[Burnie_man]

OK, did some number crunching to see if the overall amount of games played would increase under "16-16-16-16" and on average (based on 2010/11 season);

Superleague clubs would play 2 more games in a season
Premierleague 3 more
South Division 2 less!
Central Division 2 more
North Division 2 more

If the "new" South Division ends up with 17 clubs, then on average clubs will play the same amount of games over the season under this set-up as they do now. Same with the North as they may initially only have 15 clubs, or even 14.

Here's the actual numbers. First number is the games played last season, and the second figure the number that they would have played if the "16-16-16-16" system been in place (I didnt do everyone as I got bored!);

Bo'ness 47 49
Sauchie 45 43
Linlithgow Rose 41 42
Penicuik 40 42
Haddington 40 38
North End 40 42
Bankfoot 39 41
Musselburgh 38 40
Nitten 38 41
Broughty 38 42
Stoneyburn 38 36
Bonnyrigg Rose 37 39
Glenrothes 37 39
Armadale 37 40
Blackburn 37 35
Hill of Beath 36 38
Tranent 36 34
Broxburn 35 38
Livingston 35 33
Lochore 35 37
Bathgate 34 36
Camelon 34 34
Tayport 34 36
Fauldhouse 34 33
Violet 34 36
Kelty 33 36
Kirkcaldy 33 35
Lochgelly 33 35
Arbroath SC 33 36
Lochee United 32 36
Ballingry 32 36
Arniston 32 33
Whitburn 32 35
Oakley 32 34
Dundonald 32 34
Forfar WE 31 33
St.Andrews 31 35
Jeanfield 31 33
Montrose 31 34
Arbroath Vics 31 33
Kirrie 31 33
Kinnoul 30 33
Thornton Hibs 30 34
Downfield 30 33
Carnoustie 28 33


Carnoustie only playing 28 games in a season is ridiculous!

This post has been edited by Burnie_man: 05 February 2012 - 21:37

[Burnie_man]

Perthboy, on 05 February 2012 - 19:43, said:

You could start with League games right away. Saturday/Wednesday for the first 2/3/4 week enabling teams to rack up league games early doors. Play local teams in League games August midweeks in good weather which is sure to bring in decent crowds.

Spot on.

If for example, the season started on Saturday 4th August, you could have 9 league games played by 1st September, and 13 by the time the first round of the Junior Cup is played, and there would be nothing to prevent those first 13 fixtures being issued at the start of the season.

[HibeeJibee]

Burnie_man, on 05 February 2012 - 21:07, said:

I looked at clubs total amount of games played last season, and then looked at the number with League Cup removed and 30 leagues games played instead.

Superleague clubs would play 2 more games in a season #
Premierleague 3 more #+1
South Division 2 less!
Central Division 2 more #
North Division 2 more #

That sounds fairly manageable figure-wise.

And if you started the season 1 week earlier (e.g. Saturday 28th July), you'd essentially accomodate those 2 extra match equivalents (#).

(That said... some managers will probably have a fit at thoughts of no sectional tournament, then playing 9/11 of 30 league fixtures in the first 4/5 weeks ).


Have you figures on mileage? That's possibly the other likely bone of contention, you'd imagine.

Replacing typically 4/5/6 sectional games - which tend to be fairly local - with 8 league games across a wider area (8 more clubs playing region-wide... and playing 30 not 22). And the rest covering a wider area in 2 uber-districts.


EDIT: Also when do the sectional cup sponsorship deals end, and are they worth much?

This post has been edited by HibeeJibee: 05 February 2012 - 21:29

[Deanburn Dave]

aberfeldy, on 03 February 2012 - 13:05, said:

Just keep the dividing line away from these two. Look at a map of Fife, Ballingry is North of Lochore. Lochore don't play in Lochore, they play in Crosshill which is South of Lochore. To make matters worse, Ballingry don't play in Ballingry, they play in Glencraig
which is South of Crosshill. Confusing or what!!!!!!!! !

Funny lot these Fifers. As for league reconstruction
14 in the Superleague with 4 going down
14 in the Premier with 4 up and 6 down
2 feeder leagues with 3 up from each.

Probably too much change for some folks but it would make the Premier very exciting and give more teams in the feeder leagues a chance of playing the Premier sides.

[Burnie_man]

Deanburn Dave, on 05 February 2012 - 22:04, said:

Funny lot these Fifers. As for league reconstruction
14 in the Superleague with 4 going down
14 in the Premier with 4 up and 6 down
2 feeder leagues with 3 up from each.

Probably too much change for some folks but it would make the Premier very exciting and give more teams in the feeder leagues a chance of playing the Premier sides.

Problem with that is that is there would be too many clubs would end up in the South Division (over 20 I think)

[whitburn exile]

Having read various options I have to say I agree with burnie mans suggestion as it makes the most logical sense

[Burnie_man]

If any club wants the document I have drawn up, let me know your email address. I have added more meat to the bones and addressed some questions.

[stanton4]

some of the fife clubs still seem underemployed even in the Burnie set-up.

Perhaps a Fife Cup so they can sort out loacl rivalries ??

[Burnie_man]

stanton4, on 06 February 2012 - 14:20, said:

some of the fife clubs still seem underemployed even in the Burnie set-up.

Perhaps a Fife Cup so they can sort out loacl rivalries ??

There could be scope to add a cup competition fir the District leagues if clubs find they have too few fixtures, although if there are 18 clubs dropping into the South District to start with, thats 34 league games plus a minimum of 3 cup ties.

[Perthboy]

HibeeJibee, on 05 February 2012 - 21:27, said:

That sounds fairly manageable figure-wise.

And if you started the season 1 week earlier (e.g. Saturday 28th July), you'd essentially accomodate those 2 extra match equivalents (#).

(That said... some managers will probably have a fit at thoughts of no sectional tournament, then playing 9/11 of 30 league fixtures in the first 4/5 weeks ).


Have you figures on mileage? That's possibly the other likely bone of contention, you'd imagine.

Replacing typically 4/5/6 sectional games - which tend to be fairly local - with 8 league games across a wider area (8 more clubs playing region-wide... and playing 30 not 22). And the rest covering a wider area in 2 uber-districts.


EDIT: Also when do the sectional cup sponsorship deals end, and are they worth much?

No earlier start would be needed, especially if the fixture calendar was managed better.
I also believe that a lot of managers wouldn't miss the League Cup as it can sometimes be looked on as a hinderance (especially if the Semi finals get played on the wednesday night before the start of the league campaign on the saturday as managers prefer to have a clear week leading up to the start of the League campaign to work on things at training.) Plus lots of league cup games are local derbies which can end up very feisty(not a bad thing though) leading to sending off's resulting in 3 game bans and no manager wants that at the start of a season.
Yes, there will be more travelling involved. There'll be 32 clubs with regional travelling but they'll have a choice on joining the Premier League and to my knowledge no regional league team yet has refused the step up( some might say Whitburn but that was the Superleague at its introduction).
The North League set up won't see much change on the travelling, maybe a little more through to Perth but that will be offset with promotion for Montrose, Kirrie, Arbroath Vics, Blairgowrie for instance(who all will fancy their chances). Besides Perth to Dundee is only a 20 minute journey.
The South League will have the most mileage put on it with the Fife teams being involved. Reading through these pages though, i don't see much of a complaint from the Lothian sides on here. However the fife teams silence is deafening with only really Lochgelly Albert having their say on it and it's a credit to them saying they'll play wherever!!
I don't have a solution for what it will take to ease the Fifers pain but i do believe the 4x16 plan is still the best way forward.

[HibeeJibee]

Perthboy, on 07 February 2012 - 17:05, said:

No earlier start would be needed, especially if the fixture calendar was managed better.

I think that'd depends on how much clout the East Region has at a national level and on club outlook. Ultimately there will be notional 2/3 more games per season to fit-in for most clubs. And, in effect, you might need to create some extra 'ventilation' - since more clubs playing region-wide/larger districts makes midweeks more troublesome, particularly in spring depending what games remain.

If you achieved some combination of [1] Junior Cup scheduling changes, [2] floodlight use and perhaps [3] reduction in replays, you can accomodate those 2/3 more games and ventilation. Otherwise an earlier start probably makes sense.

[Burnie_man]

HibeeJibee, on 07 February 2012 - 18:22, said:

I think that'd depends on how much clout the East Region has at a national level and on club outlook. Ultimately there will be notional 2/3 more games per season to fit-in for most clubs. And, in effect, you might need to create some extra 'ventilation' - since more clubs playing region-wide/larger districts makes midweeks more troublesome, particularly in spring depending what games remain.

If you achieved some combination of [1] Junior Cup scheduling changes, [2] floodlight use and perhaps [3] reduction in replays, you can accomodate those 2/3 more games and ventilation. Otherwise an earlier start probably makes sense.

HJ, can you clear you messages as I need to send you a PM.

[HibeeJibee]

Oops, apologies, have done so.

[poolfreak]

Dont you just wish someone with some common sense could just take hold of the Junior Game and thrash it into shape to bring it into the new Millenium? This looks to be heading for another fiasco with the 3 Regions unsure what is being proposed and the Meeting on Feb 14th could turn into another fiasco? The game does not need a lot of change however it all seems to be done with little regard or thought at times.

Please sort it out!

[Burnie_man]

poolfreak, on 08 February 2012 - 22:39, said:

This looks to be heading for another fiasco with the 3 Regions unsure what is being proposed and the Meeting on Feb 14th could turn into another fiasco?

Well as I said earlier the "16-16-16-16" proposal has been submitted by a club to the East Region, although I'm now hearing some strange claims as to why it may not be discussed at the meeting.

[lithgierose]

Burnie_man, on 09 February 2012 - 19:11, said:

Well as I said earlier the "16-16-16-16" proposal has been submitted by a club to the East Region, although I'm now hearing some strange claims as to why it may not be discussed at the meeting.

spill

[Burnie_man]

lithgierose, on 09 February 2012 - 20:06, said:

spill

No spill at the moment, we'll see what happens at the meeting.

[sponsorsladdie]

When is the meeting?

[Burnie_man]

Valentines Day! (I think.......)

This post has been edited by Burnie_man: 09 February 2012 - 23:24

[sponsorsladdie]

When's that

[stanton4]

sponsorsladdie, on 10 February 2012 - 09:44, said:

When's that

ha ha VG+

[non_sequitur]

lithgierose, on 09 February 2012 - 20:06, said:

spill

Well a wee birdie telt me yesterday that the powers that be are blocking the 16 team plan as the SFA would not allow leagues of that size, this came from Reilly.

Sounds a complete pile of shyte to me and someone is trying to block the plans from being discussed by the club reps on Tuesday.

[shanks]

Never mind all this league re-construction stuff. How many East junior games were watched by more than 100 paying customers yesterday, for example? The one I watched looked about 20-30 including relatives of players. Is it worth changing the set-ups.............again?

[The Old Northerner]

shanks, on 12 February 2012 - 19:49, said:

Never mind all this league re-construction stuff. How many East junior games were watched by more than 100 paying customers yesterday, for example? The one I watched looked about 20-30 including relatives of players. Is it worth changing the set-ups.............again?

[non_sequitur]

neutral observer, on 01 February 2012 - 17:44, said:

2nd proposal from an Oakley rep.

Increase both super/prem to 14 teams, still 2 down, 2 up between these 2 leagues.

Still 3 auto rele places from prem with 1 auto promo from 3 district leagues, only adding in a play off between the 2nd place teams and the 4th bottom of the prem.

I like this one much better, it might actually be the happy medium that will keep everyone happy. These are the only 2 options that are to be discussed by the clubs and then give feed back at next meeting to then hopefully get it passed come June. I'm not sure the 2nd is radical enough but at least it would be a step in the right direction. Taking a small step at this stage might not be a bad thing, we can always look again in a few years and see where we are at.


Meant to add, on the 2nd proposal i'm not sure how they will decide on how they come to the starting figure of 14 in both super/prem, perhaps someone has more info on this.

I was also telt yesterday that the top divisions had to be no more than 12 clubs, that also came from Reilly. If that is true why was the Oakley proposal put forward?