[Fifes Elite Force]

http://www.dailyreco...86908- 22099360/



Pretty much right what he says, I can't see it going ahead, unless there is a change of voting procedures in the SPL. In fairness to Yorkston while he was in the SPL he always used his vote to favour football matters and was pretty fair with his votes instead of the self preservation tactics of other chairmen.

This post has been edited by Fifes Elite Force: 10 March 2010 - 13:49

[ScottyC]

He was always good at attacking the OF and the way the bigger clubs went about there buisness in the SPL. Pitty he wasnt paying more attention to the club he been running the past decade.

SPL expansion will only happen if the club owners/chairman vote for it. Walter Smith can run his mouth all he wants but has absolutely no influence on this issue. Instead of trying to improve the top flight, the OF are more interested in escaping it (new Rangers owner might be satisfied with building houses on Murray Park). The ten "diddy" team will never give up or share money cause it suits the them.

None of the people responsible for league reconstruction care what is best for Scottish football or for what the fans want.

[ferryjambo]

ScottyC, on 10 March 2010 - 14:25, said:

He was always good at attacking the OF and the way the bigger clubs went about there buisness in the SPL. Pitty he wasnt paying more attention to the club he been running the past decade.

SPL expansion will only happen if the club owners/chairman vote for it. Walter Smith can run his mouth all he wants but has absolutely no influence on this issue. Instead of trying to improve the top flight, the OF are more interested in escaping it (new Rangers owner might be satisfied with building houses on Murray Park). The ten "diddy" team will never give up or share money cause it suits the them.

None of the people responsible for league reconstruction care what is best for Scottish football or for what the fans want.

Please tell me how expanding the SPL is best for scottish football or fans.
I am intrigued.

Frankly I can't see how inviting more "diddy" teams in at the cost of reduced revenue for all will achieve that.

[craigster00]

ferryjambo, on 10 March 2010 - 18:28, said:

Please tell me how expanding the SPL is best for scottish football or fans.
I am intrigued.

Frankly I can't see how inviting more "diddy" teams in at the cost of reduced revenue for all will achieve that.

You, sir, are a fool. You sound more like a chairman than a football fan. How can a league with only 12 teams in it be exciting? Playing against each other 4 times per season? And to be honest, I'm 100% positive that some of your so-called "diddy" teams from the lower leagues could pump Hearts any day of the week.

[ferryjambo]

craigster00, on 10 March 2010 - 18:36, said:

You, sir, are a fool. You sound more like a chairman than a football fan. How can a league with only 12 teams in it be exciting? Playing against each other 4 times per season? And to be honest, I'm 100% positive that some of your so-called "diddy" teams from the lower leagues could pump Hearts any day of the week.

As an SPL fan I don't agree

I would much prefer 4 games against Rangers; Celtic; Hibs; Aberdeen; Dundee utd etc than 2 and then extra games against the likes of Morton etc.

I also think the future of the SPL and Scottish football is further improved this way than everyone fighting over a smaller pot.

I would suggest it would be a backwards step towards less professional full time football in Scotland after a few years of decline.

As for the word Diddy. That was one of your fellow 1st Division fans description.

[GroovyDave1973]

ferryjambo, on 10 March 2010 - 18:46, said:

As for the word Diddy. That was one of your fellow 1st Division fans description.

That may well be true but as a Hearts fan you should probably ponder your own mediocrity before using the term.

Your league is not honest....because half of the dozen best teams are playing in the first division.

[ferryjambo]

GroovyDave1973, on 10 March 2010 - 19:17, said:

That may well be true but as a Hearts fan you should probably ponder your own mediocrity before using the term.

Your league is not honest....because half of the dozen best teams are playing in the first division.

I again don't agree

Ok There may not be much between the likes of St Mirren, Falkirk etc and Dundee or Ross County however there is a fair whack between the likes of Hibs, Hearts etc and over a season this would be shown regularly.

Remember your clubs pick there game up for SPL teams.

I would be quite happy to open up another relegation place/play off system or whatever. I dont think expanding the SPL to 16, 18 or 20 teams would work though.

I think the SFL need to do their own restructuring first and improve the quality there before you can convince me or more importantly the SPL chairman that they have something to gain from letting you in

At the moment SPL clubs gain nothing from expansion and actually stand to lose out a lot.

[Fife Saint]

As much as it pains me to say it, Captain Sensible has made the strongest argument for each case I have seen. Expansion isn't the best option but opening up a 2nd promotion spot via finishing position or playoff is the way forward.

Yorkston can rot in his own pool of liquidised shite for all I care though.

[ScottyC]

ferryjambo, on 10 March 2010 - 18:46, said:

I would much prefer 4 games against Rangers; Celtic; Hibs; Aberdeen; Dundee utd etc than 2 and then extra games against the likes of Morton etc.

Teams playing each other 4 times mean no team outside the OF will win the league again.

ferryjambo, on 10 March 2010 - 18:46, said:

As for the word Diddy. That was one of your fellow 1st Division fans description.

I didnt use the word diddy, i used "diddy" as a refrence to the patronising glory hunters that look down on teams because they have a smaller budget or fanbase.

[ferryjambo]

ScottyC, on 10 March 2010 - 19:37, said:

Teams playing each other 4 times mean no team outside the OF will win the league again.




I didnt use the word diddy, i used "diddy" as a refrence to the patronising glory hunters that look down on teams because they have a smaller budget or fanbase.

No team outside the OF would win whether it was a 12 team or 16 team SPL anyway.

Utter tripe if you think otherwise. the OF will struggle more against 4 games with Aberdeen, Hearts etc than the likes of Morton, Raith, Dunfermline etc.

[ScottyC]

ferryjambo, on 10 March 2010 - 19:50, said:

No team outside the OF would win whether it was a 12 team or 16 team SPL anyway.

Utter tripe if you think otherwise. the OF will struggle more against 4 games with Aberdeen, Hearts etc than the likes of Morton, Raith, Dunfermline etc.

How can you put forward Aberdeen and Hearts as a valid strong form of oposition for the OF? They Regularly get beat by much smaller teams with lesser squads and budgets.

[ferryjambo]

ScottyC, on 11 March 2010 - 10:38, said:

How can you put forward Aberdeen and Hearts as a valid strong form of oposition for the OF? They Regularly get beat by much smaller teams with lesser squads and budgets.

They are examples but the fact remains the SPL is far more competitive - granted not all that much competitive - in its current form than it would be with 16 teams playing twice.

[Mr X]

ferryjambo, on 10 March 2010 - 19:23, said:

I again don't agree

Ok There may not be much between the likes of St Mirren, Falkirk etc and Dundee or Ross County however there is a fair whack between the likes of Hibs, Hearts etc and over a season this would be shown regularly.

Remember your clubs pick there game up for SPL teams.

I would be quite happy to open up another relegation place/play off system or whatever. I dont think expanding the SPL to 16, 18 or 20 teams would work though.

I think the SFL need to do their own restructuring first and improve the quality there before you can convince me or more importantly the SPL chairman that they have something to gain from letting you in

At the moment SPL clubs gain nothing from expansion and actually stand to lose out a lot.

Would they though? Someone on the radio made the point last week that clubs no longer sell out when the OF come to town, home or away ends. They suggested that this is because they play each other so often. Their argument was that if the OF only visited once a year there would be more interest in the games and therefore more tickets sold. I think they have a point.

Theres a huge gulf in class between the top teams in the EPL and the likes of Stoke, Burnley, Hull etc but that doesnt make that league less competitive. First division clubs have consistently put in good performances against SPL clubs over recent years, I dont see any reason to suggest that, with the increased revenue from playing in the SPL, that the top teams in Division 1 would contribute any less the SPL than the teams already there.

[GroovyDave1973]

ferryjambo, on 11 March 2010 - 10:45, said:

They are examples but the fact remains the SPL is far more competitive - granted not all that much competitive - in its current form than it would be with 16 teams playing twice.

Far more competitive? Are you on the sauce or something?... the SPL is not competitive as the first division......the SPL is a coin toss between the old firm.

On the one hand you ask us to ignore examples.....and state as "fact" your theory that the SPL would be less competitive with 16 teams?

The poster above was right.....you could be an SPL chairman!

This post has been edited by GroovyDave1973: 11 March 2010 - 11:12

[ScottyC]

ferryjambo, on 11 March 2010 - 10:45, said:

They are examples but the fact remains the SPL is far more competitive - granted not all that much competitive - in its current form than it would be with 16 teams playing twice.

If thats the case why does England, Spain, Italy, Germany have 20 with Holland has 18.

Portugal has 16 teams in its league, as does Belgium the league that taken Scotland places in Europe .

Even countries like Romania, Greece, Russia, Turkey, Hungary, Isreal, Norway, Poland, Ukraine all have at least 16 teams in their top league.

Finland even have 14 clubs.

[Captain_Sensible]

Fife Saint, on 10 March 2010 - 19:29, said:

As much as it pains me to say it, Captain Sensible has made the strongest argument for each case I have seen. Expansion isn't the best option but opening up a 2nd promotion spot via finishing position or playoff is the way forward.

Indeed. Anyone with any sense who reads the thread running on the SPL forum can only come to the conclusion that an expanded top flight would be a complete and utter disaster for Scottish football....... and I speak as someone whose club will eventually be relegated from the current SPL, maybe sooner rather than later.

The way forward is to increase the number of relegation / promotion spots - I'd actually ideally like to see a 2nd automatic relegation / promotion spot plus a play of for 3rd bottom / 3rd top.

I'm not going to bring up any points on this thread as its been done to death on the SPL forum. What I will say though is that ALL the evidence and facts points to an expanded top flight being a total disaster for Scottish football. No amount of sweeping statements with no substance about crowds declining and Scottish dying will alter this fact.

[HibeeJibee]

To re-iterate Captain Sensible's point... anyone having a read through the "SPL Expansions" thread in the SPL forum, will see a comprehensive - and crushing - rebuttal and dismantling: of all financial, competitive, progressive, or internationally comparative arguments behind expansionism.

It would be an unmitigated disaster on so many fronts it borders on abject ludicrousness. The drab-suited administrators will remain steadfast...

[Mr X]

HibeeJibee, on 11 March 2010 - 14:44, said:

To re-iterate Captain Sensible's point... anyone having a read through the "SPL Expansions" thread in the SPL forum, will see a comprehensive - and crushing - rebuttal and dismantling: of all financial, competitive, progressive, or internationally comparative arguments behind expansionism.

It would be an unmitigated disaster on so many fronts it borders on abject ludicrousness. The drab-suited administrators will remain steadfast...

Hardly. Its full of your, and others, opinions of why an expansion wont work, nothing more.

[GroovyDave1973]

HibeeJibee, on 11 March 2010 - 14:44, said:

To re-iterate Captain Sensible's point... anyone having a read through the "SPL Expansions" thread in the SPL forum, will see a comprehensive - and crushing - rebuttal and dismantling: of all financial, competitive, progressive, or internationally comparative arguments behind expansionism.

It would be an unmitigated disaster on so many fronts it borders on abject ludicrousness. The drab-suited administrators will remain steadfast...

The only real thing of note on that thread is a few posters trying to suggest that crowd figures from 30 years ago are somehow relevant today.....not only that a couple of them don't even seem to realise the title of the thread.

They also seem to very angry about something.....using dramatic words like "ludicrousness" and "Barmy" and accusing people of telling lies.

Perhaps expansion is going to happen sooner than I thought?.....they certainly seem worried about something.

[rossyboy]

ScottyC, on 11 March 2010 - 11:21, said:

If thats the case why does England, Spain, Italy, Germany have 20 with Holland has 18.

Portugal has 16 teams in its league, as does Belgium the league that taken Scotland places in Europe .

Even countries like Romania, Greece, Russia, Turkey, Hungary, Isreal, Norway, Poland, Ukraine all have at least 16 teams in their top league.

Finland even have 14 clubs.

Your correct mate, but hey what do these countries know eh, we as a nation are better footballing nation errrrrrrrrrrrrrmmmmm
There is no argument to extending the league, it has to happen, ALL the footballing men want it, its the money men who dont want it.
MONEY or FOOTBALL!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!! !!!!!

[Sergeant Wilson]

rossyboy, on 11 March 2010 - 21:09, said:

Your correct mate, but hey what do these countries know eh, we as a nation are better footballing nation errrrrrrrrrrrrrmmmmm
There is no argument to extending the league, it has to happen, ALL the footballing men want it, its the money men who dont want it.
MONEY or FOOTBALL!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!! !!!!!

Expansion might be morally right in a football sense. But tell me how The Killie Chairman explains the loss of revenue and therefore debt repayment to the bank manager? Also tell me the result of that conversation.

[ferryjambo]

rossyboy, on 11 March 2010 - 21:09, said:

Your correct mate, but hey what do these countries know eh, we as a nation are better footballing nation errrrrrrrrrrrrrmmmmm
There is no argument to extending the league, it has to happen, ALL the footballing men want it, its the money men who dont want it.
MONEY or FOOTBALL!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!! !!!!!

Without money there is no football.

Belgium and Holland are teetering on the brink with many clubs going bust lately so not a great example. The others have far better quality of football

We are a nation with approx 18 Fully Professional Clubs.

We can't support a large top division as well as all the football league

If we went to 16 now Scottish Football would become a farce. I'm all for giving extra relegation places but not expanding the league at this stage. If the lower divisions restructure then it may be a better option but at the moment all that would happen is far too many clubs would go into financial meltdown due to a crash in revenue.

[rossyboy]

ferryjambo, on 11 March 2010 - 22:28, said:

Without money there is no football.

Belgium and Holland are teetering on the brink with many clubs going bust lately so not a great example. The others have far better quality of football

We are a nation with approx 18 Fully Professional Clubs.

We can't support a large top division as well as all the football league

If we went to 16 now Scottish Football would become a farce. I'm all for giving extra relegation places but not expanding the league at this stage. If the lower divisions restructure then it may be a better option but at the moment all that would happen is far too many clubs would go into financial meltdown due to a crash in revenue.

There is no money in Scottish football anyway due to dwindling attendances and the terrible standard of football up here. Plus tv deals are not forthcoming due to the shit state up here.
So lets do something up here for the good of Scottish football.
You are correct in saying Scotland cant support a large top league aswell as the league, in the same turn scotland is not big enough to accomodate an SPL and 3 leagues, so you have a larger SPL and then 2 leagues below.
Why do you say a 16 team would be a farce? so the EPL and other european leagues are a farce?
You would see teams like Dundee, Inverness, Dunfermline, Partick and queens easily hold their own in the SPL and I could see it adding interest to Scottish football.
Teams like Dundee and Dunfermline have a considerable fan base and would add to the SPL.
Dundee so far have had far bigger crowds this season than a few SPL clubs.
A larger SPL safe guards Scottish footballs bigger clubs from being relegated, the SPL is a farce in that there will never ever be relaxed and skilful football due to players and managers shitting themselves at the prospect of relegation and forever looking over their shoulders after one defeat.
This view is echoed down south from a few of my pals who are fans of english clubs at my unit.
I put it to them and they were of the same opinion that the smaller the league the more likely a big club could fall by the wayside.
They enjoy going to mid table premiership games down south as players are not scared to take a chance and show a bit of skill, it encourages the younger lads to come on and show what they can do.
They dont believe there any meaningless games due to the size of the EPL.

[ferryjambo]

rossyboy, on 11 March 2010 - 22:59, said:

There is no money in Scottish football anyway due to dwindling attendances and the terrible standard of football up here. Plus tv deals are not forthcoming due to the shit state up here.
So lets do something up here for the good of Scottish football.
You are correct in saying Scotland cant support a large top league aswell as the league, in the same turn scotland is not big enough to accomodate an SPL and 3 leagues, so you have a larger SPL and then 2 leagues below.
Why do you say a 16 team would be a farce? so the EPL and other european leagues are a farce?
You would see teams like Dundee, Inverness, Dunfermline, Partick and queens easily hold their own in the SPL and I could see it adding interest to Scottish football.
Teams like Dundee and Dunfermline have a considerable fan base and would add to the SPL.
Dundee so far have had far bigger crowds this season than a few SPL clubs.
A larger SPL safe guards Scottish footballs bigger clubs from being relegated, the SPL is a farce in that there will never ever be relaxed and skilful football due to players and managers shitting themselves at the prospect of relegation and forever looking over their shoulders after one defeat.
This view is echoed down south from a few of my pals who are fans of english clubs at my unit.
I put it to them and they were of the same opinion that the smaller the league the more likely a big club could fall by the wayside.
They enjoy going to mid table premiership games down south as players are not scared to take a chance and show a bit of skill, it encourages the younger lads to come on and show what they can do.
They dont believe there any meaningless games due to the size of the EPL.

At the end of the day I simply don't agree
You are talking as if firstly the SPL is flawed and a failing league and secondly as if you have something brillant to offer that makes the gamble and it would be a massive one worthwhile.

For the first point whilst the SPL may not be a great league it is whether we beleive it or not a well respected and semi sucessful league given the size of this country. Our clubs and national team regularly overachieve and this bodes well for the country. Yes it may only have 2 regular title contenders but this isnt unusual.

Now I simply dont see what incentive there is for the likes of any club outwith the OF (and to a degree even the SPL) to further dilute the league when it would almost certainly mean less money for all spread more ways. The likes of Dunfermline simply dont offer us anything that isnt there at the moment. Yes they might survive but at the end of the day that doesnt really matter to anyone other than dunfemline FC. The massive loss in TV monies as well as the likiehood of dwindling quality of football as a direct consequence would be a massive concern.

I really think that until the SFL gets its own house in order and restructures the leagues they have an absolute cheek suggesting that the SPL is hiding scared or such as they simply have nothing the SPL wants or needs. If they did they would open it up in a second. I also strongly dispute any belief that letting in 4 clubs would improve the level of football or quality.

The way forward is a compromise with a play off system coming in for both a 2nd relegation spot and also europe or such.

On top of this I would advocate the SFL taking a long look at its own set up and looking towards 1 National SFL Premier league (AKA a ready made SPL 2) with regionalisation below it. Once this is achieved then you would be in a far better position to ask it to slot into a complete national SPL set up with increased SPL capacity.

Its also worth adding that a lot of SPL clubs are that hard up they are now planning to scrap the u19 leagues which should make everyone realise there is not a hope in hell of there being an increased SPL anytime remotely soon.

[HibeeJibee]

rossyboy, on 11 March 2010 - 22:59, said:

There is no money in Scottish football anyway due to dwindling attendances

Attendances are level, despite the worst recession for 70 years - and stand at a historical high almost unprecedented in the history of the game.

rossyboy, on 11 March 2010 - 22:59, said:

and the terrible standard of football up here.

The game isn't terrible, and regardless, crowds are turning up for it in unprecedented numbers. Sky-ESPN paid the highest deal in the history of televised Scottish football (not as much as Setanta promised from 2010-11 onwards, no doubt... but then again Setanta went bust, didn't they).

rossyboy, on 11 March 2010 - 22:59, said:

Plus tv deals are not forthcoming due to the shit state up here.

The SPL has a TV deal. The Scottish Cup has a TV deal. Also the CIS Cup. Also the Alba Cup. And the First Division. And national Full / U21 teams.

The amount of TV money in Scottish football is, in European terms, massive bordering on an embarrassment of riches for a nation of 5M people...

rossyboy, on 11 March 2010 - 22:59, said:

So lets do something up here for the good of Scottish football.

In what way would driving numerous major club bust, and introducing a poverty-stricken uncompetitive hell-hole of a league structure, help us?

rossyboy, on 11 March 2010 - 22:59, said:

You are correct in saying Scotland cant support a large top league aswell as the league, in the same turn scotland is not big enough to accomodate an SPL and 3 leagues, so you have a larger SPL and then 2 leagues below.

You seem to be operating under the delusion that the part-time clubs have any impact whatsoever on gates, TV interest or naming-rights deals. You could ban every club in the Second and Third Divisions, and it wouldn't make the blindest bit of difference to what professional SPL clubs do.

rossyboy, on 11 March 2010 - 22:59, said:

Why do you say a 16 team would be a farce? so the EPL and other european leagues are a farce?

The most popular top division size in Europe is 12. Followed by 10. Then followed by 16. So you are talking out of a large hole, in your large hat.

rossyboy, on 11 March 2010 - 22:59, said:

You would see teams like Dundee, Inverness, Dunfermline, Partick and queens easily hold their own in the SPL and I could see it adding interest to Scottish football.
Teams like Dundee and Dunfermline have a considerable fan base and would add to the SPL.
Dundee so far have had far bigger crowds this season than a few SPL clubs.

They can join by getting promoted. The idea that you expand a division to accomodate all the clubs who are 'big' that particular year is madness. And they would be adding to a poverty-stricken SPL. Less games, less games v big clubs, less big games for TV, no split and a meaningless mid-table, and then dividing the reduced £££ over 33% more teams. How anyone imagines that is a positive step for our game, well god only knows.

rossyboy, on 11 March 2010 - 22:59, said:

A larger SPL safe guards Scottish footballs bigger clubs from being relegated, the SPL is a farce in that there will never ever be relaxed and skilful football due to players and managers shitting themselves at the prospect of relegation and forever looking over their shoulders after one defeat.

This may be the case. But it isn't worth it for this, bearing in mind the downsides. And being a quasi-youth-league would hurt income even more.

rossyboy, on 11 March 2010 - 22:59, said:

This view is echoed down south from a few of my pals who are fans of english clubs at my unit.
I put it to them and they were of the same opinion that the smaller the league the more likely a big club could fall by the wayside.
They enjoy going to mid table premiership games down south as players are not scared to take a chance and show a bit of skill, it encourages the younger lads to come on and show what they can do.
They dont believe there any meaningless games due to the size of the EPL.

England has 7 (often 8?) European places, 3 relegation places, a population of 55M and numerous large clubs. As Graham Spiers has commented, an SPL of 18 clubs could see Stirling or Alloa promoted. It wouldn't be a league as such it would be a metaphorical slaughter house. End of story.

This post has been edited by HibeeJibee: 12 March 2010 - 00:59