Would 14 team top division benefit Saints?

[Ginger Bakers rebel army]

With around 7million extra TV money from next season I think this would be the ideal time for 3 divisions of 14 teams. 

Play each other once, equals 26 games then split 7 and 7 playing each other home and away to make a further 12 games, total 38.

Retain a down 1 up and the playoffs. 

Bottom 7 in top division loose 1 old firm home game but this is more than compensated from the increased prize money. 

If you make the top 7 you are guaranteed 2 further old firm home games. 

2 additional teams would mean additional grounds to visit which has to be a good thing. 

From saints point of view, we are so established in the top division this structure would secure our top flight status for many years to come. 

It would create a level playing field on matches played and would increase the likelihood of more local derbies which would be a great thing. 

With a 7 and 7 split there is incentive all season to finish as high as possible. 

Below the top division there would be 2 new divisions of 14teams each. 

Relegation could be cancelled this year and the top 2 from the championship promoted. 

What do you think? 

[Abernethy Saint]

The TV companies arn’t paying for Scottish football. They are paying for the Old Firm games. Any structure that reduces the number of them = shite TV money. It’s crap, but that’s the way it is. On checking, I see your structure retains that, so why not?

Edited January 12, 2020 by Abernethy Saint

[Johnny B]

2 Leagues of 18 teams in each but as said above TV will decide so are stuck with 12 (4 OF games)

The time to change it was when Rangers got put down into bottom division that way they would have returned in 1 season

[Linky]

Yes, it really needs to be done. I don't think medium-sized teams can begin to strengthen unless you have a big enough league to allow a decent-sized mid-table. Basically everyone from Motherwell downwards prepares for relegation each season, which means anyone outside the top 4 or 5 is playing so negatively as they just don't want to lose a game.

It would mean the likes of Motherwell, Killie, and us could start to look towards pushing into that top 7, rather than looking over our shoulders all the time. It would also protect bigger teams like Hearts from relegation, which is always a financial loss for other clubs. For us in particular, it would mean derbies with the 2 Dundee teams more regularly, which always means a better financial return.

I think Edinburgh City & Cove have shown that there needs to be a higher chance of non-league clubs making there way into the bottom rung of the SFL.

[Cagey]

3 hours ago, Ginger Bakers rebel army said:

With around 7million extra TV money from next season I think this would be the ideal time for 3 divisions of 14 teams. 

Play each other once, equals 26 games then split 7 and 7 playing each other home and away to make a further 12 games, total 38.

Retain a down 1 up and the playoffs. 

Bottom 7 in top division loose 1 old firm home game but this is more than compensated from the increased prize money. 

If you make the top 7 you are guaranteed 2 further old firm home games. 

2 additional teams would mean additional grounds to visit which has to be a good thing. 

From saints point of view, we are so established in the top division this structure would secure our top flight status for many years to come. 

It would create a level playing field on matches played and would increase the likelihood of more local derbies which would be a great thing. 

With a 7 and 7 split there is incentive all season to finish as high as possible. 

Below the top division there would be 2 new divisions of 14teams each. 

Relegation could be cancelled this year and the top 2 from the championship promoted. 

What do you think? 

Sounds ok. Too many teams in lower leagues with decent crowds so might bring in more money than playing Hamilton ,County etc in 3rd game.

[Born2Bru]

A split with 7 in each wouldn't be popular as you'd always have two teams without a game each week post-split for each of the set of 6 fixtures. I think upping that to 16 in the Premiership would be too many.

[Shaggy Jenkins]

Yes and Scottish football in general.

two 18s would be my preference, allows teams to build and bring through young scottish talent.

Plus I think only 2 games against either of the OF would potentially bring the league closer in that, if, in past seasons you take each teams best results in the the 8 games against the OF points are gained, many teams going through a season against them unbeaten.

It wont happen as Scottish football is controlled by two teams for the benefit of two teams.

[Indicator]

3 hours ago, Shaggy Jenkins said:

It wont happen as Scottish football is controlled by two teams for the benefit of two teams.

 

Concur!

It wasn't always as bad as it is now. One Glasgow club has amassed its fortune due to total domination of domestic competitions when it's rival club was LIQUIDATED. Also  a near continous participation in lucrative European competitions, playing in front of large crowds. A new club masquarading as the previous *rangers* is being allowed to spend vast amounts (beyond its means - again!) and go into debt of millions in order to directly compete with it's neighbour. This is flying in the face of any notion that Financial Fair Play rules and regulations exist in Scottish football. The authorities both football and cultural deem it a necessity that the OF sectarian rivalry is maintained in Scotland - to the detriment of every other club.

However in answer to the OP.

 

Yes, even if only to provide more games.

It never ceases to amaze me how the non-OF premier league clubs manage to keep their players match fit.

Look at the number of blank week-ends (just this season) due to international breaks, winter break, early exits in cups, league opponents tied up in cup matches, rearranged fixtures, so on and so forth.

I now attend matches at Sincil Bank (Lincoln City) rather than try and work out exactly when it would be worth travelling to Perth in the hope of there being a game on at the weekend.

Most weeks first division clubs down here are involved in three matches - Saturday, Tuesday, Saturday - players are nothing if not fit and they are mostly able to handle the busy schedule.

I've watched Lincoln go from being a Conference league club attracting crowds of something like 1600 to a 1st div club filling the stadium to near capacity (10,000) for most home matches.

Of course there does not exist the 'Skewed' OF factor down here which sees bus loads of fans being sucked from towns and citys to follow the only two clubs of any apparent importance to large sections of Scottish society.

[Cagey]

1 hour ago, Indicator said:

Concur!

It wasn't always as bad as it is now. One Glasgow club has amassed its fortune due to total domination of domestic competitions when it's rival club was LIQUIDATED. Also  a near continous participation in lucrative European competitions, playing in front of large crowds. A new club masquarading as the previous *rangers* is being allowed to spend vast amounts (beyond its means - again!) and go into debt of millions in order to directly compete with it's neighbour. This is flying in the face of any notion that Financial Fair Play rules and regulations exist in Scottish football. The authorities both football and cultural deem it a necessity that the OF sectarian rivalry is maintained in Scotland - to the detriment of every other club.

However in answer to the OP.

 

Yes, even if only to provide more games.

It never ceases to amaze me how the non-OF premier league clubs manage to keep their players match fit.

Look at the number of blank week-ends (just this season) due to international breaks, winter break, early exits in cups, league opponents tied up in cup matches, rearranged fixtures, so on and so forth.

I now attend matches at Sincil Bank (Lincoln City) rather than try and work out exactly when it would be worth travelling to Perth in the hope of there being a game on at the weekend.

Most weeks first division clubs down here are involved in three matches - Saturday, Tuesday, Saturday - players are nothing if not fit and they are mostly able to handle the busy schedule.

I've watched Lincoln go from being a Conference league club attracting crowds of something like 1600 to a 1st div club filling the stadium to near capacity (10,000) for most home matches.

Of course there does not exist the 'Skewed' OF factor down here which sees bus loads of fans being sucked from towns and citys to follow the only two clubs of any apparent importance to large sections of Scottish society.

1000% on both statements.

[blueheaven]

I don't think clubs would go for it, purely on the basis that it's reducing the number of home matches against the Old Firm for the ones finishing in the bottom half after the split. I do like the idea of increasing the league for more variety, though. As successful as the top six-bottom six split has been, we still play the same old teams way too often and I think that has to have an impact on attendances.

I'd like to see a set-up that introduces more to play for at the end of the season. Some other countries have play-offs for the Europa League places - I think that would be a great addition, and would probably benefit Saints.

Personally I'm still a big fan of having a Premier League of 12 and Championship of 12, which divide up into three separate divisions of 8 after everyone has played each other twice (which would come to 36 matches in a season). That was the structure the clubs attempted to move to back in 2013: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/22151308

[Ginger Bakers rebel army]

15 hours ago, Born2Bru said:

A split with 7 in each wouldn't be popular as you'd always have two teams without a game each week post-split for each of the set of 6 fixtures. I think upping that to 16 in the Premiership would be too many.

Easy fixed, top 6 and bottom 8 at the split. 

Ditch the league Cup sections and make the first 2 rounds regional to avoid Stranraer going to Peterhead. Last 16 unseeded open draw to create better chance for all. 

Top 6 play 28 pre split and further 10 post split, just 1 less than now. 

Bottom 8 play 28 pre split and then 14 post split, just 3 more than now but without the league Cup sections the total games would not increase. 

English championship teams play 46 league games plus various Cup games so many more than our players. 

14 team top league would allow far more stability and better long term investment and planning. 

[rik2304]

Any changes will have to benefit the OF. And that arse Doncaster will always try to get TV deals based on as many OF fixtures as possible before anything else.

[Steve McQueen]

3 hours ago, blueheaven said:

I don't think clubs would go for it, purely on the basis that it's reducing the number of home matches against the Old Firm for the ones finishing in the bottom half after the split. I do like the idea of increasing the league for more variety, though. As successful as the top six-bottom six split has been, we still play the same old teams way too often and I think that has to have an impact on attendances.

I'd like to see a set-up that introduces more to play for at the end of the season. Some other countries have play-offs for the Europa League places - I think that would be a great addition, and would probably benefit Saints.

Personally I'm still a big fan of having a Premier League of 12 and Championship of 12, which divide up into three separate divisions of 8 after everyone has played each other twice (which would come to 36 matches in a season). That was the structure the clubs attempted to move to back in 2013: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/22151308

The problem with that structure was that the middle teams went back to 0 points at the split.

You could have a situation of games where a team in the bottom 4 playing a title contender would have no reason to try as even if the won theyd get 0 points.

Imagine Dundee United now going back 0 points, same as Dundee.

 

FWIW the current system is probably the best, the split give most teams something to play for till fairly late in the season.

 

Only other option would be 16 with a split.

[sleepless]

The current set-up is logically the best.

But it just gets boring. Hamilton ACcies four times a season is four times too many. Likewise St Mirren and Livingston.

Having said that, if you replaced those three with Dundee, Dundee United and ICT, I'd be happy enough with that. Can we not just boot the Glasgow/west coast clubs out?

[Ginger Bakers rebel army]

2 hours ago, sleepless said:

The current set-up is logically the best.

But it just gets boring. Hamilton ACcies four times a season is four times too many. Likewise St Mirren and Livingston.

Having said that, if you replaced those three with Dundee, Dundee United and ICT, I'd be happy enough with that. Can we not just boot the Glasgow/west coast clubs out?

Raith, Falkirk and Dunfermline would also be great, that's why I would prefer a bigger league. 

[blueheaven]

16 hours ago, Steve McQueen said:

The problem with that structure was that the middle teams went back to 0 points at the split.

You could have a situation of games where a team in the bottom 4 playing a title contender would have no reason to try as even if the won theyd get 0 points.

Imagine Dundee United now going back 0 points, same as Dundee.

 

For me personally I wouldn't see that as a problem - points have to get re-set at some point anyway, all that's changing is that the re-set happens at a different point.

That said, if it was seen as a problem there could be some sort of seeding system introduced where, for example, the team that was fourth bottom of the top league gets to start with eight points, the team that was third bottom gets to start with seven points, the team that was second bottom gets to start with six points, and so on.

 

 

[Ginger Bakers rebel army]

21 hours ago, blueheaven said:

I don't think clubs would go for it, purely on the basis that it's reducing the number of home matches against the Old Firm for the ones finishing in the bottom half after the split. I do like the idea of increasing the league for more variety, though. As successful as the top six-bottom six split has been, we still play the same old teams way too often and I think that has to have an impact on attendances.

I'd like to see a set-up that introduces more to play for at the end of the season. Some other countries have play-offs for the Europa League places - I think that would be a great addition, and would probably benefit Saints.

Personally I'm still a big fan of having a Premier League of 12 and Championship of 12, which divide up into three separate divisions of 8 after everyone has played each other twice (which would come to 36 matches in a season). That was the structure the clubs attempted to move to back in 2013: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/22151308

Not quite sure exactly how this would have worked but if it included the scenario where the bottom 4 of the top division could all loose their places to the top 4 from the 2nd tier then it would never go through. 

[blueheaven]

2 hours ago, Ginger Bakers rebel army said:

Not quite sure exactly how this would have worked but if it included the scenario where the bottom 4 of the top division could all loose their places to the top 4 from the 2nd tier then it would never go through. 

Yep, back in the SPL days it's already been proposed and been rejected - St Mirren and Ross County were the two who voted against it. The other side of that, though, is that if you look at it from the perspective of all of the clubs in the SPFL rather than just the clubs in the Premiership, it includes the scenario where four clubs could be promoted, which I'd have thought lower league clubs would be in favour of.

If you were to take the clubs currently in those positions, you'd get an eight-team league of Saints, St Mirren, Hamilton, Hearts, Dundee United, Inverness Caley, Ayr and Dundee. I reckon that would be an exciting prospect and you could see some big crowds for those games.

[Ginger Bakers rebel army]

20 hours ago, Steve McQueen said:

The problem with that structure was that the middle teams went back to 0 points at the split.

You could have a situation of games where a team in the bottom 4 playing a title contender would have no reason to try as even if the won theyd get 0 points.

Imagine Dundee United now going back 0 points, same as Dundee.

 

FWIW the current system is probably the best, the split give most teams something to play for till fairly late in the season.

 

Only other option would be 16 with a split.

16 with a split would be 44 games to preserve the 4 old firm games essential for the TV money. 

That would be an extra 5 games from current 39 for the old firm which they would never agree to. 

A split after 30 games and just another 7 creates the same uneven playing field as present which needs corrected. 

[Ginger Bakers rebel army]

7 minutes ago, blueheaven said:

Yep, back in the SPL days it's already been proposed and been rejected - St Mirren and Ross County were the two who voted against it. The other side of that, though, is that if you look at it from the perspective of all of the clubs in the SPFL rather than just the clubs in the Premiership, it includes the scenario where four clubs could be promoted, which I'd have thought lower league clubs would be in favour of.

With the increasing reliance on TV money the clubs would never vote through a structure where 4 of the top 12 could be relegated, not surprised it was voted down. 

[blueheaven]

3 minutes ago, Ginger Bakers rebel army said:

With the increasing reliance on TV money the clubs would never vote through a structure where 4 of the top 12 could be relegated, not surprised it was voted down. 

Yes, I get that... but my point was that in a vote of all SPFL clubs, rather than a vote of just the Premiership clubs, you may see a different result as for the majority of clubs it's an increased chance of promotion rather than an increased chance of relegation.

[Abernethy Saint]

55 minutes ago, blueheaven said:

Yes, I get that... but my point was that in a vote of all SPFL clubs, rather than a vote of just the Premiership clubs, you may see a different result as for the majority of clubs it's an increased chance of promotion rather than an increased chance of relegation.

Is that how they vote, though? Isn’t there a management board that is weighted very heavily to the top league?

[Ginger Bakers rebel army]

3 hours ago, blueheaven said:

Yes, I get that... but my point was that in a vote of all SPFL clubs, rather than a vote of just the Premiership clubs, you may see a different result as for the majority of clubs it's an increased chance of promotion rather than an increased chance of relegation.

Agreed, but I think any change to the structure requires an 11 to 1 majority just from the spfl teams, and it also has to get support from the other 30 but I can't remember what the percentage is. 

I do think changing to 14 with increased pot would attract support, sky keep 4 old firm games, 2 more teams to increase variety in top flight. With 14 in top division more chance of bigger championship teams getting into top division, more local derbies and most importantly more stability which could allow for more longer term investment in players and infrastructure. 

I was in Vegas in November and attended a Vegas knights hockey game, the experience was nothing short of amazing and well worth the $125 ticket price, and that was the cheapest seats. Can't wait to see another game, the whole event was just so well run and professional even down to the marching band and majorettes that set off from the casino in the NY N Y hotel and banged there drums through the game getting the crowd going and creating a magic atmosphere. 

More stability would allow clubs of our size to invest more in the match day experience which on the non playing side is currently pretty dire and is doing nothing to attract new customers or even keep excisiting ones. 

Football is an entertainment sport that needs dragged out of the 1950's. Stability and increased revenue are necessary to make progress or the match day experience will continue to see crowds dwindle until it is no longer economic and non of us want to see that happening. 

 

 

[OldPoster]

2 Leagues of 20 then split out into Highland League and Lowland League below that.

There are enough full times to sustain a 20 team league and the top 5 of the next division could be full time as well

[Ginger Bakers rebel army]

17 minutes ago, TheMarkChristie said:

2 Leagues of 20 then split out into Highland League and Lowland League below that.

There are enough full times to sustain a 20 team league and the top 5 of the next division could be full time as well

Sky sports TV audience for the December old firm game was 1.4 million, that is significantly higher than most English Premier league games. 

20 team league would mean only 2 old firm games which would result in a massive drop in sky tv deal money which would make 20 a non starter as clubs would not back it.