Mr Bairn Posted May 29, 2014 Share Posted May 29, 2014 16 team league with no split and a winter shutdown. Turn the league cup into a "champions league" style to make up for lost games. 16 team premiership 16 team championship then regional leagues Top 2 leagues play 30 games, with a guarantee of 3 home league cup games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HibeeJibee Posted May 29, 2014 Share Posted May 29, 2014 Back to the 1950s is no solution... 16-team levels + no split = meaningless games; dropping from 19/18 to 15 home games hurts income; fans were turned-off by sectional league cups decades ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
itzdrk Posted May 29, 2014 Share Posted May 29, 2014 Anyone that suggests a regional league is quite simply a buffoon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sjc Posted May 29, 2014 Share Posted May 29, 2014 Anyone that suggests a regional league is quite simply a buffoon A regional pyramid league set up below the Professional leagues surely? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HibeeJibee Posted May 29, 2014 Share Posted May 29, 2014 Well, his model would see the 10 current SPFL2 clubs regionalised. Tbf, personally I'd be OK with that (many wouldn't!!) but not with 2 levels of 16 above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sjc Posted May 29, 2014 Share Posted May 29, 2014 Well, his model would see the 10 current SPFL2 clubs regionalised. Tbf, personally I'd be OK with that (many wouldn't!!) but not with 2 levels of 16 above. Ah ok.....I used to be against the split & in favor of a bigger league (16 or 18.) but your reasoning & recent post split excitement has swung me in favor of 3no 14 divisions with 7-7 split......regional pyramid league below that of course though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
itzdrk Posted May 30, 2014 Share Posted May 30, 2014 Outwith the 4 divisions we have yes I don't think any of the 42 clubs should be forced into the tedium of regional leagues unless they are relegated into a set up i.e lowland league. I find the idea of being forced into playing the same teams all the time just because they are nearby ridiculous. we have national leagues for a reason Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpoonTon Posted May 30, 2014 Share Posted May 30, 2014 Outwith the 4 divisions we have yes I don't think any of the 42 clubs should be forced into the tedium of regional leagues unless they are relegated into a set up i.e lowland league. I find the idea of being forced into playing the same teams all the time just because they are nearby ridiculous. we have national leagues for a reason The funny thing is, you ask many Junior, Highland League (etc) fans and they say the opposite. There aren't many nations, and none of our size, in Europe that start regionalisation of leagues after the 42nd club (never mind in the 5th tier). At least we do have a system in place now, even if it could be improved. The bottom line, though, is that clubs shouldn't be forced into something that they don't want, or something that wouldn't work well for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
itzdrk Posted May 31, 2014 Share Posted May 31, 2014 The funny thing is, you ask many Junior, Highland League (etc) fans and they say the opposite. There aren't many nations, and none of our size, in Europe that start regionalisation of leagues after the 42nd club (never mind in the 5th tier). At least we do have a system in place now, even if it could be improved. The bottom line, though, is that clubs shouldn't be forced into something that they don't want, or something that wouldn't work well for them. Don't get me wrong here i appreciate that other nations are different & i am happy for them that they think that works, the idea to me though seems completely stale. I would 100% perfer to follow Ayr (at what would be their lowest ever ebb in this description) playing Elgin away in League Two than playing Irvine Meadow in some scuddy Ayrshire league. I'm glad you appreciate my point though about clubs not being forced into something, The SPFL recognized this when they allowed the bottom two leagues to continue as was (but adding a potential relegation to league two) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpoonTon Posted May 31, 2014 Share Posted May 31, 2014 Don't get me wrong here i appreciate that other nations are different & i am happy for them that they think that works, the idea to me though seems completely stale. I would 100% perfer to follow Ayr (at what would be their lowest ever ebb in this description) playing Elgin away in League Two than playing Irvine Meadow in some scuddy Ayrshire league. I'm glad you appreciate my point though about clubs not being forced into something, The SPFL recognized this when they allowed the bottom two leagues to continue as was (but adding a potential relegation to league two) On the other hand, Ayr v Meadow would draw a higher attendance under most circumstances, and incur far less costs for the traveling club. Regionalisation makes financial sense when implemented correctly. With involvement in national cup competitions bringing the longer away days and variety to keep things interesting. Again, I wouldn't want too force this, and there's no simple solution to implement something like this. But I do see the benefits of it. There's the personal preference of the travelling fan in here as well. I mostly only go to away games that aren't too far away as I don't have the time or money to make the longer trips. But I wouldn't want to penalise the most dedicated fans because more fans make the shorter trips. I do think that there are better compromises, but no easy solutions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vikingTON Posted May 31, 2014 Share Posted May 31, 2014 The funny thing is, you ask many Junior, Highland League (etc) fans and they say the opposite. There aren't many nations, and none of our size, in Europe that start regionalisation of leagues after the 42nd club (never mind in the 5th tier). There also aren't many (ie practically none) with as high relative attendances as Scottish football. Which suggests even if only at a basic level that the system is broadly effective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lionel hutz Posted May 31, 2014 Share Posted May 31, 2014 Not very fair to play teams competing with you 3 times and half of clubs to receive 19 home games but half 18. Also more of a liklihood of quite a few clubs having meaningless games post-split. Also weakening the 2nd tier by taking the 4 biggest clubs out, yet possibly relegating 3 into it instead of 2. Lets Say United and Aberdeen play one season - Utd have 2 home games and Dons have one, the next season if both teams are in the Prem it would be Dons with 2 home games and United with one. And under the 12 team format some teams have 20 home games whilst others have 18. Or we could have a 30 game season with a winter shutdown. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HibeeJibee Posted May 31, 2014 Share Posted May 31, 2014 You're then robbing clubs of a significant portion of their income. And providing a cashflow problem by inserting a fallow period in the playing season. And hoping any bad weather hits during your shutdown, not either side. "Progress" is not slashing the number of games from 38 to 30, whilst adding mouths to the top level, creating meaningless mid-table, and weakening the strength of the division below which relegated clubs have to drop into, hand-in-hand with increasing the potential relegation places from 2 to 3...!! Your suggestion of balancing the fixtures over 2 seasons would be a mitigation but it's still inherently unfair to play all your rivals in the relevant split thrice you'd have to agree. And, just like the current system, it only works if the same clubs finish in the same split each season. Granted the current system has the potential for inequitable outcomes but much less so than your system would. Seriously, I don't think the clubs would wear it. What we've got isn't broke, and for that reason we don't need to fix it, IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShawfieldAggro Posted May 31, 2014 Share Posted May 31, 2014 Still no complete poo-pooing of the 3x14 i see......which wouldn't see anyone lose status or be out of pocket if the number of home games be the issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumpers4Goalposts Posted June 1, 2014 Share Posted June 1, 2014 Anyone that suggests a regional league is quite simply a buffoon Correct Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrman2011 Posted June 14, 2014 Share Posted June 14, 2014 I like him Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Classick Posted September 23, 2014 Share Posted September 23, 2014 I believe 16 teams in the Premiership are too many, there would be too many weak teams. Don't forget Scotland is a country with just 5.2 million people. 16 teams would create a too wide meaningless mid-table. A 16 team-league needs a split to play enough games, otherwise just 30 rounds are not enough. I'm not saying that split is bad, but I'd rather get rid of it. Furthermore a 16 team-league would weaken too much the championship, by taking the 4 biggest clubs out. 14-team-league is a better solution IMO, with each team meeting each one of the other teams 3 times (one time at home, one time away, plus one more time either home or away) for a total of 39 matches. Each team will play a second home match vs one "old firm" (either Celtic or Rangers). The teams allotted two home matches against an opponent in one season are allotted one home match against that opponent in the following season. 3 relegation spots. The bottom club would be automatically relegated, the teams that finish 12th and 13th would enter promotion play-offs with the second and third placed from Championship. * +Pros: - No More Split - More teams - Less matches with the same boring teams - Safer format for mid-sized Premiership clubs than at present (where 11th can be relegated) - More balanced number of home matches per team in a season than at present (19 or 20) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sjc Posted September 23, 2014 Share Posted September 23, 2014 No. No. No. I'll let HJ explain why (for about the millionth time). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HibeeJibee Posted September 23, 2014 Share Posted September 23, 2014 14 might work with a split but not playing x3 for 39 games... Clubs would be unhappy playing everyone thrice, half getting 1 more home game, and no split (and 2 more clubs) = "meaningless mid-table". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Classick Posted September 23, 2014 Share Posted September 23, 2014 I don't think clubs would be unhappy playing playing everyone thrice, if a team plays 19 home games this season they will play 20 home games next season and vice versa, so it's quite balanced. In addition I deliberately specified that each team will be granted a further home match vs only one Old Firm team. With the split, top half would be happy playing 2 more times with top clubs, while bottom half would be disappointed playing 2 more times small clubs, since there's a big difference in revenue between playing for a further two times Old Firm than having games against mid-small teams. For them the real Premiership ends after 26 weeks and supporters will be bothered, they don't want more games just with small teams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpeg.1d059935d3387aef813fb6bbbf40b3c0.jpeg)
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.