The SPFL recommendation?

[Ivo den Bieman]

2 hours ago, kvz2000 said:

What a terrible way to view things , Stranraer going down anyway is nonsense, so many things were happening with our team that avoiding bottom spot was a real possibility( players coming back from injury , game in hand , majority of remaining games at home , Games against the teams around us ) Your view and the rest of the Raith supporters is a prime example of how things will never get sorted fairly , you would have the complete opposite view if you were in our position , it’s such a shame that so many football fans act and think  like morons and their hatred for some clubs just shows football in a poor light ...

You won twice in the league all season m9. Give it a rest.

I have some sympathy with Clyde, Peterhead and Forfar but none with Stranraer who under any permutation deserve to be in the bottom league after an epically dreadful season.

[Jack Burton]

It's not the bottom tier. It's tier 3, which is where you are now. 
I don't support these proposals but Clyde fans saying it's relegation for them isn't exactly true.

Under 14-14-14, tier 3 is the bottom tier.

If we had finished 10th in league 1 then we would be relegated and playing the 10 teams in league 2.

Under this proposal, we finish 7th in league 1 and end up playing the 10 teams in league 2 but it isn't a relegation?

Prize money wise currently in league 1, we could earn anywhere from £125k to £70k. Under the 14 team league 1 the most we can earn is £77.5k to £40k.

We would need to win promotion again just to play the likes of Dumbarton, who we currently share a league with.

[Jack Burton]

Tier 4 - LL and HL, tier 5 EOS, SOS and the new WOS leagues!!!!

It would be the bottom tier of the SPFL.

[AFC1878]

Under this proposal, we finish 7th in league 1 and end up playing the 10 teams in league 2 but it isn't a relegation?

No, it’s not. It’s a restructuring.

[Big Fifer]

1 hour ago, Clyde01 said:

 

What do most fans want?

Bigger leagues, more variety, not playing teams 4 (plus) times a season.

It’s well documented why the premier league can’t/won’t expand but that doesn’t apply to lower leagues.

Could easily have any of these models next season:
14-16-14
14-18-12
14-20-10

Or we could go 14-10-10-10 temporarily next season which doesn’t disadvantage anyone and actually put some thought into the best option longer term, without having it led by self interest.

Basing it on current standings is always going to be tricky. Why not come up with a suitable model and give teams a season to play for position in the hierarchy.
 

 

Most fans want a season with something to play for until the last quarter of the season, which is why the 10-10-10 with playoffs has been successful. A mid tier of 16-20 seems too much, even as a soft supporter of the 14 team league for me it would have to have a decent amount of playoff spots and relegation spots/playoffs, with 18/20 in the league there's a hell of a lot of mid table borefests. That being said, as was pointed out to me on the EF thread, if a PT team wants to progress the bigger league probably leaves more of a chance of staying up in the second tier so clubs might well support it. 

[stevoraith]

So if the proposed tier 3 isn't the bottom tier, what is the bottom tier?

Unbelievable how some folk still aren’t getting this eh?

[The Moonster]

26 minutes ago, haufdaft said:

So if the proposed tier 3 isn't the bottom tier, what is the bottom tier?

There are leagues below tier 4 now and there would still be leagues below tier 3 under new proposals.

15 minutes ago, Jack Burton said:

Under 14-14-14, tier 3 is the bottom tier.
 

It is not, unless you believe you won't be able to get relegated from tier 3 under that system.

14 minutes ago, Jack Burton said:

It would be the bottom tier of the SPFL.

Which isn't as far as your club can go down, so this "bottom" stuff isn't true. Clyde are at tier 3 now and would be in tier 3 under new proposals. I understand you don't want to play the teams currently in League 2, but they are being promoted rather than Clyde being relegated.

I hope it doesn't happen anyway, not convinced with a 14 team league at all.

[Diamonds are Forever]

1 hour ago, ribzanelli said:

Anyone who doesn’t want to use current standings to decide promotion/relegation but does want to use current standings to decide alignment in a reconstructed league is a total hypocrite 

 

Absolutely. This was my point earlier in the thread to the Stranraer fan who had an issue with them being relegated but seemingly no issue with the likes of Clyde getting moved to the bottom league because of their current placing. The financial impact on Clyde of this would be greater than the impact on Stranrear being relegated under the current structure.

It shouldn't be underestimated how big an impact this would have on a club like Clyde. I don't claim to be an expert on them, but as it stands next season they will have 2 home gates versus Partick, Falkirk and Airdrie (our support isn't as big as the other 2 but travel to Clyde in decent numbers due to locality). Across those 6 home games I'd very conservatively estimate the away fans would average 500 a game. So away gate receipts from 3000 fans. Not including any extra home fans who may turn out for home ties with Partick and Falkirk particularly. With the new proposal, you can replace those ties with any 3 of the League 2 sides where they'd probably get 200 odd fans over 6 games. Easily talking 40-50k loss just from those fixtures alone. In addition, Cove would probably buy the league next year so you can take this impact and then double it as they spend another year down there at least.

I'm not arguing the whole of Scottish shouldn't change due to Clyde (never thought I'd spend a post sticking up for them!), the other League One sides going down would also suffer too. But if the aims of this working group are to not disadvantage any team they would completely fail with this scenario.

Airdrie will benefit from this if it goes through, but I am totally opposed to it. Partly because it is no fairer than the previous option, but also because leagues of 14 would be utter rubbish.

Edited April 28, 2020 by Diamonds are Forever

[honestman54]

23 minutes ago, Jack Burton said:

29 minutes ago, honestman54 said:

Tier 4 - LL and HL, tier 5 EOS, SOS and the new WOS leagues!!!!

It would be the bottom tier of the SPFL.

The Tier system doesnt stop at the SPFL, thats the point of the pyramid.

[Scottydog]

1 hour ago, Clyde01 said:

 

What do most fans want?

Bigger leagues, more variety, not playing teams 4 (plus) times a season.

It’s well documented why the premier league can’t/won’t expand but that doesn’t apply to lower leagues.

Could easily have any of these models next season:
14-16-14
14-18-12
14-20-10

Or we could go 14-10-10-10 temporarily next season which doesn’t disadvantage anyone and actually put some thought into the best option longer term, without having it led by self interest.

Basing it on current standings is always going to be tricky. Why not come up with a suitable model and give teams a season to play for position in the hierarchy.
 

 

 

1 hour ago, SouthLanarkshireWhite said:

No.

I would prefer larger leagues as a principle.

 

As you say the SPL clubs don't want a bigger league so equally why not go for:

14-14-16?

14-12-18

14-10-20

Talk about hypocrisy, there's a lot of shouting from Clyde's direction about Clyde being disadvantaged in a 14-14-14 and other teams only looking after themselves, yet when asked your 3 proposed formats are clearly doing exactly that but all in Clyde's favour.

The follow up proposal for the status quo (after temporary 14-10-10-10) is a direct contradiction to what you say you actually want, ie bigger leagues.

 

[sirscottyoung]

Kelty saying they will take no payment next season to join the spfl so current clubs share the money and that's not a factor in their decisions. Wow.

[Cowden Cowboy]

 
Absolutely. This was my point earlier in the thread to the Stranraer fan who had an issue with them being relegated but seemingly no issue with the likes of Clyde getting moved to the bottom league because of their current placing. The financial impact on Clyde of this would be greater than the impact on Stranrear being relegated under the current structure.
It shouldn't be underestimated how big an impact this would have on a club like Clyde. I don't claim to be an expert on them, but as it stands next season they will have 2 home gates versus Partick, Falkirk and Airdrie (our support isn't as big as the other 2 but travel to Clyde in decent numbers due to locality). Across those 6 home games I'd very conservatively estimate the away fans would average 500 a game. So away gate receipts from 3000 fans. Not including any extra home fans who may turn out for home ties with Partick and Falkirk particularly. With the new proposal, you can replace those ties with any 3 of the League 2 sides where they'd probably get 200 odd fans over 6 games. Easily talking 40-50k loss just from those fixtures alone. In addition, Cove would probably buy the league next year so you can take this impact and then double it as they spend another year down there at least.
I'm not arguing the whole of Scottish shouldn't change due to Clyde (never thought I'd spend a post sticking up for them!), the other League One sides going down would also suffer too. But if the aims of this working group are to not disadvantage any team they would completely fail with this scenario.
Airdrie will benefit from this if it goes through, but I am totally opposed to it. Partly because it is no fairer than the previous option, but also because leagues of 14 would be utter rubbish.

If the aims are not to disadvantage any team which I am not sure was ever officially announced as a key aim then the whole thing is a waste of time because that is impossible - unless you are promoting every team in a play off place, relegating no-one and paying out extra financial compensation to any club who could potentially have made a promotion play off spot.

[Diamonds are Forever]

10 minutes ago, The Moonster said:

There are leagues below tier 4 now and there would still be leagues below tier 3 under new proposals.

It is not, unless you believe you won't be able to get relegated from tier 3 under that system.

Which isn't as far as your club can go down, so this "bottom" stuff isn't true. Clyde are at tier 3 now and would be in tier 3 under new proposals. I understand you don't want to play the teams currently in League 2, but they are being promoted rather than Clyde being relegated.

I hope it doesn't happen anyway, not convinced with a 14 team league at all.

 

The semantics over whether they are being moved up or down, or what tier is which are irrelevant. A stated aim of the working group was to not unfairly disadvantage any team. As I've explained in my previous post, it is patently obvious that Clyde (and other sides) would be hugely disadvantaged by this.

[Diamonds are Forever]

1 minute ago, Cowden Cowboy said:

If the aims are not to disadvantage any team which I am not sure was ever officially announced as a key aim then the whole thing is a waste of time because that is impossible - unless you are promoting every team in a play off place, relegating no-one and paying out extra financial compensation to any club who could potentially have made a promotion play off spot.

 

I agree, it is a waste of time. We have a league structure which has proven over many years to work well and create excitement. We are now in danger of throwing it away for a new bizarre structure, despite no-one wanting this 2 months ago, whilst just disadvantaging other teams instead.

[Gordon EF]

I've wanted 14-14-14 before all this mess happened and yes, East Fife would obviously be a beneficiary in happening to be on the right side of the line when the season stopped.

I want 14-14-14 because to me it strikes a good balance between smaller leagues where things can be competitive and larger leagues where you're not playing everyone 4 times. I'd favour a split after 2 rounds. I think it's work with two automatic promotion / relegation spots and a play-offs.

I'll be honest, for me, this is a bit of an opportunity to get the structure i'd like to see anyway. If East Fife were in Clyde's position, I'd still want it as, even though it would mean a financial hit to crowds next season, it's the structure i'd want if i didn't know what side of the line East Fife would fall on. And we'd have a good chance of promotion over the next season or two.

I'd also be happy if we moved to this structure for 2021/22 and used next season to decide who went into what league. 

[SouthLanarkshireWhite]

9 minutes ago, Scottydog said:

 

As you say the SPL clubs don't want a bigger league so equally why not go for:

14-14-16?

14-12-18

14-10-20

Talk about hypocrisy, there's a lot of shouting from Clyde's direction about Clyde being disadvantaged in a 14-14-14 and other teams only looking after themselves, yet when asked your 3 proposed formats are clearly doing exactly that but all in Clyde's favour.

The follow up proposal for the status quo (after temporary 14-10-10-10) is a direct contradiction to what you say you actually want, ie bigger leagues.

 

There's two different people you quote - I haven't given any preference beyond bigger leagues are more attractive. 

All of the options offered by Clyde 01 appear to reduce the number of clubs harmed as far as I can see, so less about benefitting Clyde than not harming anyone. But he can speak for himself.

[ribzanelli]

2 hours ago, kvz2000 said:

What a terrible way to view things , Stranraer going down anyway is nonsense, so many things were happening with our team that avoiding bottom spot was a real possibility( players coming back from injury , game in hand , majority of remaining games at home , Games against the teams around us ) 

If your auntie had baws etc

just as much chance the returning players were way off the pace, gave away pens, took cards, scored own goals etc

But even to indulge you, let’s say Stranraer become twice as good (or half as shit maybe?) and doubled your ppg from 0.6 to 1.2 that would give you 11 more points and take you to 27 and leave Forfar needing 4 points to leave you in bottom place. ‘Real possibility’ of avoiding relegation is a huge overstatement but I can see this is a hill you are happy to die on.

 

[Jack Burton]

Which isn't as far as your club can go down, so this "bottom" stuff isn't true. Clyde are at tier 3 now and would be in tier 3 under new proposals. I understand you don't want to play the teams currently in League 2, but they are being promoted rather than Clyde being relegated.
I hope it doesn't happen anyway, not convinced with a 14 team league at all.

Yeah, we know you can go lower. We would suddenly find ourselves one relegation away from the LL rather than two.

Prize money wise we couldn't go any higher than what we got this season, £77.5k. Crowds would also be significantly down. Considering the aim of reconstruction was to ensure no one is worse off it fails miserably.

Playing each other 3 times is shite anyway. It was done away with after the 93/94 season because of how unfair it is. Clyde's home form is pretty impressive but we are generally poor away from home. Playing Cove or Peterhead twice at home or twice away could have a huge say on the league outcome.

[Gordon EF]

8 minutes ago, sirscottyoung said:

Kelty saying they will take no payment next season to join the spfl so current clubs share the money and that's not a factor in their decisions. Wow.

To be fair, they just don't need it. They can effectively afford to buy a place in the league but foregoing prize money next season.

[raith1974]

4 minutes ago, Cowden Cowboy said:

If the aims are not to disadvantage any team which I am not sure was ever officially announced as a key aim then the whole thing is a waste of time because that is impossible - unless you are promoting every team in a play off place, relegating no-one and paying out extra financial compensation to any club who could potentially have made a promotion play off spot.

Why should we promote every playoff team, the only sure thing on final placing is top go up and bottom ho down. Playoff spots only guarantee a few more games but doesn't guarantee promotion for any team nor relegation. One team wins the rest lose.

If we dont go ahead with one up one down then the only fair option is 2 up none down. Reconstruction will not work as Ann Budge is only bothered about Hearts, not Partick, Stranraer or Brechin and any reconstruction will be for one season and changed back at the end of that season. This shouldn't be about one club,  sorry two cause Rangers are pissed at Celtic being Champions.