League Reconstruction 20/21 season

[ropy]

Just had a look on the map for Brora.  Wet Tuesday night?

[VanCityHibee]

2 hours ago, JamesM82 said:

Sun quoting a "SPFL source" as saying that temporary change is dead (too much opposition). It's 14-10-10-10 permanent (with Kelty and Brora, not the colts) or nothing.

Reasonably happy with that.

“This is the last chance for league reconstruction. If clubs want change then it’s this or nothing. A document will be distributed to clubs outlining the situation.

A temporary fix is a non-starter, that’s clear from the consultations. But there could yet be enough support for a permanent 14-10-10-10. Whether there’s enough backing to get it over the line, we don’t yet know.

But if the answer is no, then that’s fine. If the answer is yes, a short-notice EGM would see if it’s something that can be voted through.”

I tend to agree  with you James , no colts , a larger top league  and we can just put this embarrassment to bed and get on with it.

 

[Pet Jeden]

20 minutes ago, eez-eh said:

I wonder if promoting some teams who finished in play-off positions, but not all, is grounds for throwing toys out of the pram and threatening “legal action”.

So, by that logic You would reward the team below just as much as the team above it? You would happily award the Premier league title jointly to Celtic and Rangers? The Championship jointly to Dundee Utd and Inverness? Yes, there is an inherent contradiction with that logic and with the Hearts position. To be fully consistent, maybe Hearts should be arguing for null and void. But anyhow, there is a practical difference between not rewarding a team (not promoting) and actually punishing a team (relegating).

[itzdrk]

37 minutes ago, eez-eh said:

I wonder if promoting some teams who finished in play-off positions, but not all, is grounds for throwing toys out of the pram and threatening “legal action”.

I would encourage it. 

[Kyle]

I’m ok with a top flight of 14 if it’s a permanent reconstruction. A split after 26 games does sound a bit shit though. 

[itzdrk]

Hopefully this is put firmly in the bin, if they are clear it is the last chance for reconstruction then we move on to more pressing matters like actually organising football. 

Can't see why we need to save teams from relegation but then also bizarrely award promotion places to some but not all playoff position team's.  

Let's get serious for the year after and organise a 16/18 team top flight. 

[JimmyMirren]

Personally I think the idea of having the split after 26 games is the kicker here and is ultimately what will kill this idea off.

If you have the split so early you’ve potentially got a situation where a clubs form could improve drastically in the second half of the season, with players gelling more or a manager finding tactics which suit and could go on a run of games, amass points which could have potentially moved them up the table and yet still be stuck at a plateau of 7th. In addition to that, you’re going to end up with teams in the bottom half having a longer season than those in the top...which seems inherently stupid.

At the end of the day, Scottish football has spent enough time talking about reconstruction and I’m still yet to see any proposal which isn’t going to either cause the problems above, result in changes to the allocation of money on positions, or serve any purpose other than to save Hearts from the relegation they ultimately deserve.

I’ll admit these aren’t normal circumstances but they had 30 games to prove they weren’t sh*te and failed dismally, winning only four matches. If their fans spent as much time chasing change from within and complaining about the responsible parties in this matter (ie Budge, Levein, and Stendel, along with their underperforming and overpaid players), and less time moaning that the rules are unfair, or that the league is rigged, or that OF Colts are a great idea, or moaning about court cases, or whining on Kickback like b*tches with skint knees then I imagine the rest of Scottish football would be more sympathetic to their situation.

Hopefully, the other clubs when voting look at this for what it is, a pathetic attempt at gerrymandering on behalf of one club. If this were St Mirren, or Ross County or Hamilton this would never have gone this far...and for better or worse the spectre of reconstruction for the foreseeable future can GTF (as can that useless w*nkstain Doncaster)!

[Bohemian]

A league split after 26 games is shite. You are practically playing two leagues in one season..  One half of the league playing just for relegation after 26 games. If this is the best they can come up with, f**k that.

Either leave it at12 or make it 16 or bigger(wont happen)would be my choice, 14 just doesnt work if they want their four old firms... 

This is what happens when your entire league structure is based around two fuckin clubs...

[HeWhoWalksBehindTheRows]

12 hours ago, wastecoatwilly said:

Yes but the level hes playing at isn't good enough the massive jump to play at Celtic at 23 then again into the national team.Ex players like Willie Miller would've written him off.
The problem isn't the age the problem raising the level of Inverness.

Simmer down you utter fool. We bum fucked you in a Cup semi, with Christie. The problem isnt Inverness,  its that your a glory hunting, mouth breathing fuckcrumpet.

[Guest JTS98]

Hi again, lads.

No sense in entering into the discussion of whether or not clubs should be relegated, we've all made our positions clear on that.

But I think the league of 14 versus league of 12 discussion is interesting in and of itself.

I've long defended the 12-team league and 6/6 split system. I think it's a pretty decent set-up for our league and provides decent competition towards the end of the season. It also creates a bit of interest in the spring with teams jostling for the last top 6 place, which despite sarcy comments about the top 6 trophy etc, is something clubs are very keen to be in. I like the post-split sprint finish with teams playing those around them. In short, I think it's good.

The main criticisms of a 12-team 6/6 seem to be the following (in no particular order).

1) The team in 7th ends up with more points than the team in 6th. - Who cares? Next.

2) Pre-split (with 33 games) teams have lopsided fixtures and every year this means some teams will have more favourable pre-split fixtures than others. 'Sporting integrity' etc etc. - A 14-team division with a split after 26 solves this problem.

3) - Teams end up with lopsided fixtures even once it's all finished. In 2005/06 Hearts beat Aberdeen at Tynecastle to guarantee second place. It was our third home game against Aberdeen in the league that season. Our away form was pretty shite, would we have finished second if we'd had to go to Pittodrie that night? Maybe. Maybe not. We hadn't won away from home against any of the top six sides since the opening day of the season. - A 14-team division with a split after 26 games solves this problem.

Criticisms of a 14-team division with a split after 26 games:

1) 26 games is too early a cut-off point to condemn someone to the lower section. - A fair point, but it's also 'fairer' to do this after clubs have all had identical fixtures than after the lopsided 33 games and it provides a bit more jeopardy in early season games. So, fair arguments either way.

2) More meaningless games. - True. You will end up with some teams doddering along with hee haw to play for. But that is simply part of football. Some games are meaningless for some teams. And for some teams this will be a positive.  I think Ross County, Hearts, St Mirren, or Accies would be happier doddering along with hee haw to play for post-split than fighting off relegation, and some clubs would see it as a chance to play young players or formulate solid plans for the following season in a pressure-free environment so it can be framed both ways. Ultimately, it's just a general rule of football around the world that being mid-table is boring. Also, we don't know how that would play out. Would teams at the bottom of the league benefit from only playing lower-half teams for longer? It might bunch up that section of the league. We won't know unless we see it play out. Different seasons will be different.

3) Teams playing an unequal number of games. - Bottom section sides will benefit from an extra home game's worth of income as a softner for not being in the top section. Top section sides will get a breather as they are more likely to have competed in Europe and will usually go further in cups. 75% of the Scottish Cup quarter finalists this season are top-half sides. 50% or 75% of League Cup semi-finalists (complicated by Hibs' placement) were top-half sides.

I think both systems have their pros. Neither would be particularly disastrous.

Edited June 11, 2020 by JTS98

[Sergeant Wilson]

7 hours ago, ropy said:

Does anyone think that a 14 team league is a good format?

Hearts.

[Mr. X]

8 hours ago, djchapsticks said:

14-10-10-10 is a lot more palatable, only if permanent. 

Hearts' reputation though in Scottish football is forever fucked, wherever they end up. The footballing equivalent of one big long temper tantrum until they get what they want. 

'Waaaahhhh, waaaaahhhh!!! Keep us up, boo hoo hoo!!'

There is not a meme nor even a group of memes  that exists, that could get close to adequately portraying the level of smugness that I will feel when this is concluded in Hearts favour.    

Rest assured that a St Mirren supporters opinion of Hearts reputation doesn't even register on the  Give-the-slightest-f**k-o-meter.

This will be glorious. 

[Steve McQueen]

55 minutes ago, JTS98 said:

I think both systems have their pros. Neither would be particularly disastrous.

I think the main problem for 14 is the timing of the split. Would be mid January & would only need a few weeks of bad weather to delay the whole season.

We had a game called off in october this year that never got a date because there were no dates available until possibly after the split in March. How is that going to work for January.

 

I'd prefer trying a 16 team league with a later split but that isnt even being considered.

[Guest JTS98]

3 minutes ago, Steve McQueen said:

I think the main problem for 14 is the timing of the split. Would be mid January & would only need a few weeks of bad weather to delay the whole season.

We had a game called off in october this year that never got a date because there were no dates available until possibly after the split in March. How is that going to work for January.

 

I'd prefer trying a 16 team league with a later split but that isnt even being considered.

That's a fair point. But at the same time, the fact that games were called off in October (and we've seen them called off in other months) shows that the current split is just as vulnerable. A run of bad weather in February could shaft a season under the current 12-team format.

We'll never have a format that isn't vulnerable to Scottish weather. We can have games called off at any stage of the season.

Edited June 11, 2020 by JTS98

[Broomhill Ultra]

There is not a meme nor even a group of memes  that exists, that could get close to adequately portraying the level of smugness that I will feel when this is concluded in Hearts favour.    
Rest assured that a St Mirren supporters opinion of Hearts reputation doesn't even register on the  Give-the-slightest-f**k-o-meter.
This will be glorious. [emoji5]

Something involving this?

[PauloPerth]

I agree with all the comments about a 14 team league; the way it would run makes it about the worst even numbered size of top league you could come up with.  It's a shite proposal of a shite structure.

I'm sure when we used to have just 3 divisions, it was 10-14-14 with the bottom two leagues playing each other three times with no split.

If we had to expand then the 16 team top league gives 30 matches then 8/8 split and play each other once for 37 matches and feels more sensible.

Keep it at 12 with 6/6. Its fine for the limitations of our game.

[Guest JTS98]

3 minutes ago, PauloPerth said:

If we had to expand then the 16 team top league gives 30 matches then 8/8 split and play each other once for 37 matches and feels more sensible.

 

That would leave us with the in-built problem of lopsided fixtures. For example, Hearts and Accies trying to avoid relegation in direct competition with each other and playing each other a guaranteed three times means one club has an in-built disadvantage. That applies equally to all placings in the league, since everyone would play competitors three times. Imagine the Old Firm arguing over that?

14 teams avoids that problem. It's an exact competitive home and away balance.

[RandomGuy.]

7 hours ago, Green Day said:

You probably lose one full house v rangers or Celtic plus the TV cash for that live game.

What's that worth, £75k? £100k?

St Johnstone would be giving up a game where they give up 7000 tickets at £30 a go, for ICT fans at £23.

You think Steve Brown, so obsessed with money he moaned about Saints qualifying for Europe due to travel costs, will fo for that?

6 hours ago, Kyle said:

I’m ok with a top flight of 14 if it’s a permanent reconstruction. A split after 26 games does sound a bit shit though. 

As a St Johnstone fan, if the top 6 was closed off at this point our season would now be over, in the first week of February.

Great stuff.

According to the brain's trust on here it would allow us to give game time to young prospects like Jason Kerr, Ali McCann and Callum Hendry though.

Oh...

[Dons_1988]

So a permanent reconstruction with the sole benefit being Hearts not being relegated 

[JamesM82]

6 minutes ago, RandomGuy. said:

 

As a St Johnstone fan, if the top 6 was closed off at this point our season would now be over, in the first week of February.

Great stuff.

 

To be fair, the Budge plan for 14 teams* said that 7th place (i.e. top of the bottom eight) would then go into a playoff for one of the European places. So the teams in the upper part of the bottom eight could still have something to play for.

(* I don't know if this is in the new plan)