League reconstruction: Let's hear your view

[Cyclizine]

There's absolutely no need to regionalise above the current HFL/LFL. Scotland is a small country, we've shown that League 1 and 2 clubs can easily compete nationally. Any further development of the pyramid should take this into account.

For what it's worth, I think the 10/12 team divisions are fine, the 'four times a season' bollocks is just that. I don't really care who County are playing, I just want us to win. Just because I've seen us play Hamilton or whoever at home already isn't going to make me less likely to turn up.

[Lurkst]

The season is too long IMO. 16 team top division playing each other twice.

The league cup group stages can make up some of the difference from missing home game revenue. And we wouldn't have to play the games in mid July.

[EdTheDuck]

3 hours ago, Lurkst said:

The season is too long IMO. 16 team top division playing each other twice.

The league cup group stages can make up some of the difference from missing home game revenue. And we wouldn't have to play the games in mid July.

Do you really think so? Why hasn't anyone told us this before

[1320Lichtie]

That's my point, being an established part of the senior set-up comes with a number of benefits, and their many years in the senior ranks makes those benefits visible. And for all that they struggle to average 400 home fans at games. I'm not saying that there are ready made clubs to replace them, I'm saying that they system does not encourage clubs to progress to that level to provide competition for the clubs at the bottom of the senior ranks. There are many larger towns, throughout Scotland, who do not have senior clubs. In that sense clubs like Montrose, based only on history, find themselves in a privileged position. 
When fans make suggestions for regionalising the leagues, part of what they're trying to do is make the lowest level of the national leagues more attractive to clubs looking to progress. It's the searching for a system which is attractive for those used to regional football. Even at that, most suggestions usually retain most clubs currently playing in national leagues at that level. Being part of the senior set-up might let their club progress over time, but the fourth tier of Scottish football isn't all that immediately attractive. I, of course, understand the will for self-preservation among the clubs at the lowest level, but you surely understand the will among other fans to want to see if things can be freshened up a bit?  
 

They don’t struggle for 400 fans. How many larger towns with better football clubs?

Size of town has nothing to do with anything. Arbroath is only 6k shy of a team that’ll be competing in a league cup final tomorrow.

And how does it not encourage clubs to progress? It’s not a closed shop anymore there’s no excuse. The only change that could be made is one like DA proposed which I wouldn’t be against. But other than that it’s open to anybody who can meet the very loose criteria and standards. Clubs like Annan/Elgin/Edinburgh City and Peterhead have shown it can be done if you show a bit of ambition

Montrose aren’t a league club through just luck alone, it’s not like they’ve been randomly picked out of a lottery and punted into the league.

[SpoonTon]

27 minutes ago, 1320Lichtie said:

 

They don’t struggle for 400 fans. How many larger towns with better football clubs?

Size of town has nothing to do with anything. Arbroath is only 6k shy of a team that’ll be competing in a league cup final tomorrow.

And how does it not encourage clubs to progress? It’s not a closed shop anymore there’s no excuse. The only change that could be made is one like DA proposed which I wouldn’t be against. But other than that it’s open to anybody who can meet the very loose criteria and standards. Clubs like Annan/Elgin/Edinburgh City and Peterhead have shown it can be done if you show a bit of ambition

Montrose aren’t a league club through just luck alone, it’s not like they’ve been randomly picked out of a lottery and punted into the league.

 

It's a turn of phrase, they certainly don't average much more than 400 overall. Of course a size of a town, or a club's catchment area, isn't everything but it does have an impact on how much a club can grow. 

The current set-up is only attractive to HL clubs (who might not even want promotion, as we have seen) and Old East/South of Scotland Senior League clubs (and new clubs within a close enough proximity to those clubs).   As a regional system it will take a long, long time to grow - because, believe it or not, clubs want regions that work for them and a decent carrot at the end of it (i.e. not the current League Two). 

[1320Lichtie]

It's a turn of phrase, they certainly don't average much more than 400 overall. Of course a size of a town, or a club's catchment area, isn't everything but it does have an impact on how much a club can grow. 
The current set-up is only attractive to HL clubs (who might not even want promotion, as we have seen) and Old East/South of Scotland Senior League clubs (and new clubs within a close enough proximity to those clubs).   As a regional system it will take a long, long time to grow - because, believe it or not, clubs want regions that work for them and a decent carrot at the end of it (i.e. not the current League Two). 

Well, if they (who are all these clubs out of interest???) don’t want the current League 2, f**k them.

Why would the whole structure change off the back of that? Again where are these glaring omissions? I can’t think of a single club outwith the structure that is massively missed or has the potential to make any kind of difference to the Senior game.

[RabidAl]

On 11/25/2017 at 18:04, EdTheDuck said:

Apples and Oranges, old chap

Quite possibly.  The results are purely hypothetical, although the methodology was applied consistently to the facts and so should be a decent guide to what was going across the seasons.

I still like the closura/apertura idea (or whatever it's called), but I can't recall what the motivation is for teams in the second 'season' who have already qualified for play-offs via the first season.  Otherwise, it would be a decent way to have a larger top tier and less repetition of fixtures except during the play-offs, which always seem to add something.

-----

In terms of the other debate about the number of part-time clubs that should be playing at a national level, I think it would be to the benefit of the game if more investment was made by the SPFL and SFA in helping more clubs to become full-time. 

My reasoning is that our youths need to play genuinely competitive football alongside senior pros week-in, week-out in order to develop (and so reserve team football or sitting on the bench at top level clubs will not help them), and our youths also need to train full-time in order to continuously improve (and so going on loan to part-timers will not help them much).

Given this, we really need more full-time clubs in order for more youths to be given the chance to continue developing their skills, both in training full-time and in applying them in meaningful competition at the weekends.  (Because of this, I think 'Project Brave' isn't likely to be the answer.)  I think Airdrie might have tried this sort of model - full-time, but with youths - last season. 

Anyhow, one means of helping more clubs to be full-time would be to reduce the number of part-timers currently being subsidised by the SPFL to play at a national level; the funds saved could be used to support more full-time clubs at a national level, and the SFA would also have an interest in supplying funding that would help support the development of youths in this way.

Or not.

[EdTheDuck]

Just now, RabidAl said:

I still like the closura/apertura idea (or whatever it's called), but I can't recall what the motivation is for teams in the second 'season' who have already qualified for play-offs via the first season.  Otherwise, it would be a decent way to have a larger top tier and less repetition of fixtures except during the play-offs, which always seem to add something.

-

This.

The enlarged top tier, half season, can 'manipulate' things so that a team on a good run could realistically challenge for a "championship"(albeit a partial championship) and get a pop at a championship playoff (or EL playoffs?)

The motivation for the second half of the season is simply that if a team wins the Apertura (winter league) and the Clausura (Spring League) there's no need for the playoff, they get the trophy no questions asked.

 

[foreverarover]

Sort of. McAllister is from Aberdeen. He’s reportedly on a lot of money (heard £650) at Peterhead. The PT wage combined with his FT job is more than any offer he would have at a FT club. We also benefit from this a lot. We have a few guys who had FT offers from Dundee United and ICT in the summer, but the deals weren’t worth giving their full time careers up for.

I wish someone had said this to Gary Locke at Raith last season. Instead of buying shite low waged full time players.

[RabidAl]

On 11/27/2017 at 12:59, EdTheDuck said:

This.

The enlarged top tier, half season, can 'manipulate' things so that a team on a good run could realistically challenge for a "championship"(albeit a partial championship) and get a pop at a championship playoff (or EL playoffs?)

The motivation for the second half of the season is simply that if a team wins the Apertura (winter league) and the Clausura (Spring League) there's no need for the playoff, they get the trophy no questions asked.

 

Right, and I take it the same thing applies in the second half of the season for those aiming for a Europa League place - i.e. that if you qualify for a EL play-off in the first half-season, then in the second half-season you do have something to play for since you're aiming to repeat the feat - 'defending' your place, sort-of - in order that you don't have to face a play-off at the season's end. And there's always a chance that you do better, winning the second half-season and qualifying for a "championship" play-off.  And if you miss out first time round, then there's something to play for in part II.  

I'm a bit hard of understanding, but that sounds superb.

------

Er, I thought of another possibility regarding how the development  of youths fits with the number of full-time clubs, whether being loaned to part-timers helps their game, etc.

Maybe they could continue to be loaned out to part-time clubs, who pay that portion of their wages, with them playing competitive football at weekends, and also training Tuesday and Thursday nights as normal, but...

...the SFA also paying them (16-19 year olds) an apprentice wage, requiring them to train weekdays with their peers at a regional or national centre, such as Oriam, so that they continue to develop their games, and build on-field relationships with their peers to help towards the future national team.

Sorry, a bit off topic.  I'll go away now.     

[EdTheDuck]

On 11/29/2017 at 10:25, RabidAl said:

Right, and I take it the same thing applies in the second half of the season for those aiming for a Europa League place - i.e. that if you qualify for a EL play-off in the first half-season, then in the second half-season you do have something to play for since you're aiming to repeat the feat - 'defending' your place, sort-of - in order that you don't have to face a play-off at the season's end. And there's always a chance that you do better, winning the second half-season and qualifying for a "championship" play-off.  And if you miss out first time round, then there's something to play for in part II.  

I'm a bit hard of understanding, but that sounds superb.

 

OK suppose we have a 16 team premier division…

The teams play a single round robin, that is everyone plays each other once. After 15 games, we have our Apertura (or Winter League (WL)) champion.

Points are reset, everyone starts from zero and we do it all over again only with the reverse fixtures. At the end of it we have Clausura (or Spring League (SL)) champion.

If different teams win the two tournaments, we have a playoff for the championship. Ideally, this would also be for the UCL spot but as this is Scotland, to avoid actual bloodshed in the streets, I suggest whoever finishes on top of the aggregate table gets the UCL place. However, whoever wins the playoff gets the shiny cup and the ‘title’.

If the same team wins both tournaments, they get the trophy & title without need of a playoff.

(Incidentally, the possibility exists in this format that a team finishes top of the aggregate table without actually winning either the WL or the SL; 3-way playoff for the tin cup?)

Relegation would also be based on the aggregate table.

The EL places though…

One place obviously goes to the loser of the playoff for winning one of the tournaments. Where same team wins both tournaments and there is no playoff I’d say second in the aggregate table gets the top League EL spot.

The other EL place(s) though…I want playoffs based on WL/SL positions so that the season is kept as alive as possible.

The trouble is, it still only makes for a 30 game season and that isn’t enough for the clubs. There is also still going to be “meaningless” mid-table games (though the EL playoffs would hopefully minimize this) Expanding to 18 or 20 for more games makes the dead mid-table larger and means relegation to a largely part-time Division One is a nightmare for full-time clubs.

You could make the top two divisions ten teams each. That provides 18 games in each tournament, 36 overall, but of course it means 4 games each half season against the OF (deceased) which is apparently a no-no (although I disagree).

In the 10-10 scenario I’d relegate 10^th & promote 1^st after each half season and have a promotion playoff between 9^th & 2^nd to keep things interesting…but no doubt this is impossible because of season tickets or contracts or some shite.

Anyway, I think the WL/SL set-up would completely change the dynamics of our game. It will, of course, never happen in a million years.

 

 

Edited November 30, 2017 by EdTheDuck
extra words

[Jacksgranda]

19 minutes ago, EdTheDuck said:

OK suppose we have a 16 team premier division…

The teams play a single round robin, that is everyone plays each other once. After 15 games, we have our Apertura (or Winter League (WL)) champion.

Points are reset, everyone starts from zero and we do it all over again only with the reverse fixtures. At the end of it we have Clausura (or Spring League (SL)) champion.

If different teams win the two tournaments, we have a playoff for the championship. Ideally, this would also be for the UCL spot but as this is Scotland, to avoid actual bloodshed in the streets, I suggest whoever finishes on top of the aggregate table gets the UCL place. However, whoever wins the playoff gets the shiny cup and the ‘title’.

If the same team wins both tournaments, they get the trophy & title without need of a playoff.

(Incidentally, the possibility exists in this format that a team finishes top of the aggregate table without actually winning either the WL or the SL; 3-way playoff for the tin cup?)

Relegation would also be based on the aggregate table.

The EL places though…

One place obviously goes to the loser of the playoff for winning one of the tournaments. Where same team wins both tournaments and there is no playoff I’d say second in the aggregate table gets the top League EL spot.

The other EL place(s) though…I want playoffs based on WL/SL positions so that the season is kept as alive as possible.

The trouble is, it still only makes for a 30 game season and that isn’t enough for the clubs. There is also still going to be “meaningless” mid-table games (though the EL playoffs would hopefully minimize this) Expanding to 18 or 20 for more games makes the dead mid-table larger and means relegation to a largely part-time Division One is a nightmare for full-time clubs.

You could make the top two divisions ten teams each. That provides 18 games in each tournament, 36 overall, but of course it means 4 games each half season against the OF (deceased) which is apparently a no-no (although I disagree).

In the 10-10 scenario I’d relegate 10^th & promote 1^st after each half season and have a promotion playoff between 9^th & 2^nd to keep things interesting…but no doubt this is impossible because of season tickets or contracts or some shite.

Anyway, I think the WL/SL set-up would completely change the dynamics of our game. It will, of course, never happen in a million years.

 

 

That's the way it used to be. They usually romped away with it though - St Mirren, Motherwell, Partick Thistle all spring to mind, late 60s/early 70s. (I'm assuming they were full time!)

[EdTheDuck]

Just now, Jacksgranda said:

That's the way it used to be. They usually romped away with it though - St Mirren, Motherwell, Partick Thistle all spring to mind, late 60s/early 70s. (I'm assuming they were full time!)

Yes. Two up, two down wasn't it?

It worked in the 40s & 50s but for whatever reason attendances collapsed between the mid 1950s and mid 1960s by around 40%-50% (at a time when there was more competition than ever - go figure).

By the time the Scottish Premier Division was introduced in 1975 there was only 9 full-time clubs left in Scotland IIRC and it was because of this we ended up with the SPD.  I imagine that when the fans were turning up in their tens of thousands the idiot administrators of the game thought it would last forever, that they never saw the impact of new fangled TV eating into their fanbase or the myriad other alternative entertainments springing up by increasing wealth and leisure time...

[Jacksgranda]

5 minutes ago, EdTheDuck said:

Yes. Two up, two down wasn't it?

It worked in the 40s & 50s but for whatever reason attendances collapsed between the mid 1950s and mid 1960s by around 40%-50% (at a time when there was more competition than ever - go figure).

By the time the Scottish Premier Division was introduced in 1975 there was only 9 full-time clubs left in Scotland IIRC and it was because of this we ended up with the SPD.  I imagine that when the fans were turning up in their tens of thousands the idiot administrators of the game thought it would last forever, that they never saw the impact of new fangled TV eating into their fanbase or the myriad other alternative entertainments springing up by increasing wealth and leisure time...

Aye, two up, two down. One of the promoted teams always got relegated - Albion Rovers, Queens Park (they might have lasted a couple of seasons), East Stirlingshire, Hamilton Academical, Arbroath, Morton, Ayr United, Cowdenbeath, East Fife.

Morton eventually established themselves of course, as Dundee United and Dunfermline had done earlier. Raith Rovers lasted 3 seasons, iirc, only to go down, never to return (under the old system).

Clyde, Third Lanark, Stirling Albion, Airdrie were yo-yo clubs, particularly Clyde in the 50s and Stirling all the time from their admission. Falkirk too, to a lesser extent.

[sjc]

Out of interest, Sweden & Norway have 16 team top flights playing 30 league games. Italy had this until 1988 also.

[EdTheDuck]

48 minutes ago, sjc said:

Out of interest, Sweden & Norway have 16 team top flights playing 30 league games. Italy had this until 1988 also.

The Norwegian and Swedish leagues were largely part-time until the 1990s. The Gothenberg team that won the UEFA Cup in 82 and 87 and also beat Barca 3-0 in a European Cup semi final in 1986 (before losing 0-3 in the 2nd leg & ultimately penalties) were essentially amateurs.  Scotland has been professional since the 19th century.

Both leagues have grown from 12 teams (playing just 22 games) to 14 (26 games) to 16 (30 games) in the quite recent past.  Therefore they have increased the number of games and income to cope with the growing professionalism.  Scotland would considerably reduce the number of games and income by switching to a straightforward double round-robin 16 team league.

 

[Gordon EF]

5 hours ago, Jacksgranda said:

Aye, two up, two down. One of the promoted teams always got relegated - Albion Rovers, Queens Park (they might have lasted a couple of seasons), East Stirlingshire, Hamilton Academical, Arbroath, Morton, Ayr United, Cowdenbeath, East Fife.

Morton eventually established themselves of course, as Dundee United and Dunfermline had done earlier. Raith Rovers lasted 3 seasons, iirc, only to go down, never to return (under the old system).

Clyde, Third Lanark, Stirling Albion, Airdrie were yo-yo clubs, particularly Clyde in the 50s and Stirling all the time from their admission. Falkirk too, to a lesser extent.

East Fife spent 10 seasons in the top division between 49-58 then 3 seasons from 72-74. 

Mental to think we finished 9th in the top division as late as 1973.

[sjc]

6 hours ago, EdTheDuck said:

The Norwegian and Swedish leagues were largely part-time until the 1990s. The Gothenberg team that won the UEFA Cup in 82 and 87 and also beat Barca 3-0 in a European Cup semi final in 1986 (before losing 0-3 in the 2nd leg & ultimately penalties) were essentially amateurs.  Scotland has been professional since the 19th century.

Both leagues have grown from 12 teams (playing just 22 games) to 14 (26 games) to 16 (30 games) in the quite recent past.  Therefore they have increased the number of games and income to cope with the growing professionalism.  Scotland would considerably reduce the number of games and income by switching to a straightforward double round-robin 16 team league.

 

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.

[Jacksgranda]

9 hours ago, Gordon EF said:

East Fife spent 10 seasons in the top division between 49-58 then 3 seasons from 72-74. 

Mental to think we finished 9th in the top division as late as 1973.

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.

[LongTimeLurker]

6 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.

There's no need for a massive drop in gate revenue if the Polish model is adopted with 16 teams:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016–17_Ekstraklasa

30 games plus 7 in two sections for 37 overall. We have more than enough full-time clubs to do it without part-time East Fife, Dumbarton or Arbroath teams making an appearance early 1970s style.