St-ow! Posted September 8, 2020 Share Posted September 8, 2020 Maybe add Clyde and Clydebank to that list of potential full-time clubs. With a following wind. It's interesting that the big Premiership clubs see playing each other x4 each season as essential to consolidating their finances, as do the full-time Championship clubs, who all play x4 so larger away supports boost their finances. Meanwhile the part-time, non-league clubs use a regional model to corral the larger supports of more local clubs, and to cut out expensive longer away trips. Yet the part-time clubs playing nationally do not look to their own league structure and fixtured as a way of improving their finances. They wouldn't lose their SPFL subsidy by adopting parallel regional conferences, and would be acting rationally to seek out the larger crowds (i.e. from playing their local rivals x4 each season) in order to bolster their finances, in the same way that the other groups of clubs noted above do. I think you'd need a 12-team Championship to promote to if there were parallel conferences at tier 3, so I'd do justice to Partick and Falkirk by adding them to the Championship, with Kelty and Brora being justly brought in to replace them. So this season's conferences could look like: North Brora, Elgin, Peterhead, Cove, Montrose, Brechin, Forfar, East Fife, Kelty, Cowdenbeath. South Annan, Stranraer, Queen's Park, Dumbarton, Clyde, Stirling, Stenny, Airdrie, Albion, Edin City. Each conference winner could be automatically promoted, with promotion playoffs as one-off games between 2nd North v 3rd South, 2nd South v 3rd North, with the two winners in a round-robin wîth 10th from the Championship (11th and 12th having been automatically relegated). The bottom clubs from each conference could play off, with the loser relegated and replaced by the winner of the Highland-Lowland play off. Or expand the conferences to 12 teams each, with no-one relegated, the Highland and Lowland champion clubs promoted, and 2nd & 3rd of the Highland and Lowland leagues playing off for the two remaining places. And re-jig the conferences each season depending upon who from where is promoted and relegated. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon EF Posted September 8, 2020 Share Posted September 8, 2020 On 06/09/2020 at 01:47, grazza said: It is important to discuss what we are looking for within our system. We need to try and ensure the top 2 tiers are in the main sustainable for full time football with the best ran part time teams able to still get in. In Scotland we have maybe about 20 full time teams at the moment and this has been the case for a while. If there any others that could realistically go full time that are not full time already?. So within the top 2 tiers at the moment I think 24 is the max. Going beyond that then I think you dilute the quality and size of crowds that currently help teams be full time. Yep, I'm leaning towards the top two teirs being 12 and 12. Just follow the same split format in both leagues. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon EF Posted September 8, 2020 Share Posted September 8, 2020 On 06/09/2020 at 12:02, no-brainer said: I've been of the opinion that regionalisation below the top two levels is desirable for part-time clubs' finances. My reasoning has been that, regardless of where players are drawn from, the club still has to pay the increased travel costs of the team bus travelling more longer journeys in a national League when compared with fewer shorter journeys in a regional league; also, income should be higher for clubs whose teams play more local matches, because the away support of local rivals is much larger than the away support of clubs from the other side of the country in a national set up. Furthermore, part-time clubs only seem to compete nationally when they are subsidised by the SPFL (for League matches) or by the SFA (for Scottish Cup matches); in all other circumstances (League Cup groups, Challenge Cup early rounds, reserve matches, non-league competitions) they compete on a regional basis. I have taken this as evidence that they cannot compete nationally, consistently, without subsidy that (I assume) makes up a larger proportion of their income than that of full-time clubs, who are normally better supported, and also as an attempt to produce more local derbies in competitions where interest/crowds are low and costs would otherwise be high. For those reasons, some degree of regionalisation at tier 3 could be desirable - even if it's a couple of conferences, divided in the same way (i.e. north-south) as the League Cup group stages, with a changing cast for each conference depending upon who (and from where) is promoted or relegated. It could an exciting change, and the improved finances resulting from the change could produce more full-time clubs to promote to the Championship. Which full time clubs compete in national competitions that aren't "subsidised" by the SPFL or SFA? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon EF Posted September 8, 2020 Share Posted September 8, 2020 2 hours ago, St-ow! said: North Brora, Elgin, Peterhead, Cove, Montrose, Brechin, Forfar, East Fife, Kelty, Cowdenbeath. Haud me back from all the money we'd make in that league! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prodcast Posted September 8, 2020 Share Posted September 8, 2020 (edited) 31 minutes ago, Gordon EF said: Which full time clubs compete in national competitions that aren't "subsidised" by the SPFL or SFA? I think the point was whether the part-timers could compete consistently on a national basis without their SPFL payment; presumably, the full-time clubs could continue to do so because of their larger following. Something like 14-14-18 would allow full-time clubs at tier 2 to still play one another enough to support their finances, yet would enable room for several part-time clubs to develop within the league over seasons - and hopefully turn full-time. It would be good to have a larger bottom tier from the perspective of opening up the league to the bigger non-league clubs that will probably now be coming up the pyramid, and to help relegated former SPFL clubs return to the league more easily. Edited September 8, 2020 by prodcast 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon EF Posted September 8, 2020 Share Posted September 8, 2020 (edited) 10 minutes ago, prodcast said: I think the point was whether the part-timers could compete consistently on a national basis without their SPFL payment; presumably, the full-time clubs could continue to do so because of their larger following. It all depends though, doesn't it? A part time L2 club with revenue of £200k and 'subsidy' of £50k who balances the books at the end of the season is exactly as sustainable nationally as a full time Championship club with revenue of £500k and 'subsidy' of £100k who also balances their books. Of course you would imagine that travelling makes up a larger proportion of the average part time clubs costs. But also, because of the geography of Scotland, partitioning Leagues 1 and 2 wouldn't result in vastly reduced distances for most clubs with a few clubs probably travelling much further, depending on the make up of the leagues. I looked at this a while ago and the only significant advantage really is saving the clubs furthest north and south from 2/4 extremely long journies every year. Any way you cut it, the vast majority of away games will always be in the relatively small strip from west central Scotland to Angus. The top part time clubs playing in national leagues is an entirely made up 'problem' with precisely zero of the current part time clubs in the SPFL calling for regionalisation. Edited September 8, 2020 by Gordon EF 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RabidAI Posted September 8, 2020 Share Posted September 8, 2020 2 hours ago, Gordon EF said: Haud me back from all the money we'd make in that league! Isn't Arbroath's recent success built on the proceeds of a season where most of League One looked a bit like this sort of north-east conference, where it was mostly Angus and Fife clubs? Or maybe it's just been due to the inimitable genius of Dick Campbell. BBC Sportsound did an excellent interview with him last year, entitled Desert Island Dick. Those conferences sound okay to me. They wouldn't have to be regionalised in order to be interesting, but I don't see how you restructure into non-regional conferences without a dead season the year before; 'opportunity' missed this year, then. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RabidAI Posted September 8, 2020 Share Posted September 8, 2020 2 hours ago, Gordon EF said: It all depends though, doesn't it? A part time L2 club with revenue of £200k and 'subsidy' of £50k who balances the books at the end of the season is exactly as sustainable nationally as a full time Championship club with revenue of £500k and 'subsidy' of £100k who also balances their books. Of course you would imagine that travelling makes up a larger proportion of the average part time clubs costs. But also, because of the geography of Scotland, partitioning Leagues 1 and 2 wouldn't result in vastly reduced distances for most clubs with a few clubs probably travelling much further, depending on the make up of the leagues. I looked at this a while ago and the only significant advantage really is saving the clubs furthest north and south from 2/4 extremely long journies every year. Any way you cut it, the vast majority of away games will always be in the relatively small strip from west central Scotland to Angus. The top part time clubs playing in national leagues is an entirely made up 'problem' with precisely zero of the current part time clubs in the SPFL calling for regionalisation. Possibly because they would fear it as a first step towards them being out of the national set up. It looks like there's money to be made from it, as per the arguments set out above. I remember the Stirling chairman several years ago worrying about losing the away crowds from local home games against Clyde, if the league had expanded to accommodate the Old Firm colt teams. So not a fiction; not so much a problem, as an opportunity. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Classick Posted September 8, 2020 Share Posted September 8, 2020 4 hours ago, St-ow! said: Maybe add Clyde and Clydebank to that list of potential full-time clubs. With a following wind. It's interesting that the big Premiership clubs see playing each other x4 each season as essential to consolidating their finances, as do the full-time Championship clubs, who all play x4 so larger away supports boost their finances. Meanwhile the part-time, non-league clubs use a regional model to corral the larger supports of more local clubs, and to cut out expensive longer away trips. Yet the part-time clubs playing nationally do not look to their own league structure and fixtured as a way of improving their finances. They wouldn't lose their SPFL subsidy by adopting parallel regional conferences, and would be acting rationally to seek out the larger crowds (i.e. from playing their local rivals x4 each season) in order to bolster their finances, in the same way that the other groups of clubs noted above do. I think you'd need a 12-team Championship to promote to if there were parallel conferences at tier 3, so I'd do justice to Partick and Falkirk by adding them to the Championship, with Kelty and Brora being justly brought in to replace them. So this season's conferences could look like: North Brora, Elgin, Peterhead, Cove, Montrose, Brechin, Forfar, East Fife, Kelty, Cowdenbeath. South Annan, Stranraer, Queen's Park, Dumbarton, Clyde, Stirling, Stenny, Airdrie, Albion, Edin City. Each conference winner could be automatically promoted, with promotion playoffs as one-off games between 2nd North v 3rd South, 2nd South v 3rd North, with the two winners in a round-robin wîth 10th from the Championship (11th and 12th having been automatically relegated). The bottom clubs from each conference could play off, with the loser relegated and replaced by the winner of the Highland-Lowland play off. Or expand the conferences to 12 teams each, with no-one relegated, the Highland and Lowland champion clubs promoted, and 2nd & 3rd of the Highland and Lowland leagues playing off for the two remaining places. And re-jig the conferences each season depending upon who from where is promoted and relegated. It might work, but I consider the north - south system to be unbalanced, as there are more clubs in southern Scotland. Teams like Cowdenbeath or East Fife wouldn't be happy to be in the northern conference. For a regionalized third tier I prefer 3 conferences This year it could have been like this :18 teams divided into three conferences (adding Partick and Falkirk to the Championship). Each conference with 6 teams. NORTH Elgin, Peterhead, Cove, Montrose, Brechin, Forfar SOUTH-EAST East Fife, Clyde, Stirling, Stenhousemuir, Cowdenbeath, Edinburgh City SOUTH-WEST Annan, Stranraer, Queen's Park, Dumbarton, Albion, Airdrie It could work using a hybrid system between full national championship and full regionalization: Each team plays x4 against their Conference teams and once (either home or away) against the teams from the other conferences. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prodcast Posted September 8, 2020 Share Posted September 8, 2020 3 hours ago, Gordon EF said: It all depends though, doesn't it? A part time L2 club with revenue of £200k and 'subsidy' of £50k who balances the books at the end of the season is exactly as sustainable nationally as a full time Championship club with revenue of £500k and 'subsidy' of £100k who also balances their books. Of course you would imagine that travelling makes up a larger proportion of the average part time clubs costs. But also, because of the geography of Scotland, partitioning Leagues 1 and 2 wouldn't result in vastly reduced distances for most clubs with a few clubs probably travelling much further, depending on the make up of the leagues. I looked at this a while ago and the only significant advantage really is saving the clubs furthest north and south from 2/4 extremely long journies every year. Any way you cut it, the vast majority of away games will always be in the relatively small strip from west central Scotland to Angus. The top part time clubs playing in national leagues is an entirely made up 'problem' with precisely zero of the current part time clubs in the SPFL calling for regionalisation. I don't follow your arithmetic, there. Travel costs are absolute so, although you seem to be making a general comparison as to the relative sustainability of part-time vs full-time clubs, absolute travel costs are similar for both; therefore, playing on a national basis is less affordable for part-timers who by definition (?) have less income. Which I assume is why they would benefit financially from fewer of the longer away trips, more of the shorter journeys, and more income from local away supports. I'm afraid I don't follow your reasoning on the geography of Scotland and partitioning into regions leading to clubs travelling much further. 43 minutes ago, Classick said: It might work, but I consider the north - south system to be unbalanced, as there are more clubs in southern Scotland. Teams like Cowdenbeath or East Fife wouldn't be happy to be in the northern conference. For a regionalized third tier I prefer 3 conferences This year it could have been like this :18 teams divided into three conferences (adding Partick and Falkirk to the Championship). Each conference with 6 teams. NORTH Elgin, Peterhead, Cove, Montrose, Brechin, Forfar SOUTH-EAST East Fife, Clyde, Stirling, Stenhousemuir, Cowdenbeath, Edinburgh City SOUTH-WEST Annan, Stranraer, Queen's Park, Dumbarton, Albion, Airdrie It could work using a hybrid system between full national championship and full regionalization: Each team plays x4 against their Conference teams and once (either home or away) against the teams from the other conferences. I think that sounds good. The only thing that would concern me is small league tables becoming polarised, with teams lots of points apart and so maybe less interest as a result, but since they're all at the same level then I guess all 18 could sit fairly in the same league table even though they're playing slightly different fixtures? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon EF Posted September 8, 2020 Share Posted September 8, 2020 1 hour ago, RabidAI said: Isn't Arbroath's recent success built on the proceeds of a season where most of League One looked a bit like this sort of north-east conference, where it was mostly Angus and Fife clubs? I don't think it is at all, no. Quote Or maybe it's just been due to the inimitable genius of Dick Campbell. BBC Sportsound did an excellent interview with him last year, entitled Desert Island Dick. Those conferences sound okay to me. They wouldn't have to be regionalised in order to be interesting, but I don't see how you restructure into non-regional conferences without a dead season the year before; 'opportunity' missed this year, then. Conferences are shit. They're only being used in the EoS and WoS leagues until they can get proper leagues sorted. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon EF Posted September 8, 2020 Share Posted September 8, 2020 1 hour ago, RabidAI said: Possibly because they would fear it as a first step towards them being out of the national set up. It looks like there's money to be made from it, as per the arguments set out above. I remember the Stirling chairman several years ago worrying about losing the away crowds from local home games against Clyde, if the league had expanded to accommodate the Old Firm colt teams. So not a fiction; not so much a problem, as an opportunity. An opportunity which is so enticing that nobody wants it. Sounds great. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FairWeatherFan Posted September 8, 2020 Share Posted September 8, 2020 All the regional divisions look nice and neat. What happens when the lowest national division sees all North or all South clubs relegated? Do you get Dumbarton in the North like the League Cup groups? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon EF Posted September 8, 2020 Share Posted September 8, 2020 (edited) 53 minutes ago, prodcast said: I don't follow your arithmetic, there. Travel costs are absolute so, although you seem to be making a general comparison as to the relative sustainability of part-time vs full-time clubs, absolute travel costs are similar for both; therefore, playing on a national basis is less affordable for part-timers who by definition (?) have less income. Which I assume is why they would benefit financially from fewer of the longer away trips, more of the shorter journeys, and more income from local away supports. The question I was responding to was whether PT can compete nationally without subsidy. It's a silly question as even trying to quantify how much each club is subsidised by isn't really possible to do. But, yes, exactly as I said, travel will be a larger proportion of costs for PT clubs than FT clubs because they are more or less independent of level. Quote I'm afraid I don't follow your reasoning on the geography of Scotland and partitioning into regions leading to clubs travelling much further. Look at East Fife and Cowdenbeath in that Northern section. We'd travel further in that conference than we would in next season's League One. Edited September 8, 2020 by Gordon EF 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclizine Posted September 8, 2020 Share Posted September 8, 2020 On 06/09/2020 at 12:02, no-brainer said: Furthermore, part-time clubs only seem to compete nationally when they are subsidised by the SPFL It's not subsidy when by virtue of being a member of a league that has a decent enough sponsorship deal, you gain from this in terms of solidarity payments and prizemoney. As has been mentioned several times before: why are clubs in SPFL1/2 not clamouring for regionalisation now, if it's going to be so lucrative? Club chairmen are generally fairly financially savvy, if they thought it would make financial sense, they'd be pushing for it already. Scotland's geography doesn't lend itself well to a two-way regional split. It's unnecessary at the SPFL level anyway, given how many clubs are clustered in the central belt, with only a small number of longer distance trips for the outlying clubs per season. Also remember many players are based in the central belt, and are only travelling on matchdays anyway. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclizine Posted September 8, 2020 Share Posted September 8, 2020 1 hour ago, prodcast said: I don't follow your arithmetic, there. Travel costs are absolute so, although you seem to be making a general comparison as to the relative sustainability of part-time vs full-time clubs, absolute travel costs are similar for both; therefore, playing on a national basis is less affordable for part-timers who by definition (?) have less income. Which I assume is why they would benefit financially from fewer of the longer away trips, more of the shorter journeys, and more income from local away supports. The saving of twenty to thirty miles of travel (as has previously been estimated) isn't going to be save clubs much cash. Playing regionally doesn't lead to an increase in support, quite the opposite, as you can see by comparing attendances in regionalised leagues. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anonanist Posted September 9, 2020 Share Posted September 9, 2020 (edited) On 06/09/2020 at 09:16, Andy groundhopper said: A difficult one for Scotland, is a reconstruction based on keeping the top 2 divs full time etc or does it need to go further and bring the lower level HL,LL,EOS leagues much closer to the spfl. Now that a pyramid system is in place, you can see the once Junior's upping their game re ground improvements etc. Personally I don't like the current spfl fixtures set up, maybe a North and South Division in the future to help clubs finances and reduce travel costs. I'm interested in this idea. A Lowland League Premier at tier 3 or 4, with the Highland League champions entering via play offs with, say, second in the LLP and second-bottom of L1 (or of Championship, if HL and LLP are at tier 3). Not fair on Elgin maybe, since they might have to return to the HL for a wee while, but might suit everyone else? Edited September 9, 2020 by anonanist Hfxvjij 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anonanist Posted September 10, 2020 Share Posted September 10, 2020 (edited) Comparing the travel distances for East Fife for the two scenarios mentioned (League One this coming season vs the proposed North Conference), I found the approximate one-way milages to be: North Conference Brora 193, Elgin 164, Brechin 57, Kelty 18, Cowdenbeath 15. Total 447. League One Dumbarton 74, Partick 61, Airdrie 52, Clyde 46, Falkirk 36. Total 272. I didn't add the milages for the away trips that both leagues would have in common - to Forfar, Montrose, Cove, and Peterhead. Edited September 10, 2020 by anonanist 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St-ow! Posted September 11, 2020 Share Posted September 11, 2020 On 08/09/2020 at 16:10, Gordon EF said: Haud me back from all the money we'd make in that league! On 08/09/2020 at 19:13, Classick said: It might work, but I consider the north - south system to be unbalanced, as there are more clubs in southern Scotland. Teams like Cowdenbeath or East Fife wouldn't be happy to be in the northern conference. For a regionalized third tier I prefer 3 conferences This year it could have been like this :18 teams divided into three conferences (adding Partick and Falkirk to the Championship). Each conference with 6 teams. NORTH Elgin, Peterhead, Cove, Montrose, Brechin, Forfar SOUTH-EAST East Fife, Clyde, Stirling, Stenhousemuir, Cowdenbeath, Edinburgh City SOUTH-WEST Annan, Stranraer, Queen's Park, Dumbarton, Albion, Airdrie It could work using a hybrid system between full national championship and full regionalization: Each team plays x4 against their Conference teams and once (either home or away) against the teams from the other conferences. It looks like you're right about the north-south conferences. The travel distances don't work out. Your idea of 3 conferences looks promising for more derbies and less travel. But still a good mix of fixtures. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
no-brainer Posted September 11, 2020 Share Posted September 11, 2020 Then why do the SPFL split their League Cup group stages and Challenge Cup early rounds on a north-south? There must be something in that. Mind you, the lower level of the former Under 20s League was split east-west so that could be a contradiction (unless Elgin and Peterhead weren't involved, then it would be in line with a three-way split). Maybe it's another of these fait accompli things, decided by the SPFL board and imposed on their members. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.