麻豆官网首页入口

Agree with your point about the lack of consultation among fans.

But..

There are various types of consultation and obviously you wouldn't want the fresh-air (i.e. ask and ignore) approach, so the issue becomes to what extent their views are taken into account?

In other industries and businesses Jack 'customers' are consulted but they aren't always treated as if they are right about everything. Many may lack a real insight into how the business actually has to operate economically.

So Jack, what weight should be given to fan opinion in determining the size of the league? For example, if most people said they wanted a 20-league set-up would that be the option to go with?

Jack

鈥淭his has possibly made it more difficult to please fans, but admittedly some games are stale, so a shift to more clubs in the top flight would hopefully eradicate this鈥�

A good blog and I was in agreement with much of the sentiment until this bit.

If Scottish Football is going to rearrange it鈥檚 divisions, then whatever it does, it will have to get rid of the 鈥渉opefully鈥�.

We have to move forward on the basis of knowing what impact the changes will have, on attendances and on finances. We can鈥檛 just hope that we will avoid the risks, we have to ensure that any risks are calculated risks.

I wish that people who propose this or that league structure would think through the ramifications of what they are proposing because when one does take a serious look at changes, as I have done, in some detail I might add, then sometimes it becomes apparent that some things indeed don鈥檛 work.

Incidentally, the more I look at the finances of a 16 team top tier, the more I am persuaded that a lot of the risks are equally as great irrespective of league size but obviously the financial perspective changes when you look at who the principle beneficiaries are in each structure.

Far from the money side, one has to consider the practicalities of running a league; how we fit in a winter break; would an early season start still work; how will cup competitions work; replays; play-offs; clubs who might have to play in Europe; international call offs; how the top flight can be supported by the lower tiers and on down through the divisions.

Do this and you鈥檒l find that it鈥檚 not so easy but when somebody does do this, and presents it to the fans, they have a clear picture of what they might get and therefore voting for or against it has some meaning.

So I wonder just how many people who are voting for a sixteen club league, have the same vision of what that league would be. Precious few I suspect.

That鈥檚 not to say I disagree with the other points in your blog. It鈥檚 a criticism of the lack of leadership that has been shown when the league restructuring was first let out of the bag by Neil Doncaster.

No real details have been provided so is it any surprise that fans are filling in the blanks for themselves.

It might be a sensible thing to limit wages by turnover but that suggestion has been ignored for nearly a decade now but ask yourself this 鈥� how much gate money does the SPL generate each year? How much was it in 2008 when the SPL turnover was 拢197?

Would it be for arguments sake 拢60 million? After all that鈥檚 less than one third of the total turnover.

So is that reasonable or do you think it is higher or lower?

#1

"Many may lack a real insight into how the business actually has to operate economically."

That doesn't matter any more than it matters that someone complaining about a toaster needs to know how much it costs that company to make toasters. They just want a toaster that works! And football fans just want a league that gives them more for their ever-increasing ticket money.

That should be the focus of the steering group, not trying to second guess what TV companies want - which is what they appear to be doing.

The league should first create a product that their customers might like and then sell it to both those customers and the TV companies. If it's a popular product, the TV companies will be queuing up to buy the rights. The fans have said a 10-team league is NOT what they want. The TV companies will have heard that even if the SPL hasn't.

Jack's blog is excellent.

Has anyone in the SPL considered that an expanded league with fewer games might actually lead to more gate money, more interest and more TV money?

Like the well-used 'scarcity tactic' in marketing - "Limited stock - buy now!"

a great point about taking a fan into the boardroom and having a different opinion... then he is not a fan.

but take an executive out of the boardroom and into the terracing (and i mean, the proper seats, not the boxes)... and make that executive pay for a ticket, i'm sure sure then they'll appreciate the fans perspective.

#1

"For example, if most people said they wanted a 20-league set-up would that be the option to go with?"

If your market research shows that's what your customers want and it's within your capability to give that to them then that should be the option to go with. If you are unable to give your customers what they want then maybe you're in the wrong business.

The business world is littered with failed companies that tried to sell people things they didn't really need or want.

Successful businesses find out what people want and then give it to them. That's what the SPL should be doing. Unfortunately the "people" in their mind seems to be TV companies. And they seem to think TV companies only really want 4 OF games a season.

If it's just about that, why don't the OF just bring back the Glasgow Cup to replace one OF game and play a glamour "friendly" in Australia or the US to replace the other?

The Edinburgh clubs could make a bigger deal of the Festival Cup and make it a two-leg affair to replace their lost derbies. The Dundee clubs could do something similar, and Aberdeen, Inverness and Ross County could play a Highland Cup or something. With 30 or 34 league games there would be space to do stuff like that.

#3

Well it does matter if it seriously effects revenue, the wages you can afford to pay and the players you can afford to attract, the numbers of paying customers you get through the door, your Web market and TV.

In your case I suspect you'd have to learn how to work the toaster first!

But people do need information if they have to choose between toasters?

And they aren't second guessing what the TV companies want at all!

Keep up.

#6

And what if your customers said they wanted a 40-team league and to pay a 拢5 for each game and free hamburgers as well. Would they be right?

The scenario may sound nonsensical but not as nonsensical as you assuming that YOU know what people want.

#2
when somebody does do this, and presents it to the fans, they have a clear picture of what they might get and therefore voting for or against it has some meaning.
------------------------------------
Absolutely spot on Iain. If you are going to ask people for their opionions give them the whole picture about the likely ramifications and pros and cons for their club of different structures. This stated preferance approach tends to sharpen their opinions better than the bog standard meaningless surveys and opinion polls conducted so far.

Extending the league may be desirable but along with a TV revenue cut (estimated by their internal consultants at between 拢7-10m) there may also be less games (i.e. more lost revenue) in some formats and the likely risk of more less attractive fixtures for paying fans at grounds, on TV and the net. And then if people want reduced gate prices as well you can explain to them that even less money will be available to their club.

All of which will have an impact on the continuing debt repayments of most clubs, the players they can get and the wages they can pay, and how able they will be to keep their better (young) players against bigger competitors (down to English League 2 perhaps?) in the Bosman climate.

And to cap it all the 'spectulation' that a bigger league will just automatically mean more paying customers is exactly that.

Top blog...there is an obsession in the SPL about size and though generally big is seen to be better, the size of the Auld Firm compared to the majority of Scottish clubs will no doubt prevent a twenty team top division - they wont fancy frequent trips to the minnows for weekly 7 or 8 nils drubbings. In the long term though it would strengthen the league even if it took years to even things out a little, but the alternative of keep playing amongst themselves is simply a form of in-breeding which only leads to a stagnant unhealthy future.

When considering the re-structuring of the Scottish league system, one has to consider the difference between improvement in the quality of football being played and the improvement of the product the SPL provides.

It is indeed true that by improving income for the clubs they would be facilitated to buy in more imports, hopefully more complete players than their youth set up could produce. However even with a 10 team top tier set up, it is unlikely that the SPL could even compete with the English Championship on this level in the long term. It would therefore be extremely difficult for Scottish clubs to attract a significantly higher standard of player to their clubs via buying in imports.

Furthermore with respect to generating interest and TV revenue, if the product of the SPL is to be one of foreign imports, it cannot on any level compete with the English Premier league. Pursuing this idea is simply poor product placement.

It has rightly been highlighted that youth development is key to the furthering of Scottish football and would improve the product of the Scottish leagues. It does indeed have to be noted that clubs must generate enough revenue to run facilities for this, however it is equally a part of a player鈥檚 development to get first team opportunities. Promoting the purchase of foreign imports does not promote this.

In addition to youth development, another way in which Scottish football can and must improve it鈥檚 product, is reducing it鈥檚 monotony. One of the ways of doing this is by expanding the league sufficiently to end teams playing each other more than twice a season. The fewest number this can be achieved within a tier is 16. There are rightly concerns as to whether there are sufficient teams with the quality for each of the tiers to be expanded to or beyond this level. However a trade off has to be made between this and the improvement of the leagues product by doing so. Expanding beyond 16 teams is likely to face opposition, so with 16 teams being the minimum number of teams to facilitate the improvement of the product, this most popular option has to be the main consideration.

There are however concerns over whether the resultant 30 league games a season will be suffice. I would suggest that in order to facilitate the changes in the league system, changes to the cup set ups are needed in order to rejuvenate Scottish football and keep the domestic fixture schedule at the appropriate level.

It is important to also note that any change to Scottish football not only has to take into consideration what happens in the top flight alone but also what happens to all the teams below that, particularly if the much sought after pyramid system is to be devised. The proposal of an SPL 1 and 2 is indeed an integral part of this. However in order for any change to be wholly agreeable to the SFL as well as the SPL, not only will the number of teams in each of the SPL tiers be a factor, the provisions for clubs whom will find themselves below that will also be a factor. One of the main promotions of an SPL 1 and 2 is to reduce the impact of those getting promoted/relegated from the SPL1. However no such consideration has been taken into account of the same transition in and out of SPL2.

The proposals at present suggest a regionalisation below SPL2 is the best way to improve the product at this level. There are currently 3 regions in the junior divisions so it would require the least upheaval and therefore be most agreeable for the same 3 regions to remain. Given an SPL 1 and 2 both with 16 teams per tier and the regionalisation of tiers below that, it would make sense for the 10 new teams that would have be added to the current junior premier division teams (12,12 and 14 = 38) to be added to 3 regions to make their tiers expanded to 16 teams playing twice, from the total of 48.


As aforementioned it has to be a consideration that the domestic cups may also be needed in order to improve the product of Scottish domestic football. Currently the CIS cup is struggling to obtain a sponsor, and with no European place available to realistically give to this competition, this product appears weak or indeed dead. A move to a single cup competition within Scotland could not only be a consideration but a necessity. In order for this to happen, the format of the Scottish cup would have to change.

In light of my aforementioned point about provisions for those below SPL2, I would propose the following changes to the Scottish cup competition as part of making an agreeable and most workable solution, whilst catering for the loss of the CIS cup. Although this is merely a sensible mathematical suggestion given the number of teams that may be in each tier, obviously it is only one suggestion. However with the potential loss of the CIS, the number of fixtures for teams in the Scottish cup would have to be increased, seeded group stages is one obvious suggestion.

With the 48 teams playing in the respective regional premier divisions being added to the 32 teams that would be playing in SPL1 and 2, there would be a total of 80 clubs.

The cup competition would run as follows:

8 group stages of 10 teams playing twice (from the total 80), each team is seeded in the group in accordance with their previous league position. (18 games)

The top two from each group would enter the knockout phase, last 16 onwards. A maximum of 4 additional fixtures

This competition would mean a guaranteed 18 fixtures would be added to the domestic schedule of 30 league matches, with a maximum of 22 being added for any team. This would result in a min of 48 domestic fixtures for all clubs above that level with a maximum of 52, a desirable amount. Furthermore the cup competition I am proposing would guarantee smaller clubs at least two fixtures a season against a top eight team, which could be vital to the junior teams, keep them in business, and cater for the problem with making the transition between SPL2 and Junior premiers.

So many factors must be considered for the restructuring, both at the top and bottom of Scottish football. A collective way forward has to be agreed upon as any change will affect every team in Scotland and must be voted for by a majority.

For me it has to be a top league of 16. How this would would lose clubs money is actually beyond me.

Play each other twice is 30 games, then have a split playing each other once is another 7 games giving 37 games in a season. Also seed the teams so where they finish after 30 games means something, so the top team would have the following fixtures, 1v2, 1v3, 1v4, 1v5, 6v1, 7v1, 8v1.
Just think last day of the season, 1v2 for the league, 3v4 for the Uefa places etc.

Also it would give some teams in the middle a chance to blood some youngsters and maybe play abit of football rather than worrying about being relegated.

However the big chance has to be in the allocation of prize money and tv money. Instead of giving the majority to the old firm, it should be split fairly. Half the money should be split equally among the 16, the other half split on a sliding scale depending on the final league position. In the long run this would benifit the old firm as well as the other teams as the more money, the better players, the more competitive the league, the more interest from sponsors, TV etc etc.

For outside the top league this is where the major shake up is needed. You have the SFA, SFL, SJFA, SAFA and who knows how many more bodies running there own little empires. This needs done away with and for there to be one body running football. There needs to be proper co-ordination from the top down. Teams with vision and motivation should be allowed to rise up the ranks. Teams playing parks football should be allowed to climb as high as possible within the one set up, and also teams not wanting to take promotion should be allowed to stay where they are.

a 2nd teir of 16 (with 3 places up for grabs in promotion, involving automatic and play offs) and also relegation to regional leagues below.

Good blog and like the comments.

I can't see how in a bigger league clubs would not lose money.

In Scotland you would expand size and reduce the quality and how would that help maintain the standard of the league in Europe?

Would more fans come along to see less games, and compensate in numbers for this reduction. Has anyone any evidence that this would work other than a gut feeling?

Doncaster's views on the Sky/ESPN viewing figures were that the OF games generated by far and away the most viewers, followed by the OF against anyone else, and lastly by games between other teams. So you would have less top games to show that people actually want to see?

What about this for a suggestion it would offer the tv people what they want and also the fans what they want we could have 3 leagues of 14 teams with the teams playimg each other home and away =26 games it could then split 7/7 with those teams playing each other home and away =12 games a total of 38 games with 3 up 3 down and play offs the bottom division could look at promoting from the non leagues and highland leaugues this would guarantee 4 old firm games every year and also with a larger league there would be some room for new young talent to come through if there were less risk of relegation and financial oblivion! especially if we devise a much fairer way of splitting the revenue among all the clubs

#7

No, sorry. My view is that the SPL is obviously more concerned about what the TV companies might or might not want rather than the fans. That's very clear.

A 40 club league! Fans have made it clear they want more variety and a more competitive league, with the preference being for an expanded rather than reduced league. It's not up to fans to decide the format or how many teams - that's the job of the SPL and the clubs to deliver.

Or do Apple expect their customers to design their computers?

I'm not sure why you seem so against market research. It's the foundation of any successful business.

Good blog.

I am one of those fans that watch Barcalona on sky and then turn up at a Celtic St. Mirren game and wonder why I bother. Our exposure to top class European games has made Scottish football look very provincial and ugly in comparison. Teams like Barcalona, Real Madrid are no longer the exotic foreign name we would only see glimpses of once or twice a year but teams many of us see every week along with the EPL and the champions league. Our teams in the SPL simply cannot compete with them in terms of quality and are instead relying on brand loyalty. I do not think that is no longer enough, particularly given the prices of the tickets.

As a christmas present, I offered to buy my nephews some football tops and all of them wanted either a Arsenal or Barcalona top with Nasri, Xavi or Messi stamped on the back, not one of them wanted a Celtic top despite the fact that they go to Parkhead a few times a year. Given the choice, I feel they would prefer watching Barcalona to Celtic. The footballing heroes of Scottish schoolkids are no longer Celtic and Rangers players but Man united, Arsenal, Real Madrid and Barca players. I find it sad that a generation of football fans have very little interest in Scottish football. Not only that, there is also a certain degree of contempt of Scottish football creeping in. No amount of tinkering with the league structure can disguise the fact that for many fans, watching the an SPL game is watching an over priced and inferior product.

#14
Well if thats your view you should just say that.

If its not up to fans to decide the size why blag on about the customer being right re size.

I'm not against MR at all but against rubbish meaningless research which in the long run tells you very little. There is a big difference. In my experience you do not ask people their opinions without providing them with information (pros and cons) on what they are choosing between. As a research task its not that complex to run and produces more reliable results on products compared to your average 'cheap as chips' survey. But don't believe me, believe the many national companies who use this approach to test their products.

#16 The size of the league is not the issue. The issue is how to make the league more interesting and most people within the game, including fans, think that one of the things that could achieve that is not having the same teams play each other at least 4 times a year.

Asking fans to vote for a 10, 12 or 14 team league is not the answer unless you give them all the financial facts as you say, which is unrealistic.

But they should be asking them things like what will make them more or less likely to go to games/buy STs, etc.

They can use this info to then make the league fit what fans want. They can also use this info when dealing with TV companies to show them how they are giving people what they say they want.

As well as SPL size, lets not shy away from the modernisation of our game by consolidating the three governing bodies. A small country like Scotland does not require all these 'men in suits' whose decisions in our game are often without any common sense.

Many countries such as Norway only have one governing body for its international football team and leagues, Scotland's football authorities need to examine all aspects of the way they are run.

When you see Celtic and the SFA publicly scorning each other it shames our national game.

#17
Well size taken as a proxy for quality and directly for resources will have a bearing.

Agree with you however, regarding the wider point on consultation with fans and it shouldn't be a one-off but more of a ongoing dialogue.

Another good blog Jack. Ol' Tim Vickery better watch out!

To me an SPL 1 and 2 seems like an obviously good idea. Improved compeition will help develop better players. SPL 2 takes the focus of 30 teams onto a smaller number so more coverage, more money and competition. You would hope a formal youth development structure would be rolled out to ALL clubs in the country so that everything focuses towards the national team, from grass roots, to regional teams, to SPL2 and then SPL1.

Smaller SFL teams would drop to junior/regional level which is still competitive and well supported.

Why does it need to be 10 and 10 though?

Something I have not heard mentioned is a 12 team SPL 1 and 2 with Rangers and Celtic B in SPL 2, but not allowed promotion obviously.

Perhaps they could groundshare on an artifical pitch with teams in the central belt, making better use of some of the underutlised stadia that have been put up.

With the best youth academies, I think it would be great to see the youngsters that are coming through at the big two. Maybe it would be like Olympics teams with only a few over 23 players allowed.

I quite like the relegation/title split towards the end of the season. It was more intriguing than the 10 team league. (Perhaps a payout based on average attendance is needed is a team goes short a home game though).

12 and 12 with Rangers and Celtic B then chaps?

Post 20

I'd be happy with that or a shift to 14 with a much reduced parachute payment for SPL 2.

Thankfully we seem not be to be going back to 10 or up to 16.

And a big yes to colt teams in SPL 2.

Post 18

re your last point. Could not agree more. It really is becoming tiring.

#15 got me thinking.

We all tune into the top games on Sky, then watch our local teams and wonder why we bother. The style the top teams play makes the Scottish game seem pre-historic.

So right now the in-vogue style of play is tic-tac football played by Spain, Barca and Arsenal.

The thing about a tic-tac team is that it needs to be bred, so it will be 15 years before Scotland can have one of these teams assuming we adopt that football philosophy today.

However, in 15 years, tactics will have changed to make tic-tac obsolete.

We need to develop our own football philosophy like total-football in Holland and tic-tac in Spain. We need better facilities to teach this new philosophy to our kids from day one, becuase all you can play on Scottish parks is long ball.

We need to continually innovate, and that is something that Scottish football and Scottish people have not been doing well over the past 50 years.

what is amazing me is the sudden shift in oppinion from people writing on thse blogs away from a 16/18 team format. I assume this is because of the doncaster comment that "your club could lose 1 million pounds a season". Lets not all assume that this means "all" clubs will lose this much please! At present teams outside top six already do not play old firm 4 times a season and given that the tv revenue is not shared equally in the SPL there is no way that "all" clubs would be hit by this much. Furthermore when old firm play non old firm it generates less tv income than the old firm derby matches. We are talking about rangers and Celtic losing 1 million a year by losing 2 old firm matches not "all teams".

am also wondering if anyone read my albeit lengthly post because no one has responded or even blinked at it.

does everyone now think that 12 or 14 teams with an enevitable split will bring "big change" to the 12 team set up with a split we already have? is that not just change for change's sake?? we still would keep our monotony. i thought even Old firm fans were sick of so many derby's??

Rob04 @ #8

鈥淓xtending the league may be desirable but along with a TV revenue cut (estimated by their internal consultants at between 拢7-10m) there may also be less games (i.e. more lost revenue)鈥�

The question I posed in #2 at the end was to get Jack and anyone else reading this blog to think about a suitable benchmark for gate money vs turnover.

PWC recommended wages at 60% of club turnover. Nothing for gate money but it is gate money that loosing the revenue.

I concur with Neil Doncaster i.e. a loss for clubs in the top flight but the current trend of gate losses is affecting all clubs irrespective of league size. Even with the figure I pose the gate loss is wiping out any TV deal with only 2 or 3 million to spare.

Set the benchmark higher for gate revenue and factor in the drift in attendances and you may well get a higher amount of income for the clubs but the loss increases still further. Set it lower and clubs are simply not viable.

The SPL argument in fine in principle but the money just isn鈥檛 there and it has a real chicken and egg problem in reversing attendance. No money for better players 鈥� no better player 鈥� no better matches 鈥� continued crowd decline.

Applying the same benchmark and rationale as Neil Doncaster on bringing back the supporters, and working from a base set of figures from 2008/09 a 16 club top flight can bring in money. With the set up I鈥檝e looked at 拢12 million across the leagues with 拢7 million of this to the SPL.plus a 拢7 from TV. It goes without saying that a 10+10 brings in more.

The facts are that at this time, a 10+10 is no more financially secure than any other league size and the risks of club liquidation remain the same. Consequences are far greater for Scottish football.

Depending on which season you look at 89% to 93% of gate generated income is accounted for by 26 clubs. 52% accounted for by the OF. Loose 6 clubs to struggle with the remaining 7% and they will not be back.

Loosing supporters and folding clubs is a real possibility and where will the 10+10 set up be then? Suitable replacement clubs coming through the ranks? I doubt it.

What then? SPL of 10? 12? 14? 16? What will happen to the TV revenue and the 4x OF games then?

Like you picked up on my point of informed debate 鈥� facts not opinions.

I really fear for Scottish football. Not from the league size dilemma but from the way this whole matter has been handled.

Honestly - I dispair!

iain jack, you have made two very very worthy posts. it has all been very subjectively handled and no one is being detailed. whatever happens has to be a comprimise of so so many factors. tv money is only a part of this. the issue that strikes me though is that we have tried a top ten with no split before and ageed it wasn't working, furthermore we have also tried a slightly larger league with a split, which any 12 or 14 team league would have to operate, that also isn't working. does that narrow down the options to having to expand to 16? No, it depends on the finer detail of any proposal, what it reperesents to clubs right the way from the top to the bottom of the league.


a couple of years ago when this issue first got thrown up was that financially alot of clubs in scotland had to lose their league status to preserve the chosen few, i thought two teirs of 14 woudl be the lot. But more recently i have realised that that many of these clubs would then die and that set up isn't condusive to the best teams being where they should be, in a closed system we have teams that might be better replaced by other teams outside but clubs are occupying artificial league positions by default. this is why i felt that from a footballing aspect a pyramid system is needed. in any league where you have promotions and relegations in and out of it, there needs to be a relative ease of transition and you expect the top clubs in the legue below to be not hugely inferior to those at the bottom of the league above. any league in this situation should have an elite at the top and weaker teams at the bottom. trying to expect any league to be competetive from top to bottom is unrealistic and impractical.

Craig @

Thank you for your comments. You flatter me.

Just to clarify, I don鈥檛 have a particular preference for a 16 club league and I believe I鈥檝e already made the points you too make about the wider issues. I put the 16 club proposal on my website in absence of proposals from the authorities to show that you can come up with such a structure and back it with a financial argument.

And yes, there is an element of truth in Neil Doncaster鈥檚 argument but the TV money isn鈥檛 going to do the trick.

Out with the OF I think the clubs know this and I think that is where a lot of the indecision is coming from.

The lack of an overall plan for a 10+10 that shows how 鈥渁ll of Scottish football benefits鈥� leaves ND鈥檚 proposals with no credibility and if people throughout the game cannot see how this is going to affect them, they are hardly likely to back it.

With no clearly established benchmark for gate money vs turnover, there is no credible forecast to support the promise of better things to come from a 10+10 set up.

I don鈥檛 really care at the end of the day. League reconstruction isn鈥檛 the answer. I just want whatever they do to be successful and be able to see a decision that is substantive and not simply in principle, however persuasive the rhetoric.

The problem with the 10 + 10 leagues is it won't do anything ND says. Yes there maybe an increase in television money but judging by the number of fans against this setup attendances will be down.

Talk of improved competition like back in the good ol' 80's is also misguided Aberdeen and United were able to challenge regularly because there was no TV money, and most importantly it was pre-Bosman so teams could hold onto players. Regardless of the league setup the old firm will continue to dominate because they control the game in scotland.

ND also talks about the 10+10 bringing attractive foreign players to scotland. However in the last 10 years that policy has consisted of has-been players just up in scotland to get a big wage for a season or two. I'd much rather see young talent coming through that will be of benefit to the national team.

Also I don't see why people continue to talk about splits when they think of league reconstruction. The split was just a way to ensure the OF got there 4 games a season. Its ability to increase excitement is minimal at best.

I'm coming in late on this debate, I know, but maybe some ideas from a Scottish Canadian might be of use. Most major sports in NA have a draft system, lowest team getting first pick of the newcomers etc etc. This makes for tremendous balance, though some teams do have bad years. But the trophies get passed around efficiently. In the earlier years we had 6 teams in the National Hockey League - every game a sellout though they played each other several times and more in the playoffs, and you could never predict a result. 90% of the players were Canadian. Excitement was at a fever pitch. It was the same in the lower, feeder, leagues. But because the NHL expanded tremendously, the original high quality in every team suffered and imports began to form a major part of each team. Now there are some teams just barely hanging on in attendance and finances. But there is a money sharing plan to help poorer establishments.

I was a fanatic football supporter from the War's end until I left for Canada in 1954 but began to lose interest because you could never count on an exciting, all-out attacking game. Hearts came to Vancouver a couple of years later and tore Manchester City apart with the most beautiful football I had ever witnessed. Then of course, I saw Celtic on TV in the 60's make ACMilan look like beginners. Sadly England took so many of our best players. I don't know how that can be cured. And the Champions League makes it tougher to use local talent. It's sad to see such a great football heritage as Scotland enjoyed going down the drain. Buying foreign players, I think, is killing Scottish football talent.

Why can't they get back to football for football's sake? Sure you can lose by constant attacking, but you can't win by constant defending. Defensive teams never develop brilliant, exciting forwards. Rangers' record in
Europe, of late, has certainly shown that. Let's hope Scotland can regain its former greatness.

I like the proposal about wages being determined by a clubs income. But surely summer football free from the competition of TV showing the english premier league, spanish and italian football must be considered. Playing on good pitches in summer must improve the skills of players. A 16 team premier league with season ticket holders allowed to bring 2 kids in free would groom future supporters and create a reasonable atmosphere and attendances instead of half empty grounds. The lower league should include premier league teams reserves offering meaningful competition amd providing much needed skill and allowing reserves and injured players a place to get match fitness.

#18
...consolidating the three governing bodies.


Make that five; we have separate associations for juniors and amateurs too.

Nice to see Scottish football 'punch above it's weight'(TM), when it comes to supporting the textile (blazer manufacturing) industry. If the SFA, SPL, SFL, SJFA and the SAFA combined forces, they could negotiate a bulk discount for their uniform apparel. By doing so, they might even see the benefits of working together, as a single organisation, for the greater good.

Jack,
We should count the population of scotland and then pro rata this against the population of england and wales to determine the number of clubs we can support in scotland both in premier league and in the teams in lower leagues who may rise to the premier leagues.Two super clubs are always going to outweigh the opposition no matter what steps are taken to cure the ills of scottish football.
Either, on the one hand we all throw our hats or hearts behind these two clubs or their financial superiority should be shared between whatever the final agreed number of premier leaguer teams should be.