SFA National League @ Tier 5

[theboke]

Reading around contributions to lower league and non league forums on P&B, two ideas that seem to have majority support are that people want to see more promotion/relegation to/from the SPFL and also no colts teams in the SPFL.

There's also a lot more depth to the Lowland and Highland leagues these days.

So why not have a national league of 10 teams at the fifth level, pulling in the best LL and HL clubs, where SPFL League Two clubs are more comfortable being relegated to?

This would enable SPFL clubs to vote to open up more promotion/relegation, such as a National League division at tier 5 with the usual one automatic promotion/relegation and 9th in L2 in playoffs with 2nd, 3rd, 4th in the National League.

I think the clubs could afford it in terms of travel costs, as I calculated on the Reconstruction thread that it doesn't cost League One and Two clubs much more than about £20,000 collectively to play nationwide rather than in parallel East and West divisions, so there's not that much extra cost for teams moving up to play nationwide.

Maybe the Old Firm would be happy to pick up the bill, entering their colts teams at this level, which would be a good  standard, and no higher?

Because of population imbalances in the catchment areas, they could start off with 7 lowland teams, 3 highland teams. Or substitute 2 colts teams in for 2 lowlanders.

Relegation could be 2 automatic, with 1 promoted directly from the LL and 1st HL v 2nd LL for the other place in the National League.

[Cyclizine]

And then clubs in the national Tier 5 will say that Tier 6 is too big a drop in quality, no fans, no prizemoney, etc, etc, ad infinitum...

And colts can GTF.

[theboke]

Doubt it, since those clubs will have just recently been in tier 6 and working their way up.

But no colts is fine. Just trying to find a solution to an ongoing issue.

I'd probably scrap colts teams altogether along with barring loans for youths, which seem just to turn talented teens into journeymen. Make clubs use their youngsters or release them: they'll soon be picked up by clubs at a lower level, which they can enrich with their talents whilst playing real football alongside men.

If no colts, I'd go for an SPFL 10, 10, 10, 10.

With a tier 5 national league of 10 teams at the tip of the non league pyramid, composed of 2 ex-SPFL, 3 ex-HL, 5 ex-LL.

Standardise promotion/relegation from Premiership down to National League: one automatic promotion/relegation place, plus 9th from division above vs 2nd, 3rd, 4th of division below. And two relegated automatically from tier 5.

Ultimately, tier 6 would be four separate divisions: West Lowland, East Lowland, Grampian, Highland. With two of the four champions promoted each season, after play offs.

 

@Crawford Bridge @DA Baracus

Edited April 4, 2021 by theboke

[Crawford Bridge]

1 hour ago, theboke said:

Doubt it, since those clubs will have just recently been in tier 6 and working their way up.

But no colts is fine. Just trying to find a solution to an ongoing issue.

I'd probably scrap colts teams altogether along with barring loans for youths, which seem just to turn talented teens into journeymen. Make clubs use their youngsters or release them: they'll soon be picked up by clubs at a lower level, which they can enrich with their talents whilst playing real football alongside men.

If no colts, I'd go for an SPFL 10, 10, 10, 10.

With a tier 5 national league of 10 teams at the tip of the non league pyramid, composed of 2 ex-SPFL, 3 ex-HL, 5 ex-LL.

Standardise promotion/relegation from Premiership down to National League: one automatic promotion/relegation place, plus 9th from division above vs 2nd, 3rd, 4th of division below. And two relegated automatically from tier 5.

Ultimately, tier 6 would be four separate divisions: West Lowland, East Lowland, Grampian, Highland. With two of the four champions promoted each season, after play offs.

 

@Crawford Bridge @DA Baracus

Why are you tagging me?

I couldn't care less about your reconstruction fantasies.

[theboke]

10 hours ago, Crawford Bridge said:

Why are you tagging me?

I couldn't care less about your reconstruction fantasies.

I am seeking your approval, in light of your recent campaign of red cards against my posts.

Would you prefer 12, 12, 12 12? Just sticking with the Lowland League and Highland League at tier 5, though, and abandoning the national league idea.

Therefore admitting four lowlanders and two highlanders to expand the SPFL to 48.

It'd be a bit untidy, with a split required in every SPFL division, but there's enough non league quality nowadays to enable those 6 teams to be promoted to the SPFL and so to keep that bottom 12 of the SPFL competitive. And that surely would mean they'd be able to open up more promotion/relegation from/to the LL and HL, if the SPFL was larger.

Then just stick with the usual promotion/relegation/playoffs between the SPFL divisions themselves.

Making each tier a wee bit fatter wouldn't hurt, either, in terms of helping build teams and players over a couple of seasons, rather than the constant uncertainty of leagues of 10?

 

@Cyclizine Stop it. That tickles!

(more)

Edited April 4, 2021 by theboke

[Crawford Bridge]

23 minutes ago, theboke said:

I am seeking your approval, in light of your recent campaign of red cards against my posts.

Would you prefer 12, 12, 12 12? Just sticking with the Lowland League and Highland League at tier 5, though, and abandoning the national league idea.

Therefore admitting four lowlanders and two highlanders to expand the SPFL to 48.

It'd be a bit untidy, with a split required in every SPFL division, but there's enough non league quality nowadays to enable those 6 teams to be promoted to the SPFL and so to keep that bottom 12 of the SPFL competitive. And that surely would mean they'd be able to open up more promotion/relegation from/to the LL and HL, if the SPFL was larger.

Then just stick with the usual promotion/relegation/playoffs between the SPFL divisions themselves.

Making each tier a wee bit fatter wouldn't hurt, either, in terms of helping build teams and players over a couple of seasons, rather than the constant uncertainty of leagues of 10?

TLDR

[grazza]

No to Colt team. 4 fully nationwide division is more than enough. I do think though there is scope for a 12 team hybrid league with North and south split of 6 teams each play your fellow conference twice home and twice away and then the other conference sides once home and once away.  It gives a step between highland/lowland and nationwide travel. 

I'd go with 4 12 team leagues at tiers 1 to 4 with top 3 divisions using premiership style split and tier 4 using this hybrid system. Extra 6 spots in tier 4 would help smaller clubs there stay in bit longer to sort themselves or least make it achievable to get back in.

Makes it bit more tidy with North division team more than likely falling into Highland catchment and same with South and lowland and longer term option for play offs with 2nd bottom v respective runners up. 

 

 

Edited April 5, 2021 by grazza

[SecretCEO]

If the goal is to persuade League One and Two clubs to vote for opening up promotion/relegation from/to tier 5, then the focus would need to be on making the Lowland League more appealing to them.

The Lowland League is all-but the national league at tier 5, given the number of SPFL clubs eligible to play in it (75% of them). So it makes sense to firm up the link between the SPFL and the Lowland League.

Reducing its size to a more elite 10 teams playing opponents x4, or 12 teams playing opponents x3 might help.

It would also be beneficial to have the Lowland League champions promoted automatically, with second place and maybe third entering playoffs with the Highland League champions and second bottom of League Two for a second SPFL place.

Since most SPFL clubs would be eligible to be relegated to the Lowland League, they're going to look for how easy it would be to recover their SPFL status from that league. One team going into the pyramid playoffs isn't going to do it. And isn't fair by population share. So, even now, there needs to be at least two Lowland League teams entering into the pyramid playoffs in order to be persuasive to SPFL clubs.

Some changes like these will be needed to open things up without being held to ransom by the old firm over their colts teams.

Edited April 12, 2021 by SecretCEO
Second paragraph added to expand on my views a bit.

[G51]

Would have thought the trend would be for regionalisation of L1 and L2 tbh.

 

[Spyro]

5 hours ago, G51 said:

Would have thought the trend would be for regionalisation of L1 and L2 tbh.

 

[G51]

7 hours ago, Spyro said:

There was a rumour going round years ago that the Brora players chucked the second game against Montrose in 2015 because none of the players wanted the hassle of dealing with national travel.

It's not a sentiment unique to them if it's true. Therefore, regionalising the leagues above seems more likely than nationalising the leagues below, because there's no way the better teams in the HL would want a national league. There's no advantage to them.

[Spyro]

3 hours ago, G51 said:

There was a rumour going round years ago that the Brora players chucked the second game against Montrose in 2015 because none of the players wanted the hassle of dealing with national travel.

It's not a sentiment unique to them if it's true. Therefore, regionalising the leagues above seems more likely than nationalising the leagues below, because there's no way the better teams in the HL would want a national league. There's no advantage to them.

Yeah, you don’t have to remind me of the Brora situation! Although it wasn’t really anything to do with the (majority of) players. It seems a different set up now though 

I thought regionalisation at these leagues was a good idea, until you get into the details and realise it’s a none starter... Stirling Albion in a North league while the others around them play the majority of their games locally for example.

As for the better teams in the HL, there isn’t any left since ICT, County, Peterhead, Elgin and Cove all left so chances are they’ll not beat the LL representative once that league has settled with the better South teams if it came to it anyway. 

[Ivo den Bieman]

3 hours ago, G51 said:

There was a rumour going round years ago that the Brora players chucked the second game against Montrose in 2015 because none of the players wanted the hassle of dealing with national travel.

It's not a sentiment unique to them if it's true. Therefore, regionalising the leagues above seems more likely than nationalising the leagues below, because there's no way the better teams in the HL would want a national league. There's no advantage to them.

It's a rumour started by know-nothings who weren't there.

The chairman / major backer at the time mumped and moaned about the play-off. He was a wealthy parochial sort whose ambition was the dominate the HL as Huntly had done in the 1990s.

The SFA had a quiet word and he stepped into line. Brora were 12/13 minutes away from promotion that day. There is no suggestion whatever that the players involved chucked it or did not try. Indeed, they should have been better than a goal to the good after the first leg.

 

[G51]

7 minutes ago, Ivo den Bieman said:

It's a rumour started by know-nothings who weren't there.

The chairman / major backer at the time mumped and moaned about the play-off. He was a wealthy parochial sort whose ambition was the dominate the HL as Huntly had done in the 1990s.

The SFA had a quiet word and he stepped into line. Brora were 12/13 minutes away from promotion that day. There is no suggestion whatever that the players involved chucked it or did not try. Indeed, they should have been better than a goal to the good after the first leg.

 

It was very well known among locals that a number of the Brora players didn't want to get promoted to League 2. Whether that contributed to what happened we'll never know, but there was definitely a percentage of them that weren't up for traveling around the country.

[Ivo den Bieman]

Nah. Not buying it, having seen every moment of both legs. It's nonsense.

[G51]

I have no idea how you could possibly discern from watching the games whether or not a number of players were unhappy about the idea of playing in a national league, but whatever.

[Gordon EF]

On 13/04/2021 at 09:27, G51 said:

There was a rumour going round years ago that the Brora players chucked the second game against Montrose in 2015 because none of the players wanted the hassle of dealing with national travel.

It's not a sentiment unique to them if it's true. Therefore, regionalising the leagues above seems more likely than nationalising the leagues below, because there's no way the better teams in the HL would want a national league. There's no advantage to them.

Would it not be utterly insane to have SPFL structure dictated by a village team who're temporarily bouyed by some guy's cash? 

[G51]

1 hour ago, Gordon EF said:

Would it not be utterly insane to have SPFL structure dictated by a village team who're temporarily bouyed by some guy's cash? 

It would be utterly insane to have teams traipsing about the country in Level 5 of the pyramid. Nobody wants it. 

 

[Stag Nation]

1 hour ago, Gordon EF said:

Would it not be utterly insane to have SPFL structure dictated by a village team who're temporarily bouyed by some guy's cash? 

The village team, if promoted to the league, would have one vote out of 42 after a probationary period of 1(?) year. That is not quite the same as dictatorship.

[Gordon EF]

22 minutes ago, G51 said:

It would be utterly insane to have teams traipsing about the country in Level 5 of the pyramid. Nobody wants it. 

 

I agree. But nobody's going to regionalise tiers 3 and 4 because a few Brora players didn't fancy long journeys.

I don't think a new national tier 5 or regionalising tiers 3 and 4 make much sense. We absolutely need to open up movement between the SPFL and the top of the pyramid underneath the SPFL.

Edited April 19, 2021 by Gordon EF