Pyramid 2019/2020

[mcruic]

9 minutes ago, Enigma said:

 

 

In the current League 2, the average attendance between North teams was 802 and West teams was 532 (average division attendance 504). East average was only 439, but Berwick can't really be considered a derby for anyone.

In League 1, the average attendance in the matches between the 4 Angus teams was 955 (division average 753), while the average attendance in the 4 Fife derbies was 2052!

 

[Inanimate Carbon Rod]

Arbroath, Montrose, Brechin and Forfar would disagree with you, as would Raith/Dunfermline and Inverness CT/Ross County.  Funny how the derby games always attract more fans, but you just ignore that fact completely. 

One of the differences between the West Juniors and the SPFL clubs is that more people go to the West Juniors' matches because they can afford to travel and don't have to plan 300 mile round trips.  There's also bigger towns outside the SPFL than in it (Irvine v Brechin, for example), and therefore more potential fans.

Nonsense, i’d be far less likely to attend a game at Talbot than I would say at Spartans or Kelty. There is no ‘prestige’ draw for most outside the whole my village is better than your village stuff you see in some of the west leagues.
Can we get this notion that Scotland is some vast huge nation that can’t cope with national level football in the sea? Its smaller than Florida which has state level leagues in their sports at a level equivalent to spfl2 etc.

[Cyclizine]

40 minutes ago, mcruic said:

They didn't move to a regional league in the same tier, they were relegated. Their attendance was hurt by them moving down a Tier, and moving to a synthetic "Lowland" region - they would have had more fans in an East Premier League.  My point is that you can't compare attendances of teams from different tiers without considering the tier they play at.  You can't say only a few junior clubs would get better attendances than League 2 clubs, because it's an unfair comparison.

There is no question - if you regionalised the current Tiers 3 and 4 as they are, the average attendance across both leagues would go up.  Apart from teams who are doing well, the next best attendances are in the derby matches.  Having more of these means the attendance would go up, and having less distance to travel means more away fans.

You get more fans in general the higher tier you play at - by putting both the leagues at Tier 3, you should get an increase in attendance as well.

It's not an unfair comparison! It's exactly what I've been saying! You play nationally and more people are interested.

Regionalising Leagues 1 and 2 and saying: "Ah, now Cowdenbeath are playing in the Scottish League Division 2 Central District, they'll pile in the fans because they're at Tier 3 not 4..." is ridiculous. Just because you say it's at that level, doesn't mean it's perceived as that.

[mcruic]

2 minutes ago, Inanimate Carbon Rod said:

Nonsense, i’d be far less likely to attend a game at Talbot than I would say at Spartans or Kelty. There is no ‘prestige’ draw for most outside the whole my village is better than your village stuff you see in some of the west leagues.
Can we get this notion that Scotland is some vast huge nation that can’t cope with national level football in the sea? Its smaller than Florida which has state level leagues in their sports at a level equivalent to spfl2 etc.

The US is a completely different level when it comes to marketing opportunities and sports coverage - even college sports get major TV coverage. You simply can't make a serious comparison.

The notion is not that Scotland is a "vast huge nation", but that other countries bigger than Scotland regionalise and don't have 4 national tiers.  It's not because they can't cope, it's because it's practical and sensible.

And the "my village is better than your village stuff" is from the bonehead fans or those who have lived in the town all their lives and don't know any better - the same ones who shout "you fat b*****d"and suchlike throughout games and shouldn't be allowed in in the first place.

[Cyclizine]

8 minutes ago, Inanimate Carbon Rod said:

Nonsense, i’d be far less likely to attend a game at Talbot than I would say at Spartans or Kelty. There is no ‘prestige’ draw for most outside the whole my village is better than your village stuff you see in some of the west leagues.
Can we get this notion that Scotland is some vast huge nation that can’t cope with national level football in the sea? Its smaller than Florida which has state level leagues in their sports at a level equivalent to spfl2 etc.

Absolutely. We're talking about a country where over three-fifths of the population live less than two hours away from each other. All of the 42 clubs have shown they can support playing nationally. All of them have significantly higher attendances, profits and profile (outwith a few outliers) than any outwith the SPFL.

We need a working pyramid system. Dumping half the SPFL into unwanted regional leagues is pointless in terms of attendances, travel and finances and is unnecessary and counterproductive.

[mcruic]

3 minutes ago, Cyclizine said:

It's not an unfair comparison! It's exactly what I've been saying! You play nationally and more people are interested.

Regionalising Leagues 1 and 2 and saying: "Ah, now Cowdenbeath are playing in the Scottish League Division 2 Central District, they'll pile in the fans because they're at Tier 3 not 4..." is ridiculous. Just because you say it's at that level, doesn't mean it's perceived as that.

But it's not playing nationally that interests more people - it's playing at a higher level (which just happens to be national).  If there was a League 1 North and League 1 South, teams promoted from the LL and HL would still get higher crowds - because they've moved up - NOT because they are playing nationally.

And of course, perception doesn't matter - if you're playing for promotion to the Championship, you are in Tier 3 - it doesn't matter what your perception is.  In England, do you think teams in National League North and South care that they are in a regionalised league?  They all want to get into the National League (Conference).  That's their goal at the start of the season - regionalisation allows twice as many clubs to aim for that goal every year.

[FairWeatherFan]

59 minutes ago, Robert James said:

Apparently some current licensing applicants (Blackburn Utd & Penicuik) have just been awarded an SFA Entry Licence. If correct, it is safe to assume that other (both successful and  unsuccessful ?) applicants,  have also been notified of the outcome ?  

From your post, are you advising that the clubs which applied for a licence prior to January 2019, but didn't have floodlights at that date, will have a (lights) derogation awarded to them, as per your timetable above .......assuming  of course, that the clubs concerned meet all the other licensing standards?

The breakdown I suggested is more for existing members. The main thing that the SFA board do is conference the SFA membership. I think after that everything is handled by the licensing committee.

[mcruic]

1 minute ago, Cyclizine said:

Absolutely. We're talking about a country where over three-fifths of the population live less than two hours away from each other. All of the 42 clubs have shown they can support playing nationally. All of them have significantly higher attendances, profits and profile (outwith a few outliers) than any outwith the SPFL.

We need a working pyramid system. Dumping half the SPFL into unwanted regional leagues is pointless in terms of attendances, travel and finances and is unnecessary and counterproductive.

Again, you can't talk about profile - leagues below Tier 4 don't get mentioned, but they had been kept out by the SPFL until recently. The attendances come with the level of football - there is a direct correspondence - attendances go down in each tier.

The pyramid includes the SPFL, and therefore, it must be prepared to change as well.  The pyramid is not just "everything below Tier 4".  As I've pointed out above, attendances are more likely to go up with more local matches, as evidenced by this year's attendance figures.  Travel would also be reduced.  Therefore finances would be better.  Also, you would have twice as many clubs at Tier 3 going for promotion to Tier 2 every year.  Why would you choose to play at Tier 4 if you could be at Tier 3?

 

[Cyclizine]

Just now, mcruic said:

But it's not playing nationally that interests more people - it's playing at a higher level (which just happens to be national).  If there was a League 1 North and League 1 South, teams promoted from the LL and HL would still get higher crowds - because they've moved up - NOT because they are playing nationally.

And of course, perception doesn't matter - if you're playing for promotion to the Championship, you are in Tier 3 - it doesn't matter what your perception is.  In England, do you think teams in National League North and South care that they are in a regionalised league?  They all want to get into the National League (Conference).  That's their goal at the start of the season - regionalisation allows twice as many clubs to aim for that goal every year.

I think you're totally missing the point here and making assumptions which just aren't valid.

Your point regarding the English Nation League proves the opposite of what you think: what was below the Football League prior to formation of the Alliance Premier, the precursor to the National League? There were three regionalised divisions. England has gone the opposite way, by going less regionalised and you're using it as an example!

[mcruic]

9 minutes ago, Cyclizine said:

I think you're totally missing the point here and making assumptions which just aren't valid.

Your point regarding the English Nation League proves the opposite of what you think: what was below the Football League prior to formation of the Alliance Premier, the precursor to the National League? There were three regionalised divisions. England has gone the opposite way, by going less regionalised and you're using it as an example!

Saying that attendances increase due to promotion is not an assumption - it's a fact.  Saying that the attendances are higher because the teams are playing nationally, on the other hand, is an assumption on your part.  Can you be sure that it's not just because they are playing in Tiers 3 and 4 instead of 5 or 6?

My point about the National League in England was not meant to be a direct comparison, but an example of how regionalisation can be a good thing.  In the end, England has actually gone more regionalised below the National League North and South, with 4 leagues instead of 3.  England can afford to be national in the top 5 Tiers though, as Tier 5 in England has higher attendances than Tier 3 in Scotland.  Oh, and attendances go up when teams are promoted also, even if it is to a regionalised league.

 

Edited May 7, 2019 by mcruic

[Cyclizine]

6 minutes ago, mcruic said:

Saying that attendances increase due to promotion is not an assumption - it's a fact.  Saying that the attendances are higher because the teams are playing nationally, on the other hand, is an assumption on your part.  Can you be sure that it's not just because they are playing in Tiers 3 and 4 instead of 5 or 6?

My point about the National League in England was not meant to be a direct comparison, but an example of how regionalisation can be a good thing.  In the end, England has actually gone more regionalised below the National League North and South, with 4 leagues instead of 3.  England can afford to be national in the top 5 Tiers though, as Tier 5 in England has higher attendances than Tier 3 in Scotland.  Oh, and attendances go up when teams are promoted also, even if it is to a regionalised league.

 

Just because you say that your two (or is it three) regionalised divisions are at Tier 3/4 etc doesn't mean they'll be perceived as such, particularly when the chance of promotion will be lower (it has to be: two divisions going into one). Essentially, if you regionalised Leagues 1 and 2 you'd end up with glorified Highland and Lowland Leagues. And still have a promotion bottleneck.

[Cornishman]

12 minutes ago, mcruic said:

Saying that attendances increase due to promotion is not an assumption - it's a fact.  Saying that the attendances are higher because the teams are playing nationally, on the other hand, is an assumption on your part.  Can you be sure that it's not just because they are playing in Tiers 3 and 4 instead of 5 or 6?

My point about the National League in England was not meant to be a direct comparison, but an example of how regionalisation can be a good thing.  In the end, England has actually gone more regionalised below the National League North and South, with 4 leagues instead of 3.  England can afford to be national in the top 5 Tiers though, as Tier 5 in England has higher attendances than Tier 3 in Scotland.

 

Average English 'tier 5' attendance for 2018-19 was just under 2000.

Edited May 7, 2019 by Cornishman

[mcruic]

So how about this?

Premiership - 12 teams
Championship - 12 teams
League  1 - 16 teams
Regionalised (16/16/16)

40 SPFL clubs instead of current 42.  Every team has same chance of promotion it currently has, most Tier 4 teams are now Tier 3.  Tier 5 teams are now Tier 4, and have better chance of promotion than they currently have.  Also, 48 clubs 3 promotions away from the Premiership instead of the current 34 who are 2 play-offs and 4 promotions away.

What are the negative points?  Perhaps League 1 might object to playing only 30 matches - so make Championship and League 1 14 teams each, and play 39 game seasons, like they used to anyway.

Edited May 7, 2019 by mcruic

[mcruic]

3 minutes ago, Cornishman said:

Average English 'tier 5' attendance for 2018-19 was just under 2000.

Average Scottish Tier 3 attendance for 2018-19 was 753. Tier 2 average was 3,120 (English Tier 4 is higher at 4,468).

Edited May 7, 2019 by mcruic

[GordonS]

2 hours ago, Cyclizine said:

Wow. Chip on shoulder or what. I'm a Ross County fan. I've seen us come from the Highland League to the Premiership. I live in the North and watch a lot of football up here. It is not the same geographically as the compact Central Belt.

You have regionalised a load of teams who quite happily play nationally. All this does is move the two-into-one bottleneck up. You've raided the HFL of teams and left a rump to be relegated into. I know all about the Tay Bridge line, that's for clubs being relegated from the SPFL.

There is no evidence that playing regionally will mean bigger crowds and more money or reduced costs. This is all hypothetical.

You talk about players wanting to play regionally because of jobs, but not the ones who want to play in a national league and all the exposure it gets.

I'm a huge advocate of a working pyramid for Scotland, but it relies on consensus and negotiation. We still don't have a fully working one below the SPFL, yet you propose to basically shift it up a level. Perhaps this may come to pass, at the moment it is not wanted nor necessary.

 

None of that actually contradicts anything I said, so I'll leave you to it.

Just in case it's not clear, I'm not actually in charge of Scottish football so I'm not forcing anybody into anything. I'm giving an opinion about what I think would work better for everyone. Happy to clear that up.

Edited May 7, 2019 by GordonS

[Cyclizine]

Just now, GordonS said:

None of that actually contradicts anything I said, so I'll leave you to it.

Just in casse it's not clear, I'm not actually in charge of Scottish football so I'm not forcing anybody into anything. I'm giving an opinion about what I think would work better for everyone. Happy to clear that up.

Er, okay, cheers. I'd say quite a lot of it contradicts you, but, yeah, cool.

[Cyclizine]

20 minutes ago, mcruic said:

Average Scottish Tier 3 attendance for 2018-19 was 753. Tier 2 average was 3,120 (English Tier 4 is higher at 4,468).

We're not England. We have a tenth of the population. Why do you find this surprising? Try comparing us to somewhere like Finland, Slovakia or Croatia.

[Ray Patterson]

@mcruic
 

 

[mcruic]

14 minutes ago, Cyclizine said:

We're not England. We have a tenth of the population. Why do you find this surprising? Try comparing us to somewhere like Finland, Slovakia or Croatia.

I was responding to a post that seemed to suggest I was making up the fact that Tier 5 attendances in England are higher then Tier 3 attendances in Scotland.  I wasn't expressing surprise.

But if you insist:

Slovakia has a fully functional pyramid down to Tier 8, with regionalisation starting from Tier 2.
Finland has a fully functional pyramid down to Tier 8, with regionalisation starting from Tier 3.
Croatia has a fully functional pyramid down to Tier 7, with regionalisation starting from Tier 3.
Switzerland has a fully functional pyramid down to Tier 9, with regionalisation starting from Tier 4.
Austria has a fully functional pyramid down to Tier 10, with regionalisation starting from Tier 3.

The only countries in Europe that have regionalisation starting from Tier 5 or below are England (starting at Tier 6) and Scotland (Starting at Tier 5).

So, Scotland is clearly either unique and trailblazing, or doing something wrong.

Edited May 7, 2019 by mcruic

[Cyclizine]

10 minutes ago, mcruic said:

I was responding to a post that seemed to suggest I was making up the fact that Tier 5 attendances in England are higher then Tier 3 attendances in Scotland.  I wasn't expressing surprise.

But if you insist:

Slovakia has a fully functional pyramid down to Tier 8, with regionalisation starting from Tier 2.
Finland has a fully functional pyramid down to Tier 8, with regionalisation starting from Tier 3.
Croatia has a fully functional pyramid down to Tier 7, with regionalisation starting from Tier 3.
Switzerland has a fully functional pyramid down to Tier 9, with regionalisation starting from Tier 4.
Austria has a fully functional pyramid down to Tier 10, with regionalisation starting from Tier 3.

The only countries in Europe that have regionalisation starting from Tier 5 or below are England (starting at Tier 6) and Scotland (Starting at Tier 5).

So, Scotland is clearly either unique and trailblazing, or doing something wrong.

So, similar sized countries all have totally different league setups? Gotcha. Cheers.