Rangers Supporters Trust statement on re-construction

[GovanAllan 0]

Mentioned it another thread but probably better in here, that Thompson got voted back onto the SPL board this week just a couple of months after walking away in the huff.

 

Wonder what he was promised to change his mind? No relegation this year so he can keep the Dundee derby.

[BlueMazza 0]

Mentioned it another thread but probably better in here, that Thompson got voted back onto the SPL board this week just a couple of months after walking away in the huff.

 

Wonder what he was promised to change his mind? No relegation this year so he can keep the Dundee derby.

 

the DU quote also mentioned they were happy with the 'redistribution of wealth'. I have a feeling DU will become the No.2 club cash wise, until such time as we are in top flight.

[Waltersgotstyle 297]

My worry is that a lot of the third division teams may see playing Rangers next season again as a reason to vote for it.

[Thinker 887]

My worry is that a lot of the third division teams may see playing Rangers next season again as a reason to vote for it.

 

True - it needs to be made clear that we won't give them our money if they do.

 

On the other hand reconstrucion would mean 2 matches against us rather than 4 for 2nd divisions sides next year. Only 8(?) need to vote against it...

 

At first glance, St Mirren's suggestion of 12-12-10-10 seems bad as it increases the number of teams in the already over-burdened senior set-up. It might actually be an acceptable compromise though...

[GovanAllan 0]

True - it needs to be made clear that we won't give them our money if they do.

 

On the other hand reconstrucion would mean 2 matches against us rather than 4 for 2nd divisions sides next year. Only 8(?) need to vote against it...

 

At first glance, St Mirren's suggestion of 12-12-10-10 seems bad as it increases the number of teams in the already over-burdened senior set-up. It might actually be an acceptable compromise though...

 

Any idea that is increasing the number of teams when we should trying to find a way of reducing the numbers is a non-starter for me.

[Thinker 887]

Any idea that is increasing the number of teams when we should trying to find a way of reducing the numbers is a non-starter for me.

 

I agree it's not ideal. The way I see it though - if, as should happen, we sort out a proper football pyramid in Scotland, there'll be the opportunity to shed a few teams from the SFL (or whatever we end up with). Personally I'd drop everything outside of the top two divisions into a Scottish equivalent of the Conference National.

[der Berliner 3,399]

What do people think about the best number of teams in the first tiers of the game then? Have a couple of games against each opponent or more, have a split? I grew up with the top flight having to play 36 or 44 games. No splits or similar rubbish, straight promotion or relegation. Dunno whether the player-material was better or is now worse, but Scottish football was not "that bad". What probably went wrong was the entire spreading of the income of the Scottish leagues, along with the foundation of the SPl. (Of course, Rangers were and still are arguining - I would assume - that those who make the most money should get the most money. Hence the league-wide split ... )

[Thinker 887]

What do people think about the best number of teams in the first tiers of the game then? Have a couple of games against each opponent or more, have a split? I grew up with the top flight having to play 36 or 44 games. No splits or similar rubbish, straight promotion or relegation. Dunno whether the player-material was better or is now worse, but Scottish football was not "that bad". What probably went wrong was the entire spreading of the income of the Scottish leagues, along with the foundation of the SPl. (Of course, Rangers were and still are arguining - I would assume - that those who make the most money should get the most money. Hence the league-wide split ... )

 

In general, 20 is the best number for a top flight - 18 can be made to work.

 

For Scotland though... TV will always demand a top section playing each other 4 times a season - so we're stuck with either a 10 club top flight or something with a split (12, 14 or 16).

[GovanAllan 0]

What do people think about the best number of teams in the first tiers of the game then? Have a couple of games against each opponent or more, have a split? I grew up with the top flight having to play 36 or 44 games. No splits or similar rubbish, straight promotion or relegation. Dunno whether the player-material was better or is now worse, but Scottish football was not "that bad". What probably went wrong was the entire spreading of the income of the Scottish leagues, along with the foundation of the SPl. (Of course, Rangers were and still are arguining - I would assume - that those who make the most money should get the most money. Hence the league-wide split ... )

 

Would like to see two leagues of 18 with a home and away league cup.

[der Berliner 3,399]

In general, 20 is the best number for a top flight - 18 can be made to work.

 

For Scotland though... TV will always demand a top section playing each other 4 times a season - so we're stuck with either a 10 club top flight or something with a split (12, 14 or 16).

 

Yet, in 1991 (and around that time) we had a 12-team Premier Division and 44 games, no split.

 

Is there actually a great difference between the standard of the fourth and the fifth tier? That is, if you make it two 12-team first tiers and place the rest in two regional leagues of 10, each getting a straight promotion place to the second tier with the last two of said second tier drop down into the more appropriate regional league.