The SPFL recommendation?

[SouthLanarkshireWhite]

1 minute ago, Gordon EF said:

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.

Side question - where are they going to build a fan base from? If they can achieve that does any other Fife team suffer? From the outside Fife doesn't appear to need another team seeking scarce support.

[roman_bairn]

You know, if it wasn’t for Hearts or Partick Thistles’ concerns, I’d have wanted the league to be settled as it is now and the playoffs to proceed for the additional promotion and relegation places.

Another option that hasn’t been considered is doing the play offs this year involving the bottom team in the upper league (rather than the second bottom team), and the second to fourth in the lower league.

That way, Hearts and Thistle get a shot of avoiding relegation and Falkirk get a shot at promotion.

All this other stuff is guff in a set up that really isn’t badly flawed.

Hasn’t anyone else considered this?

 

[Gordon EF]

2 minutes ago, SouthLanarkshireWhite said:

Side question - where are they going to build a fan base from? If they can achieve that does any other Fife team suffer? From the outside Fife doesn't appear to need another team seeking scarce support.

I'd imagine there isn't really much possibility of them 'taking' any support from anyone other than Cowdenbeath. I've no idea what crowds they had in the juniors but my guess is they'll be getting that plus the usual sort of add on you'd see when any club is winning games, winning leagues, making relatively big signings and generating a bit of an air of excitement.

[Diamond10]

Not getting the obsession with away crowds in league 1 either. Stranraer and Peterhead will bring at lot less than a lot of league 2 clubs. Falkirk was a good bonus this season but if you replace Falkirk with Arbroath like the season before does anyone take that many anywhere ?

[SouthLanarkshireWhite]

3 minutes ago, Gordon EF said:

I'd imagine there isn't really much possibility of them 'taking' any support from anyone other than Cowdenbeath. I've no idea what crowds they had in the juniors but my guess is they'll be getting that plus the usual sort of add on you'd see when any club is winning games, winning leagues, making relatively big signings and generating a bit of an air of excitement.

Like Gretna?

[haufdaft]

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

Not if there's no relegation to the LL or HL leagues

[renton]

I don't hate the idea of a 14-14-14, so long as it came with a split after two fixtures. Would everyone want to keep the one automatic place + play offs, or move to a straight two up, two down?

I think the latter is more elegant, particularly in a sub league of 7, although play offs extending down to 4th would probably make those sub leagues very competitive. Cant imagine too many years when 5 through 7 were out of the mix...

[renton]

Just now, haufdaft said:

1 hour ago, honestman54 said:

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

Not if there's no relegation to the LL or HL leagues

Presumably that's a one season oddity, though.

[Scottydog]

1 hour ago, haufdaft said:

Personally speaking I see the current set up at the best.

Playing the same teams 4 times a year can be a bit tedious.

However the smaller leagues means most games are important for championship/playoff or relegation positions.

Bigger leagues mean more meaningless matches.

That's a simple yes then from you?  "tedium" and some "less meaningless games" over change.

52 minutes ago, Broken Algorithms said:

The Clyde situation certainly shows how regardless of what happens at least one team will be disadvantaged. 

It's not hard to see why Clyde and their fans are concerned. They're going to lose out on potential revenue from Falkirk and Partick Thistle to go back to facing mediocre crowds from Edinburgh City, Annan and Elgin. Certainly seems to be easier to try harder for a club with a 16,000 average attendance compared to one with a sub 1000 average attendance. 

It's not hard to see why other teams are miffed with the proposals, it may be a matter of trying to disadvantage as few teams as possible rather than just 1 club. 

Regarding finances, if  3x14 comes to pass  I hope Clyde have a get out clause in DG'Ws contract or the benefactor paying his wage continues otherwise it could end them.

48 minutes ago, roman_bairn said:

Isn’t it the teams in League 2 that are pushing for this rather than the teams in the Premiership?…

I believe it is, other than Hearts I'd seriously doubt the other SPL teams would be keen on bigger leagues at all.

28 minutes ago, Big Fifer said:

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. 

I'd hope a 3rd play off place would be part of bigger league set ups.

[Jack Burton]

Not getting the obsession with away crowds in league 1 either. Stranraer and Peterhead will bring at lot less than a lot of league 2 clubs. Falkirk was a good bonus this season but if you replace Falkirk with Arbroath like the season before does anyone take that many anywhere ?

Yes, there is still a big difference.

The only league 2 clubs that bring a decent crowd to Broadwood are Stirling and Queens Park.

Airdrie, Dumbarton, East Fife, Montrose etc bring a lot more than Annan, Elgin, Edinburgh.

[Cowden Cowboy]

18 minutes ago, Jack Burton said:

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.
 

Playing each other three times wasn’t a real issue in the 1993/94 reorganisation - clubs weren’t that bothered about it (only Premier clubs were ever fussed about it)

[Scottydog]

2 minutes ago, renton said:

I don't hate the idea of a 14-14-14, so long as it came with a split after two fixtures. Would everyone want to keep the one automatic place + play offs, or move to a straight two up, two down?

I think the latter is more elegant, particularly in a sub league of 7, although play offs extending down to 4th would probably make those sub leagues very competitive. Cant imagine too many years when 5 through 7 were out of the mix...

I would see a split as a necessary requirement to make it all work. Also I 'd vote for 2 up 2 down and 3rd bottom/top3,4&5 place play-off. That would help keep the top 8 post split interesting and in the bottom 6 would be playing to avoid the bottom 3 places.

[monthe blues]

9 minutes ago, Jack Burton said:

Yes, there is still a big difference.

The only league 2 clubs that bring a decent crowd to Broadwood are Stirling and Queens Park.

Airdrie, Dumbarton, East Fife, Montrose etc bring a lot more than Annan, Elgin, Edinburgh.

No team should be disavantaged by covid19 , the season should have been null and void, but you lot voted in favour of relegating teams, So do not expect any sympathy now

Edited April 28, 2020 by monthe blues

[Scottydog]

2 minutes ago, monthe blues said:

No team should be disavantaged by covid19 , the season should have been null and void, but you lot voted in favour of relegating teams,

Surely at the least that would have disadvantages all the teams that had invested for success and were winning their leagues?

[ribzanelli]

1 minute ago, Scottydog said:

Surely at the least that would have disadvantages all the teams that had invested for success and were winning their leagues?

What he means is his team shouldn’t be disadvantaged 

[monthe blues]

9 minutes ago, ribzanelli said:

What he means is his team shouldn’t be disadvantaged 

 

Edited April 28, 2020 by monthe blues

[monthe blues]

3 minutes ago, ribzanelli said:

What he means is his team shouldn’t be disadvantaged 

why should some gain from covid19 and some dont ,is that fair

[ribzanelli]

1 minute ago, monthe blues said:

why should some gain from covid19 and some dont ,is that fair

Because some were going to gain and some were going to lose out anyway

[DAFC.]

Is extending the leagues to 14-10-10-10 not an option? Promoting the top two from each league, no relegations and promoting Brora and Kelty to the SPFL?

[Scottydog]

40 minutes ago, SouthLanarkshireWhite said:

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.

Indeed, but I quoted you on the strength of your wanting bigger leagues "as a principal" 

I take it the principal in question was the same as Clyde01's.  ie, only if it benefits Clyde FC.

I'm starting to hope that you get your wish though, a 10 team Championship with decent gate income from two visits of Hearts, Dundee and Dunfermline might be financially better for MY TEAM than anything else.

Edited April 28, 2020 by Scottydog