The split

[Loyal72 12,096]

Just now, AGM_72 said:

For me, three/four teams fighting out relegation having to play each other is more interesting. 

In the same way, in any normal title challenging season, it's more tense having to play top 6 teams while we're trying to win a title. And again, by the same token, the teams fighting it out for Europe playing each other is interesting to me. 

The main flaw is the extra away fixture, which is obviously shite. 

It was exiting once upon a time, I'm sick of the sight of half these teams now, I'd genuinely rather have a home and away Vs each team through the league and that be it.

Maybe fans of other clubs might even actually go and watch their own teams too, instead of having so many games against us where the blue pound can bail them out.

[J-Maestro 11,776]

2 minutes ago, Loyal72 said:

That's literally the only reason we have the split, so that the SPFL can get those extra old firms and appease Sky.

I say fuck them, Sky doesn't care for nor wish to pay decent money for showing this league, so why should the league be suited to them.

As @J-Maestro said, fuck them.

Tired of how our league has to be set up being dictated to us because Sky want this or that, they don't care, piss off.

For me the biggest improvement would be for the other teams, times when Aberdeen, Hearts etc are rebuilding they can have a season mid table 7/8/9th rather than having to sack their boss and go back to playing shite football to stay in the league.

[Negri's lovechild 14,413]

2 minutes ago, Loyal72 said:

That's literally the only reason we have the split, so that the SPFL can get those extra old firms and appease Sky.

I say fuck them, Sky doesn't care for nor wish to pay decent money for showing this league, so why should the league be suited to them.

As @J-Maestro said, fuck them.

Tired of how our league has to be set up being dictated to us because Sky want this or that, they don't care, piss off.

Spot on, and it's one of the reasons we don't grow the profile of Scottish football.

Can't while we are being held ransom by Sky. If each club were able to sell their own digital season tickets, or at least on a game by game basis i'm sure they would make a decent amount. 

[ElBufalo20 7,973]

3 minutes ago, Loyal72 said:

It was exiting once upon a time, I'm sick of the sight of half these teams now, I'd genuinely rather have a home and away Vs each team through the league and that be it.

Maybe fans of other clubs might even actually go and watch their own teams too, instead of having so many games against us where the blue pound can bail them out.

I agree 18 team league. Play each other twice. Gives teams like Aberdeen and hearts more chance to challenge given that they basically start the season with -20 points behind given they play the old firm 8 times and will be lucky to get 1 draw.

Also would increase attendances at other clubs if it was only once a season they were playing.

 

[ForeverAndEver 72,122]

I’d miss 4 old firms, won’t lie.

[Loyal72 12,096]

Just now, ElBufalo20 said:

I agree 18 team league. Play each other twice. Gives teams like Aberdeen and hearts more chance to challenge given that they basically start the season with -20 points behind given they play the old firm 8 times and will be lucky to get 1 draw.

Also would increase attendances at other clubs if it was only once a season they were playing.

 

The turkey's keep voting for Christmas though, then blaming us/them when they all finish shite and can't compete because of the money etc.

No clubs speak out on the pish Sky deal, no clubs talk about having to play the OF so many times.

It's a small change that would transform football up here.

[Negri's lovechild 14,413]

1 minute ago, ForeverAndEver said:

I’d miss 4 old firms, won’t lie.

Imagine if we played them a maximum of four times a season including potential cup games though.

The atmosphere in those games would (should) be off the scale. 

[Loyal72 12,096]

4 minutes ago, ForeverAndEver said:

I’d miss 4 old firms, won’t lie.

Get your point, but if there's only two in the league season, and the potential for facing them in either of the cups, I reckon the OF becomes even better than it'd been these last thirty odd years.

Increase the allocations to the European allocations, and watch it turn back into a cauldron of absolute hatred.

Even the OF has become watered down with so many games against each other.

[Canabear 4,583]

4 hours ago, J-Maestro said:

I’d rather just go 18 team, would improve the league massively.

One of the reasons this League set up is struggling for a major sponsor imo is the utter shambolic and moronic split.

Who in their right mind is going to throw money at a product when you've no idea who'll be in your so called top six until right before your top 6 are decided?

It's like they're trying to kid on a relegation battle is true Football excitement and will have sponsors barging the doors down to invest in a game that's corrupt to the core and riddled with inept place people in high places running it into the ground.

As you rightly say going back to the 18 set up would be a major improvement on the utter dross we watch every week.

[Canabear 4,583]

12 minutes ago, Negri's lovechild said:

Imagine if we played them a maximum of four times a season including potential cup games though.

The atmosphere in those games would (should) be off the scale. 

That's the way it used to be and those games when we did play them back then were always special as there was always an edge to them.

Imo it's a diluted product between both teams due to the amount of games they play against each other.

[dummiesoot 16,115]

2 hours ago, Albertz85 said:

What I dont understand is after so many years of the split so many people/media still cant get their head around it. Its stupid but simple.

Rangers-celtic will never play each other home/away an uneven amount of times. After the split you will always play a team an extra home or away game.

If the top six is the same as previous season then every team would play each other twice home and away. The odds if it happening are shite therefore more or less every season there is a team loses out with 3 away fixtures to a top six side

[The Dude 20,026]

5 hours ago, J-Maestro said:

I’d rather just go 18 team, would improve the league massively.

Would it? Top six in the Championship are Dundee, Queen’s Park, Inverness, Ayr, Partick and Morton. Don’t think any of those make the league remotely better. 

[ElBufalo20 7,973]

1 hour ago, ForeverAndEver said:

I’d miss 4 old firms, won’t lie.

If less games due to 18 teams make the league cup semi 2 legs. Means you’ll get the additional old firms in the cups. 

Would also have play off for European places to give extra games. Say 4th-8th. Also gives teams mid table something to play for towards the end.

[ElBufalo20 7,973]

Just now, The Dude said:

Would it? Top six in the Championship are Dundee, Queen’s Park, Inverness, Ayr, Partick and Morton. Don’t think any of those make the league remotely better. 

It makes it better in terms of only playing the teams twice a season 

[The Dude 20,026]

Just now, ElBufalo20 said:

It makes it better in terms of only playing the teams twice a season 

Why does that make it any better? I’d much rather four Old Firms a season that watch us play Queen’s Park or Morton twice. Whether it’s 10, 12, 18 or 20, Rangers and Celtic are still going to be MILES ahead of everyone else. Hearts and Hibs won’t get better just because they don’t face us four times a season either 

[ElBufalo20 7,973]

4 minutes ago, The Dude said:

Why does that make it any better? I’d much rather four Old Firms a season that watch us play Queen’s Park or Morton twice. Whether it’s 10, 12, 18 or 20, Rangers and celtic are still going to be MILES ahead of everyone else. Hearts and Hibs won’t get better just because they don’t face us four times a season either 

Rangers and celtic still would be but it would be closer.

Hearts or Hibs  would get better and closer as they’d have a better chance of gaining more points against other teams.As I said above teams are starting with basically a 20 point handicap cos they play the old firm 8 times. That’s not helpful to the league. 
Teams are more likely to beat us in one off games in a league season at home cos it would be massive for them.

 

[Jamie0202 12,557]

3 hours ago, AdzKyle said:

I understand it just fine. I just don’t agree with it. We shall agree to disagree. It’s a game of opinions after all. 
Personal preference would be an 18 team league. Better for the fans and not as boring as playing the same teams 4 times a year. 

I think you're both making decent points and not actually too far away from agreeing. Looking at the league this season. Livingston can now go no higher that 7th and St Mirren can go no lower than 6th with only 2 points separating them after the 33 games. Livingston have played St Mirren twice away from home getting beat both times while having only played against them at home once. Where's the fairness there for Livingston? Reverse that with Livingston getting the 2 home games and it could be them potentially who are playing in the top 6 and only 4 points off 4th place. It's a riot. 

[The Dude 20,026]

Just now, ElBufalo20 said:

Rangers and celtic still would be but it would be closer.

Hearts or Hibs  would get better and closer as they’d have a better chance of gaining more points against other teams.As I said above teams are starting with basically a 20 point handicap cos they play the old firm 8 times. That’s not helpful to the league. 
Teams are more likely to beat us in one off games in a league season at home cos it would be massive for them.

 

Conversely, we'd have fewer opportunities to drop points playing dross like Ayr, Morton and Queen's Park instead of playing Aberdeen, Hearts etc.

What would make a team more likely to beat us because we only play them twice?  It's hardly made the PL, Ligue 1, Bundesliga and others into bastions of competitiveness.

[J-Maestro 11,776]

20 minutes ago, The Dude said:

Would it? Top six in the Championship are Dundee, Queen’s Park, Inverness, Ayr, Partick and Morton. Don’t think any of those make the league remotely better. 

I wouldn’t say they don’t deserve to be either though. You’d have another 2 Glasgow teams in, the Ayrshire derby, Dundee Derby back in the league.

Improvement in the league wouldn’t be immediate but I think it would improve more than if it’s 12 over time.

[The Dude 20,026]

1 minute ago, J-Maestro said:

I wouldn’t say they don’t deserve to be either though. You’d have another 2 Glasgow teams in, the Ayrshire derby, Dundee Derby back in the league.

Improvement in the league wouldn’t be immediate but I think it would improve more than if it’s 12 over time.

I don't think there's anything to suggest clubs like Morton, Ayr, and Queen's Park deserve to be in the top tier. You're talking 35 years since Morton were a top-tier club, a mere 85 in Queen's Park's case. Personally, I couldn't care less about club's postcodes and if certain derbies are back in the top flight. Nobody outwith their own clubs' dwindling support has much, if any interest in them and simply having Ayr v Killie or Dundee v Utd in the league doesn't make it better.

[J-Maestro 11,776]

9 minutes ago, The Dude said:

I don't think there's anything to suggest clubs like Morton, Ayr, and Queen's Park deserve to be in the top tier. You're talking 35 years since Morton were a top-tier club, a mere 85 in Queen's Park's case. Personally, I couldn't care less about club's postcodes and if certain derbies are back in the top flight. Nobody outwith their own clubs' dwindling support has much, if any interest in them and simply having Ayr v Killie or Dundee v Utd in the league doesn't make it better.

It does by having a league where if you have one bad season you’re in relegation. It would allow the bigger teams to play a bit better football rather than sacking a manager and going back to shite.

I couldn’t care less if Darvel spent a season in the top league. Playing shite teams 6 or 7 times a year is a joke.

[The Dude 20,026]

2 minutes ago, J-Maestro said:

It does by having a league where if you have one bad season you’re in relegation. It would allow the bigger teams to play a bit better football rather than sacking a manager and going back to shite.

I couldn’t care less if Darvel spent a season in the top league. Playing shite teams 6 or 7 times a year is a joke.

I don't see how playing even shiter teams than the ones we currently play makes it any less of a joke.

An 18-team league doesn't make teams like Hearts having shite seasons immune from relegation unless you're just padding the league with utter dross.

[J-Maestro 11,776]

2 minutes ago, The Dude said:

I don't see how playing even shiter teams than the ones we currently play makes it any less of a joke.

An 18-team league doesn't make teams like Hearts having shite seasons immune from relegation unless you're just padding the league with utter dross.

Over time we will see the smaller teams improve, bring through more youth.

What is every other 18-20 team league then? 

[Loyal72 12,096]

2 minutes ago, The Dude said:

I don't see how playing even shiter teams than the ones we currently play makes it any less of a joke.

An 18-team league doesn't make teams like Hearts having shite seasons immune from relegation unless you're just padding the league with utter dross.

I think there's plenty of Championship teams that are of the level we're already playing against currently.

Having a set up where these teams are further restricted due to the amount of hurdles, while hurting our own top league, doesn't make sense.

Make the top tier 18, bring in those top half championship clubs, merge the two lower leagues into one new league one, and promote teams from the non-league set ups to build the last league out.

Those clubs all benefit from better distribution of monies which in turn leads to better players and grass roots developments which in turn leads to us and them buying said players and it goes on.

Hey, even the national team might benefit.

 

[The Dude 20,026]

1 minute ago, J-Maestro said:

Over time we will see the smaller teams improve, bring through more youth.

What is every other 18-20 team league then? 

Most of them have a handful of teams who can usually win the title:

ENG: City have four of last five and likely make it five from last six.

SPA:  Barca, Real and very occasionally Atleti

GER: Basically Bayern every year.

ITA: Juve or sometimes Milan/Inter (Napoli are the first outside  that trio since Roma in 2001)

FRA: PSG have won 8 of last 10.

They then have the teams who usually challenge for Euro places.

Then there's the middling teams who sometimes have a wee run before reverting to type

Then, finally, there's the cannon fodder who are largely interchangeable shite nobody really cares about:

Norwich, West Brom, Espanyol, Ajaccio, Angers, Stuttgart, Bochum, Hamburg etc