Supporters direct survey

[BrahimHemdani 1]

I completely agree with Zappa that a 16 team league is the ONLY logical solution for Scotland.

 

I once put this to SDM but he assured me that the turkeys would never vote for Xmas.

 

If we NEED more matches, a re-introduction of an old style League Cup, guaranteeing the 16, six more games each in four-team sections would make up a reasonable 36 matches. 10 groups of 4, winners + 6 best second place teams move into the last 16, which would be a straight knock out. If Rangers and Celtic were seeded in the group stages then 6 of the 16 would be guaranteed 4 old firm games a season and successful teams in the other sections would also benefit.

 

By the way, it is my understanding that the proposal for 3x14 also is predicated on playing 2x per season for 26 matches and a similar league cup to my proposal.

[Bluedell 5,627]

Survey completed!

 

Persoanlly, I think it's proposterous to suggest that Scotland's top league only have 10 teams when practically every other league in Europe's top 20-30 leagues has 16, 18 or 20 teams who play each other once home & once away each season. There are very good reasons all the other leagues have 16, 18 or 20 teams. It's the simplest, most sensible and arguably fairest way for a country's top league to be structured. Understanding this is not rocket science and neither is seeing that 16 teams is by far the most common number meaning that each team only has to play 30 league games per season, thus avoiding fixture congestion.

 

Belgian - 16 teams

Greek - 16 teams

Portuguese - 16 teams

Russian - 16 teams

Ukrainian - 16 teams

Polish - 16 teams

Czech - 16 teams

Swedish - 16 teams

Hungarian - 16 teams

Croatian - 16 teams

Bosnian-Herzegovinian - 16 teams

Israeli - 16 teams

Bulgarian - 16 teams

Norwegian - 16 teams

Serbian - 16 teams

 

It's high time some people with common sense were running Scottish football and it's high time our top league was brought in line with other good leagues in Europe.

 

I fail to see why bringing more sub-standard teams into the league is going to improve things. Playing each other only twice will reduce the number of "good" games, making the product less appealing, resulting in smaller crowds and lower income, particularly from TV companies who would be less interested, and lower income due to less games.

 

Most of the countries you mention have at leats twice the population of Scotland so are in a better position to support bigger leagues.

 

A 16 team league could be disasterous.

[Bluedell 5,627]

I completely agree with Zappa that a 16 team league is the ONLY logical solution for Scotland.

 

I once put this to SDM but he assured me that the turkeys would never vote for Xmas.

 

If we NEED more matches, a re-introduction of an old style League Cup, guaranteeing the 16, six more games each in four-team sections would make up a reasonable 36 matches. 10 groups of 4, winners + 6 best second place teams move into the last 16, which would be a straight knock out. If Rangers and Celtic were seeded in the group stages then 6 of the 16 would be guaranteed 4 old firm games a season and successful teams in the other sections would also benefit.

 

By the way, it is my understanding that the proposal for 3x14 also is predicated on playing 2x per season for 26 matches and a similar league cup to my proposal.

 

The old style league cup was crap. Fans wouldn't be interested in it at the early stages.

[Zappa 0]

I fail to see why bringing more sub-standard teams into the league is going to improve things. Playing each other only twice will reduce the number of "good" games, making the product less appealing, resulting in smaller crowds and lower income, particularly from TV companies who would be less interested, and lower income due to less games.

 

I disagree with most of your argument here. We would lose a few 'good' games as you put it, but with things as they are at the moment we play some of the teams too many times. Last season we played Dundee Utd 6 times, Hamilton 5 times, St.Mirren 5 times.... Four of those 5 games against St.Mirren were over just an 8 week period and we also played Dundee Utd 4 times in less than 7 weeks. That's just bloody boring, so I don't think more variety due to more teams in the league would result in significantly lower crowds. The split we have at the moment also unfairly benefits teams who make it into the top 6. Why on earth should the likes of Dundee Utd get us going to Tannadice 4 times last season? It's total bullshit.

 

Most of the countries you mention have at leats twice the population of Scotland so are in a better position to support bigger leagues.

 

Don't really want to go into the complexities of countries' demographics in relationship to their ability to support a certain size of football league because it's a pretty poor argument. Scotland can support a 16 team SPL quite easily.

[Super_Ally 0]

If a backwater like Romania can manage to have an 18 team league then I'm sure the SPL could manage to have a 16 or 18 team league. Anything less is unnacceptable.

 

Population of Romania is about 22 mil.

[Zappa 0]

Population of Romania is about 22 mil.

 

And a loaf of bread costs �£1.20.

 

We played the Romanian Champions last season and they had to borrow their dump of a national stadium because their own was a cowshed, but none of that has any bearing on whether or not Scotland can support a 16 team league.

Edited December 18, 2010 by Zappa
fixing typo

[Super_Ally 0]

And a loaf of bread costs �£1.20.

 

We played the Romanian Champions last season and they had to borrow their dump of a national stadium because their own was a cowshed, but none of that has any bearing on whether or not Scotland can support a 16 team league.

 

So what did Romania have to do with your argument?

[Zappa 0]

So what did Romania have to do with your argument?

 

I only chimed in with the Romania comment because it's a shitty backwater with an 18 team league and I think we could at least manage 16 teams in Scotland. Contrary to how it might seem from glancing at the figure 22 million, I doubt very much that they have a league that size because of the country's population size. Unirea were Romanian champions despite coming from a town about the size of Larkhall, which kind of suggests that bringing the demographics of the country into discussion about the size of it's premier football league is a bit pointless. I was simply implying that it's a shit country with shit football stadiums and if they can manage to have an 18 team premier league, surely we could manage 16.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

I only chimed in with the Romania comment because it's a shitty backwater with an 18 team league and I think we could at least manage 16 teams in Scotland. Contrary to how it might seem from glancing at the figure 22 million, I doubt very much that they have a league that size because of the country's population size. Unirea were Romanian champions despite coming from a town about the size of Larkhall, which kind of suggests that bringing the demographics of the country into discussion about the size of it's premier football league is a bit pointless. I was simply implying that it's a shit country with shit football stadiums and if they can manage to have an 18 team premier league, surely we could manage 16.

 

It's a fair comparison if you look at the coefficients, they are three places ahead of us this year and 14th to our 15th in the full 5-year standings. If Rangers earn a few more points we'll move above them, as all their teams are out.

 

Meanwhile back at the survey, there have been in excess of 2,500 responses and SD Scotland will issue a preliminary report tomorrow ahead of the SPL meeting on Monday.

 

Thanks again to all who responded.

[Super_Ally 0]

I'm afraid I think it is very much relevant in at least some context as the support for the game is drawn from the countries population.