League reconstruction: Let's hear your view

[1320Lichtie]

Scotland has too many clubs 42 is far too much for the size of the country.
2 leagues of 16 is enough, regionalise the rest.
Phase 1
Teams  play each other Home and Away once, 30 games
Phase 2
Split into top 8 and bottom 8, 37 Games
2 Teams relegated
League below 1 straight promotion Playoffs for the second spot.
Introduce Alcohol sales inside grounds on a trial basis with some clubs.
Get rid of Hampden and the money saved from that can go into Youth development schemes,improving clubs facilities, Safe standing areas for clubs etc etc

How does it have too many clubs?

All the clubs that are currently competing on a national level are comfortable doing so. Nobody is in any financial difficulty, why should they have to play regional football?

It could possibly kill their club. Montrose playing in a league with the local junior teams or in a senior league with current Highland league clubs would be a total disaster for them.

A 16 team league would leave the vast majority of clubs with absolutely f**k all to play for. So many meaningless games.

The structure just now is fantastic, only 5 teams in L2, 4 teams in L1 and 4 teams in the Championship won’t be playing for anything come the end of the season. In the Premiership teams battle it out until the split, then 6 teams compete for the top 4 spots and 6 teams compete to avoid the bottom 2.

None of this would be possible in your structure, which sounds absolutely shite. It’s not alone in this thread though.

[Blackmick]

1 minute ago, 1320Lichtie said:

 

How does it have too many clubs?

All the clubs that are currently competing on a national level are comfortable doing so. Nobody is in any financial difficulty, why should they have to play regional football?

It could possibly kill their club. Montrose playing in a league with the local junior teams or in a senior league with current Highland league clubs would be a total disaster for them.

A 16 team league would leave the vast majority of clubs with absolutely f**k all to play for. So many meaningless games.

The structure just now is fantastic, only 5 teams in L2, 4 teams in L1 and 4 teams in the Championship won’t be playing for anything come the end of the season. In the Premiership teams battle it out until the split, then 6 teams compete for the top 4 spots and 6 teams compete to avoid the bottom 2.

None of this would be possible in your structure, which sounds absolutely shite. It’s not alone in this thread though.

 

In my opinion 42 Clubs equals a dilution of talent 32 pro teams would streamline talent better into the the 2 leagues only. 

Why would Montrose not be in the second tier? In my thinking all the Angus teams would all be included in the top 32.

In the second tier finishing up to 5th would get you a playoff spot, below that i'm sure there will be plenty teams vying for 5th spot towards the end of the 30 game 1 st phase.

Top league it would be 8 teams playing for top 4 and 8 teams playing to avoid the bottom 2 not too different to what it is at the moment.

[BFTD]

Good to see the "kick ten clubs out and regionalise them" argument is still going strong, despite nobody managing to put forward a coherent argument in its favour.

[Blackmick]

9 minutes ago, BigFatTabbyDave said:

Good to see the "kick ten clubs out and regionalise them" argument is still going strong, despite nobody managing to put forward a coherent argument in its favour.

What's the argument for keeping them? Sorry but the likes of Annan, Edinburgh City etc bring nothing to the table. East Stirling have found their level others should too.

[BFTD]

2 minutes ago, Blackmick said:

What's the argument for keeping them?

The argument is that nobody has a coherent argument for kicking them out.

No, sorry, there was one: the remaining 32 might inherit approximately £15,000 each. Score.

2 minutes ago, Blackmick said:

Sorry but the likes of Annan, Edinburgh City etc bring nothing to the table. East Stirling have found their level others should too.

The likes of Celtic and Rangers would make the argument that Morton and Hamilton bring nothing to the table, and should be kicked out. And already did, successfully. It didn't work out so well.

[Blackmick]

9 minutes ago, BigFatTabbyDave said:

The argument is that nobody has a coherent argument for kicking them out.

No, sorry, there was one: the remaining 32 might inherit approximately £15,000 each. Score.

The likes of Celtic and Rangers would make the argument that Morton and Hamilton bring nothing to the table, and should be kicked out. And already did, successfully. It didn't work out so well.

Morton and Hamilton have plenty to offer,other teams don't.

It's high time a  minimum criteria is drawn up for all clubs.

Stadium, Average attendance, Facilities, Youth development system etc . 10 worst performing teams on the list are off to their regions.

The top junior teams get a better attendance at their matches than a lot of so called top league teams.

[BFTD]

Just now, Blackmick said:

Morton and Hamilton have plenty to offer,other teams don't.

A convincing argument, for sure.

1 minute ago, Blackmick said:

It's high time a  minimum criteria is drawn up for all clubs.

Stadium, Average attendance, Facilities, Youth development system etc.

The big clubs did that too, back when they decided Falkirk were to be excluded.

7 minutes ago, Blackmick said:

The top junior teams get a better attendance at their matches than a lot of so called top league teams.

Uhh...OK?  

[1320Lichtie]

Morton and Hamilton have plenty to offer,other teams don't.
It's high time a  minimum criteria is drawn up for all clubs.
Stadium, Average attendance, Facilities, Youth development system etc . 10 worst performing teams on the list are off to their regions.
The top junior teams get a better attendance at their matches than a lot of so called top league teams.

No, they do not. HibeeJibee debunks this myth on a regular basis ffs.

[1320Lichtie]

In my opinion 42 Clubs equals a dilution of talent 32 pro teams would streamline talent better into the the 2 leagues only. 
Why would Montrose not be in the second tier? In my thinking all the Angus teams would all be included in the top 32.
In the second tier finishing up to 5th would get you a playoff spot, below that i'm sure there will be plenty teams vying for 5th spot towards the end of the 30 game 1 st phase.
Top league it would be 8 teams playing for top 4 and 8 teams playing to avoid the bottom 2 not too different to what it is at the moment.

Dilutes talent? Sorry what? Can you expand on that please.

[BFTD]

3 hours ago, 1320Lichtie said:

Dilutes talent? Sorry what? Can you expand on that please.

 

We all know that League 2 is full of quality pros that higher division clubs would be desperate to get their hands on.

FACT.

[Blackmick]

10 hours ago, 1320Lichtie said:

 

No, they do not. HibeeJibee debunks this myth on a regular basis ffs.
 

 

Just picked a random Pollock FC match and looked at the attendance,

18th February 2017: Pollok 1 Kilbirnie Ladeside 1 (att 613, Lok’s scorer Allan MacKenzie)

That's a bigger attendance than 10 SPFL teams average attendance.

 

Their average attendance in Junior cup matches was 993 that's bigger than the average attendance of 20 SPFL teams

http://www.european-football-statistics.co.uk/attn/avesco.htm

 

 

 

[Blackmick]

10 hours ago, 1320Lichtie said:

 

Dilutes talent? Sorry what? Can you expand on that please.

 

With less pro teams the better players will be picked up by these clubs and find themselves playing with players of a better standard. Which will in turn increase the quality of the league.

As it stands with so many clubs the better players are spread about too much and not getting a chance to develop properly.

Less pro teams will mean the better players around the country are streamlined into these teams.

[Blackmick]

6 hours ago, BigFatTabbyDave said:

We all know that League 2 is full of quality pros that higher division clubs would be desperate to get their hands on.

FACT.

I know your being smart here mate but I totally agree.

Time to scrap it and set up something better for the overall benefit of Scottish football.

Moving on 10 teams to Regional leagues will see a pool of the better players from these teams snapped up by one of the 32 pro teams,thus improving quality of the league.

[Salvo Montalbano]

Why? Why wouldn't they simply continue to play for their current clubs? Surely if they were good enough to do so they would already be at one of the chosen 32 already? There are plenty of good players in the Lowland League, Juniors etc already (and below, I'd imagine Stephen Husband could still do a job at a good level but is playing for Kelty in the EoS League) due to their own personal circumstances and that wouldn't change. There is literally no evidence whatsoever that the quality of player would improve one iota due to a random number of clubs being denied entry to a nationwide league.

[Jacksgranda]

16 hours ago, Blackmick said:

Scotland has too many clubs 42 is far too much for the size of the country.

2 leagues of 16 is enough, regionalise the rest.

Phase 1

Teams  play each other Home and Away once, 30 games

Phase 2

Split into top 8 and bottom 8, 37 Games

2 Teams relegated

League below 1 straight promotion Playoffs for the second spot.

Introduce Alcohol sales inside grounds on a trial basis with some clubs.

Get rid of Hampden and the money saved from that can go into Youth development schemes,improving clubs facilities, Safe standing areas for clubs etc etc

It would still have 42 clubs, which, according to you, is "too many".

[Jacksgranda]

15 hours ago, BigFatTabbyDave said:

Good to see the "kick ten clubs out and regionalise them" argument is still going strong, despite nobody managing to put forward a coherent argument in its favour.

But "too many clubs", you're not paying attention.

[BFTD]

Also, what's stopping League One clubs signing up League Two players at this very moment? And who are these potential full-timers who are being restricted by their contracts with League Two clubs?

Why would the League One clubs kick out their existing players to make way for inferior players from League Two? We're surely not going to pretend that the absence of ten clubs from the SPFL would suddenly mean that the other thirty-two would be able to afford (or need) expanded squads. Or that being in the reserves at Dumbarton would improve a player more than regular first team football with Stirling.

And what on Earth does all of this stuff about the Juniors have to do with anything?

I'm also curious about how any of this is "better for the overall benefit of Scottish football". The answer always comes down to, "it just would be, alright?", but I'm hoping for a proper answer this time, preferably one that makes some kind of logical sense.

[Blackmick]

10 minutes ago, Jacksgranda said:

It would still have 42 clubs, which, according to you, is "too many".

Eh?

Two Leagues of 16 equals 32 teams not 42

[Jacksgranda]

12 minutes ago, Blackmick said:

Eh?

Two Leagues of 16 equals 32 teams not 42

So what happens to the other 10?

[BFTD]

19 minutes ago, Jacksgranda said:

So what happens to the other 10?

Any perceived long-term benefits of this idea normally revolve around the concept that they'll cease to exist at some point, and their fans will go and watch one of the 32 elite. Which will totally happen in real life. Yup.

If Blackmick's established anything, it's that they'd be better off joining the Juniors and taking advantage of those attendances that are, lest we forget, better than plenty of so-called top league clubs.