Jump to content

More Shenanigans From Our Imperial Masters @SPFL


Recommended Posts

I have no doubts that Thistle and Falkirk would be perfectly capable of getting themselves relegated out a 16 team second tier as well, for what it’s worth. When you assemble squads as poor as ours were, or give managerial positions to Gary Caldwell or Paul Hartley, then you get what you deserve.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, craigkillie said:

Just to be clear, here's what it would look like if you divided the current League 1 and League 2 sides along regional lines. Probably a decent reduction in travelling for the sides in the south, but you'd still have Edinburgh City heading down to Stranraer and Annan. You'd then have Stenhousemuir and Stirling Albion massively increasing their travelling distance by having to head north for every away game and no longer having nearby matches against the likes of Clyde, Falkirk, Edinburgh City or either of the Glasgow clubs.

North

Brechin City
Cove Rangers
Cowdenbeath
East Fife
Elgin City
Forfar Athletic
Montrose
Peterhead
Stirling Albion
Stenhousemuir

South

Airdrie
Albion Rovers
Annan Athletic
Clyde
Dumbarton
Edinburgh City
Falkirk
Partick Thistle
Queen's Park
Stranraer

I demand you create me a National Conference 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, craigkillie said:

Just to be clear, here's what it would look like if you divided the current League 1 and League 2 sides along regional lines. Probably a decent reduction in travelling for the sides in the south, but you'd still have Edinburgh City heading down to Stranraer and Annan. You'd then have Stenhousemuir and Stirling Albion massively increasing their travelling distance by having to head north for every away game and no longer having nearby matches against the likes of Clyde, Falkirk, Edinburgh City or either of the Glasgow clubs.

North

Brechin City
Cove Rangers
Cowdenbeath
East Fife
Elgin City
Forfar Athletic
Montrose
Peterhead
Stirling Albion
Stenhousemuir

South

Airdrie
Albion Rovers
Annan Athletic
Clyde
Dumbarton
Edinburgh City
Falkirk
Partick Thistle
Queen's Park
Stranraer

There's already a dividing line to form HL and LL league members.  Using that would give your North Conference as Forfar, Brechin, Montrose, Cove, Peterhead and Elgin.

All the others would be in the 'South'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm aware of the Highland/Lowland boundary, but if we were introducing regionalisation in the SPFL I doubt they would just be choosing to have to relegate four South clubs and promoted four North clubs on a whim purely to match up with that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's just to further highlight that any regional boundary agreement will cause difficulties after it's decided upon the 'dividing line'.  

 

As it's currently standing I think that each national tier looks ok at the moment (promotion/relegation another issue however).  Although the LL areas will have around 100 or so more clubs than HL feeders so that may lead to boundary changes in years to come as the pyramid gets amended, depending on strength of divisions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, craigkillie said:

Just to be clear, here's what it would look like if you divided the current League 1 and League 2 sides along regional lines. Probably a decent reduction in travelling for the sides in the south, but you'd still have Edinburgh City heading down to Stranraer and Annan. You'd then have Stenhousemuir and Stirling Albion massively increasing their travelling distance by having to head north for every away game and no longer having nearby matches against the likes of Clyde, Falkirk, Edinburgh City or either of the Glasgow clubs.

North

Brechin City
Cove Rangers
Cowdenbeath
East Fife
Elgin City
Forfar Athletic
Montrose
Peterhead
Stirling Albion
Stenhousemuir

South

Airdrie
Albion Rovers
Annan Athletic
Clyde
Dumbarton
Edinburgh City
Falkirk
Partick Thistle
Queen's Park
Stranraer

The big temptation here is that we would never have to visit either Cowdenbeath or Methil ever again.

This does have some merit after all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Gordon EF said:

I'm no saying it's bad for East Fife therefore I don't like it. Substitute East Fife for any tier 3/4 club in the stretch of central Scotland from Ayrshire up to Angus. That's 75% of Leagues One and Two. For most of those clubs, regionalising makes almost no difference to travelling cost and for some, depending on the make up of the leagues they're in, it would actually result in more travelling. If your argument for regionalising Leagues One and Two is travel cost, it's been conclusively proven many times to be a very poor argument.

 

I've no real idea what kind of point you're making when you say stuff like 'a club like Hearts being at tier 2 is ridiculous' or 'it's weird for Dunfermline to be permanently exiled from tier 1' despite the fact that they have been in tier 1 numerous times in the current structure.

I'm not against changing the structure and I'm not against bigger leagues, I'm for them. I'm making a specific point that there isn't really much argument for regionalising the current tier 3/4 based on travelling cost and certainly not on development of the national team. The first is intuitive but has been disproved multiple times, the second is just baws-oot wild.

 

Again, I'm not against changing the structure to include bigger leagues. I absolutely don't think tinkering with the structure of largely semi-professional leagues is going to have much impact on the national team. The vast majority of NT players never even play at these levels. We absolutely shouldn't be going into league reconstruction with the aim of improving the national team. It makes very little sense.

I used a comparison because that's exactly what you did. Compare Scotland to larger countries with different geographies when arguing for regionalisation to come in earlier in the league structure. the fundamentally ridiculous argument of "Well Germany regionalise at tier x and Germany are good at football right?"

For the third time now, I'm not suggesting regionalising L1 and L2. I haven't said that at any stage.

I'm trying to focus on a bigger picture.

I also haven't talked about 'improving the national team'. I'm talking about possibly improving the quality of club football in Scotland overall. One might lead to the other, or it might not.

And I purposely gave a number of comparisons, big countries and smaller countries more similar to Scotland. My point about England is that almost nothing that's relevant to structure and economy in English football is relevant to Scotland and it's time we stopped looking in that direction for models.

If you want a truly ridiculous argument it would go something like this: 'Germany has three national leagues, but Scotland needs five' (which is where this discussion started).

Do you not think it's at least worth asking why the Czech Republic and Portugal regionalise after tier 2 (and are good at football)?

4 hours ago, Ranaldo Bairn said:

Smacks of "disallow relegation for certain clubs deemed big enough because reasons", doesn't it?

No, it doesn't. You can invent that if it makes you feel better... but it hasn't been said, not even close.

I'm talking about the point at which the penalty of relegation clicks in... finishing 11th or 12th (or 9th or 10th in the Championship) shouldn't be that point, for reasons relating to financial viability and the quality of football.

If Hearts or Morton or anybody else are pish enough to finish 16th, down they go.

You won't be surprised to learn that I particularly enjoyed Falkirk's relegation to L1 under the bold Raymondo... but do I think it makes sense for Scottish football at large for a club the size of Falkirk (in our context) to be stuck in L1? No, I don't.

4 hours ago, The Moonster said:

Probably doesn't want his own club fucking around in the bottom tier. Again. 

Aye, because you missed that bit about not seeing things solely from the perspective of your own club... Well done.

Trying to have a discussion, not an argument. If you don't want to participate, that's fair enough.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, The Ghost of B A R P said:

I'm talking about the point at which the penalty of relegation clicks in... finishing 11th or 12th (or 9th or 10th in the Championship) shouldn't be that point, for reasons relating to financial viability and the quality of football.

If Hearts or Morton or anybody else are pish enough to finish 16th, down they go.

You won't be surprised to learn that I particularly enjoyed Falkirk's relegation to L1 under the bold Raymondo... but do I think it makes sense for Scottish football at large for a club the size of Falkirk (in our context) to be stuck in L1? No, I don't.

Aye, because you missed that bit about not seeing things solely from the perspective of your own club... Well done.

Trying to have a discussion, not an argument. If you don't want to participate, that's fair enough.

 

None of it makes sense though. If Hearts are the worst team in the league they go down. Making your leagues bigger to increase the chances of big clubs staying higher up the pyramid is a farce. Falkirk are "stuck" in League 1 because of their own mismanagement, on the other side Alloa and Arbroath are in the second tier on merit and fully deserve their shot. Saying things like "do I think it makes sense for a club of Falkirks size to be in League 1? no" makes absolutely no sense in itself. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Ghost of B A R P said:

For the third time now, I'm not suggesting regionalising L1 and L2. I haven't said that at any stage.

I'm trying to focus on a bigger picture.

You seem to be spending a lot of time and effort providing arguments for it then but fair enough.

Quote

I also haven't talked about 'improving the national team'. I'm talking about possibly improving the quality of club football in Scotland overall. One might lead to the other, or it might not.

And I purposely gave a number of comparisons, big countries and smaller countries more similar to Scotland. My point about England is that almost nothing that's relevant to structure and economy in English football is relevant to Scotland and it's time we stopped looking in that direction for models.

If you want a truly ridiculous argument it would go something like this: 'Germany has three national leagues, but Scotland needs five' (which is where this discussion started).

Do you not think it's at least worth asking why the Czech Republic and Portugal regionalise after tier 2 (and are good at football)?

Again, I'm not really advocating a 'well England does this so we should' policy. But I don't understand why you'd think we shouldn't consider what England do but should look at what Germany, the Czech Republic or Portugal do.

I think it's almost entirely pointless asking why Portugal regionalise after tier 2 and their national team is relatively good. Players who represent Portugal will have minimal or, in most cases, zero interaction with that level of the game in Portugal. You'd be as well asking why they have a green and red flag and are good at football.

Different countries have different systems which reflect the standard or football at different levels, the geography of the country and the history of football in that country.

Portugal might only have two national tiers right now but there are 38 clubs in those two tiers. Which is roughly similar to Scotland. So we're regionalising at roughly the same point. The smaller clubs in their second tier get crowds of around 300 give or take, so in terms of size of clubs, Scotland and Portugal, again, are regionalising at around the same level.

And, interestingly, the Portuguese are adding a 3rd national league of 24 clubs in season 23/24 so they'll have much more clubs playing a national level than Scotland will.

Edited by Gordon EF
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, The Moonster said:

None of it makes sense though. If Hearts are the worst team in the league they go down. Making your leagues bigger to increase the chances of big clubs staying higher up the pyramid is a farce. Falkirk are "stuck" in League 1 because of their own mismanagement, on the other side Alloa and Arbroath are in the second tier on merit and fully deserve their shot. Saying things like "do I think it makes sense for a club of Falkirks size to be in League 1? no" makes absolutely no sense in itself. 

I'm trying to take an overview of what might be good for club football in Scotland in general.

TL;DR -- bigger leagues.

5 hours ago, Gordon EF said:

You seem to be spending a lot of time and effort providing arguments for it then but fair enough.

Again, I'm not really advocating a 'well England does this so we should' policy. But I don't understand why you'd think we shouldn't consider what England do but should look at what Germany, the Czech Republic or Portugal do.

I think it's almost entirely pointless asking why Portugal regionalise after tier 2 and their national team is relatively good. Players who represent Portugal will have minimal or, in most cases, zero interaction with that level of the game in Portugal. You'd be as well asking why they have a green and red flag and are good at football.

Different countries have different systems which reflect the standard or football at different levels, the geography of the country and the history of football in that country.

Portugal might only have two national tiers right now but there are 38 clubs in those two tiers. Which is roughly similar to Scotland. So we're regionalising at roughly the same point. The smaller clubs in their second tier get crowds of around 300 give or take, so in terms of size of clubs, Scotland and Portugal, again, are regionalising at around the same level.

And, interestingly, the Portuguese are adding a 3rd national league of 24 clubs in season 23/24 so they'll have much more clubs playing a national level than Scotland will.

How can I be 'providing arguments for it' if it's not what I'm proposing? Just trying to answer points people raise in the course of the discussion...

The bottom line here is whether you think Scottish football is in good nick; and, if you don't, can anything meaningful be done about that. I think Scottish football is in pretty poor nick and liable to get worse. If there isn't structural change in a number of areas (including leagues and broadcasting), I think things will definitely get worse. This comes up at the wrong time and for the wrong reasons (the interests of one or two clubs, most recently Hearts and Thistle). Needs to happen on an objective basis with a view to the long term.

Basically what I'm suggesting, as above, is a. bigger leagues; b. a sustainable system of professional football. Nothing wrong with looking elsewhere (anywhere) for clues as how best to do that; you then simply accept or reject different possibilities based on how relevant they are to Scotland.

If we end up with three professional/semi-professional leagues of 16, we're at least on the right track (but there's an argument for two, then regionalise). If we end up with five national tiers of 10-12 teams, possibly with pressure from you-know-who for Colts teams, nothing will change. Your point about Portugal supports that, rather than contradicts it: they appear to think three large national leagues is a good thing.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, The Ghost of B A R P said:

I'm trying to take an overview of what might be good for club football in Scotland in general.

TL;DR -- bigger leagues.

If you'd said bigger leagues that would be fine, but you said bigger leagues because it's ridiculous some of our big clubs get relegated and can't get promoted again. That's nonsense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bigger leagues would be shite, boring, and likely meaningless for a swathe of clubs by about February.

There's a reason we moved away from them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bigger leagues would be shite, boring, and likely meaningless for a swathe of clubs by about February.
There's a reason we moved away from them.
Also, it tends to leave a large gap between leagues. Which either makes relegation an even bigger financial fallout than now or you'll have the same teams going up and down every year.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Nightmare said:

Bigger leagues with more “meaningless” games > playing the same teams at least 4 times every year imo

One wonders why a Partick fan would be wanting the top two tiers to be larger, tbh.

A head scratcher.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, RandomGuy. said:

One wonders why a Partick fan would be wanting the top two tiers to be larger, tbh.

A head scratcher.

I’ve been calling for bigger divisions for a long time. I wanted them when we were stagnating in the old First Division, I wanted them during our successful years in the top flight and I still want them while we’re a miserable rabble languishing in the third tier.

Want to try again?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, SouthLanarkshireWhite said:

The big temptation here is that we would never have to visit either Cowdenbeath or Methil ever again.

This does have some merit after all.

Get beat tonight and there’s a good chance you’ll be visiting the metropolis of Cowdenbeath next season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, The Ghost of B A R P said:

If we end up with three professional/semi-professional leagues of 16, we're at least on the right track (but there's an argument for two, then regionalise). If we end up with five national tiers of 10-12 teams, possibly with pressure from you-know-who for Colts teams, nothing will change. Your point about Portugal supports that, rather than contradicts it: they appear to think three large national leagues is a good thing.

I'm in favour of bigger leagues than 10. I would not be in favour of the Portuguese model of 18-18-24 as it will be in a few years.

It's a balance between the monotony of playing every team in your division four times and having leagues so big that lots of fixtures become meaningless and, of course, having a structure that allows teams to move up and down as it's merited.

The point about Portugal was specifically in relation to regionalisation. Portugal do not regionalise higher up the structure than we do currently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 13/04/2021 at 14:26, Ranaldo Bairn said:

Didn't they go to 10 because the 18 was terminally boring?

You'd think that after witnessing the last decade of constant wrangling about reconstruction and Colt teams, people would understand that 'the best solution for the standard/entertainment value of football' is nowhere near the top of the priority list for change in Scottish football.

Moving to a 10 allowed the top clubs to play each other more often and so make the gap between themselves and the rest larger. It's the same reason (with the technological twist of live TV rights) why the top flight has a split to de facto confirm a fourth Old Firm match every season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, true_rover said:
2 hours ago, RandomGuy. said:

 

Also, it tends to leave a large gap between leagues. Which either makes relegation an even bigger financial fallout than now or you'll have the same teams going up and down every year.

There are already large gaps between the top flight and second tier - see 'Uncle Roy's' Highland mercenaries endlessly yo-yoing between those levels - and the cut-off in terms of resources (though not quality) between the Championship and League One is already enormous. 

I see no credible argument why an 18 team top flight with play-offs at the bottom/top of the second tier would be more unbalanced and predictable than a four division setup that is literally stratified to make sure that the diddy teams are broken up long before they reach the top flight. 

Edited by vikingTON
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...