18 team scottish premiership
- Thread starter Superswally173
- Start date
Loyal72
Well-Known Member
Unless Scottish Football was able to secure a mad TV deal in its current state, and Clubs became moderately wealthy for the foreseeable and would vote against playing ourselves and Celtic so often, and would be appealing for less OF games a season.
But Doncaster et al couldn't organise a piss up in a brewery for even a half decent average deal.
So nah, don't see it any time soon.
But Doncaster et al couldn't organise a piss up in a brewery for even a half decent average deal.
So nah, don't see it any time soon.
I can't wait to play a team like Arbroath 2 times a season.
Gets me really excited.
Gets me really excited.
Cavin
Well-Known Member
The current split is an abortion!
Edit: I do think a split is a good thing but not the current one!
LOL 133
Well-Known Member
Money money money. Stopping us improving Scottish football but no one raking it in is going to change a thing.
The answer lies in the way the limited income is distributed and spent. Share the income more evenly and control the way its spent and you might just be in time to save Scottish football.
The answer lies in the way the limited income is distributed and spent. Share the income more evenly and control the way its spent and you might just be in time to save Scottish football.
LOL 133
Well-Known Member
It might if Arbroath had a decent chance to build a young exciting team where they could keep their best players.
Sir Know it All
Well-Known Member
I would expect the ST to cost less, the TV deal to be less, Rangers to get shitter so nah.
superallythe2nd
Well-Known Member
On paper a 16 or 18 team league looks good and ideally the way forward in terms of player development. However (and unfortunately) from a financial perspective it is simply a no go.
Fans aren't going to pay the same season ticket money if their bigger games are halved and replaced with (and no disrespect to them) the current top 4-6 teams in the championship. Then there's the obvious issue with the TV deal. Companies won't pay in as much to only get half of the bigger fixtures. We all know fine well that Sky really just want the 4 games between us and them and would gladly bin the rest.
Fans aren't going to pay the same season ticket money if their bigger games are halved and replaced with (and no disrespect to them) the current top 4-6 teams in the championship. Then there's the obvious issue with the TV deal. Companies won't pay in as much to only get half of the bigger fixtures. We all know fine well that Sky really just want the 4 games between us and them and would gladly bin the rest.
YorkshireBlue
Well-Known Member
2 X 18 team leagues.
Play it March to November.
Play it March to November.
LetsGo
Well-Known Member
They will if they're winning more games and not dropping as many points to the big 2, more chance of a proper title challenge. Even if ST prices were dropped a little, 16/18 teams means less games and smaller squads potentially and less operating costs for matchdays, so savings elsewhere.
LOL 133
Well-Known Member
Money once again being the root of the problem.
The issue now in Scotland is we dont have enough money coming in AND we have too much money going out.
If we decided that it was more important to have real competition and an exciting, sustsainable league rather than the current set up where two big clubs hoover up all the cash and give it away to a small number of super rich players, then we might be able to make the changes to the league structure that the game needs.
TCWNS1872
Well-Known Member
The sooner the staleness of playing each other four times a season (minimum) is consigned to the history books, the better.
You never know it just might make the league more attractive from a money perspective in the long run. And let’s not forget, the league was arguably at its strongest from a European standing and quality of player pov when the league was larger.
You never know it just might make the league more attractive from a money perspective in the long run. And let’s not forget, the league was arguably at its strongest from a European standing and quality of player pov when the league was larger.
That was due to social changes rather than anything the clubs did or the size of the league.
Stepupandplay
Well-Known Member
We don't bring enough value to it
Superswally173
Well-Known Member
Frustrating
Is rangers v Aberdeen 4 times a year
That different from
Rangers v Aberdeen 2 times, and Rangers v Kilmarnock 2 times
Man City can't look forward to Norwich or Leeds
Is rangers v Aberdeen 4 times a year
That different from
Rangers v Aberdeen 2 times, and Rangers v Kilmarnock 2 times
Man City can't look forward to Norwich or Leeds
Aberdeen won a European trophy in a 10 team league. Dundee United reached a European Final in a 12 team league.
Big Joke New
Well-Known Member
In a word - no
superallythe2nd
Well-Known Member
I'm not against the idea of a bigger league, far from it - I've always advocated that there should be a bigger league. More variety and only facing an opponent twice a season adds to the fixture. I also think that we'd be OK in terms of ST sales going on what we've been through the past 10 years.
However there needs to be a compromise for all sides for it to even be considered seriously. Provincial clubs like Motherwell, Killie, St Mirren and St Johnstone (to name a few) pretty much rely on and no doubt base their annual budgets on having at least 3 visits between us and them a season because of the supports both clubs bring through as well as a decent number of their own PAYG fans probably turning up. Personally I think the 14 team idea with 6/8 split is probably going to be the best we can hope for as any compromise is concerned.
The TV money is pitiful as it is and Sky should be binned but clubs see it as a safety net. The last 18 months has saw clubs having to broadcast their non-TV games to locked out fans and, to an extent, it has continued into this season with fans getting the option to buy on a game by game basis provided Sky aren't doing a live broadcast of that fixture. It's a gamble (and the concept was laughed at 20 years ago) but the infrastructure is now more or less there for clubs to do either their own deal or perhaps pool their respective coverages together for some sort of domestic deal via a streaming service.
jf1960
Well-Known Member
Is the right answer
Rt. Hon. Bearman
Well-Known Member
The Scottish top flight absolutely should be 18 teams.
34 matches per season. Everyone plays each other once at home and once away. Fixtures announced in July. No more league split.
4 fewer fixtures then at present, easing fixture congestion.
2 league Old Firm meetings per season, making it more of an event.
Non-Old Firm sides no longer have the daunting prospect of up to 8 games per season versus us and the Mhanks. This makes the league more competitive because it means if they can pull off a couple of wins in the four games per season against us and then, they have every chance of getting closer to us and maybe splitting the Old Firm in the table come the end of the season. Competitiveness is what will ultimately make Scottish football a better product and will lead to a better TV deal.
3 teams relegated per season, reducing the potential for seemingly meaningless games for mid table sides. Come the spring, a mid table team could still either be in contention for a Europa/Conference League spot or indeed drawn into a relegation battle.
Cheaper tickets and standing areas encouraged at all stadiums. Empty seats at Scottish football grounds is a travesty.
The return of alcohol at games should be trialled. If it doesn’t work, ban it again.
Going to the football should be an event to be looked forward to, not something to be gotten out of the way before enjoying the rest of your weekend, which it often is for some fans who only attend out of loyalty.
34 matches per season. Everyone plays each other once at home and once away. Fixtures announced in July. No more league split.
4 fewer fixtures then at present, easing fixture congestion.
2 league Old Firm meetings per season, making it more of an event.
Non-Old Firm sides no longer have the daunting prospect of up to 8 games per season versus us and the Mhanks. This makes the league more competitive because it means if they can pull off a couple of wins in the four games per season against us and then, they have every chance of getting closer to us and maybe splitting the Old Firm in the table come the end of the season. Competitiveness is what will ultimately make Scottish football a better product and will lead to a better TV deal.
3 teams relegated per season, reducing the potential for seemingly meaningless games for mid table sides. Come the spring, a mid table team could still either be in contention for a Europa/Conference League spot or indeed drawn into a relegation battle.
Cheaper tickets and standing areas encouraged at all stadiums. Empty seats at Scottish football grounds is a travesty.
The return of alcohol at games should be trialled. If it doesn’t work, ban it again.
Going to the football should be an event to be looked forward to, not something to be gotten out of the way before enjoying the rest of your weekend, which it often is for some fans who only attend out of loyalty.
TCWNS1872
Well-Known Member
Five European finals were reached in a larger league and the standard of player was undeniably higher.
Four European finals have been reached in a smaller league with the standard of European football much higher across the board.
Fundamentally, all boys played football all the time up until the 1970's and 1980's and now they don't play as much and very rarely do they play 'free style' - it's all coached and structured. The teachers strike of the mid-80's also changed the nature and extent of schools football.
Society used to produce very good players and then it didn't due to various changes in society. The clubs did nothing for this. Neither did the league. The clubs have been unable to recreate the conditions that produced such players.
The size of the league is a complete irrelevance.
Suttonger
Well-Known Member
Yeah the split was the compromise for having more teams but still having 4 old firm games.
Let's face it without the 4 games the spl TV package bids would be worth even less than the buttons we get now.
thebluebaron
Well-Known Member
I like this idea, good solution to the problem
Kingging
Well-Known Member
I've favoured something similar to this for a long time but it should just be top of second quarter gets Euro spot not some team from the bottom of the league. There could be a playoff between bottom of third quartet and top 2 of bottom quarter and third in Chamionship for relegation/promotion to keep third quartet competitive.
Spart7
Well-Known Member
I do get and accept the impact of the 'no ball games' and teacher strikes affecting school teams arguments etc, I grew up throughout it. Also the slow emergence of a vastly more digital culture leading kids away from football. I get that too. It might help explain a lesser uptake over time but doesn't fully explain the influx of foreign players at the expense of our youth players that did stick at it. Or managers openly saying they couldn't afford to risk giving youth a chance, not that the potential wasn't there or that they wouldn't like to.
I can accept and agree social factors played a key role in it, but the reduction in the size of the league and the subsequent focus simply on survival for the majority outside of the big 2 has clearly made a telling contribution too. It would be negligent to say otherwise. Pro youth leagues replacing reserve leagues has also taken us backwards imo and it's only been very recently we've led the way in terms of getting kids out of their comfort zones and playing against men. This has been broadly recognised and respected as the way forward for them, hence the push for Colts teams within the pyramid. All I'm arguing is that a larger league would also benefit us in the long term.
The abolition of reserve league football was also moronic. Kids don't learn the game which is another reason why there's a huge gap between successful youth football and actual first team football.
You can't change the culture of some coaches. The relegation odds of the SPL are comparable with any 'big' league. A coach that's reluctant to play youth players because there's a 1 in 12 chance the team will be relegated is hardly going to turn into Rinus Michels because the league is bigger.
Supporters are also to blame. It took Jim McLean 12 years to build a title winning team. Even the smaller teams have hardly any patience now. And Ibrox is hardly any better. Rangers fans say they want players to come through but does the support really have the patience or would it not be easier just to buy someone for the position?
It's an accumulation of lots of problems in Scotland which is why tinkering the league setup really does very little.
Bluenose_bear
Well-Known Member
I’d rather have a 10 team league than an 18 team league. I’d rather be playing the likes of hearts Hibs Aberdeen and Dundee Utd 4 times a season as playing against teams like Ross county, hamilton etc.
Bluenose_bear
Well-Known Member
I would hate the idea of summer football and no football over the winter. It’s what gets me through the shit dark months from November to February. It’s depressing enough them months never mind no football to look forward to
Not to mention the headache of the season stopping for for weeks in the summer the years the euros and World Cup is on
Spart7
Well-Known Member
You do make a really compelling argument but I don't agree with all of it. If nothing evolves then nothing changes and we will still be having this discussion in another 30 years time if we are fortunate enough to still be alive at that point. I see absolutely no downside to trying the 14 team setup mentioned a few times above, for instance. Same number of games, same 4 OF a season barring a catastrophe (loved that video) and no more uneven split of home and away games. 2 additional teams, which we could easily accommodate, and very few meaningless fixtures, which we still have just now anyway, generally from 7th to 9th and sometimes 4th to 6th after the split.
Bangersbc
Well-Known Member
18-14-14 was most popular pick in the big reconstruction poll for this very reason.
The irony is, I think most fans would want this across the country. The status quo has created the poor, 2 horse race that Scottish football as a whole hates. Whilst we admittedly profit from this, something needs to be done. The TV companies are losing interest in the product, with last year sky not even taking the option to air all the games they had paid for.
Short term pain, deprive them of the 4 old firm games, but to have the long term gain of revitalising the product so they may long term actually dain to show games which involve neither us or them. Otherwise it will just keep getting worse and the gap to the EPL will continue to grow.
Torry Gillick
Active Member
As attractive as that sounds to us, where is the benefit for English Premier League and Championship clubs? Ultimately they could lose their places in those leagues to Rangers and the Septics, so why would they be interested in it? Never going to happen imo, unless a breakaway European league happens somewhere down the line.
Scottish football needs a proper restructure from top to bottom. I'm not a fan of the split but any decent TV deal (not that there is one just now) hinges on 4 Old Firm games. 14 teams with a split after 26 games, then the top 6 playing each other home and away for a 36 game season sounds far better to me than the current shambles where you can end up playing odd numbers of home and away games.
Below that ther should be two more national divisions of 16, with at least two up and two down. Then automatic relegation/promotion to and from the bottom tier into the non league pyramid. Recent seasons have shown that there are teams like Kelty who are more than capable of coming into the league and being better than the dross who have dropped out. Every team should be able to find their true level, and sadly for some that includes going down the way.
Zangief
Well-Known Member
Totally correct however I don't think you need to compare it to the EPL. I'm thinking about comparing Scotland to other smaller nations like Belgium, Holland, Portugal and the likes. They can comfortably have bigger leagues and less tiers whilst having massive clubs playing for them.
I'm sure the likes of Porto, Ajax, Anderlecht, Lisbon etc wouldn't find playing the "dross" particularly attractive but it still doesn't stop them for being very successful. Rangers can easily do the same in a set up you've suggested (18-14-14)
LOL 133
Well-Known Member
"Money" again. Most of the money coming in doesnt benefit the game. It goes straight back out to super rich players. Its killing the game.
I agree, an 18 team league is the best option, but unfortunately it will never happen.
steve1873
Well-Known Member
Do you think they would look forward to playing Norwich and Leeds 4 times per season?
Bangersbc
Well-Known Member
Needs someone to take the game by the scruff of the neck. Agree, seems unlikely, but I fear the longer we simply play it safe, the worse it will get.
They won't see it as a benefit to them. In fact, if you put it direct to them, then it's going to be pretty much impossible to convince any of the clubs outwith the top 4 EPL clubs that it makes sense for them.
But, that is precisely why I said we'd need to convince the TV companies. The TV companies are the cash cow and if they could be convinced that it could be an attractive proposition then that would go a long way to making it happen.
As for as simply hoping for some restructuring of the Scottish game being a winner - it simply is not going to happen, mate.
RutherglenLoyal
Well-Known Member
I personally would be in favour of a bigger league. I was listening to the radio during our game against Hibs last week. And the commentator mentioned it was Goldson's 16th appearance v Hibs. That's crazy. We play each other too much. Not saying it's right but It must get hard for players to raise themselves for these games. It would take more than league reconstruction but also feel a Hibs or Hearts not having to play us an them 8 times would give them a better run at competing.
Bangersbc
Well-Known Member
Fails to comprehend we are also playing the likes of Ross County and Hamilton 4 times a season every year since our return.
Question is: would you rather play St mirren, Livingston and Dundee 12 times (a third of the season) rather than 2 each at killie, hamilton, Inverness, Ross County, dunfermline, and Dundee Utd.
Variety is the spice of life, and rarity makes things more special. A larger league will mean a closer league too. A side challenging as best of the rest ( e. G. Hearts) would have to face an old firm team a total only 4 times each year, rather than the current 8 (more than a fifth of their total games!). A closer league would be inevitable, and this would be huge for TV coverage outwith the old firm spectacle.
Superswally173
Well-Known Member
Right....
So we're all agreed we'll storm the sfa headquarters (like they done in the US this year)
Best not tomorrow though, Glasgow is about to be hit by the full force of storm barra, then we're all going to be hit by the full force of Glasgow !!
So we're all agreed we'll storm the sfa headquarters (like they done in the US this year)
Best not tomorrow though, Glasgow is about to be hit by the full force of storm barra, then we're all going to be hit by the full force of Glasgow !!
Donsky
Well-Known Member
It's pretty obvious that we need to keep playing each other 4 times a season, which I honestly don't mind. The issue is how do we keep playing each other 4 times a season, while keeping it interesting and avoiding playing any less games. I also think if you have to do a split then it has to be more competitive - maybe resetting points for the remaining fixtures within your 6?
TerryMunro
Well-Known Member
I’d keep the number of teams as is but change the split to after we have all played twice. That brings us up to 22 games then have the top six playing each other home and away reducing the league games to 32.
Superswally173
Well-Known Member
As in...
Rangers are 8 points clear
Then the split happens, and all reset
Then we end up losing the title...
Not feeling that one
Donsky
Well-Known Member
If for example the regular season (pre-split) champions the first European spot, which this year would be the CL spot, would that change your opinion?
Superswally173
Well-Known Member
No
The whole point of having a season, is best team over the season wins
To just finish in the top 6 after 30 odd games, then win the league with 5 games.
Madness
Sounds a bit like the US sports Regular season/Post season set up. The only issue I can see is that it increases the likelihood of an Old Firm title decider which the authorities are desperate to avoid.
Typical Scotland, still holding Scottish football back on two fronts - alcohol sales (1980) and the chance of an exciting, winner takes all, end to the season (1999).
