Jamie_Beatson Posted February 4, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 4, 2011 First thing I would say is that Mr Doncaster rivals Simon Cowell in the dodgy haircut stakes! Joking aside, it was an interesting meeting, but I think it is pretty much set in stone that we WILL get a 10-12 set up, with potentially leagues of 10 and 16 below that. Mr Doncaster knows what he is talking about - that much is for certain. He laid out in no uncertain terms why bigger leagues at this moment wouldn't work (ie the split as it currently stands is not as attracive to the TV companies and the fixtures would cause a problem if we went to 14, and there would clearly be too few games at a 16). The problem with the current set up is seen that the split is not hugely marketable for TV (eg, you dont get games like top v bottom with both fighting for something which TV love apparently), and also, you only have the one relegation slot. They desperately want to introduce a play off, which in a top 10 would be 8v9 in the SPL playing each other, and 2v3 in SFL1 playing, with the loser of the SPL tie playing the winner of the SFL1 tie. That is a major driver of revenue for the league as a whole. The big driver of the move to a 10 is to redistribute finances into the new "championship" of 12 teams. That would mean an extra £1.5 million going into current division one teams, with the idea being that relegated sides would not face "financial armageddon" as they do presently. The reason a play off wouldn't work in a 12 is that no-one would vote for it as things stand - because you would be adding another potential relegation place into a league with no money. I thought the presentation he gave and his responses to the tough questioning he was given were pretty good, but I was disappointed in his responses to some of the points put forward, primarily surrounding supporter experience and getting people back into the stadiums. Unfortunately, it is pretty clear that the key interest is selling the TV rights as this brings in massive amounts of cash. They want to see crowds rise - but feel the current dip in attendances is more to do with the recession than a perceived drop of quality on the park. Struggling to think of much more to say at the moment, but if you've got any specific points you want to know about please do ask and I'll try to remember what was said! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radford 72 Posted February 4, 2011 Report Share Posted February 4, 2011 Really appreciate the answers, thanks guys. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueJ Posted February 4, 2011 Report Share Posted February 4, 2011 The problem with the current set up is seen that the split is not hugely marketable for TV (eg, you dont get games like top v bottom with both fighting for something which TV love apparently), and also, you only have the one relegation slot. He does know he's in Scotland now? Hamilton fighting to avoid relegation and Rangers battling for the league isn't suddenly going to produce an exciting game of football just because there are fewer teams in the league. They desperately want to introduce a play off, which in a top 10 would be 8v9 in the SPL playing each other, and 2v3 in SFL1 playing, with the loser of the SPL tie playing the winner of the SFL1 tie. That is a major driver of revenue for the league as a whole. So the fans who don't want to see teams play each other 4 times in the league are now going to see some teams 5 or 6 times in league encounters. The big driver of the move to a 10 is to redistribute finances into the new "championship" of 12 teams. I fail to believe that and would take some convincing that the only driver isn't to face the OF four times a season. The reason a play off wouldn't work in a 12 is that no-one would vote for it as things stand - because you would be adding another potential relegation place into a league with no money. Not voting for it doesn't mean it won't work. What they mean is it would work but they don't want it to. They want to see crowds rise - but feel the current dip in attendances is more to do with the recession than a perceived drop of quality on the park. The most damning of them all. They 'think'? I'm astounded they have done no market research to establish exactly...or to listen to the fans who have told them. Let's just blame the recession. That'll do nicely. Their 'Let them eat cake.' attitude is a disgrace. Thanks for the feedback Jamie. I'm not shooting the messenger, just expressing my frustrations! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Neutral Posted February 4, 2011 Report Share Posted February 4, 2011 First thing I would say is that Mr Doncaster rivals Simon Cowell in the dodgy haircut stakes! Joking aside, it was an interesting meeting, but I think it is pretty much set in stone that we WILL get a 10-12 set up, with potentially leagues of 10 and 16 below that. Mr Doncaster knows what he is talking about - that much is for certain. He laid out in no uncertain terms why bigger leagues at this moment wouldn't work (ie the split as it currently stands is not as attracive to the TV companies and the fixtures would cause a problem if we went to 14, and there would clearly be too few games at a 16). The problem with the current set up is seen that the split is not hugely marketable for TV (eg, you dont get games like top v bottom with both fighting for something which TV love apparently), and also, you only have the one relegation slot. They desperately want to introduce a play off, which in a top 10 would be 8v9 in the SPL playing each other, and 2v3 in SFL1 playing, with the loser of the SPL tie playing the winner of the SFL1 tie. That is a major driver of revenue for the league as a whole. The big driver of the move to a 10 is to redistribute finances into the new "championship" of 12 teams. That would mean an extra £1.5 million going into current division one teams, with the idea being that relegated sides would not face "financial armageddon" as they do presently. The reason a play off wouldn't work in a 12 is that no-one would vote for it as things stand - because you would be adding another potential relegation place into a league with no money. I thought the presentation he gave and his responses to the tough questioning he was given were pretty good, but I was disappointed in his responses to some of the points put forward, primarily surrounding supporter experience and getting people back into the stadiums. Unfortunately, it is pretty clear that the key interest is selling the TV rights as this brings in massive amounts of cash. They want to see crowds rise - but feel the current dip in attendances is more to do with the recession than a perceived drop of quality on the park. Struggling to think of much more to say at the moment, but if you've got any specific points you want to know about please do ask and I'll try to remember what was said! You know something guys. If they had taken the time to explain what you have all told us tonight & explained the thinking behind the way they are going there may have been less hostility to the changes. For example I never knew that UEFA needed to approve the change to increase the league and we all know they are even more obstinate than SPL /SFA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deek Posted February 4, 2011 Report Share Posted February 4, 2011 The big driver of the move to a 10 is to redistribute finances into the new "championship" of 12 teams. That would mean an extra £1.5 million going into current division one teams, with the idea being that relegated sides would not face "financial armageddon" as they do presently. I'm struggling to see how moving 2 teams to the championship is suddenly going to free up all this extra money to pump into the championship. How much money do the teams currently finishing in 11th/12th actually get from being in the SPL? Certainly not enough to make any serious improvement to 12 championship teams. An extra £1.5 million for each Div 1 team, or in total? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ancientsaint Posted February 4, 2011 Report Share Posted February 4, 2011 I'm struggling to see how moving 2 teams to the championship is suddenly going to free up all this extra money to pump into the championship. How much money do the teams currently finishing in 11th/12th actually get from being in the SPL? Certainly not enough to make any serious improvement to 12 championship teams. An extra £1.5 million for each Div 1 team, or in total? I think the understanding is that the 3 teams that would be effectively relegated are given the "Parachute" payment to "ease" the pain of being relegated -I dont think the actual 1.5 million on offer was for any of those who currently would have been in Div 1 as it is. I dont think Doncaster went that far into detail regarding the payments but the sum of 500 thousand was mentioned as one of the payments. I believe that the team promoted would automatically see their budget increase dramatically and i think he mentioned it going from £65,000 to possibly 500,000 (but may have picked him up wrong on the final figure). The parachute payment is similar to that in the EPL (but not the amount they receive unless a great TV deal is done) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_Beatson Posted February 4, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 4, 2011 The £1.5 million (actually more than that) comes from the prize money allocated to the current places 11 and 12 in the SPL. That money would be added to the current money available to the SFL1 teams and divided up by league position. In effect the prize money on offer to division one winners just now is 65k. Under the new system it would be 500k. That other cash filters through down the teams increasing money to each team. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tranmere Saintee Posted February 4, 2011 Report Share Posted February 4, 2011 Was the concern about Sky losing their court battle raised at all? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ancientsaint Posted February 4, 2011 Report Share Posted February 4, 2011 Was the concern about Sky losing their court battle raised at all? Yes - I asked him and his face fell---However he countered that by telling us we can still do a deal outwith the EPL who would be hit hard. He is relying on a TV deal and other sponshorship IF the TV deal goes through. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tranmere Saintee Posted February 4, 2011 Report Share Posted February 4, 2011 Yes - I asked him and his face fell---However he countered that by telling us we can still do a deal outwith the EPL who would be hit hard. He is relying on a TV deal and other sponshorship IF the TV deal goes through. Cheers Ancient, but as all us thick footie fans know TV money is likely to plummet following the court ruling as SKY are not going to pay out vast sums of money when others are showing the same game for free. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denzil Posted February 4, 2011 Report Share Posted February 4, 2011 Thanks guys for posting - much appreciated. I think we all knew what the outcome of this meeting before it happened. The blinkers are on and this ass isn't budging - typical solicitor! Now we have to rely on the chairmen to see sense otherwise they might as well reduce the amount of seats SPL1 grounds are required to have as they sure as hell won't need all 6000. If Mr Doncaster really believes that the dip in attendences is purely caused by the recession, he's in for one hell of a shock... This just proves he considers the fans, who put more money into football than any TV company, to be total numpties who'll accept any crap that's thrown our way. Sod you pal! Much as it pains me, I'll be voting with my feet. Respect to the Killie fans! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edstar101 Posted February 4, 2011 Report Share Posted February 4, 2011 If the tv companies don't like the split...get rid of it and have a 'normal' 16 team league with play-offs etc thrown in...getting them their 'both teams got something to play for' matches Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Inspiration Posted February 5, 2011 Report Share Posted February 5, 2011 All makes interesting reading and provides plenty of food for thought. Thanks Ancient and Jamie for relaying this info Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wee john Posted February 5, 2011 Report Share Posted February 5, 2011 The plan comes as a package, not just the size of the league, 10-12 play offs payments colt teams at the meeting the chairmen will be voting for the package not just one issue. once they agree the final package the vote goes ahead. it will not be decided for months yet IMHO. PROBABLY THE CLOSE SEASON. COLT TEAMS. The proposal isfor the 22 spl teams to have an option to have a colt team (u23) to play in the lower leagues. no reserve league will be considered, only colt teams. according to ND, reserve leagues are no good the u23 fringe players need to play competitive games aganst men. A bad move IMHO. BUT THE WAY AHEAD ACCORDING TO ND. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tranmere Saintee Posted February 5, 2011 Report Share Posted February 5, 2011 COLT TEAMS. The proposal isfor the 22 spl teams to have an option to have a colt team (u23) to play in the lower leagues. no reserve league will be considered, only colt teams. according to ND, reserve leagues are no good the u23 fringe players need to play competitive games aganst men. A bad move IMHO. BUT THE WAY AHEAD ACCORDING TO ND. Those few statements say it all I'm afraid. Reserve football has served the game exceedingly well for 100+ years until recently when the foolish spending by these same chairmen meant smaller clubs could no longer afford to carry big enough squads, so where is all the money going to come from to run all these colts teams. The u23 fringe players (??) were only created, again by these same chairmen, with their silly rule changes to the make up of reserve football. Do these people never look back and see what THEY have done to destroy the game and admit THEY got it badly wrong and be MEN enough to admit it rather than cream the game for every penny thay can before it is all gone:evil: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1884 Posted February 5, 2011 Report Share Posted February 5, 2011 No doubt this 'colt' league will be marketed as such, with bells on etc... and not as a second string league, therefore trying to encourage us, the fans to fork out again to watch and support them. We already pay through the nose to watch our first XI...and if the colt league is structured to be played at the same time as our first XIs then where are the 'crowds' of support going to come from anyway? I miss the reserve league on Monday/Tuesday nights, watching for free with our season tickets... I probably wouldn't mind paying a couple of quid to watch a reserve league on a Monday/Tuesday night though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueJ Posted February 5, 2011 Report Share Posted February 5, 2011 Looks like everyone is agreed that a club needs a second team. Surely restricting it to an age group means a club has to bring in even more players to meet that age criteria whilst a number of fringe/recuperating older players are sitting in the stand twiddling their thumbs. This can only add to the running costs of a club. Madness. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueJ Posted February 5, 2011 Report Share Posted February 5, 2011 at the meeting the chairmen will be voting for the package not just one issue. once they agree the final package the vote goes ahead. it will not be decided for months yet IMHO. PROBABLY THE CLOSE SEASON. Voted for or rubber stamped? I think most of us know the answer. Sky and the OF should have just got together and told us what was going to happen months ago. Would have saved everyone a lot of time and money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denzil Posted February 5, 2011 Report Share Posted February 5, 2011 The plan comes as a package, not just the size of the league, 10-12 play offs payments colt teams at the meeting the chairmen will be voting for the package not just one issue. once they agree the final package the vote goes ahead. it will not be decided for months yet IMHO. PROBABLY THE CLOSE SEASON. COLT TEAMS. The proposal isfor the 22 spl teams to have an option to have a colt team (u23) to play in the lower leagues. no reserve league will be considered, only colt teams. according to ND, reserve leagues are no good the u23 fringe players need to play competitive games aganst men. A bad move IMHO. BUT THE WAY AHEAD ACCORDING TO ND. This just gets worse and worse... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wish i was Joe McGurn Posted February 5, 2011 Report Share Posted February 5, 2011 With the current tv deal ending the end of next season are they looking at starting this the following season. Or are they going to wing another tv deal and wait for that to end. Is there a timetable for any changes if they vote for the "package" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldPoster Posted February 5, 2011 Report Share Posted February 5, 2011 I get Annoyed every time that i read about 10 team and playing each other 4times etc - Also on another note would colt teams not require the approval from the SFA? And what stadia criteria would they have to meet? im sure the old firm would not want them playing at Ibrox or Septic Park, Normally they use their training ground but there is no supporter area for this and its a requirement for anything above ammies (breadalbane got refused junior status due to this) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ancientsaint Posted February 5, 2011 Report Share Posted February 5, 2011 I get Annoyed every time that i read about 10 team and playing each other 4times etc - Also on another note would colt teams not require the approval from the SFA? And what stadia criteria would they have to meet? im sure the old firm would not want them playing at Ibrox or Septic Park, Normally they use their training ground but there is no supporter area for this and its a requirement for anything above ammies (breadalbane got refused junior status due to this) Think that you would find Celtic and Rangers more than happy to put a "Colt" team together in the league -they would possibly have quite a few of the Rangers/Celtic supporters turning out to support their colts at Ibrox or Celtic Park when their First teams are playing away from home...This would bring them extra revenue and possibly lower attendances for Old firm away games. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldPoster Posted February 5, 2011 Report Share Posted February 5, 2011 Think that you would find Celtic and Rangers more than happy to put a "Colt" team together in the league -they would possibly have quite a few of the Rangers/Celtic supporters turning out to support their colts at Ibrox or Celtic Park when their First teams are playing away from home...This would bring them extra revenue and possibly lower attendances for Old firm away games. I wasnt meaning they wouldnt want to put them into a league more - they wouldnt want them digging up Ibrox or Celtic Park, Would the SFL approve it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ancientsaint Posted February 5, 2011 Report Share Posted February 5, 2011 I wasnt meaning they wouldnt want to put them into a league more - they wouldnt want them digging up Ibrox or Celtic Park, Would the SFL approve it If there is a buck or two in it for either then yes i think you will see them using their main stadium -look at some of their reserve games and they pull in thousands....However Rangers may hire Broadwood ....BUT thats all pie in the sky just now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikeec Posted February 5, 2011 Report Share Posted February 5, 2011 Think that you would find Celtic and Rangers more than happy to put a "Colt" team together in the league -they would possibly have quite a few of the Rangers/Celtic supporters turning out to support their colts at Ibrox or Celtic Park when their First teams are playing away from home...This would bring them extra revenue and possibly lower attendances for Old firm away games. Exact point I brought up yesterday to Mr Doncaster and he replied that the colt teams matches would be possibly a Friday Night to avoid conflict . . . . . but we are in a recession who can afford to go to matches on a Friday to watch your colt team and a Saturday away from home to watch your "First" team. He also stated that the fixtures would be arranged so that it would not affect the away attendances - no clashes up against each other etc - but the sfl would still be responsible for lower league fixtures so how can he guarantee that at this stage. Colt teams will affect our attendances and our cash flow without a doubt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.