[Dougsy]

If there is another thread covering this i apologise, i just don't want to drag through hundreds of posts.

If Rangers liquidate does that mean The Constitution of the SPL changes?

Will Celtic hold all the Power?

Rangers owe money to Dunfermline, Hearts and Dundee utd, does that allow these clubs to bargain with Rangers for a change to the voting structure within the SPL?

Allowing for the Balance of power to shift from potentially one to say an 8/4 majority!!!

I feel if Rangers do liquidate and then re-apply, the other 10 should bargain for a change in the voting structure so as to gain a higher share of T.V revenue and proper league reconstruction, the three clubs who are owed money could also do a deal if Rangers simply come out of administration,

The deal could be if Rangers liquidate, re-entry with no further penelties, this would not go down well with Celtic who would lobby for further penelties for say the next 3 years.

If it was Administration The three clubs owed money could write that off if Rangers signed an agreement to change the voting structure, this would also not go down to well with Celtic who i believe, believe they would be in control of what happens next to Rangers.

For Real change to happen the balance of power needs to change, hopefully some good comes out of the Rangers situation,the revolution may be closer than we think, and hey if Hibs get relegated that maybe a bonus

[magee84]

TING.....your soups ready..!!!!!

[Gaz FFC]

In summary you want the 10 other clubs to get more say on the running of the SPL and use this to increase the league and TV money to smaller clubs?

From what i read last year the 10 clubs aren't all that keen on more clubs joining the most exclusive club in Scotland.

I agree though that the TV money should be split better, although i worry certain other clubs wouldn't use it to pay off debt but just fund more expensive (unaffordable) players

[HibeeJibee]

Clubs owed money will get it off SPL/SFA if it isn't paid, all they have to do is submit a complaint.

If Rangers are liquidated the most likely way of them continuing in SPL is transfer-of-share, which will - according to all the media coverage - be an SPL Board matter. Forming a new club from scratch is much more complex.

Clubs may, in that hypothetical last scenario, push for changes to voting rights, or prizemoney %s. It'd require almost everyone to back the plan though.

League reconstruction is clearly at an impasse, with many supporting 10 and some supporting 14.

[EdTheDuck]

Dougsy, on 22 February 2012 - 22:30, said:

If there is another thread covering this i apologise, i just don't want to drag through hundreds of posts.

If Rangers liquidate does that mean The Constitution of the SPL changes?

Will Celtic hold all the Power?

Rangers owe money to Dunfermline, Hearts and Dundee utd, does that allow these clubs to bargain with Rangers for a change to the voting structure within the SPL?

Allowing for the Balance of power to shift from potentially one to say an 8/4 majority!!!

I feel if Rangers do liquidate and then re-apply, the other 10 should bargain for a change in the voting structure so as to gain a higher share of T.V revenue and proper league reconstruction, the three clubs who are owed money could also do a deal if Rangers simply come out of administration,

The deal could be if Rangers liquidate, re-entry with no further penelties, this would not go down well with Celtic who would lobby for further penelties for say the next 3 years.

If it was Administration The three clubs owed money could write that off if Rangers signed an agreement to change the voting structure, this would also not go down to well with Celtic who i believe, believe they would be in control of what happens next to Rangers.

For Real change to happen the balance of power needs to change, hopefully some good comes out of the Rangers situation,the revolution may be closer than we think, and hey if Hibs get relegated that maybe a bonus

Define proper league reconstruction...

[Gaspode]

They'd be better off trying to overturn the 'keep ur own gate money' rule and going back to 50/50 split.

[chico]

Gaspode, on 22 February 2012 - 22:55, said:

They'd be better off trying to overturn the 'keep ur own gate money' rule and going back to 50/50 split.

Won't work due to number of season books.

[Granny Danger]

Gaspode, on 22 February 2012 - 22:55, said:

They'd be better off trying to overturn the 'keep ur own gate money' rule and going back to 50/50 split.

If there is one thing that would make the SPL a more competitive league (and one where the smaller clubs are less dependant on TV money) it is this.

[Dougsy]

EdTheDuck, on 22 February 2012 - 22:50, said:

Define proper league reconstruction...

Im 100% behind 14 teams with the 7/7 split, currently 6 out of the current 12 favour this over a league of 10, another 2 could be persuaded, Aberdeen and Hibs are against along with the old firm.

Now is a good time for the 8 to put real pressure on if there is a genuine desire to change, if there isnt a genuine desire and celtic and rangers are allowed to carry on regardless our trust in our masters will die, our game will follow.

This post has been edited by Dougsy: 22 February 2012 - 23:02

[EdTheDuck]

Dougsy, on 22 February 2012 - 23:01, said:

Im 100% behind 14 teams with the 7/7 split, currently 6 out of the current 12 favour this over a league of 10, another 2 could be persuaded, Aberdeen and Hibs are against along with the old firm.

Now is a good time for the 8 to put real pressure on if there is a genuine desire to change, if there isnt a genuine desire and celtic and rangers are allowed to carry on regardless our trust in our masters will die.

The 14 team league that was proposed (by Thomson at United, I think) never mentioned a 7/7 split (except in the Daily Retard) and it was generally accepted that 7/7 had inherent problems such as 1 team sitting idle every week, the bottom 7 having 3 months of absolutely f**k all to play for and you need 40 weeks to fulfill the 38 rounds of fixtures.

I'm not convinced, either, you could get 8 teams in favour TBH

[Dougsy]

HibeeJibee, on 22 February 2012 - 22:49, said:

Clubs owed money will get it off SPL/SFA if it isn't paid, all they have to do is submit a complaint.

If Rangers are liquidated the most likely way of them continuing in SPL is transfer-of-share, which will - according to all the media coverage - be an SPL Board matter. Forming a new club from scratch is much more complex.

Clubs may, in that hypothetical last scenario, push for changes to voting rights, or prizemoney %s. It'd require almost everyone to back the plan though.

League reconstruction is clearly at an impasse, with many supporting 10 and some supporting 14.

Good points!!!Currently its 11/1, If rangers where to liquidate its been quoted that to re-enter the SPL other clubs will push for a points penalty, these points could be traded for a change to the voting structure, T.V money is the financial carrott.

[Dougsy]

EdTheDuck, on 22 February 2012 - 23:07, said:

The 14 team league that was proposed (by Thomson at United, I think) never mentioned a 7/7 split (except in the Daily Retard) and it was generally accepted that 7/7 had inherent problems such as 1 team sitting idle every week, the bottom 7 having 3 months of absolutely f**k all to play for and you need 40 weeks to fulfill the 38 rounds of fixtures.

I'm not convinced, either, you could get 8 teams in favour TBH

Trust me the 14 works but we have debated that issue and it IS the only option, the point is trading to change the balance of Power!!! Do you agree the time is right?

[TheLip69]

EdTheDuck, on 22 February 2012 - 22:50, said:

Define proper league reconstruction...

In a PROPER league each team plays everyone else twice, home and away.

[HibeeJibee]

League reconstruction is going nowhere. SPL SFA and several big clubs (OF Hibs Aberdeen) want 10 and that's always been the position of a few small clubs like St Johnstone too. Then on the other side a few clubs want the status quo or 14, and whoever's in the First Division want 16-20, until they get promoted.

It's a stalemate.

I'd move to 14 but I'll gladly admit it's got problems and isn't happening.

TheLip69, on 22 February 2012 - 23:20, said:

In a PROPER league each team plays everyone else twice, home and away.

Nonsense.

That's probably a notable minority across the continent now, too.

[SodjesSixteenIncher]

magee84, on 22 February 2012 - 22:31, said:

TING.....your soups ready..!!!!!

You make soup in the microwave? Or is it a carer with a wee bell?

I always thought the term 'souptaker' was a mildly bigoted slang term for an Irish Uncle Tom. Maybe it's slagging off the diaspora who are so ashamed of their history they've moved out of Easterhouse and purchased kitchen utensils.

[chico]

Dougsy, on 22 February 2012 - 23:01, said:

Im 100% behind 14 teams with the 7/7 split, currently 6 out of the current 12 favour this over a league of 10, another 2 could be persuaded, Aberdeen and Hibs are against along with the old firm.

Now is a good time for the 8 to put real pressure on if there is a genuine desire to change, if there isnt a genuine desire and celtic and rangers are allowed to carry on regardless our trust in our masters will die, our game will follow.

7/7 is the best answer! Good stuff!

[Gaz FFC]

HibeeJibee, on 22 February 2012 - 23:26, said:

and whoever's in the First Division want 16-20, until they get promoted.

Couldn't agree more with this.
Our boards silence on the issue was embarrassing when the big money was rolling in

[chico]

Granny Danger, on 22 February 2012 - 22:59, said:

If there is one thing that would make the SPL a more competitive league (and one where the smaller clubs are less dependant on TV money) it is this.

You know what would top it?

An away season book. 8 away games of your choice for 100 quid. If the SPL were clever enough to do that one..

[HibeeJibee]

chico, on 22 February 2012 - 23:41, said:

7/7 is the best answer! Good stuff!

I don't think it is, but regardless it hasn't a snowballs as things stand. There are 5 SPL clubs who want fewer clubs in the division not more, and not all the rest necessarily want 14.

While I back 14 I appreciate reasons for opposition... It makes the relegation chasm even wider. It's 2 more mouths to feed. It's an earlier split, needing a European Play-off (itself potentially unpopular) despite only having 3 league slots. Using 6-8 imbalances the number of games clubs play, which while not an issue for me, may affect ST perceptions.


Equally, using 7-7 causes several problems versus 6-8.

It requires 40 matchdays in both splits which would be very hard considering: [1] continuing (and strengthening) UEFA Embargo rules; [2] clubs rallied against early start after only 1 year; [3] SFA and some club pressure for a winter break.

It requires a European Playoff running down from 3rd to 8th (6 places).

It means someone in each split sits-out each matchday too.

Gaz FFC, on 22 February 2012 - 23:43, said:

Couldn't agree more with this.
Our boards silence on the issue was embarrassing when the big money was rolling in

Nevermind your board. Pressley's view in the last 18 months has been that of a neurotic yo-yo: he's gone from ostensibly happy, to wanting 16, to being convinced by 10, to declaring it must be 20 .

This post has been edited by HibeeJibee: 22 February 2012 - 23:55

[fc-1874]

The s*** has hit the fan and there may be a few surprises when we see where it lands(or may be not). Their finges were in a lot of pies and this could effect what is being discussed.

This post has been edited by fc-1874: 23 February 2012 - 00:31

[HanoMaSano]

Dougsy, on 22 February 2012 - 23:12, said:

Trust me the 14 works but we have debated that issue and it IS the only option, the point is trading to change the balance of Power!!! Do you agree the time is right?

14 does work, and I would support a move towards that, however a 16 team league IMO would work better:


1. Celtic..................Champions League Automatic
2. Motherwell..............Champions League Qualifying
3. Rangers.................Europa League (If they get out of admin quick!)
4. Hearts..................Europa League Playoffs

==========================

5. St. Johnstone...........Europa League Playoffs
6. Dundee Utd.
7. Kilmarnock
8. Aberdeen
9. St. Mirren
10. Inverness

==========================

11. Hibernian
12. Dunfermline
13. Ross County
14. Falkirk................Relegation Playoff
15. Dundee.................Automatic Relegation
16. Livingston.............Automatic Relegation


Everybody plays home and away then teams play teams in their section again home and away. This leads to:


Top section plays 15*2 + 3*2 = 36 Games

Other sections play 15*2 + 5*2 = 40 Games


Finishing in the top section gives less games, but will have extra home game against bigger teams (theoretically).

The European play offs would likely need to be rejigged most seasons as the number of euro places changes, but the above would apply this season. Would provide less convoluted UEFA play offs as they would only need to go down to 5th (though could be extended to 6th).



EDIT: for retarded spelling

This post has been edited by HanoMaSano: 23 February 2012 - 13:31

[EdTheDuck]

TheLip69, on 22 February 2012 - 23:20, said:

In a PROPER league each team plays everyone else twice, home and away.

I've missed you x

[TheLip69]

HibeeJibee, on 22 February 2012 - 23:26, said:

Nonsense.
That's probably a notable minority across the continent now, too.

Minority or not that's a proper league, and all the best leagues have that as their base.
Splits should be restricted to bananas, celebrity mariages, and the Folies Bergeres.

[TheLip69]

HanoMaSano, on 23 February 2012 - 11:43, said:

EDIT: for retarded spelling

There, that's better now I've edited it for retarded thinking.

[Ric]

I can see where HJ is coming from, after all it's only the minnows of the world like England, Spain, Italy, France and Germany to name a few who have been left in the footballing dark ages by playing each team twice a season, home and away...

This post has been edited by Ric: 26 February 2012 - 21:31