Coronavirus and the Scottish Championship

[Mexico]

Might be a daft question but since we are technically promoted and the season is over, are we now counted as a Championship side in the voting?

The SPFL have confirmed you don’t get counted as a Championship club until P&B move the league threads accordingly.

[BIGdavieT]

Is there much chance of the championship changing format?

[TheScarf]

So the Ayr chairman is against a 14 team Premiership as Ayr wouldn't be promoted, but for a 16 team Premiership as they would be.  

That's effectively what he's saying. 

For the record, there won't be any league reconstruction. 

[yorkshirepud]

Not at all. He doesn't see 14 or 16 working and wants either 18 or 20 as he said in the "Daily Record" article and is exactly what he said 10 years ago when I discussed it with him. He knows however this won't fly as the Bigots and Sky will block it. It's called principles, something that some clubs in Scotland couldn't even spell.

So he’s just unhappy if it means Ayr still not going up? He’d be all over a 15 team league 

[Fifespud]

With regard to reconstruction and the comments that the Premiership teams won’t vote for it as it would cost them money. If you simply said the clubs finishing 13th and 14th get paid the same money as the teams currently finishing in 1st and 2 in the Championship do, then surely it would be cost neutral?

[Ludo*1]

An 18 or 20 team top flight in Scotland would be utterly horrendous and leave a huge middle portion of the league with a vast amount of meaningless games every season. That's a horrendous shout.

I used to be an advocate for the 16 team top flight but even that's open to a large amount of boring, non events. Easily swayed on that one, but I think the 14 team league is just right.

What is Cameron's argument for an 18 or 20 team top flight?

[yorkshirepud]

With regard to reconstruction and the comments that the Premiership teams won’t vote for it as it would cost them money. If you simply said the clubs finishing 13th and 14th get paid the same money as the teams currently finishing in 1st and 2 in the Championship do, then surely it would be cost neutral?

Not if they lose a home game or two with the bigot brothers.

[Ludo*1]

1 minute ago, Fifespud said:

With regard to reconstruction and the comments that the Premiership teams won’t vote for it as it would cost them money. If you simply said the clubs finishing 13th and 14th get paid the same money as the teams currently finishing in 1st and 2 in the Championship do, then surely it would be cost neutral?

Games against the OF would be reduced which means less gate money. It's embarrassing that's what it comes down to, but you just need to look at the way St Johnstone bent over for Celtic this/last season.

[Finlay21]

9 hours ago, Speroni*1 said:

That's fantastic mewling from the boy.

In other news, I see Lachlan Cameron has already declared he'll vote against a 14 team top flight.

If you read his statement, he is sensible and saying a 14 team league does not work

on looking at it he is right

1. if you play each team home and away twice =52 games ( no team would agree to that )

2. 1 home 1 away =26 games ( not enough games ) 

3. only works with playing each team 3 times , then you get the debate who gets the 2 home games 

He wants 18  Or 20 play each team home and away gives you either 34 or 38 games which makes sense 

 

[Ludo*1]

Based on Ann Budge's latest statement, it looks like she will propose a singular season of a 14 team top flight as she addresses it as a 'temporary restructure'.

That's probably the most likely way it'll get through but I'd be pissed off if we were doing it as just one and done and I can't believe I'm about to say this, but I'd lean more onto Cameron's side who states that it shouldn't just be done to save clubs. League reconstruction should be saving clubs - but it should be done to enhance the game going forward as well.

[yorkshirepud]

An 18 or 20 team top flight in Scotland would be utterly horrendous and leave a huge middle portion of the league with a vast amount of meaningless games every season. That's a horrendous shout.
I used to be an advocate for the 16 team top flight but even that's open to a large amount of boring, non events. Easily swayed on that one, but I think the 14 team league is just right.
What is Cameron's argument for an 18 or 20 team top flight?

I can't remember every detail of the conversation and don't claim to speak for him, but the gist of it was variety. Playing the same teams over and over again is boring. It is possible to play the same team 8 times in a season at our level. With 18 or 20 you see different teams and the league tends to be more evenly spread. Ten team leagues can see teams detached if they are either too strong or too weak for the rest. (See Brechin for details) This is less likely with more teams as there is likelier to be a larger group of similar teams.
From a personal perspective I don't see the "meaningless games" argument. I see it as time to play some fringe players and try different formations. It is no coincidence Scottish football produced some terrific players in the 60's and 70's when we had larger leagues but this dried up when we moved to a 10 team top division as the fear factor stifled creativity and brought about a safety-first culture.

[Ludo*1]

Just now, Robbo63 said:

If you read his statement, he is sensible and saying a 14 team league does not work

on looking at it he is right

1. if you play each team home and away twice =52 games ( no team would agree to that )

2. 1 home 1 away =26 games ( not enough games ) 

3. only works with playing each team 3 times , then you get the debate who gets the 2 home games 

He wants 18  Or 20 play each team home and away gives you either 34 or 38 games which makes sense 

 

An 18 or 20 team league is absolutely ridiculous and would be horrendous for the game. It's not sensible at all. Let's take St Mirren as an example - they are extremely unlikely to be in the hunt for Europe anytime soon and in an 18/20 team league they'd be very unlikely to have an exciting relegation battle. There existence (And I've just plucked them as an example there's a good 7-8 teams in this category) that wouldn't have much to play for before a ball is even kicked which would reduce any potential excitement in the league.

14 team league with a 6/8 split answers all those problems you presented.

[RandomGuy.]

6 minutes ago, Speroni*1 said:

Based on Ann Budge's latest statement, it looks like she will propose a singular season of a 14 team top flight as she addresses it as a 'temporary restructure'.

That's probably the most likely way it'll get through but I'd be pissed off if we were doing it as just one and done and I can't believe I'm about to say this, but I'd lean more onto Cameron's side who states that it shouldn't just be done to save clubs. League reconstruction should be saving clubs - but it should be done to enhance the game going forward as well.

I'm not sure what else you expected when Budge got involved, tbh.

She doesnt give a single f**k about "the good of Scottish football", it's all about what's best for her. Only issue is Dundee have let her be in charge, so expect her to somehow find a way to shaft lower league sides long term.

[Guest Flash]

21 minutes ago, Fifespud said:

With regard to reconstruction and the comments that the Premiership teams won’t vote for it as it would cost them money. If you simply said the clubs finishing 13th and 14th get paid the same money as the teams currently finishing in 1st and 2 in the Championship do, then surely it would be cost neutral?

I thought that too. But I suppose the problem is that current Premiership teams have no chance currently of finishing 13th or 14th, so they’d be voting for the possibility of much reduced prize money if they finished bottom or second bottom.

[Brazilianlex]

6 minutes ago, Speroni*1 said:

Based on Ann Budge's latest statement, it looks like she will propose a singular season of a 14 team top flight as she addresses it as a 'temporary restructure'.

That's probably the most likely way it'll get through but I'd be pissed off if we were doing it as just one and done and I can't believe I'm about to say this, but I'd lean more onto Cameron's side who states that it shouldn't just be done to save clubs. League reconstruction should be saving clubs - but it should be done to enhance the game going forward as well.

Ann is in a difficult position having got pelters a couple of years back for saying there are too many senior teams in Scotland, a statement that led to her leaving the spfl Board.

if she does a U turn now and advocates adding two more teams to the spfl, she has to explain how that isn’t just about saving Hearts, which we all know it is but a temporary 3 x 14s let’s her and Hearts off the hook.

[Ludo*1]

1 minute ago, RandomGuy. said:

I'm not sure what else you expected when Budge got involved, tbh.

She doesnt give a single f**k about "the good of Scottish football", it's all about what's best for her. Only issue is Dundee have let her be in charge, so expect her to somehow find a way to shaft lower league sides long term.

It's a horrible fact, but she is the best hope we've got. If it weren't for Hearts being in this position and her constant habit of getting involved in absolutely everything, the idea of reconstruction would have been an instant no.

It's still a very slim chance, but Nelms has worked to give it the best possible chance and unfortunately, that's Ann bloody Budge.

[RandomGuy.]

Just now, Flash said:

I thought that too. But I suppose the problem is that current Premiership teams have no chance currently of finishing 13th or 14th, so they’d be voting for the possibility of much reduced prize money if they finished bottom or second bottom.

Budge is running the "taskforce", and is wanting a temporary reconstruction, so all this is irrelevant. 

Just think of a reconstruction that benefits Hearts and you've got her plan. Anything else is now fucked as she wont back down from that.

[Twinkle]

10 hours ago, RossDee01 said:

It will all be worth it for the lols of watching that squad try to compete in the premiership. For that you’re absolutely more than welcome.

 

[callum-ayr]

38 minutes ago, TheScarf said:

So the Ayr chairman is against a 14 team Premiership as Ayr wouldn't be promoted, but for a 16 team Premiership as they would be.  

That's effectively what he's saying. 

For the record, there won't be any league reconstruction. 

Well that’s not what he said is it. 
 

[Ludo*1]

10 minutes ago, yorkshirepud said:

I can't remember every detail of the conversation and don't claim to speak for him, but the gist of it was variety. Playing the same teams over and over again is boring. It is possible to play the same team 8 times in a season at our level. With 18 or 20 you see different teams and the league tends to be more evenly spread. Ten team leagues can see teams detached if they are either too strong or too weak for the rest. (See Brechin for details) This is less likely with more teams as there is likelier to be a larger group of similar teams.
From a personal perspective I don't see the "meaningless games" argument. I see it as time to play some fringe players and try different formations. It is no coincidence Scottish football produced some terrific players in the 60's and 70's when we had larger leagues but this dried up when we moved to a 10 team top division as the fear factor stifled creativity and brought about a safety-first culture.

Scottish clubs struggle to get fans through the gate as is for games that have meaning.

Would TV and fans  be excited by the prospect Dundee vs St Mirren for the 2nd time this season in a mid-table battle or Dundee vs St Mirren battling it out in a crucial 6 pointer for survival or promotion? TV probably don't care about either, but I know what I'd be more excited about attending.

Take your point on youth development though, hadn't thought of it from that angle.