Cyclizine Posted March 10, 2020 Share Posted March 10, 2020 2 minutes ago, Doonhamer1969 said: As i said, i personally think 4 national tiers is too much. Just a personal opinion. We had 2, then 3, then 4. If we go back to 3 national tiers, still 40 odd clubs, then there would be no need for regionalisation. Ive already stated if clubs dont want it, fine. But that's the same number of clubs? I don't get why three divisions of 40ish clubs is fine, but four isn't? 3 minutes ago, Doonhamer1969 said: I think most folk, from what i have seen, dont like the 4 times per year arrangement. Personally, when I lived close enough to Dingwall to go to our games regularly, I never really cared that we'd maybe played the opposition before. On occasion it was even nice to avenge the previous match (looking at you Accies). As I said, the small divisions with the playoffs allow for competitive games throughout the season. Competition brings in the fans, not mid-table mediocrity in a 20 team division where after a few rounds we know who's top and bottom. Like the Highland League we left over 25 years ago. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclizine Posted March 10, 2020 Share Posted March 10, 2020 3 minutes ago, Doonhamer1969 said: Still under SPFL, so still national leagues as far as i am concerned. But they are plainly not. I might as well rebrand the NCL as the "Scottish National Division - Far North" in that case. Thurso and St Duthus will be cramming the punters in! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon EF Posted March 10, 2020 Share Posted March 10, 2020 14 minutes ago, Doonhamer1969 said: Lets put the boot on the other foot. Where do you draw the line for regionalisation ? Tier 5 ? Tier 6 ? Tier 9 ? Highland and Lowland merged etc etc ? What arguments for regionalisation dont apply to Albion Rivers that do apply to Inverurie ? I'm not particulalry interested in tiers rather than the profile of clubs that find themselves at a particular level in the structure. Of course a lot of this has to do with what's happened historically. I don't see a problem with 42 clubs playing at a national level because, by and large "clubs 22-42" for want of a better phrase, cope fine with that. I can't remember a single club in that band going into administration or bust in my time following Scottish football. If it was up to me, I'd have three national tiers and then regionalise at tier 4 with a slightly larger Championship and 16 team tier 3 to act as a kind of de facto "part-time premier league". 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclizine Posted March 10, 2020 Share Posted March 10, 2020 8 minutes ago, Doonhamer1969 said: I'll get a row from Gordon EF for referencing England, but , ahem...National League South ? Merely means its a national league split into 2 geographically...which means its not a national league ....perhaps it should be National Conference South . Now you get it... I agree the English National League is stupidly named. Although you could argue France, which calls its four regional division fourth tier "National 2" and the twelve division fifth tier "National 3", is worse. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon EF Posted March 10, 2020 Share Posted March 10, 2020 11 minutes ago, Doonhamer1969 said: I'll get a row from Gordon EF for referencing England, but , ahem...National League South ? Nope, reference England all you like. Just don't base an argument on it then about turn when folk point out that the same reference could be used against your position. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon EF Posted March 10, 2020 Share Posted March 10, 2020 17 minutes ago, Doonhamer1969 said: Fair point. It's just circumstances, the number of SPFL teams we have now etc. As i said, i personally think 4 national tiers is too much. Just a personal opinion. We had 2, then 3, then 4. I think most folk, from what i have seen, dont like the 4 times per year arrangement. Ive seen plenty of people saying that. OK, I'd agree. But 12-10-(10-10) solves absolutely nothing about that. If what you're really arguing for is moving away from 10 team leagues, then I'd agree. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doonhamer1969 Posted March 10, 2020 Share Posted March 10, 2020 4 minutes ago, Cyclizine said: But that's the same number of clubs? I don't get why three divisions of 40ish clubs is fine, but four isn't? Personally, when I lived close enough to Dingwall to go to our games regularly, I never really cared that we'd maybe played the opposition before. On occasion it was even nice to avenge the previous match (looking at you Accies). As I said, the small divisions with the playoffs allow for competitive games throughout the season. Competition brings in the fans, not mid-table mediocrity in a 20 team division where after a few rounds we know who's top and bottom. Like the Highland League we left over 25 years ago. Because of playing 4 times each per season, as my above post says. I wouldnt have 20 either, as you say, too many teams floating around in mid table, 14 or 16 is about right IMHO. The problem with 10 , with 4th getting into the play offs, is that effctively mid table teams get a chance at promotion. We;ve seen teams in Scotland getting into the play offs with a minus goal difference (Airdrie a few seasons back), or barely having won more games than they have lost, which i think was the case with Annan recently. Teams who win around the same number of games as they lose , or concede more goals over the course of a season, shouldnt be promoted IMHO. Larger leagues, regionalisation, or removing 4th from the play off would stop that. But removing 4th from the play off still leaves teams playing each other 4 times. Familiarity breeds contempt. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclizine Posted March 10, 2020 Share Posted March 10, 2020 6 minutes ago, Doonhamer1969 said: Familiarity breeds contempt. Yet your argument for regional divisions rests almost entirely on this. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doonhamer1969 Posted March 10, 2020 Share Posted March 10, 2020 7 minutes ago, Gordon EF said: OK, I'd agree. But 12-10-(10-10) solves absolutely nothing about that. If what you're really arguing for is moving away from 10 team leagues, then I'd agree. Right we are agreed on that then. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doonhamer1969 Posted March 10, 2020 Share Posted March 10, 2020 9 minutes ago, Cyclizine said: Yet your argument for regional divisions rests almost entirely on this. It was meant as one option to get us back to 3 tiers. It was taken from the OP, who nobody seemed to argue with as much. Anyway, if the current League One and League Two were regionalised, 4 or 5 of the 9 opponents would automatically change, so less familiarity. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doonhamer1969 Posted March 10, 2020 Share Posted March 10, 2020 12 minutes ago, Cyclizine said: Yet your argument for regional divisions rests almost entirely on this. Also, if the Championship were enlarged to accommodate an extra relegation place, , therefore new teams in at the bottom end, eg 46 in total, again less familiarity. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
parsforlife Posted March 10, 2020 Share Posted March 10, 2020 Before you try and force something on clubs that they are fully against please at least learn to multi-quote. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doonhamer1969 Posted March 10, 2020 Share Posted March 10, 2020 26 minutes ago, Gordon EF said: I'm not particulalry interested in tiers rather than the profile of clubs that find themselves at a particular level in the structure. Of course a lot of this has to do with what's happened historically. I don't see a problem with 42 clubs playing at a national level because, by and large "clubs 22-42" for want of a better phrase, cope fine with that. I can't remember a single club in that band going into administration or bust in my time following Scottish football. If it was up to me, I'd have three national tiers and then regionalise at tier 4 with a slightly larger Championship and 16 team tier 3 to act as a kind of de facto "part-time premier league". No problem with most of that, but why regionalise at Highland /Lowland level ? Re Tier 3, 16 clubs, i dont object to that, but remember the clubs voted against 12-12-18 not that long ago, so the wee clubs might not like it. Id say it would be ok if the overall number of clubs were to increase to , eg 46, therefore less of the existing teams are getting 'stuck' in Tier 3. For that the Championship and Premiership would need to enlarge. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon EF Posted March 10, 2020 Share Posted March 10, 2020 (edited) 15 minutes ago, Doonhamer1969 said: No problem with most of that, but why regionalise at Highland /Lowland level ? Re Tier 3, 16 clubs, i dont object to that, but remember the clubs voted against 12-12-18 not that long ago, so the wee clubs might not like it. Id say it would be ok if the overall number of clubs were to increase to , eg 46, therefore less of the existing teams are getting 'stuck' in Tier 3. For that the Championship and Premiership would need to enlarge. Because, generally speaking we've got 20 odd full time team and so it makes sense to have two top tiers to accomodate that. Because of the geography of Scotland, the top part time teams can more than comfortably exist in a national league and my preference is for a league size of 16. After that, if we were to have a fourth national tier of 16 clubs, the question is would a national league make sense once you took travelling costs versus turnover into account? As it stands, there are probably a few clubs in the LL who that wouldn't be suitable for and more than a few in the HL who that wouldn't be suitable for. But ultimately I don't feel particularly strongly about it. If the majority of clubs in the LL and HL wanted to form a 4th national tier to move to 12-12-16-16, with regionalisation below, I wouldn't be putting up any strong opposition to it. Also, didn't the 12-12-18 plan come with OF colt strings attached? If so, that's not really a great way to gauge clubs genuine appetite for structural changes. Edited March 10, 2020 by Gordon EF 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclizine Posted March 10, 2020 Share Posted March 10, 2020 24 minutes ago, Gordon EF said: Also, didn't the 12-12-18 plan come with OF colt strings attached? If so, that's not really a great way to gauge clubs genuine appetite for structural changes. It also came with a half-season of 12-12 then a split into three 8-8-8 divisions. Need to maintain the four Old Firm games... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doonhamer1969 Posted March 10, 2020 Share Posted March 10, 2020 1 hour ago, Gordon EF said: Because, generally speaking we've got 20 odd full time team and so it makes sense to have two top tiers to accomodate that. Because of the geography of Scotland, the top part time teams can more than comfortably exist in a national league and my preference is for a league size of 16. After that, if we were to have a fourth national tier of 16 clubs, the question is would a national league make sense once you took travelling costs versus turnover into account? As it stands, there are probably a few clubs in the LL who that wouldn't be suitable for and more than a few in the HL who that wouldn't be suitable for. But ultimately I don't feel particularly strongly about it. If the majority of clubs in the LL and HL wanted to form a 4th national tier to move to 12-12-16-16, with regionalisation below, I wouldn't be putting up any strong opposition to it. Also, didn't the 12-12-18 plan come with OF colt strings attached? If so, that's not really a great way to gauge clubs genuine appetite for structural changes. The 12-12-18 wasn't in any way linked to OF Colts teams, that was a separate later proposal, which League 2 clubs overwhelmingly rejected. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doonhamer1969 Posted March 10, 2020 Share Posted March 10, 2020 40 minutes ago, Cyclizine said: It also came with a half-season of 12-12 then a split into three 8-8-8 divisions. Need to maintain the four Old Firm games... Personal opinion, and I don't know if the majority of OF fans would agree or disagree, 4 OF league fixtures per year is too much. Police Scotland would certainly agree with me on that one. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doonhamer1969 Posted March 10, 2020 Share Posted March 10, 2020 1 hour ago, parsforlife said: Before you try and force something on clubs that they are fully against please at least learn to multi-quote. Who's forcing anything ? Its an opinion. Its allowed. We live in a f**king democracy. Allegedly. No doubt you'll provide evidence that all 20 clubs are 'fully against' it ? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doonhamer1969 Posted March 10, 2020 Share Posted March 10, 2020 2 hours ago, Cyclizine said: But that's the same number of clubs? I don't get why three divisions of 40ish clubs is fine, but four isn't? Personally, when I lived close enough to Dingwall to go to our games regularly, I never really cared that we'd maybe played the opposition before. On occasion it was even nice to avenge the previous match (looking at you Accies). As I said, the small divisions with the playoffs allow for competitive games throughout the season. Competition brings in the fans, not mid-table mediocrity in a 20 team division where after a few rounds we know who's top and bottom. Like the Highland League we left over 25 years ago. I'm going by comments I've seen. A lot of fans don't seem to like 4 times per season. Whether it's a majority or not, I don't know for sure. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
parsforlife Posted March 10, 2020 Share Posted March 10, 2020 Multi quote ffs. There is absolutely no need for post after post of the same stuff. 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.