Reorganisation of Scottish Football

There aren't 42 professional clubs, and there's already regional setup in place where clubs are progressing and the better teams reaching the top. This goes down the a 10th level bemowbthe SPFL

What requires change is a better setup of the leagues, with ideally a Premier league with a larger championship and league one with then a revamped Highland and Lowland League below with guaranteed promotion spots for each.

@Grumpy Old Git
 
iaatpies said:
Darvel have had money thrown at them. If the money men walk away then what happens? Can say the same for Cove, Kelty (to a lesser extent) and Queens Park. Compare that to the struggles Bonnyrigg are having trying to be competitive in League Two. They're trying to do things sustainably and that means dealing with challenges without resorting to unsustainable spending. Pollok spent money on facilities to allow them to enter the Scottish Cup. That'll pay off in time, but they had to raise the money. Clydebank have invested in youth development, community football and women's football.

I think we need to be very careful when we talk about non-league sides showing ambition. Ambition isnt some rich benefactor spunking some money for a few seasons and then ultimately walking away, leaving the club in the financial shitter. I'd much rather see the likes of Pollok and Clydebank work sustainably towards being real assets to their community and ultimately keeping football accessible than Darvel being used as a play thing. We don't need boom and bust in Scottish football.
Click to expand...
Darvel are probably the next Gretna

We all know how that ended
 
tigger said:
The defeat of Aberdeen by Darvel is glorious and I for one have enjoyed it. However, are we missing something here. Does the result highlight that teams from the Junior leagues will strengthen the SPFL rather than diminish it? Does it highlight (if it really needed to previously) that there has to be a root and branch reorganisation of Scottish football with a change to the way clubs are promoted and relegated.
Click to expand...
Darvel are comfortably better than most lowland league teams and probably better than many in league 2.

There should be more promotion/relegation places in the lowland league etc
 
iaatpies said:
The next Gretna type club will be either Cove, Kelty or Queens Park. Kelty seem to be consolidating and trying to impose a degree of stability. Queens Park anything but. I'd rather see Spartans, Pollok, Talbot or Clydebank reach the professional ranks than Darvel.
Click to expand...
Haughey is building an empire and theme park over by Hampden. He has his his paws on the old Police grounds in Pollok Park and in Cathkin Park through the Jimmy Johnstone academy.

If they can get lesser Hampden up to 3,000 capacity and use Hampden for bugger games they are laughing.

Balancing Act for Pollok and others. If you go up you loose money right away. Your chances of winning things diminish and the likes of Auchinleck and Irvine will stay West. Glenafton have got a licence now so it will be good to see a more interesting Scottish Cup.

SPFL 3 will happen eventually. I'd like to see bigger divisions.
 
Saturnblue said:
Kenny Millier was another good striker, but if you look over the last 30 years good Scottish strikers have been few and far between.

It's really strange because there have been lots of good defenders and midfielders but very very few strikers.
Click to expand...
Duncan Ferguson….that’s about it!
 
DavieM said:
A town the size of Darvel can't really strengthen Scottish football nor can (m)any of the Junior sides support base.
Click to expand...

Not saying you are wrong, but how do their attendances compare to the teams in the bottom league of the SPFL? While they arent going to change the top league, it might make the bottom league more competitive if there was a proper pyramid.
 
Truck Turner said:
Haughey is building an empire and theme park over by Hampden. He has his his paws on the old Police grounds in Pollok Park and in Cathkin Park through the Jimmy Johnstone academy.

If they can get lesser Hampden up to 3,000 capacity and use Hampden for bugger games they are laughing.

Balancing Act for Pollok and others. If you go up you loose money right away. Your chances of winning things diminish and the likes of Auchinleck and Irvine will stay West. Glenafton have got a licence now so it will be good to see a more interesting Scottish Cup.

SPFL 3 will happen eventually. I'd like to see bigger divisions.
Click to expand...

What has he got in Pollok park? The police dogs were still there and Lochinch as well? I cant think of another bit that was police.
 
imagine if the mentally challengeds were closed down for their crimes against humanity (we all know it will never be allowed to happen) then we would have to restructure our leagues.would their support go and follow other teams,no chance! same with us,once a ranger always a ranger!!! look at darvel last night,full house of 3 to 4 thousand,most of which were rangers or scum supporters,how could they survive in a professional league.most recent example is livingstone who have next to no support and have to give three stands to rival fans to survive and also use a plastic park so that they can bring in much needed cash. so there you have it,i think the time must come when we have to get involved in the english leagues or face a reduction in our income and watch our leagues go into oblivion!!!
 
Rt. Hon. Bearman said:
We get paid peanuts for this discredited league system with 4 Old Firms per season.

Scottish football gets a poor TV deal because it’s a boring, uncompetitive product.

A league of 18 with all the teams only facing each other twice per season is the way to go. No split either.

Four teams relegated per season.

Get fans back into the stadiums. Let supporters have a drink. Give away free tickets to local schools. Bring in safe standing.

If anyone thinks this idea is worse than what we currently have then I’d love to see their working.

Scottish football has been in decline ever since it rejected Sky’s new deal in the early 2000s. That’s over 20 years ago now and it ain’t showing signs of recovery.

More of the same means more of the pain.
Click to expand...
Underneath this a Championship of 24 teams or something like North and South Championship?
 
thethunderer said:
Underneath this a Championship of 24 teams or something like North and South Championship?
Click to expand...
I'd have a Premiership of 18 clubs and the same number of clubs in the Championship, making a total of 36 league clubs. This is a reduction from 42 clubs currently.

A 24 team Championship would mean a league season of 46 games per club. If you have a harsh winter, and then factor in Scottish Cup and League Cup ties, it would make for too congested a calendar. January and February could be thick snow and then you'd be squeezing in three games a week in March/April to catch up.

I know the EFL sides down south manage it, but that's a wealthier league system with better grounds (undersoil heating) and a bigger budget for travel.

So four teams down from the Prem, four teams up from the Championship. And another four teams down from the Championship into the Highland/Lowland leagues.

At any given time in the Championship you'd have 8 out of 18 clubs occupying either a promotion or relegation spot. And the 10 clubs in the middle would still be in the mix in either direction. Imagine you're in 9th or 10th place. Attaining 4th spot isn't a pipe dream, nor are you safe from dropping down to 15th place and being relegated.

In every round of fixtures it is almost certain that every club would have something tangible to play for.

As for the Premiership, Old Firm and Edinburgh derbies would take on more significance if there were only two of them in the league each season.

We'd go to Pittodrie once per season, not two or three times. The Mhanks would go to Tynecastle once per season. It would be more of an event.

And if you draw a club from the same division as you in the cup, then it's less samey if you're only meeting twice in the league each season.

And, UEFA coefficient permitting, Scotland would have four European spots up for grabs. Two CL, one Europa and one Conference. So looking at mid table clubs, if they can put together a run and finish 4th then hey presto they're in the Conference League qualifiers. Go on a bad run however and all of a sudden you could be facing Championship football the following season.
 
Rt. Hon. Bearman said:
We get paid peanuts for this discredited league system with 4 Old Firms per season.

Scottish football gets a poor TV deal because it’s a boring, uncompetitive product.

A league of 18 with all the teams only facing each other twice per season is the way to go. No split either.

Four teams relegated per season.

Get fans back into the stadiums. Let supporters have a drink. Give away free tickets to local schools. Bring in safe standing.

If anyone thinks this idea is worse than what we currently have then I’d love to see their working.

Scottish football has been in decline ever since it rejected Sky’s new deal in the early 2000s. That’s over 20 years ago now and it ain’t showing signs of recovery.

More of the same means more of the pain.
Click to expand...

Sport isnt worth watching without competition. You wont get competition until you share the limited income more evenly. Everything else is just tinkering. Having said that I dont disagree with any of your suggestions.
 
TW14 said:
Whilst I agree with the sentiment of the loyal fanbase. Their fanbase average age must be pretty high - and most kids now have zero interest in watching part time football with all respect to the players and staff.

Its a pretty simple notion, adapt or dont exist beyond your existing fanbases lifespan.

Rangers and Celtic don’t have any need to merge - your comparison is poor.
Our youth team can draw a larger support than most of the league 1 and 2 sides.

Scottish football has too many clubs for the size of the country, with a sub par product that not many want to watch for free let alone pay to see.
It would be interesting to see how many clubs we directly kept in business during our journey through the divisions.
Click to expand...

No club was kept in business by Rangers fans turning up twice during the so called banter years. It's a myth that Rangers fans like to believe to make themselves feel better about the journey that it somehow helped smaller sides. It didnt. It was a one off financial boost that has long since been spent.

We have full time teams in Scotland who struggle to attract fans. Aberdeen should be selling out Pittodrie. The 2 Dundee teams should be getting bigger crowds. St Johnstone. St Mirren. Kilmarnock. Motherwell. If your answer to Scottish football's problems is to merge part time sides then how do you address terrible attendances at full time teams outside of Rangers, Celtic, Hibs and Hearts?

It's a bonkers notion. Merging teams isn't a solution. The only thing that would help improve Scottish football would be something extreme - such as financially disadvantaging the old firm and giving a greater share of pooled resources to the smaller sides, or limiting the crowds at Ibrox or the San Giro to a maximum 25,000 and encouraging old firm fans to start following other clubs.

Reality is that there is no solution that'll improve Scottish football because Rangers and Celtic enjoy an impossibly dominant position in the game. Unless you're willing to see both sides diminished for the betterment of everybody else then it's time to start valuing what we have a bit more and trying to make sustainable improvements to our game.
 
vicbex said:
Sport isnt worth watching without competition. You wont get competition until you share the limited income more evenly. Everything else is just tinkering. Having said that I dont disagree with any of your suggestions.
Click to expand...

The lower leagues in Scotland are ultra competitive. Promotion and relegation battles regularly go right to the last couple of games. The argument that we don't have competitive football in Scotland is a myth. We don't have a competitive top flight, but the leagues below that are highly competitive.

If competition was the problem then tier 2 and below would be seeing packed grounds because those leagues are as competitive as you'll find.
 
Scottish football is all about self-preservation so no club is ever going to vote for a top league of 16/18/20 as it’ll take away a guaranteed home game against rangers or Celtic, plus the carrot of getting into the top 6 is an extra game on top

Teams aren’t going to vote to reduce the number of home games against rangers/Celtic from 3 guaranteed/potentially 4, to only having 2. That’s the stumbling block unfortunately
 
iaatpies said:
The lower leagues in Scotland are ultra competitive. Promotion and relegation battles regularly go right to the last couple of games. The argument that we don't have competitive football in Scotland is a myth. We don't have a competitive top flight, but the leagues below that are highly competitive.

If competition was the problem then tier 2 and below would be seeing packed grounds because those leagues are as competitive as you'll find.
Click to expand...

Im not referring to the lower leagues however its good to know that its just a "myth" that Scottish football isnt competitive. And here was me thinking Rangers and Celtic winning over 50 titles each, with 3 × 9 in a rows, was a problem.
 
vicbex said:
Im not referring to the lower leagues however its good to know that its just a "myth" that Scottish football isnt competitive. And here was me thinking Rangers and Celtic winning over 50 titles each, with 3 × 9 in a rows, was a problem.
Click to expand...

You talk about the problem being lack of competition. What you actually mean is exclusively in the top flight. We've rarely had a competitive top flight in Scotland. How many times in the past 50 years has a team other than Rangers or Celtic won the title? And in how many of those seasons was it genuinely competitive between the winner and a team other than Rangers or Celtic?

The lack of competition in the top flight is a problem 59 years and more in the making. If competition was the important factor then the ultra competitive lower leagues would have packed grounds every Saturday.
 
It should be an 18 team top league with no split, possibly adopt the Scandinavian model of summer football.

More sponsorship and subscription opportunities need explored, the Sky deal is utter dung and is a paltry amount compared to what other leagues get for access to their live games, a top down revamp is needed, there's many SFA CEO's who are stagnating our game.
 
iaatpies said:
No club was kept in business by Rangers fans turning up twice during the so called banter years. It's a myth that Rangers fans like to believe to make themselves feel better about the journey that it somehow helped smaller sides. It didnt. It was a one off financial boost that has long since been spent.

We have full time teams in Scotland who struggle to attract fans. Aberdeen should be selling out Pittodrie. The 2 Dundee teams should be getting bigger crowds. St Johnstone. St Mirren. Kilmarnock. Motherwell. If your answer to Scottish football's problems is to merge part time sides then how do you address terrible attendances at full time teams outside of Rangers, Celtic, Hibs and Hearts?

It's a bonkers notion. Merging teams isn't a solution. The only thing that would help improve Scottish football would be something extreme - such as financially disadvantaging the old firm and giving a greater share of pooled resources to the smaller sides, or limiting the crowds at Ibrox or the San Giro to a maximum 25,000 and encouraging old firm fans to start following other clubs.

Reality is that there is no solution that'll improve Scottish football because Rangers and Celtic enjoy an impossibly dominant position in the game. Unless you're willing to see both sides diminished for the betterment of everybody else then it's time to start valuing what we have a bit more and trying to make sustainable improvements to our game.
Click to expand...
During the weekend I was watching old videos on YouTube and I came across one where St Johnstone in the First Division had a sell out all ticket game with Airdrie in 1989. 10,000 people at the game. Must have been a combination of a new stadium and the fact they were going for promotion, plus tickets relative to average wages were much cheaper back then, but Scottish football needs to try and get back to that, somehow.
 
iaatpies said:
You talk about the problem being lack of competition. What you actually mean is exclusively in the top flight. We've rarely had a competitive top flight in Scotland. How many times in the past 50 years has a team other than Rangers or Celtic won the title? And in how many of those seasons was it genuinely competitive between the winner and a team other than Rangers or Celtic?

The lack of competition in the top flight is a problem 59 years and more in the making. If competition was the important factor then the ultra competitive lower leagues would have packed grounds every Saturday.
Click to expand...

Im afraid we'll have to agree to disagree but thanks for pointing out how wrong I am.
 
tigger said:
The defeat of Aberdeen by Darvel is glorious and I for one have enjoyed it. However, are we missing something here. Does the result highlight that teams from the Junior leagues will strengthen the SPFL rather than diminish it? Does it highlight (if it really needed to previously) that there has to be a root and branch reorganisation of Scottish football with a change to the way clubs are promoted and relegated.
Click to expand...
One of the many problems of Scottish football is that there are far too many "professional" teams as it stands - not too few...

I believe that Scotland has (or had) the highest number of "professional" teams per head of population in the world.
 
2 divisions of 12, both have the split & play-offs. The rest go into Highland & Lowland Premier, with B teams able to go as high as the premier division.

More derbies, less traveling & putting more money towards a smaller portion of teams is what the professional game realistically needs.

Also any team that reaches the SPFL 2 can't have a plastic pitch & must meet UEFA tournament's minimum regulations on youth academies. Can't afford it Livi? Then you're living outwith your means.
 
BlueBear1972 said:
This might be a bit controversial but for me I think we should have 2 leagues of 22 and 20 and have some more relegation and promotion at the top level of the game. Instead of the 4 divisions we have now.

I feel like teams are placed in a position where they find it hard to bring through youth and stick with them just now for fear of relegation etc... It would also mean if a team in the bottom 20 do bring through a good group of youths they can go up to the top league and have a crack at the best in the country quickly.

To be honest I don't see many arguments against it now that we don't have minimum stadium requirements in the top league. The only argument is the 4 old firm games would be down to 2 but I think having a better variety of opponent and more Scottish youths getting game time is much more beneficial.
Click to expand...

I'm not against it per say, but it will never happen. Not just the OF games being lost either. The sheep for example won't give up 2x games at Pittoddrie against Hibs, Hearts, Dundee Utd, us, them etc. and replace them with one game against Ayr, Airdrie, Falkirk etc. Also would be a load more dead rubbers as about 12 teams would have nothing to play for from January onwards (unless you had playoffs to get into Europe, and had loads of teams getting relegated/promoted).

Believe it or not, but Portugal for example actually discuss following the "Scottish model" and reducing to a 10 team league to increase the number of big games. I wager the Dutch will have thought likewise.
 
iaatpies said:
No club was kept in business by Rangers fans turning up twice during the so called banter years. It's a myth that Rangers fans like to believe to make themselves feel better about the journey that it somehow helped smaller sides. It didnt. It was a one off financial boost that has long since been spent.

We have full time teams in Scotland who struggle to attract fans. Aberdeen should be selling out Pittodrie. The 2 Dundee teams should be getting bigger crowds. St Johnstone. St Mirren. Kilmarnock. Motherwell. If your answer to Scottish football's problems is to merge part time sides then how do you address terrible attendances at full time teams outside of Rangers, Celtic, Hibs and Hearts?

It's a bonkers notion. Merging teams isn't a solution. The only thing that would help improve Scottish football would be something extreme - such as financially disadvantaging the old firm and giving a greater share of pooled resources to the smaller sides, or limiting the crowds at Ibrox or the San Giro to a maximum 25,000 and encouraging old firm fans to start following other clubs.

Reality is that there is no solution that'll improve Scottish football because Rangers and Celtic enjoy an impossibly dominant position in the game. Unless you're willing to see both sides diminished for the betterment of everybody else then it's time to start valuing what we have a bit more and trying to make sustainable improvements to our game.
Click to expand...
Making teams attractive doesnt go hand in hand with making the OF poorer.

Less teams, more money to each of them.

Scottish football has to embrace change or continue a slow, painful existence.
 
I am still 50/50 if Darvel win the league they are in, they crashed at the play off last year and I would bet Falkirk beat them in a few weeks.
 
TW14 said:
Making teams attractive doesnt go hand in hand with making the OF poorer.

Less teams, more money to each of them.

Scottish football has to embrace change or continue a slow, painful existence.
Click to expand...

Less teams mean people walking away from the game. If you were to merge Motherwell, Hamilton, Albion Rovers and Airdrie then the resulting Lanarkshire United would not attract the combined supports of the former 4 clubs.

You'd probably see them getting fewer fans than Motherwell do now.
 
iaatpies said:
Less teams mean people walking away from the game. If you were to merge Motherwell, Hamilton, Albion Rovers and Airdrie then the resulting Lanarkshire United would not attract the combined supports of the former 4 clubs.

You'd probably see them getting fewer fans than Motherwell do now.
Click to expand...
If they were challenging for a Europa place with Hearts/Hibs say and playing decent football? I dont think so IMO.
 
iaatpies said:
Less teams mean people walking away from the game. If you were to merge Motherwell, Hamilton, Albion Rovers and Airdrie then the resulting Lanarkshire United would not attract the combined supports of the former 4 clubs.

You'd probably see them getting fewer fans than Motherwell do now.
Click to expand...
Any team that starts winning starts picking up fans. People aren't as loyal as you think, or at the very least, their children won't carry their parents grudges and stop going to whoever is there. You think you'd know that more than most as a lapsed Rangers fan.
 
TW14 said:
If they were challenging for a Europa place with Hearts/Hibs say and playing decent football? I dont think so IMO.
Click to expand...
PSG are quite an extreme example, but money and success brings in new fans. If you lose a few hundred stubborn old men by the way, then that's as much a shame for them as anyone who devoted a huge portion of their life to following Third Lanark.
 
I've always thought it strange to blame the little clubs for stifling change due to not wanting to give up 4 home OF games a season. Why would they accept change unless they get a net gain or at least a status quo of income?

And don't feed me the line for the betterment of the game overall because the only way that happens is if those making the most (us and them) give up the most.

The reality is the big clubs (us and them) don't really want change for the benefit of everyone, we want change that benefits us the most. So we are not really any different in that respect.

And that's the real issue and hence the stalemate under the current voting system. Change without compromise is impossible.

If everyone really wanted change for long-term benefit to the game in general then finances and minimum requirements on clubs' facilities would need to be regulated for the benefit of all and the game. Essentially the rich support the poor for everyone's benefit.

Available TV money would be evenly split regardless of position, standing, size of the club, or the matches being shown. Sure there could be a winning bonus but the main pot would be distributed evenly (think NFL).

Reverting back to a system akin to the cup ties where gate money is split evenly (or more evenly) would distribute wealth. But to benefit the game as opposed to greedy chairmen you would need regulations to control how that shared money (or a proportion of it) is spent to improve stadia, football facilities, youth development, and fan experience.

Naturally, none of this will occur because it is a dog-eat-dog free-for-all, and don't let anyone try to tell you otherwise.
 
I wonder what level the likes of Darvel would have to get to in order to be self sufficient? Surely their squad budget can’t be higher than say a league 1 side and they have proven they can get results against league teams
 
Spiderman said:
Best thing would be if us and the other mob get to play in the English Leagues.
Click to expand...

They'd never play there, that would
be against every principle they stand for.





:D

And the premier league would have to amend their rules to accept pedophile rings!
 
TW14 said:
There are far too many clubs for the size of this country.

Realistically, if you imagine say Arbroath, Forfar, Brechin and Montrose all as one team. Essentially that adds 4 small fanbases into one, combines wealth after selling off 3 old stadiums and building a purpose built community hub or something along those lines, and potentially sees a greater challenge from that area.

Dunfermline, Raith, Cowdenbeath and East Fife.

Falkirk, Stenhousemuir, Alloa etc

The list goes on and on.

The fanbases (albeit Rangers and Celtic have a lot to answer for with folk bypassing their local clubs to support a team hours drives away etc) are minuscule and generally the standard is so, so low.

Scottish football should work from 2 senior divisions maximum with say 12 teams in each division. 3 up and 3 down. Bottom tier then has a relegation playoff and an auto relegation place with the Highland and Lowland league winners.

How much better does that sound that the drab crap served up just now?
Click to expand...
They've had mergers in the Danish League. And it seems to have introduced some competitive teams, Nordsjaelland, Randers, Midtijylland etc

Not sure if the fans in Denmark support it as I don't follow that league.
 
DavieM said:
A town the size of Darvel can't really strengthen Scottish football nor can (m)any of the Junior sides support base.
Click to expand...
Nobut they can keep a football pitch at the end of january worthy of a world cup final,and compared to our utter shite national stadium,St johnstones cow field,and that utter shithole in Kilmarnock they certainly can add to this tinpot fkn set up ,have you looked at the attendances of the west of Scotland league and compared it to the second division?A lot of junior clubs are very progressive in facr Darvels changing rooms would put 1/2 the pro clubs in Scotland to shame!
 
If I remember correctly during the late 70s/early 80s , Pollok were sounded out about the possibility of joining division 2 as they were getting great crowds and were a force in the junior game at the time.

I believe the comittee went against the idea due to the money needing to be spent on Newlandsfield and also the fact that Pollok home attendances were far greater than all of division 2 teams at the time and they didn't want to be used just to boost the Scottish football coffers.

If you were to look at the teams in that division then and look at the lower divisions now then nothing much has changed. Nobody can say that Montrose , Forfar , Stranraer , Alloa etc do not deserve to have a club in their town , but they are just happy to make up the numbers and let their social clubs be prosperous in some of them and have no intention of being ambitious outwith their limits.

They are happy to plod along and hope for a cup draw at Ibrox or the other side of the city in order to give them a pay day that will pay the wages for the season or allow their ground to be kept at an acceptable level.

Too many lower league teams either have no ambition or actually realise that it could be a dangerous game being promoted.
 
Grumpy Old Git said:
We’ve got far too many SPFL clubs as it is.
I’d halve the number of divisions to 2 leagues comprised of full time teams plus 1 or 2 others to make up the 2 divisions.

Scotland doesn’t have the population to sustain 42 professional clubs.
The rest can play in other leagues and if possible arrange on a regional basis to cut costs.
I would have a system to enable other junior clubs to join the ranks of the other 2 leagues as there is no real difference between them and our current league 1+2 teams In ability or crowds.

All a bit woolly and it will never happen as far too many vested interests.
More a prototype suggestion than fully joined up thinking I admit.
Click to expand...
Scotland doesn't have 42 professional clubs

Even the championship isn't fully professional

That being said, they could get about 16 clubs with decent fan bases if they merged a few

Dundee/united
Hamilton/Motherwell
Ayr/killie
Caley/county
Aberdeen/cove/peterhead
One central belt team for (livi/Falkirk)
Rangers
Celtic
Partick
Hibs
Hearts
St johnstone
St mirren
Raith/Dunfermline
Montrose/Arbroath/brechin/forfar

If they treated it like that and no pyramid (closed shop) we could actually build a decent product if people bought into it.

But it'll never happen for 2 reason

Fans wouldn't do it
Clubs wouldn't do it

We play in a backwater
 
Truck Turner said:
Haughey is building an empire and theme park over by Hampden. He has his his paws on the old Police grounds in Pollok Park and in Cathkin Park through the Jimmy Johnstone academy.

If they can get lesser Hampden up to 3,000 capacity and use Hampden for bugger games they are laughing.

Balancing Act for Pollok and others. If you go up you loose money right away. Your chances of winning things diminish and the likes of Auchinleck and Irvine will stay West. Glenafton have got a licence now so it will be good to see a more interesting Scottish Cup.

SPFL 3 will happen eventually. I'd like to see bigger divisions.
Click to expand...
Theme park ?
 
Albertz Loyal said:
Scotland doesn't have 42 professional clubs

Even the championship isn't fully professional

That being said, they could get about 16 clubs with decent fan bases if they merged a few

Dundee/united
Hamilton/Motherwell
Ayr/killie
Caley/county
Aberdeen/cove/peterhead
One central belt team for (livi/Falkirk)
Rangers
Celtic
Partick
Hibs
Hearts
St johnstone
St mirren
Raith/Dunfermline
Montrose/Arbroath/brechin/forfar

If they treated it like that and no pyramid (closed shop) we could actually build a decent product if people bought into it.

But it'll never happen for 2 reason

Fans wouldn't do it
Clubs wouldn't do it

We play in a backwater
Click to expand...
Correct but they are S
Albertz Loyal said:
Scotland doesn't have 42 professional clubs

Even the championship isn't fully professional

That being said, they could get about 16 clubs with decent fan bases if they merged a few

Dundee/united
Hamilton/Motherwell
Ayr/killie
Caley/county
Aberdeen/cove/peterhead
One central belt team for (livi/Falkirk)
Rangers
Celtic
Partick
Hibs
Hearts
St johnstone
St mirren
Raith/Dunfermline
Montrose/Arbroath/brechin/forfar

If they treated it like that and no pyramid (closed shop) we could actually build a decent product if people bought into it.

But it'll never happen for 2 reason

Fans wouldn't do it
Clubs wouldn't do it

We play in a backwater
Click to expand...
Yup I agree but they are recognised as such which is asinine.
Where 2 teams every week comprise 50% of the people who attend football it ain’t a good look and unsustainable commercially for a sizeable number of clubs who run on a hand to mouth basis.
Amalgamation would be a sensible option financially and competitively but tribal allegiances will never let it happen.

We’ll continue like this for ever it seems.
 
I must be the only person who wants a smaller SPL of ten teams. Play each other twice, split top five and play twice again. 26 games per season.
2 down and 3rd bottom go to a playoff.

Below that 2 leagues of 16
 
GavCo said:
I must be the only person who wants a smaller SPL of ten teams. Play each other twice, split top five and play twice again. 26 games per season.
2 down and 3rd bottom go to a playoff.

Below that 2 leagues of 16
Click to expand...

We could have the world cup twice a season with that set up!
26 games, season tickets would be cheap right enough!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Latest posts

Back
Top