SPFL 16-16-10

[TheLip69]

14 doesnt work, no matter how you cut it it just doesnt work.

it's 10, 12, 16, or 18 that's what we are left with.

The split, which I abhor, works best as it is with 12.

So lets leave it at that.

Been watching Scottish Football for nearly 50 years and never saw a meaningless match in my life.

How can any match be meaningless when every point means money?

[ShawfieldAggro]

On a symmetrical or directly-influencing level though the 12 is far from perfect. 16 or 18 would leave there little or no quality outside the top flight, but offer straightforward home and away equality. The current format only offers transparency to the point that their fixture imbalance is crystal clear, and whats more they're proud of it. Presuming the teams are filed into the computer based on previous season, as opposed to evening out the fixtures from back to front based on whos likely to finish where, a team who.finishes 6th are therefore likely to be less favourably placed than any of the sides immediately below them. My suggestion of not so much as a split but a 'closing' season from weeks 27-39 with 14 sides, with the rewarding fixtures laid out in advance so everyone knows what they can gain, would be no less of an issue i'd think. Except another two slices of the cake requiring to be cut.

[sjc]

14 doesnt work, no matter how you cut it it just doesnt work.

it's 10, 12, 16, or 18 that's what we are left with.

The split, which I abhor, works best as it is with 12.

So lets leave it at that.

Been watching Scottish Football for nearly 50 years and never saw a meaningless match in my life.

How can any match be meaningless when every point means money?

Why doesn't 14 work?

2no rounds H&A = 26games.

7-7split with 2no rounds H&A = 12games.

Total games = 38games.

Equal number of H&A games too.

[ShawfieldAggro]

Yes, but there are those who'd have a problem with not every club finishing on the same day, unless you had the spare club in each sub-division playing one another in their otherwise 'off' week......based on placings after 26 games.....eg 1st v 14th, 4th v 10th, 7th v 8th etc. Still better than the current abortionists' clinic of a league.

[sjc]

Yes, but there are those who'd have a problem with not every club finishing on the same day, unless you had the spare club in each sub-division playing one another in their otherwise 'off' week......based on placings after 26 games.....eg 1st v 14th, 4th v 10th, 7th v 8th etc. Still better than the current abortionists' clinic of a league.

True but you could have the Clubs that finish 7th & 8th at the split having the "free day" at the season end as they would be least likely to have anything to play for.

[ShawfieldAggro]

Agreed, it would be unlikely, and even if 7th enjoy a late spurt towards the European spots or 8th plummet to relegation, all has been done to minimise the infringing of the integrity that gets shat on both in a sporting and mathematical way currently. It fucking bamboozles me completely how so many are happy to.plod on with this 'its the best we have' and kybosh every single alternative, as if you were starting a league from scratch (properly) you would not place hacking it to pieces and leaving it an uneven mess at the top of your priorities list. Even the reality tv leagues like the MLS and A-League with their playoffs (courtesy of their inhabitants short attention span beyond who might win it) are crystal.clear in their make-up of what each position rewards you with.

[JakeSAFC]

Stopped reading when you put Airdrie as a mid-sized club

[HibeeJibee]

7/7 also means everyone finding 2 more matchdays.

Personally I'd prefer 6/8 split, for 36/40 games.

[sjc]

7/7 also means everyone finding 2 more matchdays.

Personally I'd prefer 6/8 split, for 36/40 games.

Would you not have to do that anyway for the bottom 8 group?

[HibeeJibee]

Find another 2 matchdays? Yes but it's less of an issue as Bottom 8 clubs are unlikely to go all the way in cups and be in Europe. Also, having 7 post-split home games in 'Bottom 8' - some midweek - may represent similar "value" to 5 such 'Top 6' games.

[sjc]

Find another 2 matchdays? Yes but it's less of an issue as Bottom 8 clubs are unlikely to go all the way in cups and be in Europe. Also, having 7 post-split home games in 'Bottom 8' - some midweek - may represent similar "value" to 5 such 'Top 6' games.

Europe isn't really an issue in all honesty and I wouldn't say that bottom 8 teams rarely get to Cup Finals either......Hibs in '12 & '13 spring to mind.

[HibeeJibee]

Europe certainly is an issue, due to the UEFA rules about when you can schedule (and also even more strictly when you can televise) matches... My point is that Bottom 8 clubs are less likely to have gone all the way in one or both cups, and simply aren't going to have got to the sharp end of EL like Rangers or Celtic did, so it would be easier for the Bottom 8 alone to need to find 2 more dates..

I should say that I'm not such a big fan of 14-10-10-10 anyway, nowadays, I think 12-10-10-10 is serving us pretty well.

[sjc]

Europe certainly is an issue, due to the UEFA rules about when you can schedule (and also even more strictly when you can televise) matches... My point is that Bottom 8 clubs are less likely to have gone all the way in one or both cups, and simply aren't going to have got to the sharp end of EL like Rangers or Celtic did, so it would be easier for the Bottom 8 alone to need to find 2 more dates..

I should say that I'm not such a big fan of 14-10-10-10 anyway, nowadays, I think 12-10-10-10 is serving us pretty well.

Fair enough regards the Euro dates but I was proposing 14-14-14.

For me the post split fixtures are all over the place as it is.

[ShawfieldAggro]

Thats my biggest problem with it too sjc. HJ again ignoring the ambiguity of how the extra matches be worked into the format....four Division one/two clubs made the Cup final between 2006 and 2010...scheduling around an events likelihood is the exact imbalance we have, given that the post split matches are scheduled currently to a prediction of a teams place than an outright list thrashed out directly rewarding each place.....and even that was done from.the start to solely avoid an Old Firm title decider like 1999. Its certainly not being done to ensure everyone plays everyone else the same times.

[RabidAl]

A couple of bits and pieces to cast your eye over when you get a mo...

(2 attachments, 1 link)

E:\ATTENDANCES, UNCERTAINTY OF OUTCOME AND POLICY IN SCOTTISH LEAGUE FOOTBALL - JENNETT - 2007 - Scottish Journal of Political Economy - Wiley Online Library.mht

Resources, League Size, Winning Margin.xls

SCOTTISH FOOTBALL - ITS A FUNNY OLD BUSINESS.pdf

[RabidAl]

Some blurb...

League Size

Comparing a 16-team league to our 12-team top tier (i.e. teams playing eachother twice rather than 4 times):

2 of the Old Firm (OF) games vs eachother (e.g. 1 home win, 1 away loss) are replaced with 2 games vs team 16 (e.g. 1 home and 1 away win for each). So the Old Firm could each be 3 points better off.

4 games for the best of the rest (BR) vs OF (e.g. 2 home losses, 2 away losses) are replaced with 4 games vs teams 15 and 16 (e.g. 1 home win, 1 away win vs each). So BR could be 12 points better off.

4 games for BR (e.g. 1 home win and 1 away loss, vs each of 4th and 5th best) are replaced with 4 games vs teams 13 and 14 (e.g 1 home win, 1 away win vs each). So BR could be 6 points better off.

In this way the best of the rest could gain 18 points, and the Old Firm 3 points, from a change to a 16-team top tier - i.e. the best of the rest could be 15 points (net) closer to a title challenge.

Small league/long season = more points dropped vs best non-Old Firm teams, and more points dropped vs Old Firm - because of teams playing eachother four times rather than two.

Alternatively, the current league table shows how exciting a 10-team, 18-game season could be - if we adopted separate Autumn and Spring seasons.

To be clear, short seasons for small leagues or long seasons for large leagues give the best prospect of a variety of winners unless, as from 1975-86, you have similarly resourced teams/clubs competing - in which case a small league over a full season can provide a high level of competition.

Having the right league size is no panacea, but it doesn't compound the disparity in resources in the way that our current top tier does.

Revenue Sharing

All that being said, the bigger issue is clearly the difference in resources between Old Firm and non-Old Firm clubs.

Since the Old Firm's revenues are so much bigger than the rest, any re-distribution of league commercial revenues away from them would mean them losing an insignificant percentage of their turnover; however, that exact same amount of revenue would make a significant difference to any non-Old Firm club's turnover and, hence, competitiveness on the park.

That sort of revenue sharing would be a start.

As would a pooling and even re-distribution of all walk-up, match-day (i.e. non-season ticket) gate receipts.

This would recognise that clubs are independent financial businesses (they'd keep season ticket revenues), but would recognise that their business depends upon the other league clubs for their market (they'd all share walk-up revenues). It may also give fans an incentive to both buy season tickets and to travel to away grounds, since both would contribute towards thier own club's resources; in this way it may also boost attendences.

These measures may go some small way towards evening out resources and bringing a little more competitiveness back into our top tier...

[ShawfieldAggro]

Have you looked at the top four in the Premier lately??? This spamming's getting worse than Dryhorce. How many times can you flog this pish??? Its doing no one any good, and if we were so upset about it all then the clubs wouldn't continue voting in favour of the status quo.

[RabidAl]

Game 31 & Revenue Sharing

IF we had a 16-team top tier....

2 rounds of fixtures/30 matches wouldn't give clubs enough revenue from home games; a split with teams playing each-other both home and away would give 44 matches, which the big boys never seem too keen on.

So you're left with playing each-other just once post-split and 37 league games - half the clubs are short-changed each season with only 3 home matches after the split.

Would it be possible to have everyone play just 3 home games after the split, with the remaining game played at neutral venues?

You could try to have it as a round of derby matches, played in game 31, right after the split, so there's still something riding on the games. Hampden could get some use over a weekend for the bigger games if there was enough left to play for. It'd have a cup-tie feel for fans, a bit of a day out, an even ticket allocation.

Season tickets wouldn't cover this round of fixtures, so that revenues could be pooled from all of the games and shared evenly between the clubs.

Any thoughts??

-------------------

Or you could have 15 league games on clubs' season tickets, with revenues from all post-split games pooled and shared equally between clubs. It would be an easier and less controversial way to distribute revenues than arguing for a split of clubs' home gates throughout the season. You could, with a will, even implement it with the current league set-up.

(P.S. It's 30 years this season since a non-Old Firm club last were Scottish Champions: something needs to change.

Go on Hamilton, you little beauties!!)

[ShawfieldAggro]

What you are suggesting would ensure a club like Hamilton never would or could be champions at all. Knowing your place, whilst taking your piece of the cake seems the be all and end all. What we are witnessing in the Premier right now is an evolution through natural selection....of sorts. This has zero bearing on the overall quality provided. How bad is it that a team has went from 14th best in the country in May, to top of the league in 5 months....and stayed there?? Its not the fucking XFactor.... it shows how crap the dozen or so clubs you want to throw copious tonnes of cash at to be utter gant at dealing with the scraps they have currently. Next.

[RabidAl]

Aye, well I just don't fancy waiting another 30 years for non-Old Firm Scottish Champions without at least trying something different.

A 16-team top tier can give you:

- exciting post-split mini-leagues;

- much more promotion and relegation;

- more fans from more clubs involved in the top tier and challenging to get there;

- more chance of a non-Old Firm winner.

I know some folk think it could be a step backwards, and separate Autumn & Spring seasons (e.g. 3 tiers of 10; 18 games per season) would be a further (and, in my opinion, a better) alternative that gives:

- competing for Europe or for promotion twice per year;

- an early chance to start afresh after a crap season;

- more variety of fixtures and spread of revenues, as more teams move between the leagues, including between national & regional leagues;

- a 3(ish)-week January break that keeps the game (fans and players) fresh;

- more chance of a non-Old Firm winner (especially in autumn, when they're still in Europe);

- a possible improvement in the quality of the youths, with 2 championships each year giving more competitive games (and probably 2 tiers of 8 giving competitive promotion and relegation matches) to hone their skills under presssure with senior pros to talk them through the games.

For me, a shift to Autumn & Spring seasons has the most going for it and would make our game much more dynamic and exciting for all involved.

------------------------------

How Did We Get Here? A History...

(i) 1975-76: change to 10-team top tier; very competitive between clubs of similar resources.

(ii) 1981-82: change to clubs taking all of home gate receipts (from 50/50 split? It was two-thirds/one-third back in 1893!).

(iii) 1984-85: non-Old Firm team (assembled in era of split gate receipts) wins top tier for the last time.

(iv) 1988-89: start of Rangers' domination, where their greater resources are amplified by the league structure.

(v) 1994-95: introduction of 3 points/win exaggerates the gap to the rest.

(vi) 1997-98: Celtic Park phased re-build nears completion, securing resources to begin Old Firm duopoly.

(vii) 1998-99: Old Firm are allowed to dominate commercial revenues of new SPL, further enhancing their resources.

The smaller top tier (from 1975-76 onwards) had the impact of increasing competition amongst clubs of similar resources.

Once clubs disbanded revenue sharing from home gate receipts (1981-82), and their influence was lost from teams built in that era (by 1986), the smaller top tier had the effect of exaggerating the subsequent difference in resources (from 1988 onwards).

The smaller top tier consolidated the advantage of the Old Firm because:

1) The best non-Old Firm teams dropped more points playing against each-other 4 times per season, rather than just twice in a larger league;

2) The best non-Old Firm teams dropped more points playing against the Old Firm 4 times per season, rather than just twice in a larger league.

To see a non-Old Firm team win the Scottish top tier again, we need to address the imbalance of resources that favours the Old Firm and address the league structure that institutionalises that advantage.

Ahem. In my opinion.

Ready. Go....