No to B teams

[RateofKnots]

1 hour ago, lanky_ffc said:

i'm not convinced they would vote it through. Majority of clubs care about their bottom line and if you add another 8 clubs to the SPFL, you'd be diluting the % each club gets from the prize pot.

Just Rob it from the top two. 

No one else will care.

[Jacksgranda]

44 minutes ago, RateofKnots said:

Which of the leagues was boring this season? Provide examples.

You're supposed to say "Be very specific".

[RateofKnots]

5 minutes ago, Jacksgranda said:

You're supposed to say "Be very specific".

I should have said there's only one correct answer.

[Greenmachine]

55 minutes ago, RateofKnots said:

Which of the leagues was boring this season? Provide examples.

Look at the “crowds” there’s your evidence!

[RateofKnots]

16 minutes ago, Greenmachine said:

Look at the “crowds” there’s your evidence!

How is that the evidence?

You haven't factored in any outside factors.

Try again.

[ScottishLoon]

30 minutes ago, Greenmachine said:

Look at the “crowds” there’s your evidence!

I'm pretty sure though it might not feel like it, Scottish football has the best attendance per capita in Europe.

Edited June 7, 2023 by ScottishLoon

[Skyline Drifter]

On 06/06/2023 at 13:36, Jan Vojáček said:

I understand that 16/18 team leagues give you more variety of opponent and it's quite a popular idea. But they would be dull as anything imo. Especially if here was only one team going down and one playoff spot. You'd have a lot of clubs with absolutely nothing to play for; and nothing turns fans off more than having nothing to play for.

Over the last decade ago Sons have almost always had a chance of a promotion battle or been in a relegation fight. And I'd far rather that than consistently finishing 8th-12th in an 18 team division. For example.

Agree with every word of this. And it is why we'll never ever get reconstruction everyone is happy with because fundamentally not everyone wants the same thing. We have a set up in Scottish football where almost every club in the 42 has something to play for with a month or less to go. People complain because they play the same teams too often or there's a "daft split in the Premier that means 7th gets more points than 6th". In the 80's we had bigger leagues. People complained about meaningless games and odd numbered fixtures (you played each team 3 times).

People will complain, it's what they do. Scottish football in most ways is currently doing ok.
 

On 06/06/2023 at 14:44, The Moonster said:

The only thing I think I'd change is to put 9th down automatically. I don't really like giving teams that have been shit all season a second chance at it. Give 2nd a bye to the play off final to put a bit more weight on finishing there. I'd have that for every division too.

Possibly. Not sure. I'd certainly rather 9th stays involved than include the 5th place side. Getting promotion from the very definition of midtable would be nonsense. I don't see your idea happening because it reduces the games for the 2nd team and also they'd sit idle for a week or so which isn't ideal. Equally though it always feels a bit hollow when 9th wins the playoffs (we did that in 2019). It's all a bit anti-climatic celebrating survival rather than promotion.

Personally I'd favour the playoff finals being a one off neutral game rather than two legs (and if they must be two legs I'd seed the 9th team in the division above as last, not first. I don't see why they should be rewarded with most advantage for a dreadful season).
 

23 hours ago, theoriginalhedge said:

The whole point of this thread has obviously been lost on you. The first battle has been won in staving off the ridiculous Conference .  The next battle is to convince the authorities that there are other options out there for young up and coming talented players other than having this colt team concept which they think is exclusive to the premier clubs.

Perhaps having an  18 team league would give a lot more teams the opportunity to play younger players without the continual fear of relegation looming over them. It would also negate the need for colt sides in the SPFL set up altogether.(a reserve league would be more benefit to them ) .  There would obviously be the play off places at the top of the league and hopefully a fairer relegation system at the bottom to create a real pyramid . 

For the SFA to only have one choice to vote on with no other option to consider  is somewhat ridiculous .  I would hope that the feedback from clubs and supporters realise this and come up with a fairer solution that doesn't alienate the bottom 200 or so clubs in the so called current pyramid. 

Also worth mentioning , in the 2 seasons Brechin have been in the Highland League there has never been the slightest hint of a meaningless game from the supporters who , like you go along to watch their team try to win a football match. 

When there is prize money at stake for finishing higher in the league as it will be in League 2 , surely that is motivation in itself for teams to want to win to secure bonuses etc.

I remember 14 team leagues. I don't recall any great desperation to play youth in it. There actually seems to me to be a lot more teenagers involved in senior football now than there was then.

The term 'meaningless games' isn't about clubs and players though, it's about enticing fans to come along when the product doesn't and can't lead to anything.

22 hours ago, O'Kelly Isley III said:

As one of the more mature posters on here, this thread has me recalling the year 1967, arguably Scotland's finest season of club and international football.

Funnily enough there were only two senior divisions of 18 and 19 clubs respectively with no doubt some 'meaningless games', but that was offset somewhat by straight home/away league fixtures.

And here's a funny thing; free from the need to make every fixture 'meaningful' it was much easier to introduce younger players, and astonishingly almost every one of them was Scottish.

Look around other countries and see how many are operating small but very repetitive divisions.  You won't find many so why are we persisting with it ?

Well yes, immigration to Scotland was fairly non existent in the 60's, travel wasn't as easy, wages didn't attract significant foreign labour (either in society generally or on the football pitch). It's a different era and not remotely comparable.

I don't remember the 60's first hand, I was born in 1970, but I certainly remember the 14 team division before the old Division 3 came into being. I don't recall a lot of younger players being introduced. I do recall, because we spent a lot of it at the wrong end of Division 2 which back then had no relegation, an awful lot of turgid meaningless games played in front of 300 - 400 fans who went along mostly as a sense of duty and knowing that they were playing for nothing from about October. I'd be surprised if average ages of teams are not lower now than they were then. Football's a higher energy game now than it was then. Managers, certainly the younger ones, are themselves less afraid to let teenagers loose on the game, and clubs needing to encourage younger players both because they are cheaper and potentially sellable, are more likely to encourage it.

[The Moonster]

41 minutes ago, Skyline Drifter said:

Possibly. Not sure. I'd certainly rather 9th stays involved than include the 5th place side. Getting promotion from the very definition of midtable would be nonsense. I don't see your idea happening because it reduces the games for the 2nd team and also they'd sit idle for a week or so which isn't ideal. Equally though it always feels a bit hollow when 9th wins the playoffs (we did that in 2019). It's all a bit anti-climatic celebrating survival rather than promotion.

Personally I'd favour the playoff finals being a one off neutral game rather than two legs (and if they must be two legs I'd seed the 9th team in the division above as last, not first. I don't see why they should be rewarded with most advantage for a dreadful season).

I wouldn't involve 5th place, relegate 9th, 3rd and 4th play each other over two legs and the winner plays 2nd. I'm not sure the "idle week" is a problem, would teams not rather not sit out for a week than play 180 minutes (potentially more) of football before a final? Don't mind the final being a one off, although I'm also fine with it being two legs - there can be no excuses when you're beaten over 2 games. 

[Skyline Drifter]

2 minutes ago, The Moonster said:

I wouldn't involve 5th place, relegate 9th, 3rd and 4th play each other over two legs and the winner plays 2nd. I'm not sure the "idle week" is a problem, would teams not rather not sit out for a week than play 180 minutes (potentially more) of football before a final? Don't mind the final being a one off, although I'm also fine with it being two legs - there can be no excuses when you're beaten over 2 games. 

Yeah, I understood what you were proposing, just saying if 4 teams are to be involved I'd rather it's 9th above than 5th below. I appreciate you hadn't suggested that.

I doubt the idle week is a major problem. For a team like Dumbarton this season it would likely have been a huge benefit. Clyde too were struggling to get 11 fit players on the pitch. Still, there will be seasons I'm sure where someone moans about not being as sharp because they didn't get a game. I think there's an argument that happened with Ayr this season while they watched Queen's Park and Thistle play for a fortnight. I think the loss of income from it might be more of an issue but I guess it's windfall money anyway.

The one off thing has pluses and minuses obviously. It removes the debate about seeding and 2nd leg advantage although in lower division Scottish football there is unlikely to be a massive advantage in that. There's an argument that the "big Wembley Weekend" down South is a part of the attraction although I guess that's partly because a lot of their clubs never see Wembley. Hampden doesn't quite have the same attraction when we're all well used to playing Queen's Park there. Plus the notion of playing something like Clyde v Annan at Hampden would be a bit daft. They could pick a smaller neutral stadium of course but then would it have the same attraction or event status?

[RateofKnots]

1 hour ago, Skyline Drifter said:

Yeah, I understood what you were proposing, just saying if 4 teams are to be involved I'd rather it's 9th above than 5th below. I appreciate you hadn't suggested that.

I doubt the idle week is a major problem. For a team like Dumbarton this season it would likely have been a huge benefit. Clyde too were struggling to get 11 fit players on the pitch. Still, there will be seasons I'm sure where someone moans about not being as sharp because they didn't get a game. I think there's an argument that happened with Ayr this season while they watched Queen's Park and Thistle play for a fortnight. I think the loss of income from it might be more of an issue but I guess it's windfall money anyway.

The one off thing has pluses and minuses obviously. It removes the debate about seeding and 2nd leg advantage although in lower division Scottish football there is unlikely to be a massive advantage in that. There's an argument that the "big Wembley Weekend" down South is a part of the attraction although I guess that's partly because a lot of their clubs never see Wembley. Hampden doesn't quite have the same attraction when we're all well used to playing Queen's Park there. Plus the notion of playing something like Clyde v Annan at Hampden would be a bit daft. They could pick a smaller neutral stadium of course but then would it have the same attraction or event status?

Scottish Junior Cup final seems to manage being at a smaller, neutral stadium. This would be no different.

[Gordon EF]

4 hours ago, Skyline Drifter said:

I don't remember the 60's first hand, I was born in 1970, but I certainly remember the 14 team division before the old Division 3 came into being. I don't recall a lot of younger players being introduced.

It was the 70s and 80s. Every team was half-filled with teenagers, they all just looked like your 55 year old uncle.

[Gordon EF]

This might sound a bit out there but we should have a youth development pool for each division set at the start of the season. At the end of the season, clubs get a cut of that pool, depending on how many times a player 21 or under started a league game for them.

East Fife would be lighting cigars with burning 50 notes right now if we'd had that last season.

[FairWeatherFan]

2 minutes ago, Gordon EF said:

This might sound a bit out there but we should have a youth development pool for each division set at the start of the season. At the end of the season, clubs get a cut of that pool, depending on how many times a player 21 or under started a league game for them.

East Fife would be lighting cigars with burning 50 notes right now if we'd had that last season.

Wasn't this very briefly a thing? As a trial or maybe it was just a proposal. Where Scottish eligible u21s were paid per appearance by the SFA?

 

[Skyline Drifter]

24 minutes ago, Gordon EF said:

This might sound a bit out there but we should have a youth development pool for each division set at the start of the season. At the end of the season, clubs get a cut of that pool, depending on how many times a player 21 or under started a league game for them.

East Fife would be lighting cigars with burning 50 notes right now if we'd had that last season.

 

13 minutes ago, FairWeatherFan said:

Wasn't this very briefly a thing? As a trial or maybe it was just a proposal. Where Scottish eligible u21s were paid per appearance by the SFA?

We do, and it still is. Has been for at least a decade. Although I think it's being abandoned next season for something different. It the MPO (Measurable Performance Outcomes) return where the SFA pay per point earned by youth developed players.

Edited June 7, 2023 by Skyline Drifter

[Clyde01]

One of the biggest problems we have is this perception that every game needs to mean something. Small leagues and constant threat of changing level are probably the biggest hurdle to youth development. The premier league is full of bang average journeymen from abroad and down south as clubs are too scared to play youngsters. If the Kilmarnocks, st johnstones etc had some security in a bigger league they are far more likely to play more young Scottish players, at a level that will actually lead to meaningful development rather than at tier 5.

Even at lower league level bigger leagues and more stability would benefit clubs imo. I don’t buy this meaningless games argument. Are you telling me that the English championship, for example, is boring from Christmas onwards? Only visiting teams once per season would make trips far more appealing than playing teams four times, which is dull and repetitive.

The only way I can see of breaking the deadlock at the bottom of the SPFL to get automatic relegation is via expanding league 2. It’s not great financially to increase the number of league clubs but there is no other way league one and two clubs would vote that in unless there is more of a buffer.

[Greenmachine]

16 hours ago, ScottishLoon said:

I'm pretty sure though it might not feel like it, Scottish football has the best attendance per capita in Europe.

Due to Celtic and Rangers..

[Skyline Drifter]

9 hours ago, Clyde01 said:

One of the biggest problems we have is this perception that every game needs to mean something. Small leagues and constant threat of changing level are probably the biggest hurdle to youth development. The premier league is full of bang average journeymen from abroad and down south as clubs are too scared to play youngsters. If the Kilmarnocks, st johnstones etc had some security in a bigger league they are far more likely to play more young Scottish players, at a level that will actually lead to meaningful development rather than at tier 5.

Even at lower league level bigger leagues and more stability would benefit clubs imo. I don’t buy this meaningless games argument. Are you telling me that the English championship, for example, is boring from Christmas onwards? Only visiting teams once per season would make trips far more appealing than playing teams four times, which is dull and repetitive.

The only way I can see of breaking the deadlock at the bottom of the SPFL to get automatic relegation is via expanding league 2. It’s not great financially to increase the number of league clubs but there is no other way league one and two clubs would vote that in unless there is more of a buffer.

League clubs won't vote to significantly dilute their money so they aren't going to vote for significant expansion of members unless it in some way comes with a massive sponsorship injection for the league as a whole. I'm not seeing the admission of Berwick, Cowdenbeath, Darvel, East Kilbride, Buckie, Brora, etc bringing with it several million pounds of extra sponsorship and tv money so that's not going to happen.

I'm really just not seeing this perceived massive reluctance to play youths if they are good enough. Lots of teams throw in younger kids.

The English Championship has 6 potential promotion places and 3 relegation ones so 9 of 24 get something at the end of the day and there's a fair chance most of the other 15 are playing for something into the last month. You're not likely to persuade the SPFL to offer 3 promotion places between divisions but even if you could, it's not really the 2nd tier that would be the issue, it's the top one. I'm assuming here you're proposing 2 leagues of 20-ish and not that a couple of leagues of 20 would sit below the Premier? If the top division is 20 or so teams, and we all know who the top two will be as we do every year, then you have 4 or 5 teams realistically competing for the other European slots and most likely half a dozen or so competing for your 2 or 3 relegation spots. That will leave 7 or 8 clubs in the middle twiddling their thumbs from Xmas. You also have Celtic and Rangers absolutely battering your Arbroath and Hamilton equivalents sitting at the bottom and complaining about lack of competitiveness in the top level. And most importantly, the ten other clubs currently in the top ten won't vote for a situation where they lose 1 or 2 OF visits for the money it generates.

If you're proposing a couple of bigger leagues below the existing Premier you're not going to get more than the one and a bit promotion spots you currently get so the 2nd tier will indeed have a lot of meaningless games.

[ScottishLoon]

7 minutes ago, Greenmachine said:

Due to Celtic and Rangers..

Yeah because we're the only country with 2 big clubs that have big attendances right?

[vikingTON]

There are larger top flights all across Europe that have a similar number of European spots up for grabs.

The solution to the shrill cry of 'no meaningful games past Christmas' is exactly the same as the one already used by the SPFL: play-offs.

The Eredevisie and other leagues use play-offs to allocate some of their league European spots. The current play-off system for relegation can be expanded (two spots instead of one - 3rd bottom can even progress straight to the final to placate the utter shitebags). In the tiers below you can have as many clubs qualifying for the play-offs as you decide and under any criteria: the English National League uses 2nd to 7th to decide one winner. 

There is no reason why Scottish leagues can't be 18-18-18 (or 14-14-14 as a stepping stone) in the present day. References to the 1980s are just no longer relevant. 

[jamamafegan]

10 hours ago, Clyde01 said:

One of the biggest problems we have is this perception that every game needs to mean something. Small leagues and constant threat of changing level are probably the biggest hurdle to youth development. The premier league is full of bang average journeymen from abroad and down south as clubs are too scared to play youngsters. If the Kilmarnocks, st johnstones etc had some security in a bigger league they are far more likely to play more young Scottish players, at a level that will actually lead to meaningful development rather than at tier 5.

Even at lower league level bigger leagues and more stability would benefit clubs imo. I don’t buy this meaningless games argument. Are you telling me that the English championship, for example, is boring from Christmas onwards? Only visiting teams once per season would make trips far more appealing than playing teams four times, which is dull and repetitive.

Never really thought of the impact a bigger league might have on youth development and I have to say I agree with your theory.

For me, 16 is the magic number. I'd have us play in a set-up like the Swedish Allsvenskan or Norewgian Eliteserien. See last years Allsvenskan as an example below:

Factor in that Scotland currently has 5 European places (depending on the Scottish cup winners of course) and you have there a highly competitive and exciting league that could easily see several teams vying to qualify for Europe / avoid relegation. Any "meaningless games" as you say will allow mid-table clubs to take higher risks and experiment with youth players.

30 games a season, play everyone once home and away. No more dull, repetitive games against the same opponents. It is, for me, the perfect set-up for Scotland.