The SPL's dream of a ten team top league seems ever further away after Dundee United's board confirmed their decision to vote against the proposal.
United chairman Stephen Thompson said:
"We had a board meeting today and as far as we're concerned we're unconvinced that this is the way forward for Scottish football.
"There are a lot of good things in the proposals but we don't believe that a top league of 10 is the way forward." (Courier)
No tears shed on this blog of course.
I've been consistently, repetitively and boringly anti the ten team proposal.
Not because I'm an enemy of change. But because it is clear that the fans don't want a top flight of ten and that the SPL were unwilling or unable to offer proof that extra TV money would be forthcoming.
Faced with the need for change the clubs seemed happy to sleepwalk into a solution that further alienated supporters and offered no real guarantees of revenue increases.
That always seemed daft.
I suspect United won't be alone, making the 11-1 vote in favour of change impossible.
At a supporter's forum last week I heard both Davie Provan and Craig Patterson arguing that a move to ten teams was the best solution for the Scottish game.
I disagree with them. But at least they were trying to make an articulate argument for the change and offering proper footballing reasons - if not hugely convincing ones - to make their point.
That's something the SPL have failed to do. Most noticeably it is something the SPL's chief executive, the underwhelming Neil Doncaster, has failed to do.
Doncaster has been the most visible and most vocal advocate of the ten team league. He's certainly not about to embark on a career as TV evangelist any time soon.
If he fails to deliver that, fails to deliver backing within his own organisation, then his usefulness has surely been spent.
We all want change. But we want positive, inclusive, thoughtful change.
Many of us hope that George Peat's exit from the SFA this summer will help that body address some of Scottish football's problems.
Maybe the SPL should also be considering Doncaster's position.
They've spent too much of this past year locked in what appears now to be have a futile debate.
It might now be time to prove that they're slightly more than an army of sheep led by a donkey.
> I missed this earlier but the BBC are reporting that Inverness will also vote against the ten team proposal as it currently stands.
Showing posts with label Stephen Thompson. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Stephen Thompson. Show all posts
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
SPL Play-Offs: What If...
In one of the more predictable developments of this Scottish football December, perennial third placers Hearts have backed calls for the top four SPL teams to be involved in a championship play off competition.
I can't figure out the appeal for third placed Hearts at all.
Again, I don't think Dundee United's Stephen Thomspon was being genuine with his proposal. He was using it to get the message across about how unhappy certain clubs are with the SPL/McLeish Report stitch-up of last week.
But, just for fun, I thought I'd see which teams would have benefited from a top four play off over the 12 years of the SPL. Unsurprisingly Hearts come out on top.
I've estimated earnings based on an equitable four way split of crowd attendances from the three games totalling four million pounds. I still award all championships to either Celtic or Rangers as no team has beaten either side of the Old Firm in a Scottish Cup semi final in the same year that they have finished third or fourth in the SPL.
The most risible reaction to Thompson's plan is that it would result in more teams winning the championship. It almost certainly wouldn't, given the Old Firms dominance of all three of our national trophies.
Only Hearts and Dundee United have finished in the top four of the SPL and won the Scottish Cup in the same year, neither of them playing the Old Firm in the semi finals or final. So it's not a great leap to imagine that play offs over the last 12 years would have resulted in the same two sides winning the championship.
Here's the list:
Hearts 6 top 4 finishes = £6 million
Aberdeen 5 top 4 finishes = £5 million
Hibs 4 top 4 finishes = £4 million
Kilmarnock 3 top 4 finishes = £3 million
Motherwell 2 top 4 finishes = £2 million
Dunfermline, St Johnstone, Dundee United, Livingston 1 top 4 finish = £1 million each
Now, again, this is all hypothetical. But what a difference this money - even based on my simpleton accounting - would have made to these clubs.
Interesting to see that Thompson's Dundee United would only have benefited once in the 12 years of SPL football.
As for a gap closing device to reel in the Old Firm? Doesn't work as both would have earned at least twice what any other had managed.
* Quick bit of research after a question on Twitter. I think I've checked right back to the Second World War and the only time another side has won the Scottish Cup after the Old Firm have been kept apart in the semi-finals is Aberdeen in 1983.
The Scottish Football Blog On Facebook
I can't figure out the appeal for third placed Hearts at all.
Again, I don't think Dundee United's Stephen Thomspon was being genuine with his proposal. He was using it to get the message across about how unhappy certain clubs are with the SPL/McLeish Report stitch-up of last week.
But, just for fun, I thought I'd see which teams would have benefited from a top four play off over the 12 years of the SPL. Unsurprisingly Hearts come out on top.
I've estimated earnings based on an equitable four way split of crowd attendances from the three games totalling four million pounds. I still award all championships to either Celtic or Rangers as no team has beaten either side of the Old Firm in a Scottish Cup semi final in the same year that they have finished third or fourth in the SPL.
The most risible reaction to Thompson's plan is that it would result in more teams winning the championship. It almost certainly wouldn't, given the Old Firms dominance of all three of our national trophies.
Only Hearts and Dundee United have finished in the top four of the SPL and won the Scottish Cup in the same year, neither of them playing the Old Firm in the semi finals or final. So it's not a great leap to imagine that play offs over the last 12 years would have resulted in the same two sides winning the championship.
Here's the list:
Hearts 6 top 4 finishes = £6 million
Aberdeen 5 top 4 finishes = £5 million
Hibs 4 top 4 finishes = £4 million
Kilmarnock 3 top 4 finishes = £3 million
Motherwell 2 top 4 finishes = £2 million
Dunfermline, St Johnstone, Dundee United, Livingston 1 top 4 finish = £1 million each
Now, again, this is all hypothetical. But what a difference this money - even based on my simpleton accounting - would have made to these clubs.
Interesting to see that Thompson's Dundee United would only have benefited once in the 12 years of SPL football.
As for a gap closing device to reel in the Old Firm? Doesn't work as both would have earned at least twice what any other had managed.
* Quick bit of research after a question on Twitter. I think I've checked right back to the Second World War and the only time another side has won the Scottish Cup after the Old Firm have been kept apart in the semi-finals is Aberdeen in 1983.
The Scottish Football Blog On Facebook
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
Play Off, Play Off And Play The Game
Walter Smith and Neil Lennon appear to have spent much of yesterday singing from the same hymn sheet.
Not Christmas carols at an ecumenical festive service.
More songs of condemnation aimed at Dundee United chairman Stephen Thompson.
Thompson has suggested that the SPL should look at play-offs. Not the oft mentioned relegation play offs. No, he's after championship deciding play offs between the top four sides at the end of each season.
Which has induced a certain hysteria among the Old Firm management. "Nonsense," "ludicrous" and "bollocks" sum up the tone of their responses.
Smith and Lennon have probably missed the point. Thompson would probably expect to see blue snow falling on Christmas Day before he sees his plan become a reality.
His aim, I think, is to convey his disappointment at the plans put forward by the SPL and to show that other systems are available. And maybe have some preprandial fun along the way.
He will also have known that he'd be criticised for cooking up a system that damages the integrity of the season long league championship. But he might argue that works at both ends of the table.
If clubs are expected to rubber stamp a play off system that includes play off for the teams finishing second and third bottom, why should the two dominant clubs not also be asked to jeapordise their duopoly at the top?
A valid enough argument, one that I suspect some non-Old Firm fans might be drawn to and a fairly intriguing way for Thompson to make his point.
Certainly it appears that the proposals put forward by the SPL and backed by Henry McLeish look to have no chance of carrying the 11 to 1 majority of SPL clubs that they require.
Back to the drawing board?
But maybe Thompson is on to something.
In 12 SPL campaigns Rangers and Celtic have finished in top two places 11 times with Rangers finishing third in the 2005/2006 season.
In those 12 seasons they have won 32 of the 36 trophies on offer in Scotland.
So even with a play off system they would still be expected to dominate, with seedings at the semi final stage giving a big chance of an extra, hugely meaningful, Old Firm game at Hampden each season. I've a feeling the broadcasters might like that.
But it is hard to make the argument that the third and fourth placed teams would deserve to be involved.
In the 12 SPL seasons the closest the third placed team has finished behind the second placed team is one point. That was in 2005/2006 when Rangers were breathing down Hearts' backs.
In every other season the Old Firm have filled the top two spots. The closest any side has come to them is the seven point gap achieved by Aberdeen in 2006/2007. That same year Hearts in fourth place were only nine points behind.
In the other ten seasons no team has come closer than 13 points behind whichever Old Firm side has occupied second. In seven seasons the gap has been 15 points or more. In 2002/2003 Hearts in third place finished 35 points behind and fourth placed Kilmarnock were 40 points behind.
The SPL's history suggests that third and fourth placed teams simply don't deserve a play off for the championship.
Can the same argument be made for teams at the other end of the table?
The gap between bottom and second and third bottom tends to be much closer.
In 2001/02 bottom club St Johnstone finished 19 points behind Motherwell, three years later Livingston were 15 points adrift of Motherwell and Dunfermline and Gretna's fairytale ended some 17 points behind Kilmarnock.
In no other season has there been more than ten points between the bottom club and the second bottom club and only twice has the gap between bottom and third bottom been ten points or more.
The SPL is tighter at the bottom than it as at the top. That, rightly or wrongly, makes a relegation play off easier to justify than a championship play off.
The teams in second and third bottom are likely to have spent the season looking more like relegation candidates than the teams in third and fourth place have looked like champions.
> In 2001/02 Celtic won the SPL with 103 points. Rangers in second had 85 points. Livingston were third with 58 points, Aberdeen fourth with 55.
It is difficult not to accept Lennon and Smith's arguments that league tables like that are so conclusive that giving Livingston and Aberdeen and even second placed Rangers the chance to take the title after two extra games is a bit odd.
Odd. But probably also quite amusing if you don't happen to be a Celtic fan.
The Scottish Football Blog On Facebook
Not Christmas carols at an ecumenical festive service.
More songs of condemnation aimed at Dundee United chairman Stephen Thompson.
Thompson has suggested that the SPL should look at play-offs. Not the oft mentioned relegation play offs. No, he's after championship deciding play offs between the top four sides at the end of each season.
Which has induced a certain hysteria among the Old Firm management. "Nonsense," "ludicrous" and "bollocks" sum up the tone of their responses.
Smith and Lennon have probably missed the point. Thompson would probably expect to see blue snow falling on Christmas Day before he sees his plan become a reality.
His aim, I think, is to convey his disappointment at the plans put forward by the SPL and to show that other systems are available. And maybe have some preprandial fun along the way.
He will also have known that he'd be criticised for cooking up a system that damages the integrity of the season long league championship. But he might argue that works at both ends of the table.
If clubs are expected to rubber stamp a play off system that includes play off for the teams finishing second and third bottom, why should the two dominant clubs not also be asked to jeapordise their duopoly at the top?
A valid enough argument, one that I suspect some non-Old Firm fans might be drawn to and a fairly intriguing way for Thompson to make his point.
Certainly it appears that the proposals put forward by the SPL and backed by Henry McLeish look to have no chance of carrying the 11 to 1 majority of SPL clubs that they require.
Back to the drawing board?
Play Off Thoughts
Do I agree with a four team play off at the top of the SPL? No. Because I'm an old fashioned kind of guy and you either win the league or you don't. Simples.But maybe Thompson is on to something.
In 12 SPL campaigns Rangers and Celtic have finished in top two places 11 times with Rangers finishing third in the 2005/2006 season.
In those 12 seasons they have won 32 of the 36 trophies on offer in Scotland.
So even with a play off system they would still be expected to dominate, with seedings at the semi final stage giving a big chance of an extra, hugely meaningful, Old Firm game at Hampden each season. I've a feeling the broadcasters might like that.
But it is hard to make the argument that the third and fourth placed teams would deserve to be involved.
In the 12 SPL seasons the closest the third placed team has finished behind the second placed team is one point. That was in 2005/2006 when Rangers were breathing down Hearts' backs.
In every other season the Old Firm have filled the top two spots. The closest any side has come to them is the seven point gap achieved by Aberdeen in 2006/2007. That same year Hearts in fourth place were only nine points behind.
In the other ten seasons no team has come closer than 13 points behind whichever Old Firm side has occupied second. In seven seasons the gap has been 15 points or more. In 2002/2003 Hearts in third place finished 35 points behind and fourth placed Kilmarnock were 40 points behind.
The SPL's history suggests that third and fourth placed teams simply don't deserve a play off for the championship.
Can the same argument be made for teams at the other end of the table?
The gap between bottom and second and third bottom tends to be much closer.
In 2001/02 bottom club St Johnstone finished 19 points behind Motherwell, three years later Livingston were 15 points adrift of Motherwell and Dunfermline and Gretna's fairytale ended some 17 points behind Kilmarnock.
In no other season has there been more than ten points between the bottom club and the second bottom club and only twice has the gap between bottom and third bottom been ten points or more.
The SPL is tighter at the bottom than it as at the top. That, rightly or wrongly, makes a relegation play off easier to justify than a championship play off.
The teams in second and third bottom are likely to have spent the season looking more like relegation candidates than the teams in third and fourth place have looked like champions.
> In 2001/02 Celtic won the SPL with 103 points. Rangers in second had 85 points. Livingston were third with 58 points, Aberdeen fourth with 55.
It is difficult not to accept Lennon and Smith's arguments that league tables like that are so conclusive that giving Livingston and Aberdeen and even second placed Rangers the chance to take the title after two extra games is a bit odd.
Odd. But probably also quite amusing if you don't happen to be a Celtic fan.
The Scottish Football Blog On Facebook
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)