Jump to content

Cornishman

Gold Members
  • Content Count

    95
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Cornishman


  1. If we are to have to exist with 'subsidiary' [word carefully chosen] teams within the significant Pyramid structure, then there must be tight regulations and significant compromises made in return. 

    I've thought of a fair few, but no doubt, the following list can be added-to, so feel free to do so &/or critique in comments...

    The top-of-the-list compromise to be demanded must be to revert to a 50/50 matchday financial redistribution of attendance income, with a significant levy (10%) imposed for distribution among lower divisional clubs. 

    The second compromise should be to insist upon SPFL reconstruction below the Premiership, to increase divisional sizes to eighteen/twenty, probably reducing to just Championship/League One [in the SPFL] in that process.

    Promotion/relegation to & from the Premiership must be guaranteed at two clubs per season, ideally with some form of third-club peril/playoff-opportunity... which should positively influence some Premiership thoughts with respect to 'refreshment' of the divisional format.

    As far as 'subsidiary team' participation is concerned...

    Firstly, every such team shall require to be comprised of (say) 100% U-23s & 80% Scottish-qualified players, without let.

    All Premiership clubs will be required to field a 'subsidiary team', guaranteed for five seasons counting from the first season of Premiership accession. Any other club may operate a 'subsidiary team', to compete no higher than two divisions beneath itself in the Pyramid, subject to being guaranteed for three seasons counting from/including the first season of playing. Such bond-backed guarantees are in all cases for the purpose of reducing any 'withdrawal chaos' in lower divisions and all 'subsidiary teams' are subject to a one-season notice of withdrawal.

    No 'subsidiary team' player having been fielded, starting (say) 5-times in a First-team, or 10-times subbed, or 15-times benched, or combination thereof may participate back in any 'subsidiary team' match in the same/following season, except versus another 'subsidiary team'-XI.

    No 'subsidiary team' would be allowed higher than League One &/or be eligible to compete in significant Cup competition.

    Like in the German system, a limit of (say) 4 'subsidiary teams' may be allowed in League One per season. If more than this were to initially qualify to do so, then a 'winnowing' sub-competition between them would be played to reduce numbers accordingly. Such ruling repeated in any/all lower divisions, subject to no division comprising >20% in number of 'subsidiary teams', unless agreed beforehand by the governing body.

    In divisions containing 'subsidiary teams' in which other rules are not pre-arranged, 'subsidiary teams' would to all intents and purposes be treated for promotion and relegation purposes exactly the same as any other team, subject to overarching rules governing maximum numbers of 'subsidiary teams' allowed per division, wherein a promoted 'subsidiary team' takes the place of an incumbent 'subsidiary team' in the higher division, as opposed to a 'normal' team.

    For 'normal' teams, points & GF/GA/GD against 'subsidiary teams' will be counted as normal for positional placements.


  2. Arguably, excluding the houghmagandy concerning the Arsecheeks' Colts, we have at long last the foundation assembled for a full Scottish football pyramid and I, for one, will be fascinated to see how its evolution unfolds... particularly in the next decade or so.

    I think the first item on the agenda to which scrutiny should be paid is the transition from EoSFL/WoSFL conferenced divisions to the planned-for more linear models and then, the promotion/relegation arrangements selected between them (and indeed, throughout the whole Pyramid system.
    My belief is that (i). every football division is healthiest when its churn/turnover in competitors is fixed between 20% & 25% ±1% each and every season (which includes the sum of both promotions & relegations); (ii). there should be an absolute minimum of two promotion places on offer in every such division, whether by direct means or via play-offs. -&- (iii). play-off places given should not exceed past the top 30% of competitors.
    These 'rules' applied together can determine (so-called) 'perfect' divisional numbers & playing systems throughout any league ~ which conceivably could include some 24-team models similar to the Welsh Premier (to reduce number of necessary fixtures to 34) for divisions with three feeders. LL/HL - I'm looking at you!
    I'm really unsure whether a completely linear league system should be the aim in the EoSFL & WoSFL ~ i.e. single divisions at every level, tiers 6 through 9/10. To my mind, having two parallel divisions from at least tier 8 would arguably be the way to go.

    Once tiers 5 and down have settled into a more open, formal arrangement, I reckon it'll soon become abundantly clear that maybe twenty to thirty clubs beneath the 4th. tier either already are, or will soon become of a standard with very many of the SPFL's semi-pro outfits and I can see this allowing reconstructive expansion within the SPFL, presuming some competency develops within that organisation's marketing department, allowing for the fact that with more teams aboard, covering greater areas of the country, there'd be very much more for potential sponsors to find attractive.
    I think the fully professional echelons will still remain as the top-two tiers, Premier at 12/14 teams, Championship possibly expanding to 18/20 teams and thus allowing the topmost semi-pro sides to mix-it with the big-boys. And over time, as in the English Pyramid, there'll be quite a few top semi-pro clubs who'll begin adopting full professional status. The English National League Premier is usually near-fully pro. Leagues 1 & 2, assuming both continue (I think L2 will disappear tbqh), would probably be best suited to being respectively 18 and 24-strong, the latter larger in order to provide for a possible four relegation places to LL/HL and competing in a model in which two conferences of twelve each  split into a top-6 & bottom-6... carrying-over H2H results the top-6's recombine to play all remaining Conf-1 vs. Conf-2 matches, home and away, giving a 34-game season. 
    HL & maybe LL, playing the same League 2 model of fixtures, with three feeders apiece, would need dispensations to reduce their relegation zones to 3-down, with two play-outs versus the six tier 6 play-off competitors - essentially, similar to the Dutch play-off/play-out system.
    Tiers 6 & downward would ideally be 16-team divisions, rising to 18 if having two feeders, which latter would also require dispensation for a play-off/play-out model.

     

    OKAY. Rip me to shreds! 😁


  3. 22 hours ago, rockson said:

    What has lexicology got to do with it? (Note, not 'gotten' to do with it.) Words change from their lexicological origins over time.

    In my Chambers dictionary the past tense of 'get' is rendered as  'got'.  (Gotten is given as being archaic or USian.)

     

    Could of/would of are just solecisms due to 1) people not listening properly 2) not thinking/knowing about how verb tenses/moods work .

    Look up '"To get" in the Perfect Tense'...


  4. 2 hours ago, Andy groundhopper said:

    Sadly,sometimes club's on field success (ambition) is never matched by off field structure - no £ or ground as such. They then look to scratch around for a few years, sharing everywhere - then promotions eventually put borrowed grounds out of touch, slippery slope ahead ⛷️ Give new clubs say 2 years grace to obtain a ground of their own ? 

    Colne Dynamos!


  5. 32 minutes ago, Kicker Conspiracy said:

    If you're American, maybe.

    Both got and gotten existed as far back as Middle English. English speakers in North America preserved gotten as the past participle of got. Outside of North America, the shortened version became standard. I preserve ME in my lexicon re participles of 'get'. I consequently neither finish a phrase with 'of'... as in 'It is a sort of splendid torch which I have got a hold of', which s/b 'It is a sort of splendid torch of which I have gotten a hold'.

    Guess it's how/where one learns the language.


  6. On 04/05/2021 at 16:44, GNU_Linux said:

    My ideal number down would be a dynamic system of 3. If all 3 tier 6 feeder winners are licensed 3 go down. If only two licensed then two go down. The tier 6 leagues already require dynamic relegation to their tier 7 so it doesn't change much in that regard.

    There must be a system in place to allow either a constitution of x teams/x+1 teams at all times in both Tier5 Leagues, particularly in the LL. This, to avoid situations arising where the (at this time) 2nd.-last teams cannot be sure of relegation/survival at Tier5 in the current season, depending on the SPFL playoffs. Rather, in a season when a team drops into the LL from the SPFL, without replacement, the x+1 team allowance is invoked and that creates an extra relegation position in the following season.


  7. 16 hours ago, Che Dail said:

    😅

    Ok I get it.  But really, I was referring to experts on Dutch football, not claiming to be one myself.

    Out of interest and in the good natured spirit of 'the banter', what's the (reverse) term for a self-appointed expert on Scottish football, from Holland..?  

    aardappeluitleggen


  8. 10 hours ago, Crossbar said:

    Here’s a simple proposal. It’s a straight repeat of this null and void season, removing Eyemouth and adding in the 11 new clubs in the ‘Third Division’. The Third Division champions get a ‘double promotion´ to the First Division for 2022/23 as an extra incentive for the newcomers. But no team is unfairly treated. Plenty to play for for everyone. (*Obviously detailed additional scenarios would need to be added in case numbers in the Premier go up or down as a consequence of promotion to and relegation from LL but this will always be needed in the pyramid).

    I like this idea in every detail, excepting that I'd prefer to see at least two, if not three 'double promotions' to your 2022/23 First Division. The eleven newbies should at very least be considered to be Tier-7½.


  9. On 10/04/2021 at 12:06, Dev said:

    The SPFL doesn't like the reality of the Pyramid i.e. promotion and relegation up and down all of the Tiers.

    Having done down its' reputation twelve months ago it seems likely that it's perceived as about to do the same thing again this time.

    Maybe the time is approaching when the  HL and LL should go it alone and create a jointly run National Conference made up of the best HL and LL clubs. The HL and LL would be directly feeding into it from below as follows:

    [1] The initial National Conference of 16 clubs would be made up of the top 8 clubs from both the HL and the LL.

    [2] Unless the SPFL agrees to automatic promotion and relegation with two up and two down there would be no agreement to movement between the leagues for the time being. 

    [3] The bottom two clubs in the Nat Conf would be automatically relegated to either the HL or the LL, depending on which side of the Tay Bridge line the ground is located. 

    [4] The third bottom club in the Nat Conf would play-off to retain its' place against the winners of play-offs between the runners-up of the HL and LL leagues. [Edit]

    With guaranteed mobility between the leagues beneath the National Conference would quickly fill up with the strongest 16 clubs currently "below" the SPFL. It seems likely that the Nat Conf would quickly become as strong in playing standards as SPFL2, with some clubs close to SPFL1 level in playing standard. 

    Imagine if another 10 or more WoS/EoS/SoS clubs gain their club licences this summer they will play in the 2021/22 SFA Cup. As more leading clubs gain licences the numbers of SPFL clubs being knocked-out of the SFA cup each year by "lesser" clubs will increase until it becomes a complete embarrassment to Scottish football. 

    This, in turn, will destroy the myth that the HL and LL (now their top clubs in the National Conference) aren't capable of providing a league suitable for relegated SPFL2 clubs.

    While an interesting idea, I think this is going about things the wrong way.

    An alternative that guarantees no relegation from SPFL2 for several years would be very much easier to sell... A slow drip-feed expansion by two fresh teams per season over twelve seasons into the SPFL is what I'd suggest. It isn't diffiult to devise fair fixture programs for 12, 14 & 16-team divisions to give between 34 to 38 matches per season. I'd increment each division by a pair of teams sequentially in Championship - League 1 - League 2 order, repeating every three seasons and ending  when all three divisions contain 18 teams.

    League prize funding would require just an extra ±5% each season for parity over the dozen expansion seasons. That should be eminently feasible, if not, much bettered.

    This plan ignores any possible interest the Premiership might have in expansion itself. It also ignores any Colts involvement, but I'd see such teams being limited to fifth tier and below.


  10. A rule book doesn't trump the law, regardless of any 'catch all' clause.

    Hearts will almost certainly be arguing there's a disconnect between the rule book and the law in their particular situation (as opposed to arguing the rule book wasn't properly followed). In what regards we can only guess.

    Nick de Marco QC recently wrote a piece in the Sports Law Bulletin about the implications of the failed South Shields appeal. His final concluding paragraph indicates areas where such disconnects may occur:

    "The case is not, however, a carte blanche to governing bodies in these uncertain times. The FA, and other regulators in sport, remain bound by ordinary public law and contractual principles. Irrational decisions will continue to be challenged; and procedural fairness must be achieved notwithstanding the unprecedented times in which we live. The ability to amend or vary rules due to COVID-19 must be exercised in accordance with the rules or articles of association of each relevant league. Where decisions are made collectively by votes of member clubs (as is the case in levels above those considered in this case) unfair prejudice and/or competition law principles may also come into play."

    The full article is at: https://www.sportslawbulletin.org/football-time-covid-19-lessons-be-learned-recent-decision-south-shields-fc-v-fa/

     

    thanks to Paulh66 at Non League Matters for this.

×
×
  • Create New...