The SPFL recommendation?

[Gordon EF]

HL / LL winners have exactly the same chance of promotion as any team who finishes in a play-off place. We've effectively already voted to null all play-offs so Kelty aren't being shafted any more than Montrose or Cowdenbeath were by choosing not to expand the number of teams in the SPFL for next season.

[craigkillie]

4 minutes ago, Gordon EF said:

HL / LL winners have exactly the same chance of promotion as any team who finishes in a play-off place. We've effectively already voted to null all play-offs so Kelty aren't being shafted any more than Montrose or Cowdenbeath were by choosing not to expand the number of teams in the SPFL for next season.

One of those things is in the SPFL's power to rule on and one of them isn't.

[renton]

In this 14-14-14 scenario, what do the play offs look like? Are we still doing them at all?

[sirscottyoung]

Teams not knowing such division they'll be in and playing the deciding games a couple of weeks  before the start of the season is hardly fair.

When do they play them then?

[Sergeant Wilson]

1 minute ago, sirscottyoung said:

36 minutes ago, Sergeant Wilson said:

Teams not knowing such division they'll be in and playing the deciding games a couple of weeks  before the start of the season is hardly fair.

When do they play them then?

They don't. The 2 are invited in...or not. The season is finished.

[Gordon EF]

11 minutes ago, craigkillie said:

One of those things is in the SPFL's power to rule on and one of them isn't.

And? In terms of "sporting integrity", they're not being shafted any more than the 9 other teams who were in play-off spots when it all ended. 

[aftershocker]

They still say they do.
Apparently it was a secret enquiry that the clubs weren’t aware of - and where the firm conducting it didn’t actually interview SPFL board members or individual clubs. Strange.
What it did confirm is that a no vote was allowed to be changed. Not surprising given essentially it appears to have been an email trail check that’s been done.
Meanwhile Holland null and void the league, something we were told was absolutely impossible (as impossible as being able to grant loans to the member SPFL clubs it would seem).

I think the reason the Netherlands voided their top league was that the top 2... Ajax and Feyernoord were on the same points.... totally different to our top league... perhaps more similar to our league 1

[Big Fifer]

The 14-14-14 is a set up I'd love, I think I'd probably still be keen for it if we were 8th in L1 now too but it's obviously difficult to put yourself in that position, we obviously benefit by being in the second tier with much bigger away crowds. No matter if you're a L1 club in the bottom half, or a L2 club, your distance from the top flight would still the same if not better. What are the real financial implications for the likes of a Clyde or a Forfar with that set up? Because the alternative reconstruction to a 14-10-10-10 won't leave you that much better off, Falkirk and Raith would be away and the likes of us and Montrose are hardly filling the away stands to the rafters every second week. I'd imagine those clubs would simply back "no change" if they felt they're getting screwed (and in doing so vote again to relegate Thistle and Stranraer). The difference in prize pool currently between L1/L2 isn't exactly jawdropping either. Genuinely would appreciate someone pointing out the huge disadvantage here?

The 39 games thing seems a bit mental regardless, I'd rather they work something out as a split and of course keeping the playoffs in some form. 

Edited April 26, 2020 by Big Fifer

[craigkillie]

And? In terms of "sporting integrity", they're not being shafted any more than the 9 other teams who were in play-off spots when it all ended. 

The SPFL can change the structure of its own play-offs at will, but requires the approval of the HL and LL to alter the pyramid one.

I agree that they are not being shafted any more than others if there's no reconstruction. However, if there's a reconstruction to save/promote some teams (eg Montrose and Cowdenbeath who you mentioned earlier) but which does not consider those two clubs, then I think they can justifiably consider themselves shafted.

[sirscottyoung]

A better question would be why are we trying so hard to keep them out, whilst preserving dung like Brechin, Albion rovers etc

I completely agree that both mentioned teams are shit. But they are still in the set up so far. I don't actually mind kelty and have been to at least about 50-70 of their games over last 10 years.

Just don't feel that they or brora have merited being pushed in when someone like cove and Edinburgh had to go through a harder set up to get in.

One day kelty will be a spfl stalwart I can guarantee it as it's a good club with great backers and community around it.

[Paco]

I can’t see a temporary 14-14-14 lapsing back into 12-10-10-10 after one season. Tier 2 would require six relegations from their 14 team league to get back to 10 in time for the next season (four to get back to ten, plus two more to make room for two teams relegated from the Premiership). Finish 9th from 14 and get relegated, all to save Partick Thistle, 10th from 10? Don’t see it myself.

 

12-12 or 14-10 on an ongoing basis would make things slightly better but I can’t foresee any 14-14-14 going back to the status quo - especially if, as looks exceptionally likely, 20/21 will be a truncated season.

 

[SouthLanarkshireWhite]

3 minutes ago, Big Fifer said:

The 14-14-14 is a set up I'd love, I think I'd probably still be keen for it if we were 8th in L1 now too but it's obviously difficult to put yourself in that position, we obviously benefit by being in the second tier with much bigger away crowds. No matter if you're a L1 club in the bottom half, or a L2 club, your distance from the top flight would still the same if not better. What are the real financial implications for the likes of a Clyde or a Forfar with that set up? Because the alternative reconstruction to a 14-10-10-10 won't leave you that much better off, Falkirk and Raith would be away and the likes of us and Montrose are hardly filling the away stands to the rafters every second week. I'd imagine those clubs would simply back "no change" if they felt they're getting screwed (and in doing so vote again to relegate Thistle and Stranraer). The difference in prize pool currently between L1/L2 isn't exactly jawdropping either. Genuinely would appreciate someone pointing out the huge disadvantage here?

The 39 games thing seems a bit mental regardless, I'd rather they work something out as a split and of course keeping the playoffs in some form. 

It is two-fold. Financially we all struggle. Albion R, Annan, Cowden, Elgin, Edinburgh bring nothing. East Fife, Dumbarton and Airdrie in particular would bring a potential 1000+ between them each time, so that is 2000 * £12 = £24k. Not a big deal if you are not already struggling to hold onto the players you invested in to get you up the leagues and stay there.

Secondly, having spent 9 years in the bottom tier we have no desire whatsoever to return to those sort of games and away days. We will also lose home fans out of boredom and frustration. 

Finally, and I realise very few care about this, why should we suffer to solve a problem for Hearts?

[Clyde01]

If you want to change the league structure without at least a full seasons notice then it shouldn’t harm anyone.

The 14-14-14 doesn’t meet that criteria so needs rethought, simple as that.

[Big Fifer]

7 minutes ago, Clyde01 said:

If you want to change the league structure without at least a full seasons notice then it shouldn’t harm anyone.

The 14-14-14 doesn’t meet that criteria so needs rethought, simple as that.

14-10-10-10 punishes everyone in League 1 financially. 14-14-14 seems to be punishing 7-10th in L1 and Cove. I'm not sure there's a way for everyone to be winners here (that's not me justifying change because of that, as I agree that broadly this is only being discussed to protect Hertz).

[honestman54]

4 minutes ago, Big Fifer said:

14-10-10-10 punishes everyone in League 1 financially. 14-14-14 seems to be punishing 7-10th in L1 and Cove. I'm not sure there's a way for everyone to be winners here (that's not me justifying change because of that, as I agree that broadly this is only being discussed to protect Hertz).

I think a 16-14-14 would benefit most people including the lower leagues as they would move up a tier (e.g LL from tier 5 to tier 4).  

[Big Fifer]

Just now, honestman54 said:

I think a 16-14-14 would benefit most people including the lower leagues as they would move up a tier (e.g LL from tier 5 to tier 4).  

Yeah but a 16 team league is never going to get voted through. 30 games in the top tier won't get the TV companies what they want, what kind of split would a you propose to keep the 4 old firm games (and it's not just the TV companies, the clubs want the old firm gates too). 

[Jack Burton]

The 14-14-14 is a set up I'd love, I think I'd probably still be keen for it if we were 8th in L1 now too but it's obviously difficult to put yourself in that position, we obviously benefit by being in the second tier with much bigger away crowds. No matter if you're a L1 club in the bottom half, or a L2 club, your distance from the top flight would still the same if not better. What are the real financial implications for the likes of a Clyde or a Forfar with that set up? Because the alternative reconstruction to a 14-10-10-10 won't leave you that much better off, Falkirk and Raith would be away and the likes of us and Montrose are hardly filling the away stands to the rafters every second week. I'd imagine those clubs would simply back "no change" if they felt they're getting screwed (and in doing so vote again to relegate Thistle and Stranraer). The difference in prize pool currently between L1/L2 isn't exactly jawdropping either. Genuinely would appreciate someone pointing out the huge disadvantage here?
The 39 games thing seems a bit mental regardless, I'd rather they work something out as a split and of course keeping the playoffs in some form. 

There is a fairly significant difference in prize money in league 1 & 2.

In league 1,the highest you can get is £125k and lowest is £70k. In the proposed 14 team league 1 the highest would be £80k and lowest £45k.

We would be one relegation away from the Lowland league rather than two.

East Fife, Montrose etc bring a much larger away support than the likes of Edinburgh or Annan.

The uneven fixtures would have an impact too with a big difference for us from playing Queens Park or Stirling at home twice compared with Elgin or Edinburgh twice.

We would likely see a decrease in the home support. We just had 10 straight years of playing Annan and Elgin. During 18/19 we played Annan 6 times and Edinburgh 7 times.

[Scottydog]

14-14-14

Seems the thinking is that next season won't kick off until at the earliest October. So simply play each other twice, once at home and once away, that'd be 13 home games (only 5 less than current set up). Add in a League cup campaign and the Scottish Cup and it'd be ok.  Set the ground rules before the season starts about what will be happening at the end of it/the following season then nobody can complain.

The following season keep it 14-14-14 but employ a 6/8 split after 26 games. Make promotion / relegation a 2 up 2 down affair with 3 spot up for grabs through a play off involving 3rd bottom and 3,4 & 5 top below.  Bottom league Pyramid set up to continue as current rules.

That format means in the regulation season everyone has a minimum of 18 or a maximum of 20 home games, the ugly sisters can meet 4 times and the best teams at the top enjoy the bigger gates. During the opening 26 games everyone would be going baws oot to make the upper have where the better opportunities/safety lays.

[bluearmyfaction]

33 minutes ago, aftershocker said:

On 24/04/2020 at 20:16, Airdrie76 said:

They still say they do.
Apparently it was a secret enquiry that the clubs weren’t aware of - and where the firm conducting it didn’t actually interview SPFL board members or individual clubs. Strange.
What it did confirm is that a no vote was allowed to be changed. Not surprising given essentially it appears to have been an email trail check that’s been done.
Meanwhile Holland null and void the league, something we were told was absolutely impossible (as impossible as being able to grant loans to the member SPFL clubs it would seem).

I think the reason the Netherlands voided their top league was that the top 2... Ajax and Feyernoord were on the same points.... totally different to our top league... perhaps more similar to our league 1

Ajax and AZ Alkmaar.

There's also the thing that Dutch clubs do not have the same history as British clubs.  The team denied an almost certain promotion to the Eredivisie, SC Cambuur, replaced the other team in the town of Leeuwarden in the Dutch League in 1965 when the latter went bust.  Over a quarter of the current Eredivisie are clubs that emerged from mergers in the sixties and seventies.  It would be as if the Scottish Premier had Strathclyde Academicals and Dundee City in it.  And Edinburgh United wound up (as FC Amsterdam, a triple merger, were).

[haufdaft]

In my opinion, the best option order

a) 12-10-10-10 with no champions and no one promoted or relegated. No one benefits or is punished. The season wasn't completed.

b) 12-10-10-10 with champions declared, no second place teams promoted. Hearts, Thistle and Stranraer are relegated. This is still shit.

That's it.

Everything else is really, really shit.