (U1850)
posted 26 seconds ago
comment by Dave The Jackal (U22179)
posted 1 minute ago
Bit disappointed, if not surprised, that reconstruction isn't happening. Saw plenty of positives in a top flight of 14. Don't think the latest "vote" has much to do with lack of time or anything. How difficult can it be FFS? Just smacks of clubs' self-interest being the main driver ... again. Just one example ... Ross County seemed pretty vocal about being against it throughout. Don't suppose that had anything to do with keeping local rivals ICT in the Championship, eh?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
self interest who’d have thought
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why would they want to avoid a derby that brought sell outs and TV coverage?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Was just about to say the same.
On what basis do Hearts demonstrate in the first instance that they were relegated “illegally”. The SPFL are a members club and all actions are approved or denied by the members votes which in turn the members demanded. Hearts were and are a constituent part of that.
Secondly now that they are relegated due to being the bottom team, how then do they prove that they would have avoided relaxation.
All I’ve heard is that lawyers care nothing for morality or sentiment so having abided by their own rules and suffering due to their own ineptitude I just can’t see how they’d prove they’d have stayed up. Because that surely has to be the base doesn’t it?
If they can prove they would have stayed up (certainties again) then they can move onto compensation but it appears to me that this is bing more than a ploy to extort financial “compensation” or the threat being they will try and prevent the league from starting.
Hell mend them.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
comment by Zachsda(change our mindset, treat this serious... (U1850)
posted 54 seconds ago
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 1 minute ago
On what basis do Hearts demonstrate in the first instance that they were relegated “illegally”. The SPFL are a members club and all actions are approved or denied by the members votes which in turn the members demanded. Hearts were and are a constituent part of that.
Secondly now that they are relegated due to being the bottom team, how then do they prove that they would have avoided relaxation.
All I’ve heard is that lawyers care nothing for morality or sentiment so having abided by their own rules and suffering due to their own ineptitude I just can’t see how they’d prove they’d have stayed up. Because that surely has to be the base doesn’t it?
If they can prove they would have stayed up (certainties again) then they can move onto compensation but it appears to me that this is bing more than a ploy to extort financial “compensation” or the threat being they will try and prevent the league from starting.
Hell mend them.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Mr Beltrami
I take it you won’t be on here for a while as you’ll be donning your silks and leading the SPFL case
I’m an unpaid advisor for the litigant
My advice to them was go for Lawells Lapdogs
----------------------------------------------------------------------
“Officer. Remove this miscreant from the bench please. He was supposed to have been taken down 30 minutes ago. Something about chickens”
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
He regularly dons his missus' silks
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
While a small part of me does enjoy gloating in Hearts' misfortune, because fvck Hearts, I do think this was a big missed opportunity to shake up our game and make the league actually interesting. Not that league reconstruction in itself would have fixed all the issues, we'll always be a footballing backwater as long as we revel in the "physicality" of our brutal game, but it would have been a start.
See I don't get this whole "make it interesting"
What would be far more interesting making the league bigger? The mid table battle is dull as it is without adding another 2 clubs to it. Let's be honest you wouldn't go watch Hibs v St Johnstone on TV unless you were in with nothing else to do. Adding in 2 more teams to the bottom meaning Hamilton v St Mirren becomes a meaningless game to anyone outside they clubs.
Reconstruction is a stupid idea unless it helps our future development of clubs and country, not just to give Falkirk and ICT a a wee boost.
We have something like 44 professional clubs for a country of around 5M people. FFS England has 96 for a population of over 50 million. Our problem is that too many teams claim to be professional but are run similar to Junior clubs.
We should be looking to ditch the bottom two tiers and make regional semi professional leagues. Even if we do 2 leagues of 12 or 14 we can get rid of the teams that are not professional. They can play regional to save costs on major travel and the miniscule finance that the league gets can be better used to improve our game and not to professionally fund loads of wee clubs with 27 fans
The podcast from yesterday with Tom English, Craig Levein and Donald Findlay was quite interesting. Findlay made the point that reconstruction should always be looked at, but should be done for the right reasons and with the right detail. Doing it just now basically to help Hearts (as they’ve been the main driver for it) wouldn’t give the best outcome. Both sides made a few interesting comments on it, but it was good to hear from someone who you felt was a genuine neutral in the debate-referring to Findlay btw.
Hearts saying that they’re taking this further seems to have stirred up some Gers fans again that think this may have an affect on the outcome of the title. Null and void has raised it’s head again, and some think that an interdict stopping the start of the new season and delaying TV money would only adversely affect Celtic. Some seem to also think that if Hearts get a verdict against the SPFL for compensation then only the teams that voted for the initial resolution should or will be liable!
Bless them.
comment by Call Sign: Clarence (U3627)
posted 11 minutes ago
See I don't get this whole "make it interesting"
What would be far more interesting making the league bigger? The mid table battle is dull as it is without adding another 2 clubs to it. Let's be honest you wouldn't go watch Hibs v St Johnstone on TV unless you were in with nothing else to do. Adding in 2 more teams to the bottom meaning Hamilton v St Mirren becomes a meaningless game to anyone outside they clubs.
Reconstruction is a stupid idea unless it helps our future development of clubs and country, not just to give Falkirk and ICT a a wee boost.
We have something like 44 professional clubs for a country of around 5M people. FFS England has 96 for a population of over 50 million. Our problem is that too many teams claim to be professional but are run similar to Junior clubs.
We should be looking to ditch the bottom two tiers and make regional semi professional leagues. Even if we do 2 leagues of 12 or 14 we can get rid of the teams that are not professional. They can play regional to save costs on major travel and the miniscule finance that the league gets can be better used to improve our game and not to professionally fund loads of wee clubs with 27 fans
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Totally agree that we have far too many teams in total in our league structure, relative to our population size. That's a different debate though.
The reasons I think a top flight of 14 WOULD be more interesting? ... Obvious one of 2 fresh teams to play, for starters. The biggie for me though would be only having to play the dross TWICE a season, rather than 3 times (no offence to the bottom 8 in a restructured 14 team league). How can that not be an improvement? We only play said teams home and away every year, end of ... whilst retaining 4 games a season against the better sides (top 6). We also guarantee always having an even number of games against every team in the league ... 2 or 4 ... and rule out forever the nonsense of having to play the same team 3 times away in one season, as happens regularly just now. No brainer for me, BUT I was only ever in favour if it was a permanent move, and just just a temporary fix to save Hearts. Obviously not happening though, so on we go.
* ... NOT just a temporary fix ...
‘ Obvious one of 2 fresh teams to play, for starters. The biggie for me though would be only having to play the dross TWICE a season, rather than 3 times (no offence to the bottom 8 in a restructured 14 team league). How can that not be an improvement? ’
How does that improve our game overall though? You’re bringing in 2 teams that in most likelihood are going to be battling against relegation, or who (quite rightly) are aiming just for survival. It might make the games for Celtic and rangers fans slightly more interesting in the fact that we only play them twice-but improving the game should be about producing more technical and talented players I would have thought. I don’t see how solely introducing another 2 clubs achieves that.
Btw-I wouldn’t have really cared if they have changed the league, irrespective of the reasons. I just don’t think we’re giving other clubs enough credit for the thinking behind deciding against reconstruction just now.
comment by Dave The Jackal (U22179)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by Call Sign: Clarence (U3627)
posted 11 minutes ago
See I don't get this whole "make it interesting"
What would be far more interesting making the league bigger? The mid table battle is dull as it is without adding another 2 clubs to it. Let's be honest you wouldn't go watch Hibs v St Johnstone on TV unless you were in with nothing else to do. Adding in 2 more teams to the bottom meaning Hamilton v St Mirren becomes a meaningless game to anyone outside they clubs.
Reconstruction is a stupid idea unless it helps our future development of clubs and country, not just to give Falkirk and ICT a a wee boost.
We have something like 44 professional clubs for a country of around 5M people. FFS England has 96 for a population of over 50 million. Our problem is that too many teams claim to be professional but are run similar to Junior clubs.
We should be looking to ditch the bottom two tiers and make regional semi professional leagues. Even if we do 2 leagues of 12 or 14 we can get rid of the teams that are not professional. They can play regional to save costs on major travel and the miniscule finance that the league gets can be better used to improve our game and not to professionally fund loads of wee clubs with 27 fans
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Totally agree that we have far too many teams in total in our league structure, relative to our population size. That's a different debate though.
The reasons I think a top flight of 14 WOULD be more interesting? ... Obvious one of 2 fresh teams to play, for starters. The biggie for me though would be only having to play the dross TWICE a season, rather than 3 times (no offence to the bottom 8 in a restructured 14 team league). How can that not be an improvement? We only play said teams home and away every year, end of ... whilst retaining 4 games a season against the better sides (top 6). We also guarantee always having an even number of games against every team in the league ... 2 or 4 ... and rule out forever the nonsense of having to play the same team 3 times away in one season, as happens regularly just now. No brainer for me, BUT I was only ever in favour if it was a permanent move, and just just a temporary fix to save Hearts. Obviously not happening though, so on we go.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
a larger league doesn't guarantee that theres less dross. It could easily result in a dilution of the talent. I wouldn't say that moving from 10 to 12 increased the quality 20 years ago.
I like the idea of regional at lower levels.
I think less games could help.
Maybe earlier starts too as this might help European teams in early rounds.
Limits on squad sizes and loans might be an idea to stop likes of Rangers and Celtic attempting to hoard young talent.
And yes have reconstruction based on a long term strategy and not just a reaction to one particular crisis.
Totally agree on there being too many "professional" teams. I'd be happy with a 16 team, 30 game top flight. Play each time once home and away, no split nonsense, and no need to cram a hunner games onto a a bog pitch in January just to make up the fixtures. One professional division below that with the rest of the teams, then regional leagues below that.
I understand that a smaller league makes the games feel more "meaningful" because there's less mid-table obscurity, but it's those "meaningless" games that are actually the perfect opportunity for clubs to be giving experience to younger players without so much pressure. I think teams are more likely to play more expansive and attractive football if they don't feel like they're in a "fight" constantly as well.
Do they hoard it or are they doing a development job on behalf of other clubs? Their problem is exactly the same as for their first team - there isn't adequate competition for their talent, hoarded or otherwise.
There is also an issue with some of the clubs in that next tier of wannabe clubs carrying a squad of 20 because that's all they can afford. Often only 2 keepers leading to emergency loans when one is injured. That is what WGS is getting at that really these clubs ought to be part-time and stop pretending.
comment by Miller (U9310)
posted 27 minutes ago
comment by Dave The Jackal (U22179)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by Call Sign: Clarence (U3627)
posted 11 minutes ago
See I don't get this whole "make it interesting"
What would be far more interesting making the league bigger? The mid table battle is dull as it is without adding another 2 clubs to it. Let's be honest you wouldn't go watch Hibs v St Johnstone on TV unless you were in with nothing else to do. Adding in 2 more teams to the bottom meaning Hamilton v St Mirren becomes a meaningless game to anyone outside they clubs.
Reconstruction is a stupid idea unless it helps our future development of clubs and country, not just to give Falkirk and ICT a a wee boost.
We have something like 44 professional clubs for a country of around 5M people. FFS England has 96 for a population of over 50 million. Our problem is that too many teams claim to be professional but are run similar to Junior clubs.
We should be looking to ditch the bottom two tiers and make regional semi professional leagues. Even if we do 2 leagues of 12 or 14 we can get rid of the teams that are not professional. They can play regional to save costs on major travel and the miniscule finance that the league gets can be better used to improve our game and not to professionally fund loads of wee clubs with 27 fans
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Totally agree that we have far too many teams in total in our league structure, relative to our population size. That's a different debate though.
The reasons I think a top flight of 14 WOULD be more interesting? ... Obvious one of 2 fresh teams to play, for starters. The biggie for me though would be only having to play the dross TWICE a season, rather than 3 times (no offence to the bottom 8 in a restructured 14 team league). How can that not be an improvement? We only play said teams home and away every year, end of ... whilst retaining 4 games a season against the better sides (top 6). We also guarantee always having an even number of games against every team in the league ... 2 or 4 ... and rule out forever the nonsense of having to play the same team 3 times away in one season, as happens regularly just now. No brainer for me, BUT I was only ever in favour if it was a permanent move, and just just a temporary fix to save Hearts. Obviously not happening though, so on we go.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
a larger league doesn't guarantee that theres less dross. It could easily result in a dilution of the talent. I wouldn't say that moving from 10 to 12 increased the quality 20 years ago.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Never said there'd be "less dross". By definition, in fact there'd be more dross teams (again with no offence to the dross ... Ivan ). Difference for me is only having to play 16 games against the worst sides, and spread over 8 teams ... versus the current 18 games against only 6 teams in the bottom half, which has frankly become stale as feck. As I said though, ain't happening.
For the overall league I accept there's probably a slight dilution in quality. The main driver in all this though is, as I've said, self-interest. Everybody's currently guaranteed 6 games a season against the OF ... that would only be 4 games for any teams in the bottom 8 of a 14 team league post-split. IMO that seems to be outweighing the fact that it would obviously be far easier for said teams to STAY up in a 14 team league.
comment by WorkPermitPending (U1067)
posted 4 minutes ago
Totally agree on there being too many "professional" teams. I'd be happy with a 16 team, 30 game top flight. Play each time once home and away, no split nonsense, and no need to cram a hunner games onto a a bog pitch in January just to make up the fixtures. One professional division below that with the rest of the teams, then regional leagues below that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't see how a 30 game league could possibly work financially. Most clubs are absolutely skint in a 38 game setup, with a cr@p TV deal based on 4 OF games. How do clubs survive with 4 less home gates, and a reduced TV deal because there are only 2 OF clashes (which would be inevitable)? Non-starter for me.
For the top six it might be slightly better as they'd see them less but I think they'd be cannon fodder mostly that add nothing to the league and teams would need even less quality at the bottom to stay up. I'd add relegation spots if the league expanded but no one would vote for that.
Sign in if you want to comment
No Reconstruction
Page 4 of 5
posted on 15/6/20
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 15/6/20
I have no reason to be bitter towards the man, but a few of you will enjoy these salty, salty tears from Craig Levein: https://twitter.com/libertine95/status/1272548594990698501
posted on 15/6/20
Zach.....a compromise would be compensation paid but they remain in the championship next season. That's probably their minimum demand. Course if you compensate Hearts every other team affected in some shape or form will demand compensation.
Stating the bleeding obvious but this is gonna fvck up the start of the season.. Fixtures due out early July I heard
posted on 15/6/20
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 15/6/20
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 2 hours, 30 minutes ago
comment by Zachsda(change our mindset, treat this seriously) (U1850)
posted 26 seconds ago
comment by Dave The Jackal (U22179)
posted 1 minute ago
Bit disappointed, if not surprised, that reconstruction isn't happening. Saw plenty of positives in a top flight of 14. Don't think the latest "vote" has much to do with lack of time or anything. How difficult can it be FFS? Just smacks of clubs' self-interest being the main driver ... again. Just one example ... Ross County seemed pretty vocal about being against it throughout. Don't suppose that had anything to do with keeping local rivals ICT in the Championship, eh?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
self interest who’d have thought
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why would they want to avoid a derby that brought sell outs and TV coverage?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Was just about to say the same.
posted on 16/6/20
On what basis do Hearts demonstrate in the first instance that they were relegated “illegally”. The SPFL are a members club and all actions are approved or denied by the members votes which in turn the members demanded. Hearts were and are a constituent part of that.
Secondly now that they are relegated due to being the bottom team, how then do they prove that they would have avoided relaxation.
All I’ve heard is that lawyers care nothing for morality or sentiment so having abided by their own rules and suffering due to their own ineptitude I just can’t see how they’d prove they’d have stayed up. Because that surely has to be the base doesn’t it?
If they can prove they would have stayed up (certainties again) then they can move onto compensation but it appears to me that this is bing more than a ploy to extort financial “compensation” or the threat being they will try and prevent the league from starting.
Hell mend them.
posted on 16/6/20
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 16/6/20
comment by Zachsda(change our mindset, treat this serious... (U1850)
posted 54 seconds ago
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 1 minute ago
On what basis do Hearts demonstrate in the first instance that they were relegated “illegally”. The SPFL are a members club and all actions are approved or denied by the members votes which in turn the members demanded. Hearts were and are a constituent part of that.
Secondly now that they are relegated due to being the bottom team, how then do they prove that they would have avoided relaxation.
All I’ve heard is that lawyers care nothing for morality or sentiment so having abided by their own rules and suffering due to their own ineptitude I just can’t see how they’d prove they’d have stayed up. Because that surely has to be the base doesn’t it?
If they can prove they would have stayed up (certainties again) then they can move onto compensation but it appears to me that this is bing more than a ploy to extort financial “compensation” or the threat being they will try and prevent the league from starting.
Hell mend them.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Mr Beltrami
I take it you won’t be on here for a while as you’ll be donning your silks and leading the SPFL case
I’m an unpaid advisor for the litigant
My advice to them was go for Lawells Lapdogs
----------------------------------------------------------------------
“Officer. Remove this miscreant from the bench please. He was supposed to have been taken down 30 minutes ago. Something about chickens”
posted on 16/6/20
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 16/6/20
He regularly dons his missus' silks
posted on 16/6/20
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 16/6/20
While a small part of me does enjoy gloating in Hearts' misfortune, because fvck Hearts, I do think this was a big missed opportunity to shake up our game and make the league actually interesting. Not that league reconstruction in itself would have fixed all the issues, we'll always be a footballing backwater as long as we revel in the "physicality" of our brutal game, but it would have been a start.
posted on 16/6/20
See I don't get this whole "make it interesting"
What would be far more interesting making the league bigger? The mid table battle is dull as it is without adding another 2 clubs to it. Let's be honest you wouldn't go watch Hibs v St Johnstone on TV unless you were in with nothing else to do. Adding in 2 more teams to the bottom meaning Hamilton v St Mirren becomes a meaningless game to anyone outside they clubs.
Reconstruction is a stupid idea unless it helps our future development of clubs and country, not just to give Falkirk and ICT a a wee boost.
We have something like 44 professional clubs for a country of around 5M people. FFS England has 96 for a population of over 50 million. Our problem is that too many teams claim to be professional but are run similar to Junior clubs.
We should be looking to ditch the bottom two tiers and make regional semi professional leagues. Even if we do 2 leagues of 12 or 14 we can get rid of the teams that are not professional. They can play regional to save costs on major travel and the miniscule finance that the league gets can be better used to improve our game and not to professionally fund loads of wee clubs with 27 fans
posted on 16/6/20
The podcast from yesterday with Tom English, Craig Levein and Donald Findlay was quite interesting. Findlay made the point that reconstruction should always be looked at, but should be done for the right reasons and with the right detail. Doing it just now basically to help Hearts (as they’ve been the main driver for it) wouldn’t give the best outcome. Both sides made a few interesting comments on it, but it was good to hear from someone who you felt was a genuine neutral in the debate-referring to Findlay btw.
Hearts saying that they’re taking this further seems to have stirred up some Gers fans again that think this may have an affect on the outcome of the title. Null and void has raised it’s head again, and some think that an interdict stopping the start of the new season and delaying TV money would only adversely affect Celtic. Some seem to also think that if Hearts get a verdict against the SPFL for compensation then only the teams that voted for the initial resolution should or will be liable!
Bless them.
posted on 16/6/20
comment by Call Sign: Clarence (U3627)
posted 11 minutes ago
See I don't get this whole "make it interesting"
What would be far more interesting making the league bigger? The mid table battle is dull as it is without adding another 2 clubs to it. Let's be honest you wouldn't go watch Hibs v St Johnstone on TV unless you were in with nothing else to do. Adding in 2 more teams to the bottom meaning Hamilton v St Mirren becomes a meaningless game to anyone outside they clubs.
Reconstruction is a stupid idea unless it helps our future development of clubs and country, not just to give Falkirk and ICT a a wee boost.
We have something like 44 professional clubs for a country of around 5M people. FFS England has 96 for a population of over 50 million. Our problem is that too many teams claim to be professional but are run similar to Junior clubs.
We should be looking to ditch the bottom two tiers and make regional semi professional leagues. Even if we do 2 leagues of 12 or 14 we can get rid of the teams that are not professional. They can play regional to save costs on major travel and the miniscule finance that the league gets can be better used to improve our game and not to professionally fund loads of wee clubs with 27 fans
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Totally agree that we have far too many teams in total in our league structure, relative to our population size. That's a different debate though.
The reasons I think a top flight of 14 WOULD be more interesting? ... Obvious one of 2 fresh teams to play, for starters. The biggie for me though would be only having to play the dross TWICE a season, rather than 3 times (no offence to the bottom 8 in a restructured 14 team league). How can that not be an improvement? We only play said teams home and away every year, end of ... whilst retaining 4 games a season against the better sides (top 6). We also guarantee always having an even number of games against every team in the league ... 2 or 4 ... and rule out forever the nonsense of having to play the same team 3 times away in one season, as happens regularly just now. No brainer for me, BUT I was only ever in favour if it was a permanent move, and just just a temporary fix to save Hearts. Obviously not happening though, so on we go.
posted on 16/6/20
* ... NOT just a temporary fix ...
posted on 16/6/20
‘ Obvious one of 2 fresh teams to play, for starters. The biggie for me though would be only having to play the dross TWICE a season, rather than 3 times (no offence to the bottom 8 in a restructured 14 team league). How can that not be an improvement? ’
How does that improve our game overall though? You’re bringing in 2 teams that in most likelihood are going to be battling against relegation, or who (quite rightly) are aiming just for survival. It might make the games for Celtic and rangers fans slightly more interesting in the fact that we only play them twice-but improving the game should be about producing more technical and talented players I would have thought. I don’t see how solely introducing another 2 clubs achieves that.
Btw-I wouldn’t have really cared if they have changed the league, irrespective of the reasons. I just don’t think we’re giving other clubs enough credit for the thinking behind deciding against reconstruction just now.
posted on 16/6/20
comment by Dave The Jackal (U22179)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by Call Sign: Clarence (U3627)
posted 11 minutes ago
See I don't get this whole "make it interesting"
What would be far more interesting making the league bigger? The mid table battle is dull as it is without adding another 2 clubs to it. Let's be honest you wouldn't go watch Hibs v St Johnstone on TV unless you were in with nothing else to do. Adding in 2 more teams to the bottom meaning Hamilton v St Mirren becomes a meaningless game to anyone outside they clubs.
Reconstruction is a stupid idea unless it helps our future development of clubs and country, not just to give Falkirk and ICT a a wee boost.
We have something like 44 professional clubs for a country of around 5M people. FFS England has 96 for a population of over 50 million. Our problem is that too many teams claim to be professional but are run similar to Junior clubs.
We should be looking to ditch the bottom two tiers and make regional semi professional leagues. Even if we do 2 leagues of 12 or 14 we can get rid of the teams that are not professional. They can play regional to save costs on major travel and the miniscule finance that the league gets can be better used to improve our game and not to professionally fund loads of wee clubs with 27 fans
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Totally agree that we have far too many teams in total in our league structure, relative to our population size. That's a different debate though.
The reasons I think a top flight of 14 WOULD be more interesting? ... Obvious one of 2 fresh teams to play, for starters. The biggie for me though would be only having to play the dross TWICE a season, rather than 3 times (no offence to the bottom 8 in a restructured 14 team league). How can that not be an improvement? We only play said teams home and away every year, end of ... whilst retaining 4 games a season against the better sides (top 6). We also guarantee always having an even number of games against every team in the league ... 2 or 4 ... and rule out forever the nonsense of having to play the same team 3 times away in one season, as happens regularly just now. No brainer for me, BUT I was only ever in favour if it was a permanent move, and just just a temporary fix to save Hearts. Obviously not happening though, so on we go.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
a larger league doesn't guarantee that theres less dross. It could easily result in a dilution of the talent. I wouldn't say that moving from 10 to 12 increased the quality 20 years ago.
posted on 16/6/20
I like the idea of regional at lower levels.
I think less games could help.
Maybe earlier starts too as this might help European teams in early rounds.
Limits on squad sizes and loans might be an idea to stop likes of Rangers and Celtic attempting to hoard young talent.
And yes have reconstruction based on a long term strategy and not just a reaction to one particular crisis.
posted on 16/6/20
Totally agree on there being too many "professional" teams. I'd be happy with a 16 team, 30 game top flight. Play each time once home and away, no split nonsense, and no need to cram a hunner games onto a a bog pitch in January just to make up the fixtures. One professional division below that with the rest of the teams, then regional leagues below that.
I understand that a smaller league makes the games feel more "meaningful" because there's less mid-table obscurity, but it's those "meaningless" games that are actually the perfect opportunity for clubs to be giving experience to younger players without so much pressure. I think teams are more likely to play more expansive and attractive football if they don't feel like they're in a "fight" constantly as well.
posted on 16/6/20
Do they hoard it or are they doing a development job on behalf of other clubs? Their problem is exactly the same as for their first team - there isn't adequate competition for their talent, hoarded or otherwise.
There is also an issue with some of the clubs in that next tier of wannabe clubs carrying a squad of 20 because that's all they can afford. Often only 2 keepers leading to emergency loans when one is injured. That is what WGS is getting at that really these clubs ought to be part-time and stop pretending.
posted on 16/6/20
comment by Miller (U9310)
posted 27 minutes ago
comment by Dave The Jackal (U22179)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by Call Sign: Clarence (U3627)
posted 11 minutes ago
See I don't get this whole "make it interesting"
What would be far more interesting making the league bigger? The mid table battle is dull as it is without adding another 2 clubs to it. Let's be honest you wouldn't go watch Hibs v St Johnstone on TV unless you were in with nothing else to do. Adding in 2 more teams to the bottom meaning Hamilton v St Mirren becomes a meaningless game to anyone outside they clubs.
Reconstruction is a stupid idea unless it helps our future development of clubs and country, not just to give Falkirk and ICT a a wee boost.
We have something like 44 professional clubs for a country of around 5M people. FFS England has 96 for a population of over 50 million. Our problem is that too many teams claim to be professional but are run similar to Junior clubs.
We should be looking to ditch the bottom two tiers and make regional semi professional leagues. Even if we do 2 leagues of 12 or 14 we can get rid of the teams that are not professional. They can play regional to save costs on major travel and the miniscule finance that the league gets can be better used to improve our game and not to professionally fund loads of wee clubs with 27 fans
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Totally agree that we have far too many teams in total in our league structure, relative to our population size. That's a different debate though.
The reasons I think a top flight of 14 WOULD be more interesting? ... Obvious one of 2 fresh teams to play, for starters. The biggie for me though would be only having to play the dross TWICE a season, rather than 3 times (no offence to the bottom 8 in a restructured 14 team league). How can that not be an improvement? We only play said teams home and away every year, end of ... whilst retaining 4 games a season against the better sides (top 6). We also guarantee always having an even number of games against every team in the league ... 2 or 4 ... and rule out forever the nonsense of having to play the same team 3 times away in one season, as happens regularly just now. No brainer for me, BUT I was only ever in favour if it was a permanent move, and just just a temporary fix to save Hearts. Obviously not happening though, so on we go.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
a larger league doesn't guarantee that theres less dross. It could easily result in a dilution of the talent. I wouldn't say that moving from 10 to 12 increased the quality 20 years ago.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Never said there'd be "less dross". By definition, in fact there'd be more dross teams (again with no offence to the dross ... Ivan ). Difference for me is only having to play 16 games against the worst sides, and spread over 8 teams ... versus the current 18 games against only 6 teams in the bottom half, which has frankly become stale as feck. As I said though, ain't happening.
For the overall league I accept there's probably a slight dilution in quality. The main driver in all this though is, as I've said, self-interest. Everybody's currently guaranteed 6 games a season against the OF ... that would only be 4 games for any teams in the bottom 8 of a 14 team league post-split. IMO that seems to be outweighing the fact that it would obviously be far easier for said teams to STAY up in a 14 team league.
posted on 16/6/20
comment by WorkPermitPending (U1067)
posted 4 minutes ago
Totally agree on there being too many "professional" teams. I'd be happy with a 16 team, 30 game top flight. Play each time once home and away, no split nonsense, and no need to cram a hunner games onto a a bog pitch in January just to make up the fixtures. One professional division below that with the rest of the teams, then regional leagues below that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't see how a 30 game league could possibly work financially. Most clubs are absolutely skint in a 38 game setup, with a cr@p TV deal based on 4 OF games. How do clubs survive with 4 less home gates, and a reduced TV deal because there are only 2 OF clashes (which would be inevitable)? Non-starter for me.
posted on 16/6/20
For the top six it might be slightly better as they'd see them less but I think they'd be cannon fodder mostly that add nothing to the league and teams would need even less quality at the bottom to stay up. I'd add relegation spots if the league expanded but no one would vote for that.
posted on 16/6/20
100!
Page 4 of 5