| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Spl Change? |
| Yes |
|
92% |
[ 46 ] |
| No |
|
8% |
[ 4 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 50 |
|
| Author |
Message |
Steven
Joined: 12 Jul 2008
Posts: 741
Location: Leeds
|
 Posted: Fri Sep 10, 2010 5:04 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Crazy Englishman wrote: | I think just about everyone is missing the real point to this.
Correct me if i am wrong, but we the fans pay our money to watch an exciting product which should match our expectations to some level. We are not being given value for money. Surely on that issue alone we could do something about it.
If the fans had a group who would and could organise some sort of match by match boycot, surely those running the game would have to listen. Yes some clubs would be put in difficulty, but its the clubs themselves that are allowing this nonsense to prevail so they have to bare some of the blame too.
Why on earth did Scottish football ever allow itself to form this stupid league set up, and why oh why did they try to emulate the english and some european leagues when they simply dont have the population to sustain such a set up.
Scotland has the opportunity to form its own league set up which could form an example for all countries with a similar population level. All the jigsaw peices are there, it simply needs people who have the brains to put them all into there correct place. Sadly their does not appear to be anyone with brains.
Sorry guys, not having a go at the Scots or the Nation, but at the numbnuts who are ruining scottish football. |
I wanted to do something like that years ago but people in this country would rather pay their money while complaining...
Nothing will change anytime soon sadly!!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Marko
Joined: 25 Apr 2009
Posts: 1148
Location: Kirkcaldy
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 10, 2010 5:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I think two and then a playoff similar to what we have in the lower leagues would work. You could have 14th in the SPL v 2nd, 3rd and 4th in the first division. That's what exists in the lower leagues and it's not been too bad. The SPL would never go for that though; it would be a hard enough job convincing them that half as many games against the OF would be a good idea. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Crazy Englishman
Joined: 12 Jul 2008
Posts: 6594
Location: sunny varna on the black sea coast
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 10, 2010 5:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Marko wrote: | | I think two and then a playoff similar to what we have in the lower leagues would work. You could have 14th in the SPL v 2nd, 3rd and 4th in the first division. That's what exists in the lower leagues and it's not been too bad. The SPL would never go for that though; it would be a hard enough job convincing them that half as many games against the OF would be a good idea. |
But Marco, the size of each division is one of the main reasons scottish football is becoming so boring. That and playing each other 4 times. There is very little variety. It needs, spl, 1st and 2nd divisions of 20 or 21 teams, one cup tournament less. There are some very good junior clubs who could make up the shortfall for leagues of this size. And if the old firm dont like it, then let them *bleep* off to some other league. They are after all only two clubs who contribute very little in actual fact, but who do starve the other clubs of real income.
Marks and Sparks are a classic example. They didnt give there customers what they wanted. The customers stayed away in droves so M&S had to reorganise. Look at them now. Woolies didnt follow suit, and now they are gone. Its simple in my mind, change or die.
_________________
now enjoying my fishing time, at peace with nature. but being a avid radio ham my global contacts have increased. any hams around call me lz2csk on 14200 or their aboyuts |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steven
Joined: 12 Jul 2008
Posts: 741
Location: Leeds
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 10, 2010 5:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Scotland simply dosen't have enough decent teams to have a top division of 20 as it would mean the likes of Stirling or Cowden in the SPL which would just make them cannon fodder... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
scotty
Joined: 12 Jul 2008
Posts: 9065
Location: Almost Dysart.
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 10, 2010 5:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I don't think a 16 team league is big enough to have 3 relegation spots. A 20 team league would fit the criteria better but I'd guess there'd be even less chance of that getting voted in.
I like what McCall said about only having 1 visit from a team a season. He's spot on when he says that the OF no longer fill grounds when they come, so perhaps 1 visit a season would make it special and have the full house signs up again.
He's also spot on about the OF only being interested in playing each other 4 times a season, but everyone knew that anyway.
As for the boycott suggestion it's completely unworkable. The old Firm are the one that it'd have to happen to as they are least likely to agree to change but their fans won't do anything to compromise their club.
Then it's just a matter of 1 other club agreeing with the OF and the ba's on the slaties. Now I'm not saying that there are unscrupulous people on the boards of some other clubs who could be bought but......
_________________
Competitive goals: Vaughan 18, Easton 11, Hamilton 10, Smith 9, Stanton 7, Mullin 4, Connolly 3, O'Reilly 3, Rudden 3, S Brown 1, Dick 1, Gullan 1, Masson 1, Millen 1, Mitchell 1, Murray, Watson 1, OG's 1, |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steven
Joined: 12 Jul 2008
Posts: 741
Location: Leeds
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 10, 2010 5:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think a 18 team league would be the best comprimise between the amount of games over a season (34) and we should have enough teams
My only worry is the gap between a top league of 16/18 and the division below would be simply too great and it would knacker any club that went down as instead of playing the Old Firm/Edinburgh clubs you would be playing the likes of Dumbarton & East Fife which would seriously hurt crowds. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Crazy Englishman
Joined: 12 Jul 2008
Posts: 6594
Location: sunny varna on the black sea coast
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 10, 2010 6:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Scotty i wasnt refering to the OF when i mentioned boycott. I was refering to the SFL. The 3x10 set up is stupid in my opinion. Because of this we are not being served the total product we are paying for.
With regards to smaller teams being cannon fodder in the spl. Maybe, maybe not, but overall i suggest the overall gates would increase. That would re-distribute money more evenly instead of the OF getting the lions share. Also i am pretty certain the likes of EF or CB would be able to attract better crowds than they currently do. Yes they would almost certainly go straight back down, but be richer for it, money wise and more importantly experience wise.
Yes it would take two or three seasons or longer for the true benefits to show. 20 team divisions with 3 up and 3 down would be perfect. It would probably never happen, but supposing aberdeen, DU and say Motherwell were relegated and ef, stirling and say alloa went up. Even tough they would be blitzed, they would be richer and have more experience when they came back down and the non promoted clubs likewise with increased gate from at least 3 games. Maybe not a great example but you should get my drift.
Steven, why would it knacker any club that went down. They would have to cut there cloth to suit. However, i would suggest with them challenging they would not be that worse off anyways. But one thing you have eluded. There may well be a big gap in capabilites now, but the experince must surely benefit those clubs and players and in time scottish football too.
_________________
now enjoying my fishing time, at peace with nature. but being a avid radio ham my global contacts have increased. any hams around call me lz2csk on 14200 or their aboyuts |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steven
Joined: 12 Jul 2008
Posts: 741
Location: Leeds
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 10, 2010 6:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| How many home fans would turn up every week if they are getting turned over by 4 or 5 every game? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Crazy Englishman
Joined: 12 Jul 2008
Posts: 6594
Location: sunny varna on the black sea coast
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 10, 2010 7:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
How manmy extra away supporters would they get. I suggest for the likes of the three i mentioned it would far exceed what they lose in home support.
_________________
now enjoying my fishing time, at peace with nature. but being a avid radio ham my global contacts have increased. any hams around call me lz2csk on 14200 or their aboyuts |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steven
Joined: 12 Jul 2008
Posts: 741
Location: Leeds
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 10, 2010 7:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Crazy Englishman wrote: | | How manmy extra away supporters would they get. I suggest for the likes of the three i mentioned it would far exceed what they lose in home support. |
And who's to say they will come back the following season... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Crazy Englishman
Joined: 12 Jul 2008
Posts: 6594
Location: sunny varna on the black sea coast
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 10, 2010 7:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I could counter with whos to say they will not.  But i wont.
as that is quite possible. However, it is equally possible the hardcore support would increase.
There is arguement both ways, so lets agree to disagree on this. The SPS is what the capitals say they are and they are prepared to cut off the hand that feeds them. So be it. But thats not to say the sfl cannot revamped its product. I would suggest the SPS would come running to us first.
_________________
now enjoying my fishing time, at peace with nature. but being a avid radio ham my global contacts have increased. any hams around call me lz2csk on 14200 or their aboyuts |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
scotty
Joined: 12 Jul 2008
Posts: 9065
Location: Almost Dysart.
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 11, 2010 6:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Crazy Englishman wrote: | | Scotty i wasnt refering to the OF when i mentioned boycott. I was refering to the SFL. The 3x10 set up is stupid in my opinion. Because of this we are not being served the total product we are paying for. |
That makes no sense whatsoever. Our boycotting games in the SFL wont make the SPL chairmen change their vote as it doesn't affect them or thier income. It's as relevent as me telling my local publican I'm not coming to his pub until the new swimming pool is built. The chairmen of the SFL clubs all want change but its the chairmen of the SPL clubs that control the issue. The biggest and best supported clubs outwith the SPL are almost all in Div 1 at present but no change in league set-up would help unless the SPL was included in the shake-up. I agree that the league structure isn't right but it's the fruit at top of the tree that brings in the money and although nobody likes the current substandard produce (and the SPL chairmen know it) they are unwilling to lose out financially on such a large scale. Yes they are greedy and no they are not willing to help out the game by agreeing to change if it will cost them anything.
| Crazy Englishman wrote: | | With regards to smaller teams being cannon fodder in the spl. Maybe, maybe not, but overall i suggest the overall gates would increase. That would re-distribute money more evenly instead of the OF getting the lions share. Also i am pretty certain the likes of EF or CB would be able to attract better crowds than they currently do. Yes they would almost certainly go straight back down, but be richer for it, money wise and more importantly experience wise. |
Chris this is old hat. The OF have manipulated the system since day the others (Queens Park, Clyde, Thirds, Hearts, Hibs, Partick etc) fell by the wayside and they became the undisputed big two. The SPL is nothing but a self serving tool to ensure that they have control. Yes other clubs were stupid to agree to such a system but they now have it in place and it safe guards them, as the man said "turkeys never vote for Christmas".
| Crazy Englishman wrote: | | Yes it would take two or three seasons or longer for the true benefits to show. 20 team divisions with 3 up and 3 down would be perfect. It would probably never happen, but supposing aberdeen, DU and say Motherwell were relegated and ef, stirling and say alloa went up. Even tough they would be blitzed, they would be richer and have more experience when they came back down and the non promoted clubs likewise with increased gate from at least 3 games. Maybe not a great example but you should get my drift. |
It's a grand dream but in the end of the day it's only a pipe dream. It will never happen. Clubs with less than 6000 seats (eg Stirling, East Fife, Cowdenbeath Alloa, & Ayr who have less than 3000) just wouldn't be welcomed. The ground criteria wouldn't be met and quite possibly you'd find clubs who wouldn't want promotion because they couldn't afford it on a wages basis nevermind ground improvement. As has been said elsewhere relegation to such a league would be the death knell for a bigger club. You only have to look at how close to the end we came (and Partick, Livvi, Pars etc) when we dropped out of the top flight to the 1st after blowing millions on the stadium.
In one word "Gretna", they went where a club of that size never should have gone and paid the ultimate price.
Oh and btw in two leagues of 20 what two Scottish clubs are to be killed off/thrown out of the SFL.
| Crazy Englishman wrote: | | Steven, why would it knacker any club that went down. They would have to cut there cloth to suit. However, i would suggest with them challenging they would not be that worse off anyways. But one thing you have eluded. There may well be a big gap in capabilites now, but the experince must surely benefit those clubs and players and in time scottish football too. |
The only big gap here Chris is in your grasp on the reality and economics of football in Scotland. Ask the few Gretna fans there is if the price they paid for the experience of the SPL was worth it. Even if BM had lived the long term dream was unsustainable for such a wee club.
When you sign players in a gamble to get promoted they look for stability so you have to give them 2/3 yr contracts. You may well average 3000 (eg Hamilton) in the top league and manage to pay the wages but a drop into a 2nd div would see a travelling support down to what we were used to seeing two seasons ago and it's that stat' that makes the gamble of getting better/full-time player in unrealistic for wee clubs.
You can say small club chairmen are unambitious but Gretna aside look at what Willie Gray's ambition nearly did for our Methil neighbours. Once you get on that bus if it dosen't take you straight to your stop then you are in trouble, just ask John Yorkson.
_________________
Competitive goals: Vaughan 18, Easton 11, Hamilton 10, Smith 9, Stanton 7, Mullin 4, Connolly 3, O'Reilly 3, Rudden 3, S Brown 1, Dick 1, Gullan 1, Masson 1, Millen 1, Mitchell 1, Murray, Watson 1, OG's 1, |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tam
Moderator
Joined: 06 Jul 2008
Posts: 6452
Location: Kettlebridge
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 11, 2010 8:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| On the button Lord Scotty. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Crazy Englishman
Joined: 12 Jul 2008
Posts: 6594
Location: sunny varna on the black sea coast
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 11, 2010 8:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
So what your saying in essence Scotty is Scottish football should only have one league consisting of clubs that meet the spl criteria. In other words invite us, falkirk, dundee, partick, qos, pars, airdie and clyde whom i think fit the criteria and form a spl of 20 clubs and deny all the other clubs the chance to experience the spl which in reality is what would happen.
Theres a huge divide now between clubs so what is the point of having 4 divisions when you could comfortably run an spl and then a conference type league with no promotion or relegation. Dont some scandinavian countries run a league set up as this. On that basis there is an arguement for expanding the spl.
Scotty my friend, scotland has a population of 5.5 million and runs a league set up 42 clubs. London has a population of 20 million yet only has 8 (I think) senior clubs. Manchester has a population of just over 5 million and only has 2 clubs, same for liverpool 3.5 million yet on 3 clubs. Its down to population and demographics and on that basis there is every arguement for actually scrapping the spl altogether and running just 2 divisions first and second.
The idea of the spl was to improve the product, which has failed miserably and unless this is enlarged in conjunction with an sfl overhaul then scottish football will continue to decline and clubs like Gretna will continue to look to live the experience and go to the wall in the process. But yes, an expanded spl with a complete sfl revamp is something that has to happen.
Maybe i havent explained my thinking very well, but you are of sufficient intelligence to get the overall meaning of my posts.
_________________
now enjoying my fishing time, at peace with nature. but being a avid radio ham my global contacts have increased. any hams around call me lz2csk on 14200 or their aboyuts |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steven
Joined: 12 Jul 2008
Posts: 741
Location: Leeds
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 11, 2010 8:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
Since when did Manchester have a population of 5 million? 
Manchester itself has a population of 464,200 while Greater Manchester has a population of 2,600,000 which includes cities like Bolton, Wigan, Bury, Oldham, Rochdale, Stockport and I think all these places have teams... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
