killienick Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 Scottish Cup winning sides from the last 20 years. So we're both good. That means we're only a big team for another year! Can we not include the league cup if you pumped one of the super 8 big teams to win it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Bairn Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 I might be the only one that thinks this....but if Dundee United are going down I would love to go straight to a 16 and save them. I don't think we can lose another one of our biggest clubs right now. I personally think we always need Celtic, Rangers (as fun as its been the last 4 years), Hearts, Aberdeen, Hibs, Dundee United, Dundee and Motherwell in the top league. I always look to the Portuguese League that has 18 teams in it with 13 of them averaging under 6,000 and think that we easily have enough teams and enough competition to go to a 16. Also reckon playing each other home and away gives teams like Aberdeen and Hearts a better chance of winning the league, think back to 97/98 season and Hearts finished 7 points behind Celtic that season and dropped 21 points to the OF because they had to play them each 4 times. If they only had to play each of them twice I believe they could've won the league that year. Even when Rangers are promoted other teams need to play the OF 8 times which is 21% of their season which makes it so difficult. Going to a 16 and playing home and away means you only play the OF 13% of the season, makes it a whole lot more possible in my eyes. Scottish football needs a strong Motherwell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Lambies Doos Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 I might be the only one that thinks this....but if Dundee United are going down I would love to go straight to a 16 and save them. I don't think we can lose another one of our biggest clubs right now. I personally think we always need Celtic, Rangers (as fun as its been the last 4 years), Hearts, Aberdeen, Hibs, Dundee United, Dundee and Motherwell in the top league. I always look to the Portuguese League that has 18 teams in it with 13 of them averaging under 6,000 and think that we easily have enough teams and enough competition to go to a 16. Also reckon playing each other home and away gives teams like Aberdeen and Hearts a better chance of winning the league, think back to 97/98 season and Hearts finished 7 points behind Celtic that season and dropped 21 points to the OF because they had to play them each 4 times. If they only had to play each of them twice I believe they could've won the league that year. Even when Rangers are promoted other teams need to play the OF 8 times which is 21% of their season which makes it so difficult. Going to a 16 and playing home and away means you only play the OF 13% of the season, makes it a whole lot more possible in my eyes. Utter pish. This model will be counterproductive as it prevents growth. It's a false model Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverWolfe Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 Utter pish. This model will be counterproductive as it prevents growth. It's a false model What's utter pish about having a 16 team top division? I think its factual that teams will have a better chance to win a league when they play the better teams less times don't you think? You're thick as f**k. Cheers bud! I think you're the thick one if you cant take a wee joke....did it hurt you that the big bad sectarian apologist old firm fan said your team are diddy's and irrelevant.....dry your eyes you utter mess!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverWolfe Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 Hypothetically lets say we went to 16 teams as of next season, do people on here actually want the team that finishes bottom to be relegated? Whether that's United, Killie or Hamilton. So effectively you want that team to be relegated and the top 5 from the Championship to be promoted i.e. the team finishing in 17th place in the system replacing the 12th team? And even further do you want the team finishing 2nd bottom to play in a playoff and possibly relegating 2 teams and bringing 6 up? If so both are just mental and I imagine correctly won't be allowed to happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oneteaminglasgow Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 Hypothetically lets say we went to 16 teams as of next season, do people on here actually want the team that finishes bottom to be relegated? Whether that's United, Killie or Hamilton. So effectively you want that team to be relegated and the top 5 from the Championship to be promoted i.e. the team finishing in 17th place in the system replacing the 12th team? And even further do you want the team finishing 2nd bottom to play in a playoff and possibly relegating 2 teams and bringing 6 up? If so both are just mental and I imagine correctly won't be allowed to happen. Give it a rest. Your ridiculous stance that "we always need the big clubs in the top tier" has been laughed out, stop trying to make your ridiculous argument sound plausible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve McQueen Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 I personally think we always need Celtic, Rangers (as fun as its been the last 4 years), Hearts, Aberdeen, Hibs, Dundee United, Dundee and Motherwell in the top league. What would be the point in keeping awful teams just because they are big clubs? Would having worse teams make the league better just because they come from more populated cities? Why not just make certain clubs immune from relegation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverWolfe Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 Give it a rest. Your ridiculous stance that "we always need the big clubs in the top tier" has been laughed out, stop trying to make your ridiculous argument sound plausible. Its just my opinion, id rather have the bigger clubs in the top division (as long as they deserve to be there). I have no issue with United going down if we stay at 12 teams. My opinion is only based on us going to a 16 team league and me not believing that the team finishing in 17th place deserves to be there more than any of the current top 12 teams. I assume based on this response of yours that you now see my point and think I'm correct? Would you be happy for Thistle to go down and the 5th placed team in the championship take your place? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverWolfe Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 I might be the only one that thinks this....but if Dundee United are going down I would love to go straight to a 16 and save them. I don't think we can lose another one of our biggest clubs right now. I personally think we always need Celtic, Rangers (as fun as its been the last 4 years), Hearts, Aberdeen, Hibs, Dundee United, Dundee and Motherwell in the top league. Having a mare with this mental statement which I put very wrongly. My apologies Something a lot less arrogant and belittling would have gone as follows I want us to go to a 16 team league and I think if United finished bottom they should remain part of the 16. I do not want any of the above teams to go down but have no issue were they to go down if they are not good enough in the current or any future system we have. Does this mean I saved it or had more of a mare? I think ill get back to work now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oneteaminglasgow Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 Its just my opinion, id rather have the bigger clubs in the top division (as long as they deserve to be there). I have no issue with United going down if we stay at 12 teams. My opinion is only based on us going to a 16 team league and me not believing that the team finishing in 17th place deserves to be there more than any of the current top 12 teams. I assume based on this response of yours that you now see my point and think I'm correct? Would you be happy for Thistle to go down and the 5th placed team in the championship take your place? If thistle finished in a relegation place, then yes, we should be relegated regardless of who replaced us. And I still think you're talking shit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
forameus Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 If you'd started out with that, you wouldn't have been rightfully panned. Probably because you've backtracked. You said specifically that you thought the big teams should stay up, and that you think "we always need" the big sides. Which is demonstrably rubbish. To go down the mental path, if they were to go to 16, and Thistle finished stone, dead last by a distance, and then we were told that instead of keeping them up, they were going to promote 5th place in the Championship instead, then I'd accept it. In that case, Thistle would have been pumped by pretty much every side in the league - why should they stay in that case? The team in the Championship hasn't been, so hard to argue that they deserve it less. Although I'd need to look up how big the team in 5th is in Tartantony's big league table of clubs. If we're bigger than them, then obvs we stay up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cilitbang Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 Im in the 16 teams play eachother twice camp. Less games overall gives more wiggle room if games get postponed etc. Also if you have a cast off team in a season then use games vs that team to blood a youngster or two. If clubs are worried about less income then how about just don't overspend... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedLichtie86 Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 Though i would love the idea of a 16 team league. The simple fact is it wont happen due to lack of money in the game. Lets say it went to a 16 team top flight. (16-18-regional setup is my preference) you would either have to dilute the TV/prize money each club recieves or increase the Prize money pot from 82.25% to at least 90% by taking it away from what remains of the championship, league 1 and 2. A drop in 3/4 home games of gate revenue, (some clubs could be worse off with loss of derby games and Celtic/Sevco). The drop in prizemoney. Etc a number of clubs would probably not accept this outcome and vote it down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alba16 Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 Though i would love the idea of a 16 team league. The simple fact is it wont happen due to lack of money in the game. Lets say it went to a 16 team top flight. (16-18-regional setup is my preference) you would either have to dilute the TV/prize money each club recieves or increase the Prize money pot from 82.25% to at least 90% by taking it away from what remains of the championship, league 1 and 2. A drop in 3/4 home games of gate revenue, (some clubs could be worse off with loss of derby games and Celtic/Sevco). The drop in prizemoney. Etc a number of clubs would probably not accept this outcome and vote it down. This. Only way we will get a 16 team top flight will be if we do what happens in Poland (8-8 split with 1 more round of games to make 37 in total) or Norway (16 teams but they have more games on television and get more money from tv rights than us). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Lambies Doos Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 What's utter pish about having a 16 team top division? I think its factual that teams will have a better chance to win a league when they play the better teams less times don't you think? Probably yes. But the utter pish I was referring to was your original point about keeping the so called bigger teams up at all cost.. That's pish, but I see you have backtracked on it so fair doos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergeant Wilson Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 I like the Falkirk Chairman's view. He knows what's best. 14 isn't enough and Falkirk won't be in it. 16 is just right and Falkirk will be in it.18 isn't right either as even though Falkirk will be in it, so will some diddies who are not Falkirk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craigkillie Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 I'm not sure that's the same problem it once was certainly in terms of home gate receipts. I'd imagine a club like St Johnstone get a modest number of home fans paying at the gate nowadays . A far greater proportion are season ticket holders, so a key question is whether a 16-team league is more attractive to get a season ticket for. Would be to me. The season tickets would have to be cheaper for 15 home games than they are for 19 home games now, so the clubs would still lose the revenue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongTimeLurker Posted February 4, 2016 Author Share Posted February 4, 2016 Not necessarily, if there is a sectional League Cup to add extra fixtures. Teams are not guaranteed 19 games under the current system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craigkillie Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 The mooted sectional League Cup features two home fixtures, and League Cup matches are typically cheaper than normal league games. Clubs are not guaranteed 19 home matches, but they are guaranteed 19 on average. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Connolly Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 The season tickets would have to be cheaper for 15 home games than they are for 19 home games now, so the clubs would still lose the revenue. Some of that would be balanced against the costs of hosting the games, player bonuses, etc. I'm not sure how much, and it obviously wouldn't be the full amount. Of course, on the other side, they'd also lose hospitality, and sponsorship income would maybe be affected if adverts only ran for 15 x 30s appearances on Sportscene instead of 19. Does anyone know if the clubs ever release the actual costings for putting on a game on a Saturday? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.