Jump to content

SPFL Review


Recommended Posts

13 hours ago, ATLIS said:

I really do wonder if the outcome will be, 1) make the league bigger, 2) get a better TV deal and 3) something vague about streaming or maximising merchandise income. 

 

For part 1 it could be make it smaller

Part 3 could be to follow an MLS format with every kit made by the same manufacturer , all club shops selling the similar products .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, realmadrid said:

Forgetting the second visit from one of the OF that is guaranteed under the current system , clubs would be cutting a second visit for a large support for a smaller number.

Taking Dundee as the example they would cut post split second visits from St Mirren, Ross County, Livingston, Hibs , Rangers and Aberdeen and replace them with ICT, Kilmarnock, Arboath, Partick Thistle, Queen of the South and Raith Rovers going by the current championship table. At a guess Hibs or Aberdeen could bring as many fans as a combination of 3 of the team above so there would be a loss of revenue to them. However there would be a bigger spread of those away attendances over more teams so if they are looking out of the greater good a larger league may be a positive thing.  

We could invite Falkirk in. That would make up for it 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Les Cabbage said:

Genuinely curious, for the people that want the league to be extended to 16/18.

Assuming we play eachother twice that would reduce the amount of league games we play to either 30 or 34 games.

How do you plan for clubs to sign up to that? It would reduce the money coming in as it would be less gate money from less games, less derbies and all that comes along with that.

I’m not knocking the idea but I’m just not sure how it makes sense for any club from a financial perspective, other than for the 4 clubs that would be promoted as a result.

Could just keep the split. Used to think it was ridiculous but now I think its kinda neat. If that ends up making the season too long, then I dunno, split it in thirds? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Merkland Red said:

No club is giving up the chance of 2 games at home v the OF. Sadly.

 

2 hours ago, Leith Green said:

 

AFAIK part of this report is looking at almost doubling the commercial income. Were that feasible, the notional drop in fan income would be less relevant.

Frankly I would pay slightly more for my ST in order not to have those clubs at Easter Road if that were an option 😉

 

1 hour ago, Sergeant Wilson said:

It's a knee jerk response when reconstruction is mentioned. In an ideal world it would be possible, but it fails to recognise the corner clubs have been painting themselves in to for the last 50 years.

The opportunity to properly restructure was lost when the new Rangers were allowed in and "normal service" was quickly resumed.

 

1 hour ago, Steve McQueen said:

Isn’t it weird that we think of having a split in all combinations apart from 16+.

 

Think the main problem isn’t just OF but clubs giving up games against Aberdeen, Hearts etc for Inverness & Hamilton..

 

1 hour ago, realmadrid said:

Forgetting the second visit from one of the OF that is guaranteed under the current system , clubs would be cutting a second visit for a large support for a smaller number.

Taking Dundee as the example they would cut post split second visits from St Mirren, Ross County, Livingston, Hibs , Rangers and Aberdeen and replace them with ICT, Kilmarnock, Arboath, Partick Thistle, Queen of the South and Raith Rovers going by the current championship table. At a guess Hibs or Aberdeen could bring as many fans as a combination of 3 of the team above so there would be a loss of revenue to them. However there would be a bigger spread of those away attendances over more teams so if they are looking out of the greater good a larger league may be a positive thing.  

 

17 minutes ago, Chefki Kuqi said:

Could just keep the split. Used to think it was ridiculous but now I think its kinda neat. If that ends up making the season too long, then I dunno, split it in thirds? 

Fair enough, cheers for the responses.

General consensus seems to be that we don’t know unless we try it which I wouldn’t be against, getting to go to different grounds and such like.

And I suppose it would make derbies more special, for example I gave the last Edinburgh derby a miss, knowing we’re likely to play them at least another 3 times this season and I probably wouldn’t have if there were only 2 per year.

Personally I’m a fan of the split, games against the clubs directly around you when you’re competing for positions has generated loads of excitement, the 17/18 season where Hibs played out a 5-3 win and a 5-5 draw in the battle for Europe in our last two home games was sensational. Do tend to enjoy the relegation scraps too (when we’re not involved).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, craigkillie said:

I've never understood this argument, which seems to be exclusively made by Old Firm fans. The qualifying rounds are still part of European competition and therefore it is entirely reasonable to describe it as "Europe".

 

The World Cup qualifiers are still part of the World Cup but Scotland don't claim to have played in the World Cup every four year. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The World Cup qualifiers are still part of the World Cup but Scotland don't claim to have played in the World Cup every four year. 

That’s the round that Scotland start in though. Anyone playing in the first round of the Europa League has had to qualify by being one of the best teams in their country.

They’ve qualified to play teams from other countries. In Europe.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like the split - makes for something every club can aim for and means even though the league title is irrelevant there are always straight shoot-outs between teams competing for/to stay away from the relegation and European spots. As it is right now not too bothered about the way things are if we accept we can’t just jettison the old firm down to England, I also really like the addition of the play offs in the top flight. Would be concerned that this kind of review would look at binning the split/play offs or a couple of teams in favour of a more compact league it’s harder to get relegated from, like a ten team bore-a-thon.

Only bigger league idea I can think of that would keep the good we have now and potentially not be a massive cluster f**k:

16 team league. Play everyone twice (30 games) then split into groups of 8 and play each side in the group once more (37 games). Lots of problems with the home away divide etc but we have that now.

I’d argue for relegating the bottom two automatically and keeping a third spot to go into play offs as we have now. In an ideal world they’d start at the semis stage but I know prem clubs aren’t going to sign up for that… but imagine the chaos in that bottom 8 with 3 clubs potentially going down. In the top 8 there could be a playoff for the last euro spot but that seems quite tough to work out with the Scottish cup place, otherwise basically as we have now with teams playing out for the euro spots but with a little more mid table comfort at the bottom end of the 8.

Pros: more variety of teams in the top flight, no one has to play Ross County 4 times in a season
“The big five” (lmao) would probably like this since it’s the only way some of them would manage to join clubs like St Johnstone in the top half
Only miss out on one game compared to now
Think it would still limit the number of meaningless games
Spread the wealth by offering opportunity for plucky seaside leaguers like Arbroath, Falkirk etc to get to the top flight and earn old firm gates etc

Cons: shite like Partick in the top flight
Home and away split would cause problems
Is this actually much better than what we have now?


Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Les Cabbage said:

 

 

 

 

 

Fair enough, cheers for the responses.

General consensus seems to be that we don’t know unless we try it which I wouldn’t be against, getting to go to different grounds and such like.

And I suppose it would make derbies more special, for example I gave the last Edinburgh derby a miss, knowing we’re likely to play them at least another 3 times this season and I probably wouldn’t have if there were only 2 per year.

Personally I’m a fan of the split, games against the clubs directly around you when you’re competing for positions has generated loads of excitement, the 17/18 season where Hibs played out a 5-3 win and a 5-5 draw in the battle for Europe in our last two home games was sensational. Do tend to enjoy the relegation scraps too (when we’re not involved).

I don't understand the hate the split gets either tbh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Dons_1988 said:

The SPFL and clubs might wonder what chance they’ve got when fans don’t believe that doubling the income for the entire professional game would make any difference. 

You’re one of those that buy into whatever nonsense you’re fed.

When Gretna spent all that cash, in what way did it develop and improve players? Or facilities?

Motherwell spent a fortune on chasing the third place dream under John Boyle and ended up in admin.  When they cut the budget massively they became a conveyor belt of talent.

It’s not about the money, it’s about those making the decisions on how the money is spent. If you’re telling me tall of the extra cash will be allocated to facilities for developing young players, or improving supporter facilities and keeping ticket prices down then I’m in. It won’t though, it’ll go on players wages and agent fees if the clubs involved have much to do with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Merkland Red said:

I don't understand the hate the split gets either tbh.

Calling it a five game playoff is a bit American but that is what it is.  It intensifies the impact of those last five games as everyone plays against their nearest rivals.

Occasionally everything is decided earlier than the last 5 games so it is all a bit meaningless, but usually it leads to an exciting end of the season at different parts of the league. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, PauloPerth said:

You’re one of those that buy into whatever nonsense you’re fed.

When Gretna spent all that cash, in what way did it develop and improve players? Or facilities?

Motherwell spent a fortune on chasing the third place dream under John Boyle and ended up in admin.  When they cut the budget massively they became a conveyor belt of talent.

It’s not about the money, it’s about those making the decisions on how the money is spent. If you’re telling me tall of the extra cash will be allocated to facilities for developing young players, or improving supporter facilities and keeping ticket prices down then I’m in. It won’t though, it’ll go on players wages and agent fees if the clubs involved have much to do with it.

The club's would be spending money on players that they do actually have for a start.

St Johnstone would have a better chance of holding on to players like Kerr and McCann if clubs can offer a more comparable wage. Yes they probably still leave but there's a better chance of getting a further extension in front of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, PauloPerth said:

You’re one of those that buy into whatever nonsense you’re fed.

When Gretna spent all that cash, in what way did it develop and improve players? Or facilities?

Motherwell spent a fortune on chasing the third place dream under John Boyle and ended up in admin.  When they cut the budget massively they became a conveyor belt of talent.

It’s not about the money, it’s about those making the decisions on how the money is spent. If you’re telling me tall of the extra cash will be allocated to facilities for developing young players, or improving supporter facilities and keeping ticket prices down then I’m in. It won’t though, it’ll go on players wages and agent fees if the clubs involved have much to do with it.

Well your final paragraph is fine except you state its one or the other. Clubs would be free to use that revenue, wisely or unwisely.

The dream I suppose is that more revenue means holding onto developed talent for longer, in the sense that you'd ideally as a European spot finisher want to be able to compete with the likes of Rotherham for wages. Obviously for bigger championship club and bigger fees that's pie in the sky, but surely can give Rotherham the finger?

Edited by Chefki Kuqi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, PauloPerth said:

You’re one of those that buy into whatever nonsense you’re fed.

When Gretna spent all that cash, in what way did it develop and improve players? Or facilities?

Motherwell spent a fortune on chasing the third place dream under John Boyle and ended up in admin.  When they cut the budget massively they became a conveyor belt of talent.

It’s not about the money, it’s about those making the decisions on how the money is spent. If you’re telling me tall of the extra cash will be allocated to facilities for developing young players, or improving supporter facilities and keeping ticket prices down then I’m in. It won’t though, it’ll go on players wages and agent fees if the clubs involved have much to do with it.

You’re an angry boy, Paulo. 

Listing a couple of examples of poorly spent money is a great reason to make no effort to improve the current income though, I’ll give you that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As edulded to, if there was an increase in revenue, it would have to be key that it is not just wasted an either high wage contracts for older players (Naismith at Hearts comes to mind) or that it is just lost in the noise of what clubs currently earn as otherwise, how will the game continue to grow.

If we are setting up some new rules and governance in general as a result of this review, we should be encouraging clubs to step up their investment in facilities. Frankly a lot of the stadiums are not fit for purpose, but more crucially beyond some of the top tier clubs, the training facilities are shocking vs similar sized countries.

Clearly not all clubs can afford top level facilities, but in areas like Lanarkshire there is a lot of senior teams using their own facilities, but have the big plus of the Ravenscraig indoor site. We need them all over and available. Angus, Fife, Borders, Tayside etc should all have something similar. League could part fund through centralised revenues/SFA and Scottish governments. You could even make sure there is some seating, so in winter, you could get some senior games played indoors when their is a fixture backlog.

The other problem is the hoovering up of youth players. I'd imagine each premiership team has at least 2/3 guys who came through Rangers or Celtic academy at some point and got nowhere near the first team. Maybe some sort of system where something like the JD sports funded players are centrally contracted and drafted to clubs based on a combination of the clubs off field performance, pathway to first team and obviously the players wishes. If say player x signs for Dundee United from the draft, United pay a fee (or commit to a % sell on), which is then re-invested to the draft and the development of more players.

Clubs who help train the draftees get a development fee, higher draft position and maybe more % of development players. If a player is released from the daft and finds no club, then they get a wage for x period after they leave plus education/training. All the players should be trained up as coaches as they go through it too, so if it doesn't work out they can then pass some knowledge on.

Would mean the players get some protection, smaller clubs could afford to train more players, well run clubs get more of a benefit and crucially, the players end up at clubs where they have more chance of getting to first team.

All needs funding though, which is why at the top, the revenues need to a) go up, b) be fairer distributed and c) some retained centrally to ensure player development for the players benefit, not just the clubs alone. 

 

 

Edited by Theyellowbox
Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, PauloPerth said:

You’re one of those that buy into whatever nonsense you’re fed.

When Gretna spent all that cash, in what way did it develop and improve players? Or facilities?

Motherwell spent a fortune on chasing the third place dream under John Boyle and ended up in admin.  When they cut the budget massively they became a conveyor belt of talent.

It’s not about the money, it’s about those making the decisions on how the money is spent. If you’re telling me tall of the extra cash will be allocated to facilities for developing young players, or improving supporter facilities and keeping ticket prices down then I’m in. It won’t though, it’ll go on players wages and agent fees if the clubs involved have much to do with it.

I'm sure a lot of money would get spent on players. But these wouldn't be the same players we have now, they'd be a little bit better, raising standards. 

Some money would get spent on facilities. We recently spent a fortune on training grounds as have Hibs and Rangers in the last 15 years. Hearts spend a fair bit using top quality facilities. Probably others too.  Not sure why having the option to do more of that would be a bad thing. 

No chance of it being used to keep ticket prices down imo. More chance this report will suggest putting up some prices. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Merkland Red said:

St Johnstone would have a better chance of holding on to players like Kerr and McCann if clubs can offer a more comparable wage. 

They're both apparently on 4-5 times our highest ever wage. Honestly not sure how much extra money we'd have to bring in to make wages like that sustainable.

Edited by RandomGuy.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Insert Amusing Pseudonym said:

Give a man a fish, and he'll eat for a day.

Teach him how to fish and he'll tell you that it's too bright, too dull, waters too high, waters too low, too warm, too cold, too windy, too calm etc.

 

Fixed that.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, RandomGuy. said:

They're both apparently on 4-5 times our highest ever wage. Honestly not sure how much extra money we'd have to bring in to make wages like that sustainable.

I'm not suggesting you would match Wigan's offer. I'm suggesting you may get another extension out of him a year prior which in turn boost his value when the teams do make an offer. Or you keep a hold on a good talent for an extra year.

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...