14 team "Premiership" next season

[glasgow-sheep]

Not enough sides of sufficient size and quality to sustain a top league of 16. You would need at least twenty realistically who could play in the top league, not sure we have that at the moment. That on top of loss revenue from less games, less games v OF and less games v hearts, United etc replaced by teams with much smaller crowd appeal and travelling support means a top 16 is a non starter.

I like the current league set up and the fact it maximises important games at the end of the season

[Nakamura]

I agree with this.

Should scrap relegation/play off this year as well.

Yeah, saves Dundee United haha. No relegation, winner of D2 promoted, then D2 playoff still happens for the other promotion spot, but no match vs. United.

Anyway, I like the idea. More teams the better. I don't care for the split, but maybe they could make it interesting enough with a playoff for the last Euro spot that includes mid-split winner.

Like, winner and 2nd place get Euro spots. The last Euro spot goes to a playoff winner, with 4 teams in the playoff -- 3rd, 4th, 5th in the top-split plus the mid-split winner. Or something like this. It might be fun.

Ideally, I'd prefer a 16 team 30 game season, but whatever increases the number of Premiership teams is a step forward.

And definitely, Scottish football doesn't need 4 tiny pro divisions. 3 decent sized ones are better.

[banana]

It wouldn't run March-November, it would run January-December.

Which is totally ludicrous.

Still perpetuating this nonsense about summer football? There is no reason, with a bare minimum of intelligent scheduling, that league games would have to be played in December or January, or February/November for that matter.

[banana]

On the other hand, if we want to go out there then I'd like to see all teams randomly drawn into seven groups of 6 at the start of each season, then do US style fixtures - in-league and cross league. Then move onto playoffs and such. f**k it.

I'm all for doing something different in the leagues ..

We may as well just go the whole hog and go American. Merge the top two leagues, split us into conferences, then have a complicated series of fixtures that mean you're not quite sure where you're going and when. Then throw that all away in March/April time when the top 16 sides get thrown into the playoffs. Then the side in 16th wins the title. Easy.

OK, 'out there' example using a US-type set-up: https://www.dropbox.com/s/mf8fd5ve9one84p/SPNFL.xlsx?dl=0 (click to view, or download and open in Excel to randomize groups).

Two conferences (upper and lower), three groups in each, randomly drawn at the start of the season. Place well to advance to the playoffs (mini-leagues) then knockout finals. Place well in the lower conference to gain promotion, poorly in the upper conference to get relegated.

[RandomGuy.]

Still perpetuating this nonsense about summer football? There is no reason, with a bare minimum of intelligent scheduling, that league games would have to be played in December or January, or February/November for that matter.

Playing March to October or that would be fucking stupid anyway, no idea how a couple of months without football would be helping the smaller clubs survive in any way, especially when the only friendlies they could get would be Scottish sides anyway, you also those a chunk of your support to the Summer holidays. Theres the worry that no Scottish football for that period would see fans looking at other leagues and getting invested in them, meaning when our seasons started again they'd have no real interest until the other leagues were over, seeing as they'd be more exciting in March/April/May with their season ending. Clubs would always be selling their best players in the third quarter of the season, and players would be unwilling to sign contracts that take them out of sync with the English window so you'd have the mental situation of clubs fighting relegation losing 75% of the squad and struggling to replace with them with months of the season left. You'd also have your clubs going months without football yet still playing in Europe, which is surely the reverse of what you'd be wanting?

Its a stupid idea for a league like ours, and the negatives far, far outweigh the perceived positives. I really doubt playing a couple of games in June/July instead of December/January would see the crowds increase to any point, as I'm pretty sure the New Year games see a higher than average support for most clubs anyway.

[K.T]

You may lose a chunk of support to summer holidays, RG. But then you probably lose the same number of fans through the winter who are put off by the weather and also avoid going to games to save money around Xmas.

[RandomGuy.]

You may lose a chunk of support to summer holidays, RG. But then you probably lose the same number of fans through the winter who are put off by the weather and also avoid going to games to save money around Xmas.

Problem is the type of fan you lose, in the Summer its the kids, in the Winter its more likely to be adults. The kids then come back and start watching the EPL over our winter break, see a player they like and thats curtains for the Scottish club they like. Theres far too many negative variables to make Summer football even a consideration, yet the sheer weight behind it from middle aged men who picture sitting in 30 degrees of heat with a beer sounds "perfect" will probably force it through eventually, when the truth is we'll all be sitting drinking Bovril in slightly less cold rain while our support falls as they've gotten into the habit of watching Sky at the pub with their mates over our four month break from football.

Crowds are increasing at most clubs as it is, why bother changing things when things are obviously getting better?

[Dr Koop]

Curve ball from Cockwomble. There'll be three seasons at most of 14 teams - assuming the Mankie Mob is still in business, gets promoted this year and isn't relegated the next - then it's back to whining about how the top flight is too big and wouldn't a 10 team league be just about right.

[Mediocre Pundit]

Not enough sides of sufficient size and quality to sustain a top league of 16. You would need at least twenty realistically who could play in the top league, not sure we have that at the moment.

We have the current top 12, the Championship minus Dumbarton and Alloa, plus Dunfermline, Ayr and Airdrie from League One - that's 23 clubs that have the infrastructure to play in the top tier (ignoring the slightly different case of Queens Park). And would anyone deny the right of smaller teams (i.e. Dumbarton, Alloa, Arbroath...) to make it too if possible, even if just for one season - isn't that what football's all about?

16 team leagues for me - play 30 games with a winter break; stop knackering pitches, make each game mean a bit more, and by all means use the expanded League Cup (and maybe throwing those teams that don't qualify for the last 16 into an expanded Challenge Cup) to give them a couple more games) And give them all at least a seasons notice to cut their cloth accordingly.

The only issue, of course, is that this means there are only two guaranteed OF games a year. Yet we've survived fine with almost none for the past four seasons...

[Nakamura]

We have the current top 12, the Championship minus Dumbarton and Alloa, plus Dunfermline, Ayr and Airdrie from League One - that's 23 clubs that have the infrastructure to play in the top tier (ignoring the slightly different case of Queens Park). And would anyone deny the right of smaller teams (i.e. Dumbarton, Alloa, Arbroath...) to make it too if possible, even if just for one season - isn't that what football's all about?

16 team leagues for me - play 30 games with a winter break; stop knackering pitches, make each game mean a bit more, and by all means use the expanded League Cup (and maybe throwing those teams that don't qualify for the last 16 into an expanded Challenge Cup) to give them a couple more games) And give them all at least a seasons notice to cut their cloth accordingly.

The only issue, of course, is that this means there are only two guaranteed OF games a year. Yet we've survived fine with almost none for the past four seasons...

Add two guaranteed OF games into the expanded League Cup (same with two Hearts-Hibs and two Dundees games). I think it would more interesting than the current idea of group stage with no top teams, and only 1 Premiership side per group.

I fully agree with what you propose.

[Desp]

f**k the Old Firm games.

I'm sure the worldwide audience is dripping with excitement over a game between Celtic (pumped in recent times from the Euro giants of Malmo, Maribor and Legia Warsaw) and Rangers (a team that took two attempts, at least, to get out of Scotland's second tier, buy their big signings from Wigan reserves and who drop points at Livingston).

Nobody cares.

[Sergeant Wilson]

The main impetus for change appears to be finding a way to avoid late season fixture backlogs:

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/spfl-reconstruction-clubs-slam-door-5700505

The league chief paved the way for more reconstruction talks by admitting an expanded elite league would be the solution to the end-of-season fixture pile-up that has wreaked havoc with the Scottish Cup and promotion play-offs.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/spfl-chief-neil-doncaster-qa-5694478

KJ: But the prospect of moving the League Cup to the summer?

ND: We should look at it and work with the clubs to see what they want. One of the biggest issues we face is fixture congestion.

We have ended up in a situation where we could have had the same clubs playing in the Scottish Cup Final and the play-off final on the same weekend but obviously that was avoided.

KJ: That was a shambolic episode, wasnt it?

ND: Itll be the same next year. Is that a shambles? Or is it a conscience decision that we have taken because the alternative is having another midweek fixture, maybe in January, or extending the season into June when you dont need to?

The reality is we have too many games. But if you want a schedule with no possible conflicts youd be asking players to play all year without a break. Fixture congestion is a real problem and its going to result in the sort of issues weve had this year until we end up with a league structure where you have fewer games.

"A conscience decision"? Either Doncaster can't speak or Jackson can't write. Probably both.

[LongTimeLurker]

f**k the Old Firm games.

I'm sure the worldwide audience is dripping with excitement over a game between Celtic (pumped in recent times from the Euro giants of Malmo, Maribor and Legia Warsaw) and Rangers (a team that took two attempts, at least, to get out of Scotland's second tier, buy their big signings from Wigan reserves and who drop points at Livingston).

Nobody cares.

Agreed the only genuinely interested market for it outside Scotland was NI (and neighbouring parts of the RoI) and who knows if even that will bounce back to what it used to be after a few years of paying more attention to the EPL. Same goes for a lot of the younger generation of armchair fans in Scotland. Beyond that it means about as much as Benfica vs Sporting Lisbon or Anderlecht vs Club Bruges does to us. The eyes of the world were not watching and nobody elsewhere was really the least bit bothered about what was being sung about Derry's Walls or the Hunger Strike when it came to forming an opinion about Scotland. We have now seen that the absence of four Old Firm games has not led to the financial collapse of Scottish football, so nobody should expect to be taken seriously if they ever try to use that as an argument again. The only thing that makes 18 a non-starter is the voting structure that means there need to be near-unanimity to get a change. The Danish 14[6/8] thing has a shot, because it is a minor tweak rather than a radical overhaul.

[PauloPerth]

A winter break is a crap concept. It's mostly from people who don't go to games all that often and use the weather as some kind of excuse. If it was summer football there would be something else. It's a winter sport to provide entertainment through the long dark winter months. It would be pish without the football to go to. We already have the farcical international breaks which completely break up the momentum of the season.

We don't lose that many fixtures most seasons to the weather, and the majority we do are to torrential rain which we can get at any time of year in Scotland.

Clubs could also make stadia far more comfortable by providing heating etc if people feel the cold is an issue for sitting watching. There's no reason our stadium's have to be the cold empty concrete shells they are; I've been in a ground on the continent which had heaters in every stand for ordinary fans and it was almost too warm!

All that would happen would be celtic would head abroad to play money spinning friendlies, and everyone else at home would organise closed doors friendlies to keep up match fitness.

In terms of the league format, it's working fine.. Why change it? We've made a pretty pointless concept (the split) into some kind of worthwhile achievement and it's added a lot of interest for clubs in mid-table.

.

[Dons_1988]

January is shite enough. Please don't take football away from me.

[Nightmare]

Not enough sides of sufficient size and quality to sustain a top league of 16. You would need at least twenty realistically who could play in the top league, not sure we have that at the moment. That on top of loss revenue from less games, less games v OF and less games v hearts, United etc replaced by teams with much smaller crowd appeal and travelling support means a top 16 is a non starter.

I think the loss of revenue from not playing the "big teams" twice a year is constantly overstated. I'd like to think that with teams possibly playing each other only once home and away, that fans would make more of an effort to go to fixtures that they possibly wouldn't if it was a 4th meeting of the season between the sides. Just for example, I think you'd find more Aberdeen fans making the trip down to Motherwell if it was only once a season. Attendances across the whole season may be slightly down as a result of 2x 3,000 away gates from Celtic fans being removed, but attendances in specific individual fixtures would be mostly up.

I'd disagree that we don't have clubs of a sufficient size outwith the top 16 to maintain the current quality. Right now you'd be adding Rangers, Hibs, Falkirk and Morton. There would be nobody totally out of place on that list (even if Morton haven't been up here for about 30 years). There are also other clubs further down the system who are at least as big as Morton, or someone like Hamilton, and would contribute at least as much in terms of competitiveness and support.

[YassinMoutaouakil]

16 teams play each other home and away before a two-legged cup round, with no seeding.

Pick the teams completely randomly,then take the aggregate scores from the league games involving the two teams. For example,if Aberdeen beat Motherwell 2-1 then drew 1-1,they would start the two legs with a 3-2 lead. Carry this on all the way to the final. Winner of the final wins the league, runner up + third place winner playoff get Europe etc.

[Crilly]

16 teams play each other home and away before a two-legged cup round, with no seeding.

Pick the teams completely randomly,then take the aggregate scores from the league games involving the two teams. For example,if Aberdeen beat Motherwell 2-1 then drew 1-1,they would start the two legs with a 3-2 lead. Carry this on all the way to the final. Winner of the final wins the league, runner up + third place winner playoff get Europe etc.

Not a great idea. There are too many variables if you base the starting score of the cup games on the aggregate of the previous two games. A fluke result, refereeing error or whatever. The result of the league tournament might depend to an extent on the draw for the cup tournament ie if the best teams knocked each other out in the earlier stages.

[itzdrk]

Didn't realise Dundee United were such a big deal.

[capt_oats]

I think the loss of revenue from not playing the "big teams" twice a year is constantly overstated. I'd like to think that with teams possibly playing each other only once home and away, that fans would make more of an effort to go to fixtures that they possibly wouldn't if it was a 4th meeting of the season between the sides. Just for example, I think you'd find more Aberdeen fans making the trip down to Motherwell if it was only once a season. Attendances across the whole season may be slightly down as a result of 2x 3,000 away gates from Celtic fans being removed, but attendances in specific individual fixtures would be mostly up.

I'd disagree that we don't have clubs of a sufficient size outwith the top 16 to maintain the current quality. Right now you'd be adding Rangers, Hibs, Falkirk and Morton. There would be nobody totally out of place on that list (even if Morton haven't been up here for about 30 years). There are also other clubs further down the system who are at least as big as Morton, or someone like Hamilton, and would contribute at least as much in terms of competitiveness and support.

Completely agree. I'm probably not articulating this point particularly well but it's natural to look at possibly losing 2 of the larger away gates like Celtic but I'd be interested to know how it'd even out over a season if you were to remove say 2 away gates each from Ross County and ICT and add in away gates from Morton and Falkirk in their place (not even factoring in Sevco and Hibs).