League reconstruction: Let's hear your view

[Gordon EF]

53 minutes ago, Jacksgranda said:

I wasn't referring to your 50s spell. Back then you and Raith were the big two in Fife. I was referring to your 70s spell, and , my apologies, I thought you went straight back down after being promoted.

Auld mannie's memory syndrome.

I thought we came straight back down in the 70s as well to be honest. Your post just prompted a check.

[EdTheDuck]

9 hours ago, sjc said:

Possibly but sometimes less is more. We used to play 44 league games in the early days of the Scottish Premier Division and somehow coped with the reduction in income. The recently extended games in the League Cup could soften the landing.

If it hadn’t been for the Champions League qualifiers & Group games we would probably have been playing 44 games from 2001 onwards anyway. The split was introduced as a solution to a fixture problem (for the OF (as was)).

To be sure, if the extra games and income afforded by playing 36/38 games a season was producing high quality teams and/or players then I would say switching to 30 games would be a terrible idea and have done so routinely in the past.

Patently, this is not the case. The failure of our teams in Europe and the failure to produce good players for the national team over a protracted period suggests to me we are pissing that additional income into the wind. Maybe the new-fangled ‘bargain’ season tickets might even mean the loss of income wouldn’t be that pronounced. Maybe you’re right, maybe less would be more.

Switch to a summer season, a 16 team 30 game league season would fit in there much better a la Norway/Sweden. That might encourage a few more along to make up the difference as well.

It won’t really make much difference. We’re heading inexorably backwards in time towards a situation where, once again, one of the ex-OF will win the title by a country mile and the other will take 2^nd by a similar rustic distance. The Rest are going to be stooges, backdrops to the bigot-fest. We may as well get a sun tan while we’re enduring that.

[sjc]

20 minutes ago, EdTheDuck said:

If it hadn’t been for the Champions League qualifiers & Group games we would probably have been playing 44 games from 2001 onwards anyway. The split was introduced as a solution to a fixture problem (for the OF (as was)).

 

To be sure, if the extra games and income afforded by playing 36/38 games a season was producing high quality teams and/or players then I would say switching to 30 games would be a terrible idea and have done so routinely in the past.

 

Patently, this is not the case. The failure of our teams in Europe and the failure to produce good players for the national team over a protracted period suggests to me we are pissing that additional income into the wind. Maybe the new-fangled ‘bargain’ season tickets might even mean the loss of income wouldn’t be that pronounced. Maybe you’re right, maybe less would be more.

 

Switch to a summer season, a 16 team 30 game league season would fit in there much better a la Norway/Sweden. That might encourage a few more along to make up the difference as well.

 

It won’t really make much difference. We’re heading inexorably backwards in time towards a situation where, once again, one of the ex-OF will win the title by a country mile and the other will take 2^nd by a similar rustic distance. The Rest are going to be stooges, backdrops to the bigot-fest. We may as well get a sun tan while we’re enduring that.

 

I'd like to see us got to a summer season with a 30 league game set up of 16-16-regional Pyramid including the Juniors.

I suggest this not because I have any dislike towards the 10 Clubs that would drop down into the pyramid but because I feel that a 16 team 2nd tier would offer more scope for teams within it going full time than the current 3rd & 4th tiers we have. Highlighted by both Ayr & Raith discussing going part time after their relegation last season.

[Gordon EF]

1 hour ago, sjc said:

I'd like to see us got to a summer season with a 30 league game set up of 16-16-regional Pyramid including the Juniors.

I suggest this not because I have any dislike towards the 10 Clubs that would drop down into the pyramid but because I feel that a 16 team 2nd tier would offer more scope for teams within it going full time than the current 3rd & 4th tiers we have. Highlighted by both Ayr & Raith discussing going part time after their relegation last season.

I'm not against 16-16, regional in principle but helping clubs remain FT seems to have been coming up more and I'm wondering what difference does it really make to anyone how many of (realisitcally), a handful of clubs are FT or PT.

Quite a few PT clubs have had extended runs in the Championship recently and didn't make the jump to FT and even Airdrie have stuck with FT even though they're now a poor L1 side.

Realistically, these clubs on the hypothetical edge of FT/PT are maybe QoS, Ayr, Raith, Airdrie. Does it make the slightest difference whatsoever to anyone outside of those clubs if they're FT or PT? I can't see it.

[sjc]

6 minutes ago, Gordon EF said:

I'm not against 16-16, regional in principle but helping clubs remain FT seems to have been coming up more and I'm wondering what difference does it really make to anyone how many of (realisitcally), a handful of clubs are FT or PT.

Quite a few PT clubs have had extended runs in the Championship recently and didn't make the jump to FT and even Airdrie have stuck with FT even though they're now a poor L1 side.

Realistically, these clubs on the hypothetical edge of FT/PT are maybe QoS, Ayr, Raith, Airdrie. Does it make the slightest difference whatsoever to anyone outside of those clubs if they're FT or PT? I can't see it.

I agree with the picture you paint in reality but I'd say that's more to do with our inept coaching and development of young players (I say this as a qualified coach!). Any changes to the league set up without addressing the lack of coaches and the quality of the coaching will be akin to rearranging deck chairs on the titanic. 

[itzdrk]

11 hours ago, sjc said:

I'd like to see us got to a summer season with a 30 league game set up of 16-16-regional Pyramid including the Juniors.

I suggest this not because I have any dislike towards the 10 Clubs that would drop down into the pyramid but because I feel that a 16 team 2nd tier would offer more scope for teams within it going full time than the current 3rd & 4th tiers we have. Highlighted by both Ayr & Raith discussing going part time after their relegation last season.

Ayr went full time after relegation.  We were part time last year. 

Edited December 1, 2017 by itzdrk

[sjc]

1 hour ago, itzdrk said:

Ayr went full time after relegation.  We were part time last year. 

Did they? Apologies. Why didn't they go FT when promoted into the Championship out of interest? 

[itzdrk]

3 hours ago, sjc said:

Did they? Apologies. Why didn't they go FT when promoted into the Championship out of interest? 

McCall thought paying the best part time wages would get better players than paying the worst full time.  It didn't work out so the other option was explored and its (IMO) a fairly bold move for a relegated team (working out well in the early days) 

Edited December 2, 2017 by itzdrk

[sjc]

3 minutes ago, itzdrk said:

McCall thought paying the best part time wages would get better players than paying the worst full time.  It didn't work out so the other option was explored and its (IMO) a fairly bold move for a relegated team (working out well in the early days) 

Very bold move. Fair play for going for it.

[EdTheDuck]

How do they afford it? Is it like 12 - 15 FT players? And is the reasoning that the manager can work with them 5 days a week rather than just 2 or 3 evenings?

[RabidAl]

My understanding was that Ayr were operating a hybrid model last season, with a core of full-timers surrounded by part-timers.  Possibly not though.  Seems an odd way to go about it - part-time in the higher division, then full-time in the lower division. 

They may have thought it was pointless going full-time in the Championship as there was such a high probability of being relegated again, so remained part-time out of a sort of fatalism or sort of winging it on the off-chance of staying up and then consolidating.  Which indicates that tier 2 is too wee at the moment to allow clubs to reasonably build for the future without fear of immediate relegation.

[sjc]

7 minutes ago, RabidAl said:

My understanding was that Ayr were operating a hybrid model last season, with a core of full-timers surrounded by part-timers.  Possibly not though.  Seems an odd way to go about it - part-time in the higher division, then full-time in the lower division. 

They may have thought it was pointless going full-time in the Championship as there was such a high probability of being relegated again, so remained part-time out of a sort of fatalism or sort of winging it on the off-chance of staying up and then consolidating.  Which indicates that tier 2 is too wee at the moment to allow clubs to reasonably build for the future without fear of immediate relegation.

This is my thoughts hence my preference for a 16-16-Regional pyramid set up.

[RabidAl]

Right, but (if I remember my education) the loss of finance of moving to 16-16-R for some current full time, tier 2 clubs might produce the ironic outcome of fewer clubs being able to sustain full-time football, the argument being that they need the larger away supports of other full-time clubs twice per league season in order sustain themselves.  So it could depend upon how the fixtures of the 16-team tier 2 were structured, such as with an 8/8 split; it might be too big a leap from where we are now to that set-up unless the SPFL structures its prize money differently, although the move from 42 clubs overall to 32 would free up some resources.

I believe, though I can't prove it, that part-time clubs would benefit from playing in regions up until the point that promotion would see them mostly playing full-time clubs at the national level.  The larger travelling supports of full-time clubs and SPFL prize money/subsidy would help them maintain football playing on a national basis, and perhaps even go full-time (with SFA subsidy to 'blood' youngsters?) if the league was large enough for them to develop - without being certainties for immediate relegation.  The larger local travelling supports of playing at regional level and increased frequency of local rather than national travel to matches could give a sustainable football model at that level.  I think integrated (juniors, seniors) regional football at tier 3 of the game would thrive.  It's subsidising the part-time game at national level that doesn't make sense to me.

But, heuristics and biases.

   

[FairWeatherFan]

I think that's why i preferred the SFL(?)'s 16-10-16 approach when talks of reconstruction was on the cards. The 2nd tier would be tight and compact so you would hope it would them sustain themselves. Bit like when you see full time clubs drop in to League One at the moment.

[DA Baracus]

What's the desire to see more full time clubs? Those who are part time are rightly and sensibly part time. A fancy new structure won't be able to sustain clubs going full time.

[FairWeatherFan]

I'm not fussed about creating more full time clubs, it's more about sustaining what we've got. As far as i'm concerned the longer a club spends out of the top flight the rot starts to set in. The lack of profile in the lower leagues makes it harder for clubs to attract the next generation of fans/directors/sponsors.

[Doink]

I thought going full time was to gain entry to this proposed new super duper league set up

[sjc]

On 12/8/2017 at 22:55, DA Baracus said:

What's the desire to see more full time clubs? Those who are part time are rightly and sensibly part time. A fancy new structure won't be able to sustain clubs going full time.

Going full time would see an increase in the number of hours players (1st team to youth team) receive in coaching which would see an improvement in their development. However, I did say that we'd need to improve the current coaching and coaching techniques in order to see this.

When I think of Clubs feasibly going full time I think back to when St Johnstone were part time in the 80's or Kilmarnock & Queen of the South were in the 90's as examples.

[RabidAl]

Or Ross County and Inverness coming through?  Not quite the same thing, maybe.  Would an East Kilbride or Cumbernauld, with their populations as a potential fan base, go on to sustain full-time football if they made it into the League? 

A flatter pyramid with fewer layers could give more opportunity to potential full-time clubs to come through, and could also allow part-time clubs and part-time players a better opportunity of playing at a higher level against better opposition. 

My premise is that having more full-time clubs is desirable if it they have the fan base to support it, so more full-time clubs would demonstrate the health of the game in terms of more supporters through the gate.

 

On 12/8/2017 at 13:47, FairWeatherFan said:

I think that's why i preferred the SFL(?)'s 16-10-16 approach when talks of reconstruction was on the cards. The 2nd tier would be tight and compact so you would hope it would them sustain themselves. Bit like when you see full time clubs drop in to League One at the moment.

 

I think that would be fine, although something like 14-14-West/North/East might give a better balance. 

Teams playing each other 3 times to give 39 games per league season would give an extra half home game per season in the top tier than at present, to compensate for the loss of a home game against a member of the Old Firm (loss of bigger travelling support); whilst the additional one-and-a-half home games in tier 2 would compensate for fewer games against full timers/more against part timers than at present.  The reduction from 42 to 28 League clubs would also help to replace any lost revenue, with about 5-6 places in tier 2 being available for sides promoted from the regions to consolidate in.

The Old Firm could play their third fixture at Hampden to prevent any squabbles; places 3-6 in the top tier could play off for a Europa League place; 12th could play off with 3rd-5th in tier 2 for promotion, with 13th-14th being relegated/1st-2nd promoted; fixtures could be reversed every season for fairness, with tier 2 winners taking over the fixtures of 14th from the season before, etc; 14th from tier 2 could be automatically relegated, with 13th being drawn into 2 play-off 'finals' with the winners of each of 3 regions for the 2 places available in tier 2; the top tier of each region could be kept interesting with League Cup places for the following season made available for the top few sides, with licencing perhaps being a bar to entry to this tier 3 level; the Challenge Cup could also effectively take over from the Junior Scottish, with regional sides competing at a national level in this cup competition.

   

[MALLEY]

New Member, so apologies if this idea or something similar has been made on this thread. 

What about a 16-16-16 proposal?

The 3Rd tier could be made up of the existing 10 league 2 teams plus the 6 best Colts teams. The remaining colts teams could be split between Highland/Lowland Leagues. The colt teams could be relegated and promoted within the league structure but not into Premiership obviously. Also they wouldn't be promoted into same league as there senior side if that situation arose.