Jump to content

SPFL Review


Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Jacksgranda said:

I never said they weren't asked.

You said "Motherwell should definitely have been in the 5 and had Kilmarnock not messed up last season, they would have been in it, too.  As should have St Johnstone"

So you think they should be part of the group reviewing the SPFL regardless of whether they were

(a) asked to join and refused ?

(b) were not asked to join ?

john candy ok GIF

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Leith Green said:

You said "Motherwell should definitely have been in the 5 and had Kilmarnock not messed up last season, they would have been in it, too.  As should have St Johnstone"

 

john candy ok GIF

That's good

I wasn't referring to whether they had or had not been invited to be part of the review group, and whether they had or had not refused to be part of it, I was referring to them being a top tier club, unlike some that are listed as such.

Edited by Jacksgranda
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute 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.

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Jacksgranda said:

Aye, Motherwell should definitely have been in the 5 and had Kilmarnock not messed up last season, they would have been in it, too.

As should have St Johnstone.

 

Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that whatever Deloitte produces will be geared towards the priorities  of the middleweight clubs that commissioned it the omission of Motherwell from that group isn't a massive issue for  them. Their commercial  interests are going to be, broadly speaking, aligned with the Dundee clubs who operate at  a similar scale.

Similar logic would  go for  St Johnstone were we , for  the sake  of  politeness,  to assume that the last few years  aren't  a  blip 

 

 

Edited by topcat(The most tip top)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes 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.

 

7 minutes ago, Merkland Red said:

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

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 😉

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes 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.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, gannonball said:

I think calling it that is a bit fanciful for now considering a non glasgow club has made it to the actual proper competition for what about 15 years now? Although with the third European competition that could change.

The third competition in effect opens up a total of 8 extra places for non champions from a total of 55 members.

While we are at the top of our current coefficient cycle (we will go down in a few years) we will have 1 of those places next season but its not the large number of extra spots everyone thought it might be as the aim is to give champions group stage football. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes 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.

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..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes 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.

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.  

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...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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