14 team "Premiership" next season

[Desp]

I'd prefer to keep things as they are. I think the 12-team top flight, with split and playoffs, works.

If it were to change it though, i'd go for 16-16-10.

16-team top flight. Play each other home/away. 30 game season. Run with the new League Cup idea, and have a 3-4 week winter break.

[akredz]

Our chairman would have a heart attack if you suggested that.

Think of the lost revenue..............

[Snakebite]

I think I might be one of the few who likes the current 12/10/10/10 setup.

[Savage Henry]

I think I might be one of the few who likes the current 12/10/10/10 setup.

From this thread it would appear so, but I seem to recall public opinion being hugely in favour of the McGregor/Gilmour plans, especially as they made the Aberdeen chairman cry.

[Steve McQueen]

The problem with the 12-8/8/8 suggestions was the blanking of games after the split.

A team in the bottom 4 would just give up for the last few games as even if they won the points were set back to zero.

[Guest DAVIDB69]

Suspect something will happen if there is a danger of Rangers not coming up second time.

We were told they had won the league two months ago and it was all over

[EdTheDuck]

We already have the teams, it's just they are split over 4 top leagues and a bunch of smaller ones instead of 2/3.

Do we have too many teams for a country the size of Scotland, that's a debate for another thread. This is just about utilising the teams we currently have.

the talk of splitting after x amount of games annoys me. Why can't we just have a league system that announces the fixtures at the start of the season and that's what you stick to. No need trying to predict where teams will finish so everyone gets an even amount of home/away games.

I was referring to the comparison with England.

We continually do this and it's totally pointless, the two football leagues have nothing in common. There are about 40 teams in England who average higher attendances than the 3rd best in Scotland and we have a corresponding steeper fall-off in quality.

If folks want 20 team leagues in Scotland (or 20-24-24) by all means go for it, but not because the English do it because it wouldn't work the same.

[EdTheDuck]

Suspect something will happen if there is a danger of Rangers not coming up second time.

We were told they had won the league two months ago and it was all over

14 may not be enough if results continue to decline as they have recently...expect 16 to suddenly gain stock with the likes of Stewart Milne in the next few months

[RabidAl]

You're saying it would only take the bare minimum of intelligent scheduling to fit the full season into March - October, and it's nonsense to suggest otherwise. Please show your working. The full UEFA calendar is available, show us where we fit all the league and cup dates in if we have a summer season.

Anyway, I've always believed that if you were creating a league system from scratch, ignoring what we have now and how clubs would respond, the ideal size of league would be 16 teams playing each other once at home, once away for a total of 30 games, with the bottom three automatically relegated. I think that's a good number of games and a good size of league, keeping the number of meaningless games as low as realistically possible. Unfortunately, we don't have the opportunity to create a system from scratch and disregard what's currently in place.

Clubs aren't going to accept going from 18/19 home league games to 15, even accounting for being able to play the League Cup at weekends rather than midweek if we had such a league system. You could mitigate that with a split after the 30, but really there's no balanced way of splitting a 16 team league: if you split 8-8 and play once teams have an uneven number of home & away games, split 8-8 and play twice you've got too many games, while it's impossible to split one league into three groups without either having a completely pointless group or being absolutely batshit mental like Belgium. Splits with a 14 team league are even worse, as proved by the abject nonsense being introduced in Denmark.

Far more pertinently, we don't have enough clubs big enough to have a 16 team top flight. It wouldn't be a problem for the top flight itself: the 12 currently there are obviously all big enough, while almost everyone in the Championship has the support base and infrastructure to be competitive in a 16 team top division. The problem is that you'd have a massive gap between the first and second tiers, which would make relegation a massive financial hit for anyone dropping from the top flight.

If you're going from a league where you regularly have travelling supports of over 1000 and far bigger sponsorship revenue to one where no one brings a travelling support greater than 500 and the prize money, sponsorship revenue etc is all far smaller, you're in trouble. Again, this problem is going to be worse if you have an 18 or 20 team top flight to resolve the number of games problem of a 16 team top flight. That could possibly be mitigated by a ten team second tier rather than another 16 but even then it would still be a problem, or all clubs in the top flight agreeing on a far more equitable distribution of prize money to the second tier through realising this would be best for them as a safety net, but that isn't likely.

All things considered, while I would like a 16 team top division I'm pragmatic about it and can accept that with all those potential problems, what we have now is probably as good as we can get unless there's a resolution to that second tier problem. Yes, playing each other four times can get stale, but it's better than just having a ten team league and the split we have is at least simple, with an even number of games for each team and no overly convoluted Belgian nonsense. While I would fully support a change if it was demonstrated how it would create more excitement or higher standards, changing from 12 to 14 with a more complicated split would just strike me as change for change's sake with no thought put into how it would actually improve anything.

I wonder how big that financial hit would really be, given that the remaining half-dozen or so full-time clubs in the second tier would regularly be winning the majority of their games and challenging for automatic and play-off promotion places. Fans turn out to see winning teams and also when their teams are competing for something tangible, such as promotion to the top flight, which would certainly boost attendances and revenue for those tier two full-time clubs - and possibly also for part-timers that could compete for promotion play-off places.

Perhaps you're putting too much emphasis on the revenue brought in by away supports when what actually sustains clubs much more is the size of their home support. Further, clubs would spend far less time in the financial wilderness of the second tier that you're describing if we had top tiers of 16, since the increased promotion and relegation that goes along with that would see them spending much more time in the top tier.

What I do agree with is the need for a proper 'all-through' model to support our clubs, with gradual percentage decreases based on position in the league (SPFL) as a whole, rather than one that sees a large fall in revenue from one division to the next.

[RabidAl]

You're saying it would only take the bare minimum of intelligent scheduling to fit the full season into March - October, and it's nonsense to suggest otherwise. Please show your working. The full UEFA calendar is available, show us where we fit all the league and cup dates in if we have a summer season.

Anyway, I've always believed that if you were creating a league system from scratch, ignoring what we have now and how clubs would respond, the ideal size of league would be 16 teams playing each other once at home, once away for a total of 30 games, with the bottom three automatically relegated. I think that's a good number of games and a good size of league, keeping the number of meaningless games as low as realistically possible. Unfortunately, we don't have the opportunity to create a system from scratch and disregard what's currently in place.

Clubs aren't going to accept going from 18/19 home league games to 15, even accounting for being able to play the League Cup at weekends rather than midweek if we had such a league system. You could mitigate that with a split after the 30, but really there's no balanced way of splitting a 16 team league: if you split 8-8 and play once teams have an uneven number of home & away games, split 8-8 and play twice you've got too many games, while it's impossible to split one league into three groups without either having a completely pointless group or being absolutely batshit mental like Belgium. Splits with a 14 team league are even worse, as proved by the abject nonsense being introduced in Denmark.

A late-February to November season is possible. The working, including UEFA dates, etc is on the 'Summer Football' thread, page 2, from the Fans' Views forum. It actually shows, a Feb-Dec season, but includes at least half-a-dozen free dates that would allow 'proper' summer football without re-structuring the leagues or dropping the league cup, if that was desirable.

http://www.pieandbovril.com/forum/index.php/topic/218673-summer-football/page-2

Also, there is a balanced way of splitting a 16-team league into two 8s after 30 games, for 37 games in total.

You can reward teams for their league position at the split with better fixtures after the split.

So each team would have their nearest rivals (in terms of league position) at home, and also the top four of each section (1-4 and 9-12) would be rewarded for their higher pre-split position with an additional home game.

The fixtures could work like this:

1st vs. (h) 2,3,4,5 (a) 6,7,8.

2nd vs. (h) 3,4,5,6 (a) 7,8,1.

3rd vs. (h) 4,5,6,7 (a) 8,1,2.

4th vs. (h) 5,6,7,8 (a) 1,2,3.

5th vs. (h) 6,7,8 (a) 1,2,3,4.

6th vs. (h) 7,8,1 (a) 2,3,4,5.

7th vs. (h) 8,1,2 (a) 3,4,5,6.

8th vs. (h) 1,2,3 (a) 4,5,6,7.

It would make a 16-team league do-able with a split and wouldn't require the reduction in home games and revenues that clubs are frightened of (18/19 each). There's also the possibility of a 7/9 split, although that would take more matchdays since teams would each have to sit out a round of games.

With the new League Cup group stage, teams would be playing for seeding (and an easier draw) in that competition by finishing 5th-12th by the end of the season which might give the top end of the lower split something to play for.

[Mr Tourette]

Based on the current premier/championship league positions, an 18 team top league would read as follows:-

Celtic

Aberdeen

Hearts

StJohnstone

Ross County

Dundee

Partick

Hamilton

ICT

Motherwell

Kilmarnock

Dundee Utd

Rangers

Hibs

Falkirk

Raith

Morton

QOS

Personally, I think that league would be pretty competitive. Take the SC final last season as an example, where ICT had finished in a EL position in the premier league and were extremely fortunate to overcome a Falkirk side that had failed to progress from the play offs in the league below.

The main reason this will not be promoted is the fear that TV companies would not want to televise a game such as QOS v ICT on a wet Tuesday in January when the attendance is likely to be sub 2000

However, if we are serious about making our game competitive, this is the way to go. 2 or 3 up/2 or 3 down. Job done. The ugly sisters needn't worry as playing games against Hamilton/ICT/Falkirk/Ross County/QOS is all the same in their eyes. There should also be no reason either for teams to feel compelled to have to go full time and break the bank. All they would need to ensure is that their team finished above the automatic relegation places

[Fuctifano]

That 16 x 2 then split idea to give 37 games is the current setup in Poland.

Sadly I don't think it would be worked here because assuming Rangers are in this 16, you'd end up with one team having 2 league OF home games to one every year, and though it would alternate year on year, you'd still get folk upset about it.

[EdTheDuck]

Based on the current premier/championship league positions, an 18 team top league would read as follows:-

Celtic

Aberdeen

Hearts

StJohnstone

Ross County

Dundee

Partick

Hamilton

ICT

Motherwell

Kilmarnock

Dundee Utd

Rangers

Hibs

Falkirk

Raith

Morton

QOS

Personally, I think that league would be pretty competitive. Take the SC final last season as an example, where ICT had finished in a EL position in the premier league and were extremely fortunate to overcome a Falkirk side that had failed to progress from the play offs in the league below.

The main reason this will not be promoted is the fear that TV companies would not want to televise a game such as QOS v ICT on a wet Tuesday in January when the attendance is likely to be sub 2000

However, if we are serious about making our game competitive, this is the way to go. 2 or 3 up/2 or 3 down. Job done. The ugly sisters needn't worry as playing games against Hamilton/ICT/Falkirk/Ross County/QOS is all the same in their eyes. There should also be no reason either for teams to feel compelled to have to go full time and break the bank. All they would need to ensure is that their team finished above the automatic relegation places

You think it will be competitive and have part-time teams in it? Is avoiding relegation the definition of competitive?

[grazza]

The biggest issues in recent years in top flight has been that 1 or 2 teams could ever win it. There really needs to be a euro slot for 3rd placed team and cup winners so only having 4 teams means no euro play offs. Used to be just 1 team going down which was very stale. Play off has made it a bit more exciting. At the very most I think you can stretch it to 14 with 2 automatic relegation slots. I have not seen a solution though that keeps a decent standard in 2nd tier where it is still mostly full time but teams year on year need to re-evaluate that. Take say 4 top championship teams out and replace them with 8 part time tier 3 teams will do massive damage to full time youth set ups and drop in travelling supports and revenue. We have roughly 20 full time teams in Scotland which is pretty good going for country our size. Championship as its 3 quarters full time there is element of competition and so teams will work hard to try and get to or retain full time football. There was talk over the years of a SPL 2. Kind of feels like they are doing that with a bigger top tier. There isn't that much to play for in top tier so adding more teams isn't going to help that.

I don't think teams should live outwith their means but full time is an ideal any club with ambition of sustainably competing in top 2 tier needs to strive and work towards. Not sure the likes of Hamilton would have developed the players they had if they could comfortably sit in tier 2 on a part time setup. Instead of visiting supports of Morton, St Johnstone they would have had to make do with Albion Rovers and Stenhousemuir in tier 2

[vikingTON]

You think it will be competitive and have part-time teams in it? Is avoiding relegation the definition of competitive?

lol wut

For some teams in every league campaign outside closed shops or bottom level divisions, of course it is. That starting 18 however has just two sides that have been part-time recently (Raith and Queen of the South), with three full-time sides left over in the second tier. So that's nineteen (really eighteen once Morton's benefactor goes) established full-time sides plus those three. Add in the strongest of the current part-timers and there is more than enough slack to avoid a disastrous lack of competitiveness.

In any case, what is it to you or any football official setting up a league how a member club dispenses with its revenue? If part-time football works for them on the park then they can stick to it - if not, then they'll simply be replaced by a club with a better setup. Clubs could and already have been trying to innovate with effective combinations of the two. Full-time football is of course an advantage to clubs that can support it but isn't the sole, defining criteria of success, and absolutely shouldn't be the basis by which we reform the league structure.

[lionel hutz]

We have 20 clubs right now that are full time. Surely preserving and expanding the number of FT clubs is a priority.

Premiership:
Aberdeen, Celtic, Dundee, Dundee United, Hamilton, Hearts, Inverness CT, Killie, Motherwell, Partick Thistle, Ross County, St Johnstone

Championship:
Falkirk, Greenock Morton, Hibernian, Livingston (?), Queen of the South, Raith, The Rangers, St Mirren

League 1:
Ayr, Dunfermline

With all this "fracas" over the size of the top tier, shouldn't we be looking at the size of the Championship. Anyway, 12 at the moment is fine, especially with the introduction of play-offs.
If the Championship was to expand to 12, 14 or 16 that could create more full time clubs in the next ten years.

Possibly, (including non-league clubs) these clubs could become FT (given their situation in relation to population centres) in the next few years.

Championship: Alloa, Dumbarton
League One: Forfar, Airdrie, Albion Rovers
League Two: Clyde, East Fife
HL: Cove, Inverurie LW
LL: Edin City, Spartans, EK

[DESTROY88]

I'd prefer to keep things as they are. I think the 12-team top flight, with split and playoffs, works.

If it were to change it though, i'd go for 16-16-10.

16-team top flight. Play each other home/away. 30 game season. Run with the new League Cup idea, and have a 3-4 week winter break.

I like the 16 team prem idea... Playing each other twice and with 2 automatic relegation places and one via playoffs.

[Dunty]

Sky want four old firm games.

Neil Doncaster wants to keep Sky happy.

If they were throwing serious money at us I could almost understand it, but they pay a paltry amount, and yet get to dictate the league structure.

And the thing is, we CAN play hardball. Rather than letting Sky and BT strike a deal to share games, let them bid against each other and get the price up.

[bad chad]

lol wut

For some teams in every league campaign outside closed shops or bottom level divisions, of course it is. That starting 18 however has just two sides that have been part-time recently (Raith and Queen of the South), with three full-time sides left over in the second tier. So that's nineteen (really eighteen once Morton's benefactor goes) established full-time sides plus those three. Add in the strongest of the current part-timers and there is more than enough slack to avoid a disastrous lack of competitiveness.

In any case, what is it to you or any football official setting up a league how a member club dispenses with its revenue? If part-time football works for them on the park then they can stick to it - if not, then they'll simply be replaced by a club with a better setup. Clubs could and already have been trying to innovate with effective combinations of the two. Full-time football is of course an advantage to clubs that can support it but isn't the sole, defining criteria of success, and absolutely shouldn't be the basis by which we reform the league structure.

Good rebuttal

I feel weird now...

[Granny Danger]

Any league reconstruction that is based upon improving the game is something to be considered and possibly welcomed.

This is about ensuring Rangers are in the topl flight next season, absolutely nothing else. If Rangers had been promoted last season this would not even be getting discussed.

I do not see any need to make changes, and if changes are to be made in should not be for the 2016-17 season but the one after.