League reconstruction: Let's hear your view

[RedLichtie86]

Was having a think about a Pay per view channel. If you could have an average 75,000 people watching each round of fixtures worldwide that would generate 28.5m obviously still needing to exclude production costs. Think these viewing figures would be easily achievable. Not sure how having every game live on ppv would impact on crowds though?

The PPV model is a nice idea but i dont see it working. What price would it be set at? How many subscribers needed? Etc etc

If we aimed for £20M per year, we would need 2M subscribers at £10 a month. But more likely we would probably need more subs or cost to cover the expenditure of running a PPV channel.

Likes of BT and SKY are able to add SPFL as part of a much larger bundle and the subscribers are already there for the EPL games.

Im afraid any PPV idea is dead.

[Hampden Diehard]

16 hours ago, effeffsee_the2nd said:

think there is some over reaction here. cant see how it would be in any broadcasters interest to show crap games at crap times.  

Since there are people out there who will watch football 7 days a week, 24 hours a day, the TV companies need to fill their schedules, so they'll put on anything.  We had a game on Alba, for which we were paid nothing, but it cost us through loss of hospitality and a lower crowd as it was at (I think) 5.00pm on a Saturday.

[effeffsee_the2nd]

The PPV model is a nice idea but i dont see it working. What price would it be set at? How many subscribers needed? Etc etc

If we aimed for £20M per year, we would need 2M subscribers at £10 a month. But more likely we would probably need more subs or cost to cover the expenditure of running a PPV channel.

Likes of BT and SKY are able to add SPFL as part of a much larger bundle and the subscribers are already there for the EPL games.

Im afraid any PPV idea is dead.

Not getting into ppv good v bad debate but mind advertising is a big part of revenue. All the higher grade adverts are on during half time. Old firms fixtures can atract as big an audience as som english games so thats what the ads are worth.

Dont understand alba tbh seems like a pure box ticking excersize. Games are almost always shite that would never be picked for comercial tv

[ftk]

Not getting into ppv good v bad debate but mind advertising is a big part of revenue. All the higher grade adverts are on during half time. Old firms fixtures can atract as big an audience as som english games so thats what the ads are worth.

Dont understand alba tbh seems like a pure box ticking excersize. Games are almost always shite that would never be picked for comercial tv

What we need is a tv network really getting behind scottish football. I think bt sport could potentially do that. Still think a freeview channel could take a punt on scottish football (ITV, channel 5 etc) as there is a big market out there that enjoy live football but aren't prepared to pay for it.

[effeffsee_the2nd]

What we need is a tv network really getting behind scottish football. I think bt sport could potentially do that. Still think a freeview channel could take a punt on scottish football (ITV, channel 5 etc) as there is a big market out there that enjoy live football but aren't prepared to pay for it.

Why would they? Theyre not charitys they dont owe us anything.

[ftk]

Why would they? Theyre not charitys they dont owe us anything.

I never said they did? We have a good product and with english football being expensive to show on UK TV networks scottish football is a relatively cheap alternative that could be a success for them.

[BFTD]

I can't see any of the terrestrial broadcasters showing Scottish football across the UK, even if they got it for free. Folk down south have been too conditioned to think of Scottish football as lower quality than their National League and completely irrelevant. They'd probably need midnight kick-offs to get viewing figures that couldn't be beaten by a repeat of Dad's Army.

[ftk]

I can't see any of the terrestrial broadcasters showing Scottish football across the UK, even if they got it for free. Folk down south have been too conditioned to think of Scottish football as lower quality than their National League and completely irrelevant. They'd probably need midnight kick-offs to get viewing figures that couldn't be beaten by a repeat of Dad's Army.

The most realistic option is bt sport buying the rights. Don't think the deal will be worth much more than the current deal though.

[RedLichtie86]

The most realistic option is bt sport buying the rights. Don't think the deal will be worth much more than the current deal though.

Currently the tv rights are split between SKY and BT.

Now if thw SPFL said the next bid is for the exclusive rights then that would drive the price up.

BT may show more interest as they dont have as many games as Sky does. Especially during Sunday.

Also the game that Sky are only interested in is the Septic v Sevco match. BT would like the idea of stealing that aswell to go along with the Champions League.

[mrman2011]

Have a 12-12 and play offs is really exciting with regional tiers and B sides

[Wilky1878]

Have a 12-12 and play offs is really exciting with regional tiers and B sides [emoji4]

Stick yer B teams where the sun doesn't shine

In reference to the 12-12-18 system that's being brought back up I hated it first time round but I would be lying if I said it wasn't growing on me.

Tbh, I'm still not sure it's Scotlands best choice but I've been thinking of the potential benefits and there's a lot more than I noticed the first time around.

One being that for the system to make sense (in the middle 8 at least) the leagues would need to reset all points to 0 as opposed to the current premiership split where points gained pre split still count towards the total points tally for the season. This for me makes me think we can ditch the traditional OF dominance of the Scottish game (Celtic dominance for the past few years) as teams such as Aberdeen and Hearts (Rangers too this season) could be looking at hitting form at the right time just after the split to make a title push. As it stands any club would have to be at their absolute best plus a little more to push for the title from Celtic whereas in the 12-12-18 system they'd only have to hit their best form after the split and would just need to keep themselves within the top 8 throughout the regular season to win the title.

For teams that usually finish top half of second tier/bottom half of first tier it would provide different opposition after the split which would go a way of helping the stale fixture list often complained about in Scotland which should realistically also help raise bums on seats.

Similarly to the above point a third tier of 18 would mean teams play each other less resulting in less stale fixtures and higher attendances potentially.

Looking at expanding the pyramid system a lot of complaints from sceptics is the current 4th tier and how it isn't lucrative and they'd like to see less national tiers which would be included in this system. Also worth noting that once a team has been promoted to national leagues then one more promotion would be needed to potentially face tier 1 clubs in league fixtures (by finishing in that middle 8 split).

Losing promotion/relegation play offs does worry me though and could potentially mean no teams promoted or relegated from tier 1 if the bottom 4 of tier 1 finish top 4 of the middle 8.

[JakeSAFC]

Have a 12-12 and play offs is really exciting with regional tiers and B sides [emoji4]

What a shite idea. B teams will do f**k all to improve Scottish football and no SPFL part time sides want regionalisation.

[ftk]

We need to try and get away or limit the playing each other 4 times in the league. Fans are fed up with it. Others say they don't want big league's (18 or 20 teams) as there will be too many meaningless games.

Compromise 14-14-14 play each 3 times!

[ftk]

We need to try and get away or limit the playing each other 4 times in the league. Fans are fed up with it. Others say they don't want big league's (18 or 20 teams) as there will be too many meaningless games.

Compromise 14-14-14 play each 3 times!

Also they had a 14 team old first division late 80s/early 90s playing each other 3 times. Was great don't know why they changed it?

[HibeeJibee]

6 hours ago, Wilkinson1998 said:

One being that for the system to make sense (in the middle 8 at least) the leagues would need to reset all points to 0 as opposed to the current premiership split where points gained pre split still count towards the total points tally for the season.

...
 

Similarly to the above point a third tier of 18 would mean teams play each other less resulting in less stale fixtures and higher attendances potentially.

Resetting everyone to 0pts makes massive swathes of the opening 22 games literally meaningless...

As you as you knew you were Top 8 or Bottom 4, or Top 4 or Bottom 8, you don't mind whether you win 9-0 or lose 9-0 each week. Clubs like Celtic, Aberdeen, Hearts, Rangers and so on / smaller Championship clubs would know from the off there was no danger of them finishing Bottom 4 / Top 4 and would hardly bother until February. Your example of a club only needing to hit good form for 2-3 months to win the league is exactly why it wouldn't be adopted, anyway.


Also there is little evidence big leagues playing twice result in "less stale fixtures" and "higher attendances" - meaningless mid-table games can be very stale and deliver poor crowds.

Edited February 16, 2017 by HibeeJibee

[fletch81]

2 hours ago, HibeeJibee said:

Resetting everyone to 0pts makes massive swathes of the opening 22 games literally meaningless...

As you as you knew you were Top 8 or Bottom 4, or Top 4 or Bottom 8, you don't mind whether you win 9-0 or lose 9-0 each week. Clubs like Celtic, Aberdeen, Hearts, Rangers and so on / smaller Championship clubs would know from the off there was no danger of them finishing Bottom 4 / Top 4 and would hardly bother until February. Your example of a club only needing to hit good form for 2-3 months to win the league is exactly why it wouldn't be adopted, anyway.


Also there is little evidence big leagues playing twice result in "less stale fixtures" and "higher attendances" - meaningless mid-table games can be very stale and deliver poor crowds.

I know this is a bit mental as far as play-offs go, but these issues can be solved.

Say for example, in the middle eight, the teams finishing 9th, 10th, 11th and 12th in the Premiership start with 12, 10, 8 and 6 points respectively.  The teams finishing 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th in the Championship starting with 4,3,2 and 1 points.  This gives the bottom teams in the Premiership and the top of the Championship something to play for in the first 22.  

In terms of the top of the bottom eight and the bottom of the top eight, have them play-off against the teams who finish 4th and 5th in the middle eight respectively for a position in the following seasons Premiership.

There are of course flaws with this.  It could mean the team who finish 8th after 22 games are the only team relegated and the team who finish 5th in the Championship are the only team promoted.  It would however solve the imbalance of the split and give teams more to play for throughout the entire season.

Is this too mental?

[Doink]

The  24  teams have already been decided which is wrong.

[Toma_BullyWee]

Surely it isn't just me that thinks there is absolutely no fucking need to over complicate our league? Sack the splits and ram yer points resetting up your you know where. 

Three leagues. One down, one up and playoffs for each league. It isn't difficult. It isn't ground breaking either but does it need to be? Meaningless games? Come on. I would hazard a guess that every other league in the world has meaningless games when it comes to the business end of the season. Why are we so special that we just simply cannot stand for that? 

[Pride_of_the_Clyde]

1 hour ago, Toma_BullyWee said:

Surely it isn't just me that thinks there is absolutely no fucking need to over complicate our league? Sack the splits and ram yer points resetting up your you know where. 

Three leagues. One down, one up and playoffs for each league. It isn't difficult. It isn't ground breaking either but does it need to be? Meaningless games? Come on. I would hazard a guess that every other league in the world has meaningless games when it comes to the business end of the season. Why are we so special that we just simply cannot stand for that? 

I agree that there should be 3 SPFL leagues but how do you divide 42 clubs?

 

Obviously there's 3x14 but then you play either 26 (too few), 52 (too many) or 39 (with an inherently unfair split of H&A) league games.

So beyond that, other options leave you looking at leagues with splits or other adaptive ways to try and appease the needs of the clubs, with the bigger clubs priorities at the forefront.

 

That's why there's endless discussion of this and why it draws such hot debate. While I strongly, strongly disagree with many of the suggestions made by some, at least they think about it. The worst are those who say it's a simple solution.

 

[Cyclizine]

I think the current 12 team system works pretty well. The only other system would be to reduce the Premiership to 10 teams and play x4 like the rest of the SPFL divisions, but I can't see that happening. I think the while "fans are bored with playing the same clubs" is a red herring. I don't really care who we're playing, just want the 3 points (as rare as that is...) Small divisions keep things tighter whereas 18 or 20 tab divisions become stale mid-season once top and bottom are pretty much decided.