The SPFL recommendation?

[Grangemouth Bairn]

2 minutes ago, The Moonster said:

Not at all, just putting a guy who's let that 7th place finish go to his head in his place. If he/she or any other Clyde fan wants to act like they're a level above "diddy" then I'll tell them as well.

What does CTFD mean?

 

2 minutes ago, The Moonster said:

Not at all, just putting a guy who's let that 7th place finish go to his head in his place. If he/she or any other Clyde fan wants to act like they're a level above "diddy" then I'll tell them as well.

What does CTFD mean?

It’s means ‘Capture the Flag’ framework (although in reference to your conversation probably ‘calm the f**k down’

[Tutankhamen]

4 minutes ago, The Moonster said:

Not at all, just putting a guy who's let that 7th place finish go to his head in his place. If he/she or any other Clyde fan wants to act like they're a level above "diddy" then I'll tell them as well.

What does CTFD mean?

Calton Tongs eff the Derry

[Larry Hood]

Clyde Totally Fucked Dumbarton

[Pride Of The Clyde]

Why is reconstruction  even on the table? Simple Hearts have been sh1t and cannot accept their fate, so everyone has to jump through hoops to appease their plight. If Accies or Livi or the likes was bottom no one would be giving a sh1t, I don't remember ever hearing Hearts campaigning for reconstruction previously. 

Hearts are shouting that they are being treated unfairly but to save their skin it doesn't matter who else will be disadvantaged as long as it is not them, never bothered my arse with Hearts previously but as you can guess I now thing they are a shower of b'stards.

[iain p]

3 hours ago, an86 said:

Clyde will play in whatever division we decide to give them permission to play in. Lovely stuff. 

a falkirk hero.

[BFTD]

47 minutes ago, Scottydog said:

Something along the lines of this?

Aye; I've a feeling that it won't even be considered, it'll just be three rounds of games and lump it. Meaning, of course, that we'll never have a level playing field; somebody's bound to end up with a tougher set of fixtures. Why did you go with an 8/6 split, by the way? To prevent everyone ending up with a couple of off-weeks?

I suppose it doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things, but I'm not keen on the kind of split we currently have in the top division. The team finishing 7th ending up with more points than the side in 6th just looks daft, even if we all know what's going on. Just present the two halves as two different sub-leagues. That's a pettier gripe than an uneven fixture list, though.

[Scottydog]

3 hours ago, Jupiter Jazz said:

Splitting leagues is a gimmick I'd like to see avoided at all costs. 14-10-10-10 for one season while looking at restructuring to bigger leagues down the line would do me.

I would too but the bigger the leagues the harder it becomes to find a balance financially, even with 14,14,14  it's a nightmare.

Even without taking TV revenue into the equation, Sky are only paying middle dollar (and that's all they are willing to day) for one fixture played 4 times a season, without the extra 2 times Ugly sisters Ball it's a financial problem.  Forfar got £70k prize money this season, without Sky money it'd be nearer £15k.

Say you opted for the jackpot, 2 leagues of 22 and it was set on current standings.

Top div teams from Celtic down to Partick would face each other once at home and once away and that'd be lovely.....at least for everyone in the bottom 12 of the league, top half financial directors in the SPL would be apoplectic at the prospect of a visit from Arbroath and Alloa instead of a 2nd visit from Sevco and Sellic.

However the same would happen for every side from Raith to Brora and Kelty in the lower league and I'm pretty sure most supporters in the upper half of that league would be less than thrilled, like wise Chairmen in the top half of that league would be very miffed at the prospect of even reduced attendance figures from those that they enjoy in a 10 team league.

The financial fall off between what a club would earn in the top league with what it would drop to in the lower league is astronomical  21 home games in the top league for a team like Dunfermline, Falkirk, Partick or Ayr would be worth up wards of £750,000 (gross) where as the same 21 fixtures in the lower league would be closer to £28,000.

Two leagues magnifies the cash issue but even if you scale it down to 3  x 14 the drop off in revenue between SPL and Championship is potentially massive (depending on how many big clubs drop down (eg DUFC, DFC, Hearts) and the drop from C'ship to L1 greater still all due in the main to the drop in away support visitors.

Three leagues of 14 with a 8/6 split wouldn't be everyones favourite but it might be the best of a bad lot.

Edited April 27, 2020 by Scottydog

[BFTD]

There is, of course, an answer to the massive drop-off in income from one division to another.

I won't suggest it, as I'd be as well asking why we don't stage play-off matches on the moon.

[Scottydog]

7 minutes ago, BigFatTabbyDave said:

Aye; I've a feeling that it won't even be considered, it'll just be three rounds of games and lump it. Meaning, of course, that we'll never have a level playing field; somebody's bound to end up with a tougher set of fixtures. Why did you go with an 8/6 split, by the way? To prevent everyone ending up with a couple of off-weeks?

I suppose it doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things, but I'm not keen on the kind of split we currently have in the top division. The team finishing 7th ending up with more points than the side in 6th just looks daft, even if we all know what's going on. Just present the two halves as two different sub-leagues. That's a pettier gripe than an uneven fixture list, though.

A 7/7 split would see teams sitting games out and from a personal perspective I'd hate that probably as much as the 3 fixture idea where the 3rd fixture is random. I know you don't fancy a split at all Dave but financially they really need something to get Sky onside and so why not have the same set up in every league.  26 games pre-split and 12/14 after it to not only satisfy TV contracts but also to add the extra games needed financially at every club.

For arguments sake imagine it went ahead and that Alloa finish top 8 after the 1st 26 games, thus guaranteeing not only safety from relegation but with the bonus of a further 7 lucrative home games against what would probably be the better supported teams in the league. Worse case scenario would only be that you'd be bottom six and battling it out with the worst teams in the league against the drop. Would that be better or worse that the current set up where often you can find yourself facing say the 2nd or 3rd placed team on the last day and they also need 3 points for promotion while the team a point above you might be facing a team already promoted or crowned  champions....and as such not giving a monkeys.

All hypothetical, as you say they will do what they want and not what we think would be better.

[BFTD]

I'm coming round to the split idea, just think it looks daft keeping both halves stapled together as one league. Call each half the UltraMegaLeague A and B after the split and I could be OK with it.

Not sure about the names for the top two leagues, though.

[Scottydog]

16 minutes ago, BigFatTabbyDave said:

There is, of course, an answer to the massive drop-off in income from one division to another.

I won't suggest it, as I'd be as well asking why we don't stage play-off matches on the moon.

An even spread of TV / sponsorship dough wouldn't be enough.

Perhaps if all sponsorship and gate money for every team was pooled and divided out equally it could work but..........

All animals are equal wrote George.......but you are right we've more chance of playing out season 2019-20 on the moon right enough.

 

Call the leagues  Division 1,2 & 3 simples.

Edited April 27, 2020 by Scottydog

[Andy groundhopper]

Seems weird how people are against 16/18/20 clubs in a division but quite happy to play someone 4 times. Maybe a big div with 4 up and down,and possibly a play off game to keep interest going. Naturally spfl clubs won't put their existence at risk, guess you just have to find your level somewhere, however painful that may be.

[Jacksgranda]

29 minutes ago, Scottydog said:

A 7/7 split would see teams sitting games out and from a personal perspective I'd hate that probably as much as the 3 fixture idea where the 3rd fixture is random. I know you don't fancy a split at all Dave but financially they really need something to get Sky onside and so why not have the same set up in every league.  26 games pre-split and 12/14 after it to not only satisfy TV contracts but also to add the extra games needed financially at every club.

For arguments sake imagine it went ahead and that Alloa finish top 8 after the 1st 26 games, thus guaranteeing not only safety from relegation but with the bonus of a further 7 lucrative home games against what would probably be the better supported teams in the league. Worse case scenario would only be that you'd be bottom six and battling it out with the worst teams in the league against the drop. Would that be better or worse that the current set up where often you can find yourself facing say the 2nd or 3rd placed team on the last day and they also need 3 points for promotion while the team a point above you might be facing a team already promoted or crowned  champions....and as such not giving a monkeys.

All hypothetical, as you say they will do what they want and not what we think would be better.

That's impossible. Might need 3 points to make the play off, but they couldn't be (automatically) promoted if some  other team has been crowned champions.

[Andy groundhopper]

Seems weird how people are against 16/18/20 clubs in a division but quite happy to play someone 4 times. Maybe a big div with 4 up and down,and possibly a play off game to keep interest going. Naturally spfl clubs won't put their existence at risk, guess you just have to find your level somewhere, however painful that may be.

[lionel wickson]

7 hours ago, kvz2000 said:

Rangers have said they will release their evidence to other clubs prior to any further meetings so I see no issue with that , no one would put on public display their case for the other side to see and give them the chance to cover up or remove any traces of wrong doing ,

reading between the lines I feel you are more against the fact it’s Rangers that’s standing up for a proper investigation than the reasons for it , if you can’t rise above your dislike or hatred for certain clubs then we are lost as a footballing family , what if your club were calling for this investigation I guess you might have a different view .

I admire your even-handed stance towards Rangers, a club that tried to have yourselves, Berwick Rangers, Brechin City, Stenhousemuir and Albion Rovers kicked into the gutter of oblivion in 1964.

[stuartcraig]

I’m not talking about sacrificing anyone’s independence though, I completely disagree with that.

It’s why I said similar rather than identical.

The similarity is both you and Smith believe the deadwood in Scottish football needs to be discarded and you’ve a pretty clear view who that means.

The difference is that, in Smith’s worldview, that includes Clyde.

Personally, I don’t think any of us are are in a position to make that judgement and that there is a severe lack of humility here.

[EdinburghBlue]

I admire your even-handed stance towards Rangers, a club that tried to have yourselves, Berwick Rangers, Brechin City, Stenhousemuir and Albion Rovers kicked into the gutter of oblivion in 1964.

Have you been asleep for the last decade? New club! [emoji6]

[Clyde01]

 

It’s why I said similar rather than identical.

 

The similarity is both you and Smith believe the deadwood in Scottish football needs to be discarded and you’ve a pretty clear view who that means.

 

The difference is that, in Smith’s worldview, that includes Clyde.

 

Personally, I don’t think any of us are are in a position to make that judgement and that there is a severe lack of humility here.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The main difference being instead of being bought over and the club identity completely destroyed I’m in favour of relegation (a situation that can be recovered from if these clubs are actually fit to compete at league two level).

 

So in other words not very similar to Smith at all.

 

 

[Scottydog]

1 hour ago, Andy groundhopper said:

Seems weird how people are against 16/18/20 clubs in a division but quite happy to play someone 4 times. Maybe a big div with 4 up and down,and possibly a play off game to keep interest going. Naturally spfl clubs won't put their existence at risk, guess you just have to find your level somewhere, however painful that may be.

I'm not against it in principal Andy, now if you could just show your working on how it will work financially.

SPL chairmen won't ever vote for a 16, 18 or 20 team league, why should they it'd be a fast track to financial suicide and to be honest it would be too risky for most of the most of the Championship clubs too. Add in that  all prize money would be massively reduced as  Sky or Premier sports won't pay for less than 2 Ugly sisters Balls per season.

It's all good and well saying ideally we'd be better only playing opposition only twice in bigger leagues but it has to be financially viable to do so. Any clubs being relegated from a top tier of 20 into a bottom tier of 22 would be facing financial ruin as they'd be coming down from visiting away supports in the thousands to visiting supports in the hundreds and even tens.  A quick calculation for my team would mean visiting gate receipts in excess of £750,000 in a 22 team top league and potentially less than £30,000 from 21 home games in the lower league.

The bigger the leagues the greater the drop off in revenue  is.

[TxRover]

OK, let’s say we go 14-14-14 for 2020-2021...and probably play all of 26 games total. Some clubs will be pretty pushed financially. If we play 39, with the uneven home/away split (19 or 20 home games, and the size of the traveling crowd highly dependent upon the opponent), some form of gate revenue sharing become necessary...and I can’t see the OF buying into that. Because of that, I’m pretty sure the SPFL is considering 2020-2021 will be a shortened year, thus the 26 game option of leagues of 14.

Here’s the million pound question, how do we fall back to the old 12-10-10-10 at the end of the 2020-2021 season. This is where the sting is because we can easily rank teams 1-42, but....where do “bubble” teams get ranked?

Lets look at this, considering the following would be the most likely way to do it.

Top League of 14 returns to a 12 team Premiership...teams 13 and 14 get relegated to redone Championship, no promotion from the Second League of 14. That sounds like a wet dream for the current Premeirship.

Second League of 14 returns to 10 team Championship, taking the two relegated top League teams and the highest 8 from the Second. The remaining 6 teams drop back to a redone League One, joining the top four from the Third League of 14.

The Third League of 14 promotes four teams to a redone League One and the rest are into a redone League Two.

In all honesty, this a good for the current Premiership and most League Two teams. It is terrible for the Championship teams other than the current top two, all of League One and the top two in League Two. With this kind of plan, the current top 14 teams assure that 12 of them will remain in the top league through 2021-2022, sure they’ll vote for that!

Edited April 27, 2020 by TxRover