I'm assuming: Play everyone twice - 26 games. Then a 7/7 split - Play home & away for an extra 12 = 38 (Each team sits out one post-split fixture).
I think it's a lot better than the current proposal. More teams will give the SPL added freshness.
Cheers Stevie.
Think its play everyone twice, then split into two groups of 7.
Each team has a week off for one of the weekends during the split.
Gets a bit messy if a club going for the title has their off week on the last weekend right enough.
Still prefer it to the SPL idea though.
He needs clarity on his proposed reconstruction plans. Hes just chucked out the idea of 14 team leagues. Does he know if there will be a split what does he plan to do with the spare team not playing once a week.
If he has a constructive proposal he should answer these questions and many more first.
If they followed the Belgian model and halved the points before the split, it would lead to a much more competitive league & bigger crowds. It's so simple, it should be implemented.
The 14 works by splitting into a 6/8 after 26 games. The top 6 then play each other another twice home and away and the bottom 8 play each other home and away. The top 6 therefore play 36 games and the bottom 8 play 40 games. The bottom 8 have extra games that offset the loss that comes from only having two OF games in a season. the top 6 have less games to allow them to focus on hopefully European football after Christmas.
Quite a lot on here have backed it but I would prefer a top league of 16-18.
I don't quite know if 14 teams works in the lower divisions. I would prefer a 14/16/12 with the first and second divisions not havinga split but increased play off options.
Chuman
same goes for the SFA/SPL/SFL
Clubs all over the place aswell as fans do not know precisely what all the ins and outs of the whole 12-12-18 thing are yet....hell they are talking about relegation from the third teir 18 league, and fook knows where to yet, sod all setup in place at all!!!
Gaz, two good comments in a row, I'm in shock
I agree but a 6/8 split works better, after 26 games though a halving of points gained to make the end of season more competitive would really revitialise the product.
"comment by Chuman after all (U14549)
posted 12 seconds ago
He needs clarity on his proposed reconstruction plans. Hes just chucked out the idea of 14 team leagues. Does he know if there will be a split what does he plan to do with the spare team not playing once a week.
If he has a constructive proposal he should answer these questions and many more first."
================================
Agreed, but nothing wrong with floating the idea to see if it gets interest. Can iron out the idea in more detail.
Thats the thing about not rushing it through for next season.
The SPL/SFL are trying to rush through an idea without answering all the questions either. Difference is they want it up and running in a few months!
Very messy by the sounds of it. I dont like the idea of some clubs playing more games than others whilst being in the same league.
Belgian model with a slight tweak of the relegation playoffs is the way forward.
The rangers don't have a say in this, they don't have accounts for more than 3 years.
I would also like to state that such proposed changes don't come into effect until season 2014/2015 so that we are not seen to get a helping hand up the divisions and also that everybody at the start of the season knows what they are playing for from the outset.
"Very messy by the sounds of it. I dont like the idea of some clubs playing more games than others whilst being in the same league."
eh??
BT, was about to post a 6/8 split, much better imo.
Quite a lot on here have backed it but I would prefer a top league of 16-18.
-------
As has been stated before those who want a 18 team league are obviously young enough to not realise the amount of meaningless games that came with a league of this size....
On the face of it the 14 team league is certainly worth a consideration. Its not too big as to have teams that should not be in it, and a bit more than the usual suspects that are currently here....
I am intrigued as to the SPL proposal of the 4 v 4 playoff for promotion / relegation....that could be interesting...
Chuman, the Belgian model needs 16 teams to work and it seems for whatever reason the powers that be don't want a 16 team top league.
I would prefer a 6/8 split so that at least every week every team is playing football. the extra games for the bottome sides also offset the loss of not being in the top 6.
stevie a top 6 bottom 8 split would mean the bottom clubs playing more league games as someone describe above. I dont like the idea of that.
Oh right, just seen the 6/8 thing
To be fair, its no more complicated than whats on the table now really, but i see yer point
Blue iv been posting about a 16 team league based on the belgian league for months its theost realistic way forward for Scottish football.
I like it - I'd prefer no splits but it looks like we have to have them to get the number of games in all the plans.
It's a fair compromise between increasing the size of the top division to add interest and maintaining the money available to teams. It's also a good plan not to do it next season. A sensible approach from Rangers. Good work
Also after the split you then have two different competitions in effect, almost like a post season scenario. It would not really make a big difference to most fans that some teams have played more games.
Season tickets could be a problem.
Wouldnt know how many games you were getting at the start of the season.
Suppose its not different to play offs right enough.
Chuman I have been banging on about the Belgian model for two years now on 606 and now ja606. I think it is fresh and exciting and has done wonders for their league.
If followed strictly though the various teams all end up playing different amounts of games.
I think 14 in the first instance with a proposed move towards 16 is the way forward. The proposal though should follow the Belgian model that all points gained after the first stage of the league are halved to increase competition.
I would also like to state that such proposed changes don't come into effect until season 2014/2015 so that we are not seen to get a helping hand up the divisions and also that everybody at the start of the season knows what they are playing for from the outset.
===
regardless of the new structure surely we should all wait until 2014/15 to implement change? would an extra year make any difference?
that way clubs can budget and prepare accordingly.
still no mention of capping tickets prices etc.
another thing we should surely be looking at is ground sharing? we all pretty much agree that we have too many clubs but i can't see this changing. surely smaller clubs (outwith rangers & celtic) in close proximeity could ground share as a means of cost cutting? money saved on upkeeping grounds could lead to an investment to the product on the park?
Sign in if you want to comment
14-14-14 (for Mitre)
Page 1 of 6
6
posted on 14/1/13
Wit
thats crazy
posted on 14/1/13
I'm assuming: Play everyone twice - 26 games. Then a 7/7 split - Play home & away for an extra 12 = 38 (Each team sits out one post-split fixture).
I think it's a lot better than the current proposal. More teams will give the SPL added freshness.
posted on 14/1/13
Cheers Stevie.
Think its play everyone twice, then split into two groups of 7.
Each team has a week off for one of the weekends during the split.
Gets a bit messy if a club going for the title has their off week on the last weekend right enough.
Still prefer it to the SPL idea though.
posted on 14/1/13
He needs clarity on his proposed reconstruction plans. Hes just chucked out the idea of 14 team leagues. Does he know if there will be a split what does he plan to do with the spare team not playing once a week.
If he has a constructive proposal he should answer these questions and many more first.
posted on 14/1/13
If they followed the Belgian model and halved the points before the split, it would lead to a much more competitive league & bigger crowds. It's so simple, it should be implemented.
posted on 14/1/13
The 14 works by splitting into a 6/8 after 26 games. The top 6 then play each other another twice home and away and the bottom 8 play each other home and away. The top 6 therefore play 36 games and the bottom 8 play 40 games. The bottom 8 have extra games that offset the loss that comes from only having two OF games in a season. the top 6 have less games to allow them to focus on hopefully European football after Christmas.
Quite a lot on here have backed it but I would prefer a top league of 16-18.
I don't quite know if 14 teams works in the lower divisions. I would prefer a 14/16/12 with the first and second divisions not havinga split but increased play off options.
posted on 14/1/13
Chuman
same goes for the SFA/SPL/SFL
Clubs all over the place aswell as fans do not know precisely what all the ins and outs of the whole 12-12-18 thing are yet....hell they are talking about relegation from the third teir 18 league, and fook knows where to yet, sod all setup in place at all!!!
posted on 14/1/13
Gaz, two good comments in a row, I'm in shock
I agree but a 6/8 split works better, after 26 games though a halving of points gained to make the end of season more competitive would really revitialise the product.
posted on 14/1/13
"comment by Chuman after all (U14549)
posted 12 seconds ago
He needs clarity on his proposed reconstruction plans. Hes just chucked out the idea of 14 team leagues. Does he know if there will be a split what does he plan to do with the spare team not playing once a week.
If he has a constructive proposal he should answer these questions and many more first."
================================
Agreed, but nothing wrong with floating the idea to see if it gets interest. Can iron out the idea in more detail.
Thats the thing about not rushing it through for next season.
The SPL/SFL are trying to rush through an idea without answering all the questions either. Difference is they want it up and running in a few months!
posted on 14/1/13
Very messy by the sounds of it. I dont like the idea of some clubs playing more games than others whilst being in the same league.
Belgian model with a slight tweak of the relegation playoffs is the way forward.
posted on 14/1/13
The rangers don't have a say in this, they don't have accounts for more than 3 years.
posted on 14/1/13
I would also like to state that such proposed changes don't come into effect until season 2014/2015 so that we are not seen to get a helping hand up the divisions and also that everybody at the start of the season knows what they are playing for from the outset.
posted on 14/1/13
"Very messy by the sounds of it. I dont like the idea of some clubs playing more games than others whilst being in the same league."
eh??
posted on 14/1/13
BT, was about to post a 6/8 split, much better imo.
posted on 14/1/13
Quite a lot on here have backed it but I would prefer a top league of 16-18.
-------
As has been stated before those who want a 18 team league are obviously young enough to not realise the amount of meaningless games that came with a league of this size....
On the face of it the 14 team league is certainly worth a consideration. Its not too big as to have teams that should not be in it, and a bit more than the usual suspects that are currently here....
I am intrigued as to the SPL proposal of the 4 v 4 playoff for promotion / relegation....that could be interesting...
posted on 14/1/13
Chuman, the Belgian model needs 16 teams to work and it seems for whatever reason the powers that be don't want a 16 team top league.
I would prefer a 6/8 split so that at least every week every team is playing football. the extra games for the bottome sides also offset the loss of not being in the top 6.
posted on 14/1/13
stevie a top 6 bottom 8 split would mean the bottom clubs playing more league games as someone describe above. I dont like the idea of that.
posted on 14/1/13
Oh right, just seen the 6/8 thing
To be fair, its no more complicated than whats on the table now really, but i see yer point
posted on 14/1/13
Blue iv been posting about a 16 team league based on the belgian league for months its theost realistic way forward for Scottish football.
posted on 14/1/13
I like it - I'd prefer no splits but it looks like we have to have them to get the number of games in all the plans.
It's a fair compromise between increasing the size of the top division to add interest and maintaining the money available to teams. It's also a good plan not to do it next season. A sensible approach from Rangers. Good work
posted on 14/1/13
Also after the split you then have two different competitions in effect, almost like a post season scenario. It would not really make a big difference to most fans that some teams have played more games.
posted on 14/1/13
the most *
posted on 14/1/13
Season tickets could be a problem.
Wouldnt know how many games you were getting at the start of the season.
Suppose its not different to play offs right enough.
posted on 14/1/13
Chuman I have been banging on about the Belgian model for two years now on 606 and now ja606. I think it is fresh and exciting and has done wonders for their league.
If followed strictly though the various teams all end up playing different amounts of games.
I think 14 in the first instance with a proposed move towards 16 is the way forward. The proposal though should follow the Belgian model that all points gained after the first stage of the league are halved to increase competition.
posted on 14/1/13
I would also like to state that such proposed changes don't come into effect until season 2014/2015 so that we are not seen to get a helping hand up the divisions and also that everybody at the start of the season knows what they are playing for from the outset.
===
regardless of the new structure surely we should all wait until 2014/15 to implement change? would an extra year make any difference?
that way clubs can budget and prepare accordingly.
still no mention of capping tickets prices etc.
another thing we should surely be looking at is ground sharing? we all pretty much agree that we have too many clubs but i can't see this changing. surely smaller clubs (outwith rangers & celtic) in close proximeity could ground share as a means of cost cutting? money saved on upkeeping grounds could lead to an investment to the product on the park?
Page 1 of 6
6