14 Team Top Flight Being Mooted For Next Season

[dunning1874]

Yeah but play offs sell TV packages, and, like them or not, they're here to stay.

 

 

Possibly, but gives a wee bit of end-of-season entertainment. At least it's straightforward enough to understand unlike all these 'splits' which seem to be on the table.

 

Both fair points, but if we did have to have it in a 16 team league it could at least be two up, two down automatically then the playoff for the third place, rather than only one automatic place and a playoff for the other two. There'd be too little movement between leagues if you only had one team in 16 changing.

[capitanus]

Ed de Ball should merge with all his other aliases and collectively f*ck off.

 

Just sayin' like. 

Just like you, cornbeef and Cappiecat should collectively merge and do us all a favour, just like Salty did.

[LinwoodTON]

Just like you, cornbeef and Cappiecat should collectively merge and do us all a favour, just like Salty did.

 

Who did Salty merge with?

[capitanus]

Both fair points, but if we did have to have it in a 16 team league it could at least be two up, two down automatically then the playoff for the third place, rather than only one automatic place and a playoff for the other two. There'd be too little movement between leagues if you only had one team in 16 changing.

I like the idea of four teams in a round robin tourney, each playing six games and the top two getting promotion.

 

It would be like a champions league thing.

[capitanus]

Who did Salty merge with?

Queens Park. Now fuck off.

[LinwoodTON]

Queens Park. Now **** off.

 

Is that where you discovered Toby was two inches bigger than you?

[TRVMP]

I'm looking forward to hearing more about this Ross County 'franchise' situation.

 

I'm quite distant from the Scottish game but from what I can see the extent of their crimes is:

 

1) being subsidized by a rich organization (we're constantly being told that Morton are the same, even though it's actually a series of loans, so I'm not really seeing the problem here)

2) being professionally run (I can see why this raises hackles in and around the central belt)

3) having benefitted from the investment in the Highland academies (admittedly this is an unfair advantage but why wouldn't you take advantage of it if you could?)

4) having a small, technically-focused coaching staff instead of hiring every beer-bellied, "honest ex-pro" that crosses their doorstep (no comment)

[TRVMP]

What about 3 leagues of 16, each team playing each other twice, 30 league games per season.

 

Bottom team automatically relegated.

 

Team who wins the league are automatically promoted, 2nd and 3rd place team go into promotion play-off round robin tourney with 2nd and 3rd bottom; with top two teams promoted.

 

No real need for complicated splits, and a more amicable playoff system that doesn't favour the team from the league above.

 

We always seem to be discussing league reconstruction, yet we have the perfect set up next door - the English league. We should be looking to do something very similar, albeit on a smaller scale, with a few subtle differences.

 

That is vastly different from the English setup, which has way more than 30 games, even in its top flight. There's also no relegation playoffs in England, only promotion playoffs. Basically you've described something almost exactly the opposite, except it has no splits.

[capitanus]

I'm looking forward to hearing more about this Ross County 'franchise' situation.

 

I'm quite distant from the Scottish game but from what I can see the extent of their crimes is:

 

1) being subsidized by a rich organization (we're constantly being told that Morton are the same, even though it's actually a series of loans, so I'm not really seeing the problem here)

2) being professionally run (I can see why this raises hackles in and around the central belt)

3) having benefitted from the investment in the Highland academies (admittedly this is an unfair advantage but why wouldn't you take advantage of it if you could?)

4) having a small, technically-focused coaching staff instead of hiring every beer-bellied, "honest ex-pro" that crosses their doorstep (no comment)

Good points. Personally I think that both ICT and Ross county have been a breath of fresh air in Scottish Football since they came into the league, both well run clubs, strong loyal local fanbase, play very good football and got to their current position on merit.

 

I think they are the real future of Scottish Football, whilst clubs like ourselves have been stagnant for the past 30 years, both on and off the park. I would love for Morton to be like Ross County today.

[capitanus]

That is vastly different from the English setup, which has way more than 30 games, even in its top flight. There's also no relegation playoffs in England, only promotion playoffs. Basically you've described something almost exactly the opposite, except it has no splits.

Similar, but not the same, with some subtle differences.

[TRVMP]

Good points. Personally I think that both ICT and Ross county have been a breath of fresh air in Scottish Football since they came into the league, both well run clubs, strong loyal local fanbase, play very good football and got to their current position on merit.

 

I think they are the real future of Scottish Football, whilst clubs like ourselves have been stagnant for the past 30 years, both on and off the park. I would love for Morton to be like Ross County today.

 

Same. There's no doubt County in particular have enjoyed big advantages, but to some extent they've made their own luck. It's quite the norm in most of Europe to work closely with local authorities, but most clubs in Scotland are reluctant to do it (a two-way relationship, I'm sure, especially after seeing the balls-up NLC made with Clyde and West Lothian did with Livingston.)

 

You look at the kind of training and development County are working on and it's night and day with most of what's on offer elsewhere in the league.

[TRVMP]

We tend to knee-jerk reject the idea of mergers but there is evidence that in certain situations they can work. Denmark has some instructive examples:

 

1) FC Copenhagen, probably the biggest club in the country (Brondby might disagree) are a relatively recent merger, barely 20 years old. They merged two rival clubs who were both very successful (KB, B1903.) The resulting club was more successful still and, perhaps more importantly, enjoyed larger fan support once the success was established. This was from the beginning a top-down merger: it was carried out by the owners of Parken, the club's stadium. It's fair to say that despite some lean years this has worked out very well. One absolutely key point here, and one that wasn't replicated (for example) by ICT, is that the 'original' clubs live on as reserve/farm teams playing in the lower leagues. Of course Denmark actually permits reserve teams in the main league, something Scottish fans (for some reason, never understood this) wouldn't tolerate.

 

2) FC Fyn (Funen in English) tried the same thing, merging three Odense-based clubs into one 'super club' which lasted seven years before succumbing to bankruptcy, an event about which zero fucks were given. Here none of the three clubs were particularly big and only one of the three clubs (B1909) remained active, way down in the regional leagues: the other two effectively disappeared (but resurrected after Fyn dissolved.) They rented a stadium. There was no real top-down plan beyond "be a good team." It didn't end well.

 

Basically I think these mergers can work if:

 

A) There's a plan for it beyond "oh, too many diddy teams, better shove them all together and hope for the best" (which seems to be the approach in Scotland.)

The merger is undertaken by people with money, patience, a business plan, and bricks and mortar.

C) The constituent clubs retain an identity and, if possible, actual teams competing as high as they can. This helps with fan buy-in because it feels more collaborative and less of a takeover. (ICT are of course a model of success but they might have done better yet had they less decimated Thistle in the process.)

D) The league system allows for C to take place.

[capitanus]

We tend to knee-jerk reject the idea of mergers but there is evidence that in certain situations they can work. Denmark has some instructive examples:

 

1) FC Copenhagen, probably the biggest club in the country (Brondby might disagree) are a relatively recent merger, barely 20 years old. They merged two rival clubs who were both very successful (KB, B1903.) The resulting club was more successful still and, perhaps more importantly, enjoyed larger fan support once the success was established. This was from the beginning a top-down merger: it was carried out by the owners of Parken, the club's stadium. It's fair to say that despite some lean years this has worked out very well. One absolutely key point here, and one that wasn't replicated (for example) by ICT, is that the 'original' clubs live on as reserve/farm teams playing in the lower leagues. Of course Denmark actually permits reserve teams in the main league, something Scottish fans (for some reason, never understood this) wouldn't tolerate.

 

2) FC Fyn (Funen in English) tried the same thing, merging three Odense-based clubs into one 'super club' which lasted seven years before succumbing to bankruptcy, an event about which zero ****s were given. Here none of the three clubs were particularly big and only one of the three clubs (B1909) remained active, way down in the regional leagues: the other two effectively disappeared (but resurrected after Fyn dissolved.) They rented a stadium. There was no real top-down plan beyond "be a good team." It didn't end well.

 

Basically I think these mergers can work if:

 

A) There's a plan for it beyond "oh, too many diddy teams, better shove them all together and hope for the best" (which seems to be the approach in Scotland.)

The merger is undertaken by people with money, patience, a business plan, and bricks and mortar.

C) The constituent clubs retain an identity and, if possible, actual teams competing as high as they can. This helps with fan buy-in because it feels more collaborative and less of a takeover. (ICT are of course a model of success but they might have done better yet had they less decimated Thistle in the process.)

D) The league system allows for C to take place.

You'll probably know better than me, but aren't Paris St. Germain and Sampdoria both clubs which were created via mergers in the 1950s and 1960s?

 

Also, Germany has quite a few clubs who have been formed as a result of mergers etc. Over the years.

[TRVMP]

Correct on both counts, although PSG in particular was more of a takeover. Germany is full of merged clubs, as you say. The Netherlands too - NAC Breda are merged from three clubs, I believe. If you go back far enough tons of clubs are mergers. Not sure why it never really took off here.

 

Then some places are the opposite. A lot of Brazil's famous clubs are in fact formed of bitter, angry splits with other clubs, many of whom survive to today.

[Ed de Ball]

I still think you need to be clear about the objectives of change. Increased competiveness does not necessarily mean a better quality product on the pitch. Standards in all of our leagues are pretty poor by European comparison as evidenced by the abysmal performances of Scottish teams in the Europa League and Celtic's poor run in the Champions League. Attendances are in decline and most clubs are being kept afloat by TV money.

 

In mentioning Ross County I was not seeking to decry what they have achieved. They are though a team based in an area where the natural population is not big enough to finance a Premier League team through gate receipts alone. Theoretically Morton or Hibs should be able to do a lot better if they were better run. Crowds at Cappielow are still poor so thought needs to be given as what extent that is down to the quality of the product and or the poor stadium facilities. Clubs should be "encouraged to do more on both and maybe the lottery of the play offs prevents that. Personally I think Hamilton has no place in a Premier League, particularly on that includes adjacent Motherwell but then why should Hibs have been rewarded for mediocrity. Moving to 14 might allow Motherwell, Dundee Utd and Kilmarnock not to implode and Rangers and Hibs to stay up but will it allow the professional game in Scotland to flourish? Might have a better chance than Ross County and Hamilton could provide.

 

It seems clear that we are chasing TV money albeit belatedly given the lack of cup sponsorship in recent years. We need to provide something the big players like BT and Sky would like. At the moment watching some of the Scottish games televised from near empty 2 or 3 sided grounds with no atmosphere is embarrassing. The sight of a guy without a hood stood on a mound behind a goal in the wind and rain might be cute but it is hardly a selling point for Scottish football.

[Toby]

I still think you need to be clear about the objectives of change. Increased competiveness does not necessarily mean a better quality product on the pitch. Standards in all of our leagues are pretty poor by European comparison as evidenced by the abysmal performances of Scottish teams in the Europa League and Celtic's poor run in the Champions League. Attendances are in decline and most clubs are being kept afloat by TV money.

 

In mentioning Ross County I was not seeking to decry what they have achieved. They are though a team based in an area where the natural population is not big enough to finance a Premier League team through gate receipts alone. Theoretically Morton or Hibs should be able to do a lot better if they were better run. Crowds at Cappielow are still poor so thought needs to be given as what extent that is down to the quality of the product and or the poor stadium facilities. Clubs should be "encouraged to do more on both and maybe the lottery of the play offs prevents that. Personally I think Hamilton has no place in a Premier League, particularly on that includes adjacent Motherwell but then why should Hibs have been rewarded for mediocrity. Moving to 14 might allow Motherwell, Dundee Utd and Kilmarnock not to implode and Rangers and Hibs to stay up but will it allow the professional game in Scotland to flourish? Might have a better chance than Ross County and Hamilton could provide.

 

It seems clear that we are chasing TV money albeit belatedly given the lack of cup sponsorship in recent years. We need to provide something the big players like BT and Sky would like. At the moment watching some of the Scottish games televised from near empty 2 or 3 sided grounds with no atmosphere is embarrassing. The sight of a guy without a hood stood on a mound behind a goal in the wind and rain might be cute but it is hardly a selling point for Scottish football.

 

Hamilton have won enough football matches to merit their place in the Premier League, sit down you fucking bell end.

[dunning1874]

Hamilton & Ross County have earned and kept their places in the top flight on merit on the football pitch, while Hibs lost theirs on merit on the football pitch. They absolutely have a place in the Premiership and deserve to be there ahead of Hibs. You talk about their inability to sustain top flight football on their gate receipts, but even when we were at the same level Ross County's average attendance was always higher than ours. Their catchment area extends far beyond Dingwall.

 

I still think you need to be clear about the objectives of change. Increased competiveness does not necessarily mean a better quality product on the pitch. Standards in all of our leagues are pretty poor by European comparison as evidenced by the abysmal performances of Scottish teams in the Europa League and Celtic's poor run in the Champions League. Attendances are in decline and most clubs are being kept afloat by TV money.

 

Attendances in our second tier, even discounting Rangers & Hibs, are excellent in comparison to the rest of Europe. In similar sized nations to ourselves you'll generally find the majority of teams in the second tier average crowds below 1000, but it's the norm for us. There are other leagues in countries with populations around 5 million such as Denmark where four figure attendances in the second tier are expected, but even then ours are still higher.

 

Attendances are not in decline in the top flight. Every club's average attendance is rising other than Celtic & St. Johnstone.

 

Celtic's European performances have been abysmal due to having a dreadful manager. Otherwise, St. Johnstone had a disgraceful defeat, ICT had a narrow defeat to an evenly matched side and Aberdeen had an unimpressive win against a smaller side followed by an outstanding pumping of an evenly matched side, before losing narrowly to a side with a substantially bigger budget. St. Johnstone and Celtic's European campaigns were abysmal, I don't think Scottish clubs were overall. The reason we don't see smaller Scottish clubs getting to the Europa League group stage other than Celtic is that it's now far harder to qualify for than the last time we had a side at that stage. Any Scottish team other than Celtic is overachieving if they get there and that's indicative of the competition being made more difficult for teams from small countries, not the standard of Scottish football falling.

[Ed de Ball]

Hamilton have won enough football matches to merit their place in the Premier League, sit down you fucking bell end.

Fine, if on your analysis those victories arise as a result of the intrinsic quality of their play rather than the fact that they are simply less putrid than the rest. Not sure how bringing in four more even more putrid clubs will raise standards.

 

Any strategic over view needs to look outside the box, consider mergers, summer football and the building of modern stadia etc. The product currently is crap.

[TRVMP]

Ed, without unpacking all of your post - why is it a problem if teams are being kept afloat by TV money? Broadcasting is, depending on country, either just as or even more important than matchday income. (There is the related point that teams like Morton are absolutely terrible at generating matchday income; what little we get from TV saves us from ourselves.) It's high time Scottish football took TV seriously. I think the Setanta debacle scared them off a bit. We saw no such reluctance in England after the ondigital collapse. They were right back in the saddle.

[TRVMP]

Modern stadia are absolutely vital, though and, if done properly, that can help a lot with the matchday income problem. By 'done properly' I mean there needs to be more thought towards non-Saturday income than just "put some offices in" or - worse - "stick a hotel on the end."

 

One of the reasons Italy lagged behind in Europe recently is that its stadiums are falling apart. That puts some fans off, especially given the high prices. Meanwhile we know that the matchday experience in Germany is superb and that is in part, although not entirely, down to excellent facilities with superb transport links. (Cheap tickets, a vibrant fan culture, and beer also play their part.)