League set up - preference?

Fitba Juice

Fitba Juice

Well-Known Member
Realise this has been discussed many times before but with the split coming up, what's your thoughts?

Personally I'd rather a 14 team league, plenty room for a Dundee Utd/Raith etc in the top league, play each other home and away = 26 games, split into top and bottom of 7 teams, play each other twice again = 12 games (38 game season).

This would mean there would be no playing certain teams inequal times home/away.

The first stage of the season competitiveness in getting into top 7. The second stage (post split) would be earlier, so there would be games between stronger opponents, no more games at this stage against the likes of Livi where 3 points are virtually guaranteed.

Obviously you'd struggle to get the lower league teams to vote for it as it'd mean only 1 home game guaranteed against us and them. But the way they're going, they clearly don't want our fans there anyway, as they're considering reducing our allocation all the time.

Or would you prefer to do away with any kind of split at all?
 
Fitba Juice said:
Realise this has been discussed many times before but with the split coming up, what's your thoughts?

Personally I'd rather a 14 team league, plenty room for a Dundee Utd/Raith etc in the top league, play each other home and away = 26 games, split into top and bottom of 7 teams, play each other twice again = 12 games (38 game season).

This would mean there would be no playing certain teams inequal times home/away.

The first stage of the season competitiveness in getting into top 7. The second stage (post split) would be earlier, so there would be games between stronger opponents, no more games at this stage against the likes of Livi where 3 points are virtually guaranteed.

Obviously you'd struggle to get the lower league teams to vote for it as it'd mean only 1 home game guaranteed against us and them. But the way they're going, they clearly don't want our fans there anyway, as they're considering reducing our allocation all the time.

Or would you prefer to do away with any kind of split at all?
Click to expand...
I've proposed this exact set up many times on here
 
GazzaG said:
2 divisions.

Top flight of 20, playing 38 games.
A division of 22 playing 42 games.
Click to expand...
2 guaranteed old firm games a season and games against the likes of Ayr in the top flight instead (no disrespect to them!) isn't going to make the top flight any better imo, it's bad enough getting excited about the prospect of playing the bottom 2 in the top flight.
 
Fitba Juice said:
Realise this has been discussed many times before but with the split coming up, what's your thoughts?

Personally I'd rather a 14 team league, plenty room for a Dundee Utd/Raith etc in the top league, play each other home and away = 26 games, split into top and bottom of 7 teams, play each other twice again = 12 games (38 game season).

This would mean there would be no playing certain teams inequal times home/away.

The first stage of the season competitiveness in getting into top 7. The second stage (post split) would be earlier, so there would be games between stronger opponents, no more games at this stage against the likes of Livi where 3 points are virtually guaranteed.

Obviously you'd struggle to get the lower league teams to vote for it as it'd mean only 1 home game guaranteed against us and them. But the way they're going, they clearly don't want our fans there anyway, as they're considering reducing our allocation all the time.

Or would you prefer to do away with any kind of split at all?
Click to expand...

Always thought that was the best way, ticks all the boxes.
 
The bottom of this league is shit anyway. Bring in some more shit and see if giving them a bit more money helps. Can’t keep going the way it is
 
Fitba Juice said:
One home game on your ST against the filth? I struggle to see the competitiveness of this set up to be fair.
Click to expand...
Do you think it's more competitive for non-Old Firm top 6 sides to have to play eight matches a season against us and the scum?

Because that is the current product we have, and...well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GF1
We can debate it until the cows come home, but nothing will ever change because the people involved in Scottish football who could make it change are too insular, too defeatist and too set in their ways.

Scottish football is crying out for a can-do figure with a bit of get up and go about them.
 
SamEng said:
No it isn't.The smaller clubs will never get any bigger.
Click to expand...
The split isn’t a joke? The fact that potentially we can go to an Easter road, a Tynecastle or a pittodrie three times in one season depending on how the league finishes after 33 games?

The fact that some of our derbies can’t get played because teams like Dundee or Dundee Utd or Ayr aren’t in the top flight at the same time. The splits a shambles either 18 team or ten team.
 
CLSFB said:
It’s really not, it’s exactly what should be happening.

It’s either that or back to ten, the splits a fucking joke.
Click to expand...
Take it you were not around in its earlier version. Leagues were often finished by october....lose the first old firm then you are playing catch up against Canon fodder......it really wasnt great . Remember beating Hibs , clyde, St mirren by 6 and still didn't get near the title because we lost the August old firm game.
 
Raymond said:
Take it you were not around in its earlier version. Leagues were often finished by october....lose the first old firm then you are playing catch up against Canon fodder......it really wasnt great . Remember beating Hibs , clyde, St mirren by 6 and still didn't get near the title because we lost the August old firm game.
Click to expand...
We lost the league all because Celtic beat us the first old firm, is that what you’ve just wrote?
 
When I was writing my dissertation at Uni I had a meeting with Campbell Ogilvie while he was working at Hearts.

He told me of an idea he had for league reconstruction which I quite liked.

2 x Leagues of 12. In both leagues, teams play each other twice for 22 games. After this, the two leagues split into 3.

The top 8 of the Premier would play each again home and away to decide League title, European places etc, playing a total of 36 games.

The top 4 of the Championship would then join the bottom four of the Premiership and all of the teams in this set up revert to zero points. They play each other home and away and the top four of this section at the end of the season then start the following season in the Premier with the bottom four going into the Championship.

The third section would be the bottom 8 of the Championship who would play each other another 2 times. There wouldnt be much to play for in this section outwith survival in the Championship.
 
CLSFB said:
The split isn’t a joke? The fact that potentially we can go to an Easter road, a Tynecastle or a pittodrie three times in one season depending on how the league finishes after 33 games?

The fact that some of our derbies can’t get played because teams like Dundee or Dundee Utd or Ayr aren’t in the top flight at the same time. The splits a shambles either 18 team or ten team.
Click to expand...
No I replied to your first sentence.
Your second I've already said the split is a nonsense.
 
Shawlands_Bluenose said:
When I was writing my dissertation at Uni I had a meeting with Campbell Ogilvie while he was working at Hearts.

He told me of an idea he had for league reconstruction which I quite liked.

2 x Leagues of 12. In both leagues, teams play each other twice for 22 games. After this, the two leagues split into 3.

The top 8 of the Premier would play each again home and away to decide League title, European places etc, playing a total of 36 games.

The top 4 of the Championship would then join the bottom four of the Premiership and all of the teams in this set up revert to zero points. They play each other home and away and the top four of this section at the end of the season then start the following season in the Premier with the bottom four going into the Championship.

The third section would be the bottom 8 of the Championship who would play each other another 2 times. There wouldnt be much to play for in this section outwith survival in the Championship.
Click to expand...
Why do people in Scottish football have this weird obsession with a league split?

No credible league has one.
 
CLSFB said:
We lost the league all because Celtic beat us the first old firm, is that what you’ve just wrote?
Click to expand...
Yep.....because we only had them to play once more.....they never lost points to Ayr, Falkirk , Raith etc. It was constant catch up .
 
WinkieWATP said:
Problem with that is you are just adding even more dross to the league. We already have pointless teams like Livi in the top flight
Click to expand...
Dross is a relative term.

Livingston are dross to us much in the same way that Burnley are dross to Man City or Liverpool.

It doesn't mean they - and similar stature sides - don't have the right to be in the top flight.

A larger league with three sides relegated works because in some seasons you may have a very tightly packed bottom half of the table where no one is safe going into the last few rounds of fixtures. This is more exciting than the current set up, where only one side is guaranteed to go down.

In other seasons where the bottom three are cut adrift for most of the season, the sides above them can breathe easy and can experiment by bringing through youngsters or concentrating on the Scottish Cup (and League Cup in the autumn).

Currently, smaller teams are shit scared of relegation and play the low block to try and get a draw. It's boring.

If a team are mid table and safe from relegation, I want to see them be adventurous and play attacking football with plenty of young players in the squad.
 
Rt. Hon. Bearman said:
Dross is a relative term.

Livingston are dross to us much in the same way that Burnley are dross to Man City or Liverpool.

It doesn't mean they - and similar stature sides - don't have the right to be in the top flight.

A larger league with three sides relegated works because in some seasons you may have a very tightly packed bottom half of the table where no one is safe going into the last few rounds of fixtures. This is more exciting than the current set up, where only one side is guaranteed to go down.

In other seasons where the bottom three are cut adrift for most of the season, the sides above them can breathe easy and can experiment by bringing through youngsters or concentrating on the Scottish Cup (and League Cup in the autumn).

Currently, smaller teams are shit scared of relegation and play the low block to try and get a draw. It's boring.

If a team are mid table and safe from relegation, I want to see them be adventurous and play attacking football with plenty of young players in the squad.
Click to expand...
When you see Livi games on Sportscene etc against the likes of Motherwell the empty seats must out number the people at the game 10-1
. Add their shitty pitch and they offer absolutely nothing to the league imo
 
Rt. Hon. Bearman said:
Why do people in Scottish football have this weird obsession with a league split?

No credible league has one.
Click to expand...
I think it was because of the 44 game set up.It was too many games and they didn't want to admit they made an arse of it.Instead of having the balls to relegate 3 teams they concocted this nonsense.
 
Rt. Hon. Bearman said:
Why do people in Scottish football have this weird obsession with a league split?

No credible league has one.
Click to expand...

I’m not in favour of a split, I would rather have an 18 team league playing each other twice.

However broadcasters would never accept a reduction in old firm games and there is also the argument that there isn’t the quality needed for an 18 team top league, and a league of that size would lead to a lot of meaningless games.

Theres also no chance they would go back from 12 to 10 in the top flight
 
CLSFB said:
18 team league, but sky won’t allow it.
Click to expand...
CLSFB......take a look at the 67/68 league table....We lost once in 34 games ....So did Celtic...they won the title cos we drew 5 they drew 3.....this was typical of the leagues during their nine in a row...neither of us lost much against cannon fodder . This was why playing the Aberdeens, Hibs , Hearts 4 times was seen as away of at least being more competitive.
 
Raymond said:
Yep.....because we only had them to play once more.....they never lost points to Ayr, Falkirk , Raith etc. It was constant catch up .
Click to expand...
I just went and looked at all the seasons in the 60’s.

We won quite a few of the first old firms and still didn’t win the league.
 
Raymond said:
CLSFB......take a look at the 67/68 league table....We lost once in 34 games ....So did Celtic...they won the title cos we drew 5 they drew 3.....this was typical of the leagues during their nine in a row...neither of us lost much against cannon fodder . This was why playing the Aberdeens, Hibs , Hearts 4 times was seen as away of at least being more competitive.
Click to expand...
We also won the first old firm that season….infact they didn’t beat us that season.
 
Shawlands_Bluenose said:
I’m not in favour of a split, I would rather have an 18 team league playing each other twice.

However broadcasters would never accept a reduction in old firm games and there is also the argument that there isn’t the quality needed for an 18 team top league, and a league of that size would lead to a lot of meaningless games.

Theres also no chance they would go back from 12 to 10 in the top flight
Click to expand...
What the broadcasters want isn't as relevant to Scottish football as it is to the Premier League down south.

We receive a negligible amount of TV revenue. And why is that? Because the league is boring, largely due to its current format.

We need to stop worrying about the sensibilities of Sky Sports. They hold the Scottish game in contempt. They have zero respect for it or the people running it because they know that with them in charge they can continue to pay a pittance for the broadcast rights.

Why is there no bidding war for Scottish football TV rights? Because the product is crap, nobody can be arsed changing the format and the powers that be are spineless and have zero ambition.

If every club had someone like David Holmes in charge, and if the SPFL itself was led by someone like Barry Hearn, what a difference it would make.
 
Fitba Juice said:
Realise this has been discussed many times before but with the split coming up, what's your thoughts?

Personally I'd rather a 14 team league, plenty room for a Dundee Utd/Raith etc in the top league, play each other home and away = 26 games, split into top and bottom of 7 teams, play each other twice again = 12 games (38 game season).

This would mean there would be no playing certain teams inequal times home/away.

The first stage of the season competitiveness in getting into top 7. The second stage (post split) would be earlier, so there would be games between stronger opponents, no more games at this stage against the likes of Livi where 3 points are virtually guaranteed.

Obviously you'd struggle to get the lower league teams to vote for it as it'd mean only 1 home game guaranteed against us and them. But the way they're going, they clearly don't want our fans there anyway, as they're considering reducing our allocation all the time.

Or would you prefer to do away with any kind of split at all?
Click to expand...
A tweak to this could be a split as a top 5, bottom 9. Top 5 play each other twice (8 games), bottom 9 play each other once (8 games). It would put more emphasis on qualifying for the top 5, and a more competitive finish. The reason for this is I just don't think the bottom 7 in your case, would love playing each other twice, prolonging misery so to speak.

It's just an idea, ideally I'd prefer the 18 team set up but realise it wont happen with the TV appetite for 4 OF matches each season.
 
Rt. Hon. Bearman said:
Dross is a relative term.

Livingston are dross to us much in the same way that Burnley are dross to Man City or Liverpool.

It doesn't mean they - and similar stature sides - don't have the right to be in the top flight.

A larger league with three sides relegated works because in some seasons you may have a very tightly packed bottom half of the table where no one is safe going into the last few rounds of fixtures. This is more exciting than the current set up, where only one side is guaranteed to go down.

In other seasons where the bottom three are cut adrift for most of the season, the sides above them can breathe easy and can experiment by bringing through youngsters or concentrating on the Scottish Cup (and League Cup in the autumn).

Currently, smaller teams are shit scared of relegation and play the low block to try and get a draw. It's boring.

If a team are mid table and safe from relegation, I want to see them be adventurous and play attacking football with plenty of young players in the squad.
Click to expand...
An exciting league all centred on relegation.Yes I know no-one other than us or them are going to win the league for the foreseeable future but having less quality games won't do anyone any good.
 
CLSFB said:
We also won the first old firm that season….infact they didn’t beat us that season.
Click to expand...
I know we lost the last game to Aberdeen , but it's just an example of how uncompetitive it was , If you lost the first old firm game particularly at home it was almost impossible to catch up although I accept they did it , not sure if we did during this period . Take this season as an example we lost the first two and still have a chance of Winni by the title . Would never happen in an 18 team league . Split is not great but 18 team league would bore the pants off you. Trust me.
 
Rt. Hon. Bearman said:
What the broadcasters want isn't as relevant to Scottish football as it is to the Premier League down south.

We receive a negligible amount of TV revenue. And why is that? Because the league is boring, largely due to its current format.

We need to stop worrying about the sensibilities of Sky Sports. They hold the Scottish game in contempt. They have zero respect for it or the people running it because they know that with them in charge they can continue to pay a pittance for the broadcast rights.

Why is there no bidding war for Scottish football TV rights? Because the product is crap, nobody can be arsed changing the format and the powers that be are spineless and have zero ambition.

If every club had someone like David Holmes in charge, and if the SPFL itself was led by someone like Barry Hearn, what a difference it would make.
Click to expand...
The product will always be crap.There is too big a gulf between the top two and the rest.Nothing will ever change that unless we drop down to their level.
And who wants that?
 
10 team league = 18 games (winner is national league champion)
Then...
Top 4 are paired up with two other european countries with a 10 team league (eg Scotland, Denmark, Belgium)
12 team league = 22 games (40 in total for the season, winner is Euro league champion)
Then...
Top 4: Champions league
Middle 4: Europa league
Bottom 4: Conference league

Do away with league cup (in fact keep it for the rest of teams who haven't qualified for the Euro/Atlantic league)
 
roscow_dynamo said:
10 team league = 18 games (winner is national league champion)
Then...
Top 4 are paired up with two other european countries with a 10 team league (eg Scotland, Denmark, Belgium)
12 team league = 22 games (40 in total for the season, winner is Euro league champion)
Then...
Top 4: Champions league
Middle 4: Europa league
Bottom 4: Conference league

Do away with league cup (in fact keep it for the rest of teams who haven't qualified for the Euro/Atlantic league)
Click to expand...
I think all the travelling might be a logistic problem.
 
Fitba Juice said:
Realise this has been discussed many times before but with the split coming up, what's your thoughts?

Personally I'd rather a 14 team league, plenty room for a Dundee Utd/Raith etc in the top league, play each other home and away = 26 games, split into top and bottom of 7 teams, play each other twice again = 12 games (38 game season).

This would mean there would be no playing certain teams inequal times home/away.

The first stage of the season competitiveness in getting into top 7. The second stage (post split) would be earlier, so there would be games between stronger opponents, no more games at this stage against the likes of Livi where 3 points are virtually guaranteed.

Obviously you'd struggle to get the lower league teams to vote for it as it'd mean only 1 home game guaranteed against us and them. But the way they're going, they clearly don't want our fans there anyway, as they're considering reducing our allocation all the time.

Or would you prefer to do away with any kind of split at all?
Click to expand...
Rangers pushed for a similar set up years ago, most teams against it due the split happening after 26 games and only having 2 Old Firm games.A Hibs or Hearts could easily miss out if they had a bad run.
I agree it’s a better system than what we have.
 
Fitba Juice said:
Realise this has been discussed many times before but with the split coming up, what's your thoughts?

Personally I'd rather a 14 team league, plenty room for a Dundee Utd/Raith etc in the top league, play each other home and away = 26 games, split into top and bottom of 7 teams, play each other twice again = 12 games (38 game season).

This would mean there would be no playing certain teams inequal times home/away.

The first stage of the season competitiveness in getting into top 7. The second stage (post split) would be earlier, so there would be games between stronger opponents, no more games at this stage against the likes of Livi where 3 points are virtually guaranteed.

Obviously you'd struggle to get the lower league teams to vote for it as it'd mean only 1 home game guaranteed against us and them. But the way they're going, they clearly don't want our fans there anyway, as they're considering reducing our allocation all the time.

Or would you prefer to do away with any kind of split at all?
Click to expand...
This is the set up that makes most sense given all of the parameters in the real world.
 
Ali59 said:
Rangers pushed for a similar set up years ago, most teams against it due the split happening after 26 games and only having 2 Old Firm games.A Hibs or Hearts could easily miss out if they had a bad run.
I agree it’s a better system than what we have.
Click to expand...
Not really an argument now then … all these clubs that wanted 4 old firm home games a season are cutting away allocations anyway
 
roscow_dynamo said:
10 team league = 18 games (winner is national league champion)
Then...
Top 4 are paired up with two other european countries with a 10 team league (eg Scotland, Denmark, Belgium)
12 team league = 22 games (40 in total for the season, winner is Euro league champion)
Then...
Top 4: Champions league
Middle 4: Europa league
Bottom 4: Conference league

Do away with league cup (in fact keep it for the rest of teams who haven't qualified for the Euro/Atlantic league)
Click to expand...
Ffs, I hope you never speak to Doncaster.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Latest posts

Back
Top