League reconstruction: Let's hear your view

[no-brainer]

It's not the same stuff: it's a conversation; contribute something relevant or take your bitter-sniping elsewhere, please.

Also, isn't a tautology where something is self-evidently true/redundant, like 'a cat is an animal' - I don't think calling regional leagues 'national' is a tautology but is, rather, a contradiction.

 

Is it not the case that the need for regionalised League Cup and Challenge Cup early rounds and regionalised lower-level development/reserve leagues is evidence that competing on a national basis is not affordable for part-clubs without the subsidies that they receive for competing in the League and in the Scottish Cup?  My guess is that regionalisation is the true outlook for part timers, but that it is obscured by the money on offer from the SPFL and Scottish FA - which is why there is no clamour from national part-timers for regionalisation with the benefits that would bring in terms of lower travelling costs, increased derbies and away attendances from local part-time outfits. 

 

Regarding the rejection of the 12-12-18 proposal, I think it was the Ross County chairman and the (at the time) St.Mirren chairman who voted it down; only two dissenters were required in order to veto it.  The Ross County chairman's reason was that season ticket holders would not know at the beginning of the season what they were paying for, given that they could be playing any of 23 other teams in the final 8-8-8 section/14 matches.  That sounded a little hollow to me, given the nature of the current top tier and its split; it surprised me that they never returned to the proposal when those two clubs were out of the top division, and even now they could do so given that St.Mirren have changed their man at the top and that the SPFL were looking to expand the second tier to 12 teams fairly recently.

 

(A couple of pages back someone mentioned changes (s)he'd like to see to the League Cup - what changes should we make?)

 

[FairWeatherFan]

2 hours ago, no-brainer said:

It's not the same stuff: it's a conversation; contribute something relevant or take your bitter-sniping elsewhere, please.

Also, isn't a tautology where something is self-evidently true/redundant, like 'a cat is an animal' - I don't think calling regional leagues 'national' is a tautology but is, rather, a contradiction.

 

Is it not the case that the need for regionalised League Cup and Challenge Cup early rounds and regionalised lower-level development/reserve leagues is evidence that competing on a national basis is not affordable for part-clubs without the subsidies that they receive for competing in the League and in the Scottish Cup?  My guess is that regionalisation is the true outlook for part timers, but that it is obscured by the money on offer from the SPFL and Scottish FA - which is why there is no clamour from national part-timers for regionalisation with the benefits that would bring in terms of lower travelling costs, increased derbies and away attendances from local part-time outfits. 

 

Regarding the rejection of the 12-12-18 proposal, I think it was the Ross County chairman and the (at the time) St.Mirren chairman who voted it down; only two dissenters were required in order to veto it.  The Ross County chairman's reason was that season ticket holders would not know at the beginning of the season what they were paying for, given that they could be playing any of 23 other teams in the final 8-8-8 section/14 matches.  That sounded a little hollow to me, given the nature of the current top tier and its split; it surprised me that they never returned to the proposal when those two clubs were out of the top division, and even now they could do so given that St.Mirren have changed their man at the top and that the SPFL were looking to expand the second tier to 12 teams fairly recently.

 

(A couple of pages back someone mentioned changes (s)he'd like to see to the League Cup - what changes should we make?)

 

The regionalised nature of the League & Challenge Cups were relatively recent additions and were done in the hopes of drumming up "derbies" in the early rounds no one cares about.

[Cyclizine]

8 hours ago, no-brainer said:

Is it not the case that the need for regionalised League Cup and Challenge Cup early rounds and regionalised lower-level development/reserve leagues is evidence that competing on a national basis is not affordable for part-clubs without the subsidies that they receive for competing in the League and in the Scottish Cup?  My guess is that regionalisation is the true outlook for part timers, but that it is obscured by the money on offer from the SPFL and Scottish FA - which is why there is no clamour from national part-timers for regionalisation with the benefits that would bring in terms of lower travelling costs, increased derbies and away attendances from local part-time outfits.

No, the group stages are relatively new and we brought in to increase the number of meaningful games, essentially pre-season. They have been successful at this, with better attendances than friendlies.

I'm not sure what you're saying about playing nationally: are you implying the only reason that clubs are playing nationally is because they get more exposure and funding in a national league? That's fairly obvious and isn't a reason to regionalise, quite the opposite.

Yet again you quote the lower costs, less travel and higher attendances, but there is no evidence this would be the case. Costs might be lower, but then so would income. Travel doesn't really change significantly and you really don't know the Scottish game if you think many lower league clubs bring a significant following to any game.

There is no argument for regionalising the current SPFL setup, other than giving some spreadsheet pyramidista a warm tingling sensation in their nether regions.

[no-brainer]

  

On ‎11‎/‎03‎/‎2020 at 16:11, FairWeatherFan said:

The regionalised nature of the League & Challenge Cups were relatively recent additions and were done in the hopes of drumming up "derbies" in the early rounds no one cares about.

Which is surely the point, and the SPFL seem to have grasped it: derbies help to improve attendances as more away fans are local and so more of them 'travel' to away games who would not otherwise travel the longer distances in a nationalised set up.

On ‎11‎/‎03‎/‎2020 at 22:32, Cyclizine said:

No, the group stages are relatively new and we brought in to increase the number of meaningful games, essentially pre-season. They have been successful at this, with better attendances than friendlies.

I'm not sure what you're saying about playing nationally: are you implying the only reason that clubs are playing nationally is because they get more exposure and funding in a national league? That's fairly obvious and isn't a reason to regionalise, quite the opposite.

Yet again you quote the lower costs, less travel and higher attendances, but there is no evidence this would be the case. Costs might be lower, but then so would income. Travel doesn't really change significantly and you really don't know the Scottish game if you think many lower league clubs bring a significant following to any game.

There is no argument for regionalising the current SPFL setup, other than giving some spreadsheet pyramidista a warm tingling sensation in their nether regions.

As above - yes, travel does change significantly with regionalisation, with fewer of the longest journeys and more of the shorter journeys; fans of lower league sides, believe it or not do travel to away matches, and more of them turn out for derbies than they do for matches with teams further away - therefore, yes, travel costs are reduced for clubs playing more locally, and income is increased likewise.  As you would expect.

I am saying that those part-time clubs who compete nationally are happy to continue doing so because their costs are assisted by the money they receive from the SPFL; I haven't mentioned 'exposure'; I happen to agree that that, in itself, is no reason to do the opposite by regionalising; for the reasons outlined above, however, there is a financial benefit to be had by part-time clubs in the SPFL by regionalising tiers 3 and 4, should they have the gumption to realise it, or at least by operating conferences split east/west or north/south (as the SPFL are prone to do).  Parallel conferences, split it this way, could easily operate fluid boundaries from season-to-season, rather than fixed regions, with the composition changing depending upon the location of promoted/relegated teams, so keeping the conferences fresh.

Leaving regionalisation to one side, operating parallel conferences of 10 at tier 3, rather than the current leagues One and Two, would give 20 part-time clubs at the start of each season the realistic goal of reaching the Championship, which would surely boost attendances and interest in that level of the game.  For example, adapting the 12-12-18 proposal mentioned above into a 12-12-10/10, could see the top team in each conference automatically promoted, with the next two teams from each conference playing off (2nd in Conference A v 3rd in Conference B, and vice versa) to meet 10th place in the Championship; meanwhile, the bottom clubs of each conference could meet to decide who plays the winner of the Highland/Lowland playoff, or the loser of the conference relegation play off could just be relegated automatically to be replaced by the winner of the Highland/Lowland play off.  

So, in my view, not only is there good evidence that the current part-time clubs playing nationally are subsidised in order to do so, there is also more they could do right now in order to boost their own income: at least, via the far more attractive proposition of parallel conferences that, yes, will boost their status as all 20 clubs will be in tier 3, and will be more attractive to supporters and media (a 'race to the Championship') as a result; at most, by actually regionalising using a floating boundary (e.g. North/South pools, as per League and Challenge Cup), which will further enhance their finances, as explained above.  

 

The regionalised nature of the League & Challenge Cups were relatively recent additions and were done in the hopes of drumming up "derbies" in the early rounds no one cares about.

No, the group stages are relatively new and we brought in to increase the number of meaningful games, essentially pre-season. They have been successful at this, with better attendances than friendlies.

I'm not sure what you're saying about playing nationally: are you implying the only reason that clubs are playing nationally is because they get more exposure and funding in a national league? That's fairly obvious and isn't a reason to regionalise, quite the opposite.

Yet again you quote the lower costs, less travel and higher attendances, but there is no evidence this would be the case. Costs might be lower, but then so would income. Travel doesn't really change significantly and you really don't know the Scottish game if you think many lower league clubs bring a significant following to any game.

There is no argument for regionalising the current SPFL setup, other than giving some spreadsheet pyramidista a warm tingling sensation in their nether regions.

[AsimButtHitsASix]

As a Morton fan who saw his team draw Dumbarton every season for the best part of a decade in either the league cup or challenge cup I can say, with certainty, these local ties against non-rivals lead to lower crowds

[Gordon EF]

23 hours ago, no-brainer said:

 I am saying that those part-time clubs who compete nationally are happy to continue doing so because their costs are assisted by the money they receive from the SPFL;

Couldn't you argue this is the case for all clubs?

Does SPFL money constitute a significantly higher proportion of turnover for L1/2 clubs than others.

Subsidy suggests you're getting more than you're putting in. Is there any way to calculate any individual clubs's contribution to SPFL finances? If not, how could you possibly say that Montrose are being subsidised but Queen of the South aren't? 

[Cowden Cowboy]

Spoiler

 

 

League regionalisation doesn't work - look at the latest pig's breakfast suggested - Cowdenbeath in a North League with Brora, Cove, Peterhead, Elgin, Forfar, Brechin whilst other South League has Stirling, Edinburgh, Kelty (which is north of Cowdenbeath), Albion Rovers, and Queen's Park all of which are shorter trips for CFC.  That bit of the plan has been put together by someone with no idea of lower league clubs after 30 seconds of thought - most clubs aren't north or south they are central!!

Edited April 6, 2020 by Cowden Cowboy

[BFTD]

Wee change of pace from the usual screaming nightmare...why is reconstruction always on the agenda in Scottish football? It's been talked about, or instituted, constantly since I was a wee boy, and presumably longer than that. England has made a few changes over the decades, but they're generally subtle and incremental, and I don't remember there ever being a great clamour for change there. Are other countries continually dissatisfied with their league system? Has there ever been a time where Scots thought the structure was just about right? As evidenced by this thread, you could ask a hundred Scottish football fans how they think the competition should operate and get a hundred different answers, and most folk are never keen on the status quo.

[parsforlife]

1 minute ago, BigFatTabbyDave said:

Wee change of pace from the usual screaming nightmare...why is reconstruction always on the agenda in Scottish football? It's been talked about, or instituted, constantly since I was a wee boy, and presumably longer than that. England has made a few changes over the decades, but they're generally subtle and incremental, and I don't remember there ever being a great clamour for change there. Are other countries continually dissatisfied with their league system? Has there ever been a time where Scots thought the structure was just about right? As evidenced by this thread, you could ask a hundred Scottish football fans how they think the competition should operate and get a hundred different answers, and most folk are never keen on the status quo.

I think it’s a symptom of the ‘Scottish football is doomed’ mindset we seem to carry and have done since we started playing the game. @HibeeJibee used to regularly mention that even with our mass success in 67 there was articles at the time talking of how doomed we were.    There’s seems a significant number who see this ‘problem’ and try to think up a magical solution that will see us dominate for years to come with packed grounds everywhere.  We’re far from the only ones but I think it generally affects the smaller nations more.

 

[effeffsee_the2nd]

On ‎08‎/‎04‎/‎2020 at 17:18, BigFatTabbyDave said:

Wee change of pace from the usual screaming nightmare...why is reconstruction always on the agenda in Scottish football? It's been talked about, or instituted, constantly since I was a wee boy, and presumably longer than that. England has made a few changes over the decades, but they're generally subtle and incremental, and I don't remember there ever being a great clamour for change there. Are other countries continually dissatisfied with their league system? Has there ever been a time where Scots thought the structure was just about right? As evidenced by this thread, you could ask a hundred Scottish football fans how they think the competition should operate and get a hundred different answers, and most folk are never keen on the status quo.

Firstly I think most of our issue's come from having the old firm being disproportionately better supported than anyone else, All countries have "big" teams but I don't know of other countries who's largest 2 teams have a matchday support 3-4 times bigger than the third fourth and fith biggest and 10 times more than the 7th or 8th? perhaps i'm wrong tho.  The domination that goes with such power can make it a bit boring for everyone else, relatively speaking. As well as making it difficult for other clubs to attract more supporters and  retain quality players even when money isn't the main issue. It's all self perpetuating .

 

with the above in mind, any league and cup structures will become stale after a while, leagues in bigger countries don't have this problem as the competition provides fresh entertainment every year but in Scotland and others like it, change is required to keep things fresh for the majority of clubs not in contention of winning the league, any new system will do that job for a short period but unless there a huge change in circumstances ( I call it a bosman on steroids) then the original condition that caused the change in the first place will return and create a staleness again and once more there will be a call for change.

We had big leagues for almost a 80 years, small leagues for almost 50. perhaps it's time to try medium sized ones?

Edited April 14, 2020 by effeffsee_the2nd

[honestman54]

On 14/04/2020 at 16:15, effeffsee_the2nd said:

Firstly I think most of our issue's come from having the old firm being disproportionately better supported than anyone else, All countries have "big" teams but I don't know of other countries who's largest 2 teams have a matchday support 3-4 times bigger than the third fourth and fith biggest and 10 times more than the 7th or 8th? perhaps i'm wrong tho.  The domination that goes with such power can make it a bit boring for everyone else, relatively speaking. As well as making it difficult for other clubs to attract more supporters and  retain quality players even when money isn't the main issue. It's all self perpetuating .

 

with the above in mind, any league and cup structures will become stale after a while, leagues in bigger countries don't have this problem as the competition provides fresh entertainment every year but in Scotland and others like it, change is required to keep things fresh for the majority of clubs not in contention of winning the league, any new system will do that job for a short period but unless there a huge change in circumstances ( I call it a bosman on steroids) then the original condition that caused the change in the first place will return and create a staleness again and once more there will be a call for change.

We had big leagues for almost a 80 years, small leagues for almost 50. perhaps it's time to try medium sized ones?

Agreed, id go for 16 14 14 and back down to 3 divisions

[bluearmyfaction]

I take it there's no momentum for a two division league again.  On the basis that the likes of Motherwell want their guaranteed four Old Firm home games per year.  On the other side of the coin I'm often surprised how anyone would turn up at (say) Cliftonhill to see Annan Athletic for the tenth time in three years.

 

I can't help but think that 22/22 with four up and down might make things a lot more interesting, especially for the smaller clubs.  If I go back to the Rothmans yearbook for the early seventies the crowds at places like East Fife and Ayr are two or three times what they are today.  It's not as if those fans have been lost to other clubs, they've been lost in toto.

[DiegoDiego]

Firstly I think most of our issue's come from having the old firm being disproportionately better supported than anyone else, All countries have "big" teams but I don't know of other countries who's largest 2 teams have a matchday support 3-4 times bigger than the third fourth and fith biggest and 10 times more than the 7th or 8th? perhaps i'm wrong tho.

Is actually quite common.

In Romania Craiova have 15k, third biggest 5k, 8th and 9th 2k.

In Slovenia Maribor have 5k, fourth biggest 800, 8th & 9th 500.

In Serbia Cervena Zvezda have 13k, second biggest 4k 8th & 9th 1k.

In Portugal Benfica have 53k, fourth biggest 18k, 8th & 9th 4.5k

In North Macedonia Shkendija have 2.7k, third biggest 600, 8th & 9th 300.

In Hungary Ferencvaros have 11k, third and fourth biggest 3.5k, 8th & 9th 2k.

In Greece Olympiakos have 21k, third biggest 4k, 8th & 9th 2.5k.

In Georgia Batumi have 4k, third and fourth biggest 1.2k, 8th & 9th 400.

In Croatia Hajduk have 8.5k, fourth biggest 2.5k, 9th 700.

[Andy groundhopper]

Difficult to bring attendances into any argument in Scotland, be nice to see LGE 2 clubs getting 500-1,000 but we want youngsters to also play the game AND go to spfl games, doesn't work. Would admissions of £15/20/25 be a reason not to attend , not everyone has spare cash. Is the spfl cash a large percentage of a clubs income ?

[Tutankhamen]

3 minutes ago, Andy groundhopper said:

Difficult to bring attendances into any argument in Scotland, be nice to see LGE 2 clubs getting 500-1,000 but we want youngsters to also play the game AND go to spfl games, doesn't work. Would admissions of £15/20/25 be a reason not to attend , not everyone has spare cash. Is the spfl cash a large percentage of a clubs income ?

Yep. Berwick Rangers are an example of a club facing problems getting 

 

7 hours ago, bluearmyfaction said:

I take it there's no momentum for a two division league again.  On the basis that the likes of Motherwell want their guaranteed four Old Firm home games per year.  On the other side of the coin I'm often surprised how anyone would turn up at (say) Cliftonhill to see Annan Athletic for the tenth time in three years.

 

I can't help but think that 22/22 with four up and down might make things a lot more interesting, especially for the smaller clubs.  If I go back to the Rothmans yearbook for the early seventies the crowds at places like East Fife and Ayr are two or three times what they are today.  It's not as if those fans have been lost to other clubs, they've been lost in toto.

Was also as cheap as chips to enter a match 50 years ago. 

[effeffsee_the2nd]

10 hours ago, bluearmyfaction said:

I take it there's no momentum for a two division league again.  On the basis that the likes of Motherwell want their guaranteed four Old Firm home games per year.  On the other side of the coin I'm often surprised how anyone would turn up at (say) Cliftonhill to see Annan Athletic for the tenth time in three years.

 

I can't help but think that 22/22 with four up and down might make things a lot more interesting, especially for the smaller clubs.  If I go back to the Rothmans yearbook for the early seventies the crowds at places like East Fife and Ayr are two or three times what they are today.  It's not as if those fans have been lost to other clubs, they've been lost in toto.

The first part is true for the board of those teams but not for the fans, old firm games aren't usualy much fun.   The main lack of appetite for big leagues is that once you have 12 or so teams wh can't win the league or get relegated then you have upto 5 months of meaningless fixtures.  the nature of the spread of resources in Scotland means that for the majority of seasons you would likely have the top 2 ahead with a large gap infront of 3rd , a couple of minnows cut adrift in  the relegation places from late autumn onwards and the rest of the league in purgatory, Europe is 1 or 2 games for the majority of Non OF sides so no real big prize of top 4 or such like in England. a bloated mid table  is almost inevitable most of the time.

The second part is comparing apples and pears really, you're going back to almost 50 year ago when there were 3 TV channels and no internet, pubs shut in the afternoons and so on.  more importantly the only way to see a game of football was to get of your arse and go to a game, TV games don't realy affect crowds at the game that is being broadcast all that much as it's usually a popular game but it takes interest away from other games happening,  add to the mix that before TV celtic rangers man utd Liverpool etc  their games kicked off at 3 on a Saturday just like everyone else, so if you couldn't get a ticket or it was too far away then tough luck you were either stuck with the wife all day or you went somewhere local.  Falkirk have long been slagged off as being closet rangers supporters etc , now when I was growing up (90s)  this was still true to some extent but was on the decline, by the end the 2000s it had completely died out, those who went to Falkirk matches because that's the only football they could see are now just not going at all and watching games on tv instead

[effeffsee_the2nd]

6 hours ago, DiegoDiego said:

 

Is actually quite common.

In Romania Craiova have 15k, third biggest 5k, 8th and 9th 2k.

In Slovenia Maribor have 5k, fourth biggest 800, 8th & 9th 500.

In Serbia Cervena Zvezda have 13k, second biggest 4k 8th & 9th 1k.

In Portugal Benfica have 53k, fourth biggest 18k, 8th & 9th 4.5k

In North Macedonia Shkendija have 2.7k, third biggest 600, 8th & 9th 300.

In Hungary Ferencvaros have 11k, third and fourth biggest 3.5k, 8th & 9th 2k.

In Greece Olympiakos have 21k, third biggest 4k, 8th & 9th 2.5k.

In Georgia Batumi have 4k, third and fourth biggest 1.2k, 8th & 9th 400.

In Croatia Hajduk have 8.5k, fourth biggest 2.5k, 9th 700.
 

Fair point, how do they do their leagues then?

[FairWeatherFan]

15 minutes ago, effeffsee_the2nd said:

Fair point, how do they do their leagues then?

Romania - 14 with 6/8 split
Slovenia - 10
Serbia - 16 with 8/8 split to 37 games
Portugal - 18
North Macedonia - 10
Hungary - 12 3x each
Greece - 14 with 6/8 split
Georgia - 10
Croatia - 10

The 14s with 6/8 splits are a fairly new idea.

[bluearmyfaction]

2 hours ago, effeffsee_the2nd said:

The second part is comparing apples and pears really, you're going back to almost 50 year ago when there were 3 TV channels and no internet, pubs shut in the afternoons and so on.  more importantly the only way to see a game of football was to get of your arse and go to a game,

True - but the bigger sides have not been affected.  Crowds are up at Celtic and Rangers, plus Hearts and Hibs, they're about the same at Aberdeen, Killie, and Motherwell.   It's the struggling poor that have lost the little they had.  The opening of the trapdoor could kill them off, they won't have that ability to bumble along surviving on prize money and League prestige.

 

Would 22/22 help teams to develop?  Take a risk at bringing on youth players in greater numbers because for a Hamilton the threat of relegation is reduced?  It's not vanished, though, given the teams that have dropped/are dropping into the bottom half of the League.  (Plus Arbroath and Alloa would have been top flight clubs, and that would have given hope to literally everyone of a similar size.)

 

[ChrispPancake]

The 40 or so teams who make up the professional league in scotland is too many. The clues in the name 'professional'. The part time clubs who have zero ambition in getting anywhere near the top league, who field players on £50 a game or even no fee should never ever be part of the senior league set up in Scotland. Let them go play in the amateur leagues where they belong. Then we start with the clubs who are full time and talk about league reconstruction from there. I can't even be arsed looking but If that is only 20 teams then so fekin be it, we have a league setup that works for the 20 full time teams and no team should be promoted unless they are prepared to go full time.
At least that way the decisions on the professional game won't be made by a chairman of a 3rd division team with 200 fans  and a £10k annual budget.