This has apparently been tried in a couple of European countries before and thrown out as useless. So I look forward to the next round of re-organisation talks in 3 years.
The only useful thing that came out of the talks is that the 2 bodies (SPL & SFL) will merge.
strange or stupid its one or both of these
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Ginger
Spot on mate, they idiots have not got a clue, yes our game needs to change but this will drive fans away as like Ginger says the games will mean nothing.
We have to face the facts that we are run by a bunch of no brainers that couldn't organise a p...ss up in a brewrey
ginger - the meaningless games would be THIS season though, if it starts in August.
Right now you would be looking at now relegation from SPL, no promotion from SFL1, 2 going up from SFL2, no relegation from SFL2 and no promotion from SFL3.
So aside from the clubs at the top of SFL2, and the euro mash up in the SPL, no single club would have ANYTHING to play for, for the rest of this season.
And that is without looking at the mess the new system brings around when in place.
So, 11-1 SPL votes required and min 23-7 SFL votes to make this happen.
Even when the recon comes in does this include the 2 leagues of 8 at the split? NO fans are in favour of this you should organise another sell out Saturday and not turn up AGAIN
There wont actually be as many meaningless games as some make out. In a conveluted way it could actually decrease such.
There are so many possibilities to either gain or lose position right across the two SPL leagues for the following season that while some games might not be inportant to both sides I cant invisage many that are not of huge importance to at least one involved in the match.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Thats the sad part Ginger it actually expands the number of opposition sides for many but for the clubs who finish regularly in the top half of the SPL at present it means there is no change in regards the fan gripe of repeatedly playing the same sides. Obviously Celtic fans will be most effected by this
If we're going to re-structure then at some point there is going to be a season spent in a sort of limbo for some clubs. Maybe better now with only half a season to play?
I'm not seeing any counter proposals from anyone. And please not this 16 or 18 team spl rubbish. Celtic v Cowdenbeath/Livingston etc is not going to improve the product.
Agree Irvine
Unless a better proposal comes along this one is far better than what we currently have
OK, so taking the tables as they currently stand:
Hearts, St Mirren, Ross County & Dundee would split off to play Dunfermline, Morton, Thistle & Raith.
You would have to say that at least Hearts & St Mirren would be safe after that - probably Ross County too.
So then the rest of current SFL1 would take on QotS & Alloa. Pretty much guaranteeing those 2 clubs (only having had 22 games in the 2nd tier) would probably struggle.
So ends up - same teams in the top tier, same in the second.
Alternatively, with the 16-10-16 plan, you would start the season (i.e. a full 30 game season) with the current SPL plus Dunfermline, Morton, Thistle & Raith, giving a far more balanced table at the end of the season, instead of a 14 game shoot out.
By all means have 2 up / 2 down with play offs etc if you want, at the end of the season.
But this is a balls up, designed BY the SPL, for the SPL to protect the SPL.
Not for me to say how a thread progresses but what I was actually pointing out in the OP is that the 12-12-18 actually is a 24-18.
Not too far away from the two 20's many have asked for but and its an important but. It removes most of the diddy/mismatched games such a format would bring about.
So, 11-1 SPL votes required and min 23-7 SFL votes to make this happen.
Nope Rangers dont get a vote
scotscelt, it does not remove mismatches actually.
So, say you are a team in the new Championship (2nd tier) - you set up to finish in the top 4 (as opposed to winning it). You invest to do this.
You make it to the top 4 after 22 games. You now have to play 14 more games, half of them against the teams you are more or less equal with, and half against bottom 4 teams for Premier League (top tier).
These top tier teams have set up to make it into the top 8 in their league - WAY ahead of 2nd tier quality etc.
Yes, in one off matches, anything can happen, but over 14 games, the 4 teams FROM the top tier would almost certainly remain IN the top tier.
As to the bottom group of 8 - they would have a 14 game play off (starting on EXISTING points) to decide the league. Removing the 4 best teams, making it very likely that the teams starting the 14 game play off at the bottom of the 3rd group of 8, would remain there.
It is a plan for "more of the same please", just rebranded, and mixed up to confuse folk.
Rangers got a vote in the 16-10-16 SFL vote which was 30-0 in favour.
Rangers will get a vote in the 12-12-18 SFL vote.
I don't understand how it works after the split.
Do all the sides start again with zero points?
I am actually a big fan of a 18 or 20 top flight where teams play home and way end of of. UNfortunately for numourous reasons there seems to be too many obstacles for this to happen.
So everything from the status quo to any plan I that has been put forward thus far is flawed IMO.
On the whole this plan if it goes through is better than what we have now.
It goes without saying I am partway swayed to this opinion because in the grand scheme of things it makes no difference to Celtic but does give a fairer income share accross Scottish fitba as a whole.
On that note I find it strange that those running Ibrox at present are behaving like a club who expect to remain a 3rd division side instead of as we all know will be back along side Celtic at the top in due course.
Thankfully for all his bluster Green can have no actuall impact on shaping events that will effect your club and Scottish fitba long after he has cashed in and moved on .
Irvine
Top group of 8 continue with current points for euro places
Middle group of 8 (btm 4 from top tier & top 4 from 2nd tier) have points zeroed and have a 14 game min league to decide promotion & relegation.
Bottom group of 8 continue with current points for relegation battle to 3rd tier.
Simple really.
Or feckin nuts!
Scotscelt - why is it better?
Spreading the income around is as easy as writing cheques.
This idea has been developed BY the SPL 12 to protect the SPL 12. It will do nothing other than that.
Davie was that an actuall vote or simply a working discussion ?
I think you will find Rangers dont have a vote on constitional matters as they are associete members.
Only the 8 comprising the bottom 4 from SPL 1 and the top 4 from SPL 2 start on zero points Irvine
Scot - AFAIK, it was a vote. It was reported as 30-0. If it was 29-0, ok.
But if Rangers do not get a vote on this, why are we even bothering.
Aside from all that, you can be fairly sure that there will be lots of talking going on within the SFL teams. If they need a minimum of 22 teams (even excl Rangers) to change from wanting 16-10-16 to voting for 12-12-18, it will be an uphill battle.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Given that promotion to the top tier becomes very difficult then why would the sfl vote for it? There would need to be a sweetener for them.
I don't think it matters what set up we have. The fundamental problem is that we have too many teams competing to attract too few fans.
Scotscelt - why is it better?
Well if it can provide better financial stabilty for those clubs at the bottom end of the SPL and those at the top of the current first division then that has to be good doeasent it ?
Like I said above I dont really care none of the variations change anything for Celtic. The only one that does is the 16 top flight would mean playing against 4 more sides a season but at the cost of loosing 8 games.
Tough call but I suppose would at a push plumb for 30 games home and away but like I said this would sink many clubs if it was implemented without something in the region of 2 or 3 years notice to allow them to budget futre contracts accordingly.
Sign in if you want to comment
2 Division league
Page 1 of 2
posted on 9/1/13
This has apparently been tried in a couple of European countries before and thrown out as useless. So I look forward to the next round of re-organisation talks in 3 years.
The only useful thing that came out of the talks is that the 2 bodies (SPL & SFL) will merge.
posted on 9/1/13
strange or stupid its one or both of these
posted on 9/1/13
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 9/1/13
Ginger
Spot on mate, they idiots have not got a clue, yes our game needs to change but this will drive fans away as like Ginger says the games will mean nothing.
We have to face the facts that we are run by a bunch of no brainers that couldn't organise a p...ss up in a brewrey
posted on 9/1/13
ginger - the meaningless games would be THIS season though, if it starts in August.
Right now you would be looking at now relegation from SPL, no promotion from SFL1, 2 going up from SFL2, no relegation from SFL2 and no promotion from SFL3.
So aside from the clubs at the top of SFL2, and the euro mash up in the SPL, no single club would have ANYTHING to play for, for the rest of this season.
And that is without looking at the mess the new system brings around when in place.
So, 11-1 SPL votes required and min 23-7 SFL votes to make this happen.
posted on 9/1/13
Even when the recon comes in does this include the 2 leagues of 8 at the split? NO fans are in favour of this you should organise another sell out Saturday and not turn up AGAIN
posted on 9/1/13
There wont actually be as many meaningless games as some make out. In a conveluted way it could actually decrease such.
There are so many possibilities to either gain or lose position right across the two SPL leagues for the following season that while some games might not be inportant to both sides I cant invisage many that are not of huge importance to at least one involved in the match.
posted on 9/1/13
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 9/1/13
Thats the sad part Ginger it actually expands the number of opposition sides for many but for the clubs who finish regularly in the top half of the SPL at present it means there is no change in regards the fan gripe of repeatedly playing the same sides. Obviously Celtic fans will be most effected by this
posted on 9/1/13
If we're going to re-structure then at some point there is going to be a season spent in a sort of limbo for some clubs. Maybe better now with only half a season to play?
I'm not seeing any counter proposals from anyone. And please not this 16 or 18 team spl rubbish. Celtic v Cowdenbeath/Livingston etc is not going to improve the product.
posted on 9/1/13
Agree Irvine
Unless a better proposal comes along this one is far better than what we currently have
posted on 9/1/13
OK, so taking the tables as they currently stand:
Hearts, St Mirren, Ross County & Dundee would split off to play Dunfermline, Morton, Thistle & Raith.
You would have to say that at least Hearts & St Mirren would be safe after that - probably Ross County too.
So then the rest of current SFL1 would take on QotS & Alloa. Pretty much guaranteeing those 2 clubs (only having had 22 games in the 2nd tier) would probably struggle.
So ends up - same teams in the top tier, same in the second.
Alternatively, with the 16-10-16 plan, you would start the season (i.e. a full 30 game season) with the current SPL plus Dunfermline, Morton, Thistle & Raith, giving a far more balanced table at the end of the season, instead of a 14 game shoot out.
By all means have 2 up / 2 down with play offs etc if you want, at the end of the season.
But this is a balls up, designed BY the SPL, for the SPL to protect the SPL.
posted on 9/1/13
Not for me to say how a thread progresses but what I was actually pointing out in the OP is that the 12-12-18 actually is a 24-18.
Not too far away from the two 20's many have asked for but and its an important but. It removes most of the diddy/mismatched games such a format would bring about.
posted on 9/1/13
So, 11-1 SPL votes required and min 23-7 SFL votes to make this happen.
Nope Rangers dont get a vote
posted on 9/1/13
scotscelt, it does not remove mismatches actually.
So, say you are a team in the new Championship (2nd tier) - you set up to finish in the top 4 (as opposed to winning it). You invest to do this.
You make it to the top 4 after 22 games. You now have to play 14 more games, half of them against the teams you are more or less equal with, and half against bottom 4 teams for Premier League (top tier).
These top tier teams have set up to make it into the top 8 in their league - WAY ahead of 2nd tier quality etc.
Yes, in one off matches, anything can happen, but over 14 games, the 4 teams FROM the top tier would almost certainly remain IN the top tier.
As to the bottom group of 8 - they would have a 14 game play off (starting on EXISTING points) to decide the league. Removing the 4 best teams, making it very likely that the teams starting the 14 game play off at the bottom of the 3rd group of 8, would remain there.
It is a plan for "more of the same please", just rebranded, and mixed up to confuse folk.
posted on 9/1/13
Rangers got a vote in the 16-10-16 SFL vote which was 30-0 in favour.
Rangers will get a vote in the 12-12-18 SFL vote.
posted on 9/1/13
I don't understand how it works after the split.
Do all the sides start again with zero points?
posted on 9/1/13
I am actually a big fan of a 18 or 20 top flight where teams play home and way end of of. UNfortunately for numourous reasons there seems to be too many obstacles for this to happen.
So everything from the status quo to any plan I that has been put forward thus far is flawed IMO.
On the whole this plan if it goes through is better than what we have now.
It goes without saying I am partway swayed to this opinion because in the grand scheme of things it makes no difference to Celtic but does give a fairer income share accross Scottish fitba as a whole.
On that note I find it strange that those running Ibrox at present are behaving like a club who expect to remain a 3rd division side instead of as we all know will be back along side Celtic at the top in due course.
Thankfully for all his bluster Green can have no actuall impact on shaping events that will effect your club and Scottish fitba long after he has cashed in and moved on .
posted on 9/1/13
Irvine
Top group of 8 continue with current points for euro places
Middle group of 8 (btm 4 from top tier & top 4 from 2nd tier) have points zeroed and have a 14 game min league to decide promotion & relegation.
Bottom group of 8 continue with current points for relegation battle to 3rd tier.
Simple really.
Or feckin nuts!
posted on 9/1/13
Scotscelt - why is it better?
Spreading the income around is as easy as writing cheques.
This idea has been developed BY the SPL 12 to protect the SPL 12. It will do nothing other than that.
posted on 9/1/13
Davie was that an actuall vote or simply a working discussion ?
I think you will find Rangers dont have a vote on constitional matters as they are associete members.
Only the 8 comprising the bottom 4 from SPL 1 and the top 4 from SPL 2 start on zero points Irvine
posted on 9/1/13
Scot - AFAIK, it was a vote. It was reported as 30-0. If it was 29-0, ok.
But if Rangers do not get a vote on this, why are we even bothering.
Aside from all that, you can be fairly sure that there will be lots of talking going on within the SFL teams. If they need a minimum of 22 teams (even excl Rangers) to change from wanting 16-10-16 to voting for 12-12-18, it will be an uphill battle.
posted on 9/1/13
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 9/1/13
Given that promotion to the top tier becomes very difficult then why would the sfl vote for it? There would need to be a sweetener for them.
I don't think it matters what set up we have. The fundamental problem is that we have too many teams competing to attract too few fans.
posted on 9/1/13
Scotscelt - why is it better?
Well if it can provide better financial stabilty for those clubs at the bottom end of the SPL and those at the top of the current first division then that has to be good doeasent it ?
Like I said above I dont really care none of the variations change anything for Celtic. The only one that does is the 16 top flight would mean playing against 4 more sides a season but at the cost of loosing 8 games.
Tough call but I suppose would at a push plumb for 30 games home and away but like I said this would sink many clubs if it was implemented without something in the region of 2 or 3 years notice to allow them to budget futre contracts accordingly.
Page 1 of 2