18 team scottish premiership

S

Superswally173

Well-Known Member
Do you think we'll ever see a 18 team premiership in Scotland.
I personally hate the split, and it is only done to manage the number of games played over a season.
Think 18 teams would lead to 34 games, and would bring in revenue to smaller clubs.

Realise, it would theoretically mean many easier games, but over the longer term the smaller clubs get revenue streams.

Plus some of the championship teams have been in the top flight recently, Kilmarnock, Inverness, Partick, Hamilton etc

Has there ever been any talk of this?
 
The only possible way to expand and make it less monotonous is to go 14 teams play twice giving 26 games then split into top 6 and bottom 8 play twice again giving top teams 36 games bottom teams 40 would keep 4 old firms so sky happy and 4 extra games for bottom 8 sides for some extra income. Will it ever happen probably not
 
Never happen. As much as sky and the media moan about us and them abusing eachother they love it as they make cash out of it
 
Rangers pushed to get rid of the old First Division and create the 10 team Premier Division.

I would be amazed if the club‘s position had changed.
 
It should happen but it won't for many reasons. Most pressing being the collective SPFL/SFA are to incompetent to come up with a plan to integrate it smoothly.

There is no need for a small country like Scotland to have 4 tiers of league football. Cut it down to 3 tiers with bigger leagues. Teams play each other twice. It's so infuriating that no one at the top is willing to make the change or at least get the ball rolling.
 
The money the small teams make from us and the scum playing them twice at their stadiums keeps their lights on. The only way they’d vote for an 18 team league is if they had guaranteed subsidies to offset that loss
 
Buffalobluebear said:
The money the small teams make from us and the scum playing them twice at their stadiums keeps their lights on. The only way they’d vote for an 18 team league is if they had guaranteed subsidies to offset that loss
Click to expand...

Rangers were the leading drivers in creating the Premier League in 1975 and the SPL in 1998.

The idea of Rangers and Celtic being hapless victims of other greedy clubs is simply wrong.
 
There's enough dross in the league as it is.
Heaven help us if we have to play even more shite.

As well as dropping two games against the beasts we'll have other decent games against the likes of the sheep, Hibs and Hearts losing two as well, to be replaced with shite like Raith Rovers, Arbroath and their ilk.

ST's would be a tough sell.

No thanks.
 
An 18 team top league was the reason the SPL came into being. The greate4 majority of games were meaningless from about February onward with only a couple of clubs (as now) realistic potential Champions, about 4 or thereby possible relegation candidates and the rest wallowing in mid-table mediocrity. This issue has been regurgitated regularly but if you had been around when there was an 18 team league you would realise what we have is the least worst version.
An 18 team league would this season give us games against ICT, Raith Rovers, Kilmarnock, Partick Thistle, Arbroath and Hamilton as the championship stands at present instead of second games against the scum, Hearts, Dundee Utd, Motherwell, Aberdeen and Hibs.

The quality doesn’t exist in Scotland for an 18 team top league. Perhaps mergers might improve it but I doubt, say, Hibs and Hearts supporters would embrace that.
 
Dougied173 said:
Do you think we'll ever see a 18 team premiership in Scotland.
I personally hate the split, and it is only done to manage the number of games played over a season.
Think 18 teams would lead to 34 games, and would bring in revenue to smaller clubs.

Realise, it would theoretically mean many easier games, but over the longer term the smaller clubs get revenue streams.

Plus some of the championship teams have been in the top flight recently, Kilmarnock, Inverness, Partick, Hamilton etc

Has there ever been any talk of this?
Click to expand...
I love going to the football or else of not going watching Rangers on TV.

So do I want to be doing that 4 less times a season - absolutely not.

Do I also want to be swapping 2 matches against them, 2 against hearts, 2 against Hibs and 2 against the sheep for games against Arbroath, Raith Rovers, Hamilton or Morton and the likes - Absolutely not either.

Doesn't appeal to me in the slightest.

Don't envisage anyone waking up on the morning of an old firm game all excited and saying "You know the one thing that would make this so much better, if we were playing Ayr United today" :rolleyes:
 
Can’t see it happening myself. The current top flight sides are no match for either us or them over the course of a season without diluting the product further.
 
The chance to do this was when we were down the divisions missed the boat now I think
 
Bluefin221 said:
Rangers were the leading drivers in creating the Premier League in 1975 and the SPL in 1998.

The idea of Rangers and Celtic being hapless victims of other greedy clubs is simply wrong.
Click to expand...
I’m not saying we’re “hapless victims” of anyone or anything I’m merely pointing out that given the option most teams won’t vote to lose money.
 
14 teams. Everyone plays each other home and away that’s 26 games. Then it splits into 2x7 and again everyone plays each other twice. That’s 38 games. Perfect.

No more lottery of the split you play everyone home and away.

The league can definitely accommodate 2 more teams and not lose quality and for the sake of adding 2 extra teams it solves a lot of problems in the existing structure
 
An 18 team league would be absolutely dreadful imo.

Don't why adding 6 more mediocre at best championship teams is going to improve our lot. Going to end up with even more mid table meaningless dirge.
 
A Class Above said:
The split is good. Makes for 6 pointer games in the relegation battle and tricky games for the title challengers.
Click to expand...
The only down side of the split is the unfairness it often creates with that last round of fixtures, ending up with an away game at another top 6 side isn't great.

but apart from that, I've always thought it makes sense to hive off the weaker teams and have a strong final round of games.
 
Time to do this would have been when we where out the league. As they had no games against those rats at all , sky not be able to take issue
 
Dougied173 said:
Do you think we'll ever see a 18 team premiership in Scotland.
I personally hate the split, and it is only done to manage the number of games played over a season.
Think 18 teams would lead to 34 games, and would bring in revenue to smaller clubs.

Realise, it would theoretically mean many easier games, but over the longer term the smaller clubs get revenue streams.

Plus some of the championship teams have been in the top flight recently, Kilmarnock, Inverness, Partick, Hamilton etc

Has there ever been any talk of this?
Click to expand...
This was the case up to the 75/76 season.
It was changed for a reason.
It’s highly unlikely it’ll change back.
 
Sir Sasa Papac said:
14 teams. Everyone plays each other home and away that’s 26 games. Then it splits into 2x7 and again everyone plays each other twice. That’s 38 games. Perfect.

No more lottery of the split you play everyone home and away.

The league can definitely accommodate 2 more teams and not lose quality and for the sake of adding 2 extra teams it solves a lot of problems in the existing structure
Click to expand...
Yes agree
That would be better
It's the unevenness of the split I don't like
Sure the league could cope with an extra 2 teams
There are at least 4 that are regularly in the premiership anyway
If no investment is made nothing will ever change
Ta
 
Blueknows said:
An 18 team top league was the reason the SPL came into being. The greate4 majority of games were meaningless from about February onward with only a couple of clubs (as now) realistic potential Champions, about 4 or thereby possible relegation candidates and the rest wallowing in mid-table mediocrity. This issue has been regurgitated regularly but if you had been around when there was an 18 team league you would realise what we have is the least worst version.
An 18 team league would this season give us games against ICT, Raith Rovers, Kilmarnock, Partick Thistle, Arbroath and Hamilton as the championship stands at present instead of second games against the scum, Hearts, Dundee Utd, Motherwell, Aberdeen and Hibs.

The quality doesn’t exist in Scotland for an 18 team top league. Perhaps mergers might improve it but I doubt, say, Hibs and Hearts supporters would embrace that.
Click to expand...

Would allow youth to get a chance, proper rotation, rest and full use of the huge squad we pay handsomely for. Patterson, for example, would get at least 10 full games a season and others bled in here and there too. We wouldn't have any dead rubber games, what goes on below us wouldn't be our problem.

There is very little difference between the bottom 4 or 5 currently and the top 4 or 5 from the championship. Lot of traditionally well supported clubs languishing in the lower tiers too, Dunfermline, Falkirk, Thistle etc as the competition for places are so fierce. 3 up and down plus a play-off or similar would keep it interesting every year and give these clubs a chance to get their act together again. The current setup is strangling the life out our game and causing a greater and greater financial gulf between the premiership and the rest imo. It's neither healthy or sustainable long term. Something needs to change.
 
Maybe the home fans would come to Easter Road and the game could be played at the weekend.

18-team League for me. Bigger games.

The current format isn’t working particularly well for sponsorship.

We tell ourselves we have one of the biggest game in the world and yet have a tv deal less than, for example, Denmark.
 
Playing teams potentially up to 6 times a season is one of the reasons the SPL is so stale, imo.

In theory the split is actually a good idea, but I'd prefer no split and a bigger top tier playing each other twice in the league.
 
Spart7 said:
Would allow youth to get a chance, proper rotation, rest and full use of the huge squad we pay handsomely for. Patterson, for example, would get at least 10 full games a season and others bled in here and there too. We wouldn't have any dead rubber games, what goes on below us wouldn't be our problem.

There is very little difference between the bottom 4 or 5 currently and the top 4 or 5 from the championship. Lot of traditionally well supported clubs languishing in the lower tiers too, Dunfermline, Falkirk, Thistle etc as the competition for places are so fierce. 3 up and down plus a play-off or similar would keep it interesting every year and give these clubs a chance to get their act together again. The current setup is strangling the life out our game and causing a greater and greater financial gulf between the premiership and the rest imo. It's neither healthy or sustainable long term. Something needs to change.
Click to expand...
It was utter dross 50 years ago and it would be utter dross again. I can say with absolute certainty that neither we nor the scum would sell 50,000 season tickets for games against Arbroath and Raith Rovers, etc.

Paterson would get no games in an 18 team Scottish league as he would be away south at the first opportunity.

We wouldn’t have a huge (quality) squad because we couldn’t afford it.

Tell you what why not just go full retro and share the gate receipts equally so that such as Arbroath would get half the takings of their trip to Ibrox.

Why does something need to change? What we have is not ideal but in a 42 club association with a potential market of only 5 million people it’s about the best available.

As a touchstone the Champions League has been increased over the years to the point that many claim it’s quality in the group stages has been diluted to the extent that it only really starts at the knockout rounds because of the inclusion of so many ‘smaller’ clubs. Yet people here think quality dilution in the Scottish top division would be advantageous.
 
Last edited:
I'm very much pro league expansion.

Is there even an argument that the Old Firm is crucial to our TV deals anymore in a post 2012 world?

Fans are fed up of the current format. Attendances would likely increase if there was greater variety. That would lead to a better competition overall.
 
Dougied173 said:
Do you think we'll ever see a 18 team premiership in Scotland.
I personally hate the split, and it is only done to manage the number of games played over a season.
Think 18 teams would lead to 34 games, and would bring in revenue to smaller clubs.

Realise, it would theoretically mean many easier games, but over the longer term the smaller clubs get revenue streams.

Plus some of the championship teams have been in the top flight recently, Kilmarnock, Inverness, Partick, Hamilton etc

Has there ever been any talk of this?
Click to expand...
Only way an 18 team league will happen is if we run off with some Dutch, Belgian and Portuguese teams. Should be calling the Belgians and Dutch to get in to their new league if it ever happens.
 
ronadamus_prime said:
I'm very much pro league expansion.

Is there even an argument that the Old Firm is crucial to our TV deals anymore in a post 2012 world?

Fans are fed up of the current format. Attendances would likely increase if there was greater variety. That would lead to a better competition overall.
Click to expand...
I’d imagine it gets boring for the players as well.

As Dave Robertson said, you can only play against the same teams and players so many times before you lose interest/need a change.
 
Sir Sasa Papac said:
14 teams. Everyone plays each other home and away that’s 26 games. Then it splits into 2x7 and again everyone plays each other twice. That’s 38 games. Perfect.

No more lottery of the split you play everyone home and away.

The league can definitely accommodate 2 more teams and not lose quality and for the sake of adding 2 extra teams it solves a lot of problems in the existing structure
Click to expand...
Agreed as I posted above however it can’t be top 7 and bottom 7 it has to be 6 and 8 otherwise you’d have a team not playing every week after the split
 
erskine bear said:
I’d imagine it gets boring for the players as well.

As Dave Robertson said, you can only play against the same teams and players so many times before you lose interest/need a change.
Click to expand...

Without a doubt. Playing the same teams 3/4 times a season is a farce. Especially when you've got two cup competitions that take place at the same time.

This pish about other clubs needing revenue from Old Firm fans and the draw of the Old Firm in terms of TV deals is ridiculous. Particularly when you consider what happened to us in 2012. It's a myth.

Besides, ask any fan who doesn't support us or them and they'll tell you they'd rather we both fucked off entirely. So clearly an element of the apathy stems from the familiarity, at least from a fans perspective, which no doubt impacts on ticket sales. Familiarity breeds contempt. It would make games between us and them a proper occasion again as well.

The money is shite anyway. May as well make the league more interesting to watch.
 
Johnny.mcb said:
The only possible way to expand and make it less monotonous is to go 14 teams play twice giving 26 games then split into top 6 and bottom 8 play twice again giving top teams 36 games bottom teams 40 would keep 4 old firms so sky happy and 4 extra games for bottom 8 sides for some extra income. Will it ever happen probably not
Click to expand...
3 leagues of 14 would be my preferred format. Have said that for a number of years now!
 
Summer season from March to November is how Scottish football should be played,
It would improve the product all round.

Not more teams to expand the league!
 
Blueknows said:
It was utter dross 50 years ago and it would be utter dross again. I can say with absolute certainty that neither we nor the scum would sell 50,000 season tickets for games against Arbroath and Raith Rovers, etc.

Paterson would get no games in an 18 team Scottish league as he would be away south at the first opportunity.

We wouldn’t have a huge (quality) squad because we couldn’t afford it.

Tell you what why not just go full retro and share the gate receipts equally so that such as Arbroath would get half t(e takings of their trip to Ibrox.

Why does something need to change? What we have is not ideal but in a 42 club association with a potential market of only 5 million people it’s about the best available.

As a touchstone the Champions League has been increased over the years to the point that many claim it’s quality in the group stages has been diluted to the extent that it only really starts at the knockout rounds because of the inclusion of so many ‘smaller’ clubs. Yet people here think quality dilution in the Scottish top division would be advantageous.
Click to expand...

If it was as bad as you say then why did so many quality Scottish footballers emerge back then, across numerous teams, and why did we almost always qualify for national tournaments? Just a coincidence that not that long after switching to smaller, far more competitive leagues we suddenly had progressively poorer and poorer players being produced, a massive influx of foreign journeymen, managers regularly complaining about not being able to throw kids into games as the league was far too competitive, no team outside the OF winning the league and Scotland not qualifying for anything for 2 decades? In terms of the bigger picture that's a lot of collective coincidences.

They can't fill their stadium now and i couldn't care less if they sold 50k season tickets for it or not, but we still would, given we did from the bottom tier upwards against, and watching, genuine dross. That won't suddenly change just because we don't play the exact same teams 4 x every season. The mindset on that front is different now, especially with the younger generation who haven't experienced the successes of the past like we have. The German and Dutch top leagues have their fair share of dross in them too yet the top clubs there don't seem to have any issues selling out their stadiums to watch it.

Personally, I really like the 14 team setup mentioned above which would at least improve on what we have currently without affecting finances or overly diluting the league which appears to be your 2 main issues. It doesn't necessarily have to be 18 or 20 to be an improvement on what we have and all the top clubs should have colts teams up to and including the 2nd tier too.

50 years ago games were barely on the TV, there was no Internet, no mobile phones and people were still virtually 100% reliant on the radio and press for all their information. If you were at the Rangers games then how do you know the rest of the games going on were meaningless and poor quality when all you could see with your own eyes was the press coverage? It was genuinely worse overall then, in your opinion, than where we are now, despite there being higher calibre homegrown players and numerous clubs capable of challenging for the title each season? I'm only 49 so I'm not being deliberately wide asking that (apologies in advance if it reads that way), I've just no personal recollection of anything bigger than a 12 team league to go on and I'm curious as I don't see anything other than benefits in increasing the size of our league.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Latest posts

Back
Top