How I Would Change Scottish Football - Part One

I HAVE mentioned before, my old sparring partner Aristotle Armstrong, Scottish Rugby Philosopher, is much mentally-exercised by events within Scottish Rugby, where a head-to-toe new look is being proposed for the club game – and the natives aint happy.

Every now and again, the same scenario is played out in Scottish Football, and I wonder how long it will take new broom Ian Maxwell to start sweeping out some of the dustier corners in the Sixth-floor corridor at Hampden. I suppose, in the evenings, Ian might just be turning over in his mind, some of the bullet points in his to-do list, such as:

• Hampden: how cheaply can we get it off Queen's Park?
• Once we've got it – how much will it cost to make it fit for purpose?
• How the fuck do we pay for all the things that need to be done to it?
• Rangers: Oh shite! Do I really need, or want to go near that one?

For me, however, I reckon he has other more-pressing concerns, which he ought to be contemplating. For instance, the SRU had introduced a new format to the club game, whereby there will be just six “semi-professional” clubs, operating SRU-sanctioned franchises, playing at a level below the two fully SRU-owned “professional” sides, but above the other ordinary rugby clubs, which will be required to operate on a “strictly-amateur” basis. I.E. no players below the so-called “Super-6” can be paid.

Imagine this system in Scottish Football. The SFA would own the top two clubs – Celtic and Aberdeen; the next six: Rangers, Hibs, Kilmarnock, Hearts, Motherwell and St Johnstone would have to purchase an SFA franchise to be able to play, while every other club below that would be unable to pay their players more than expenses.

You know, it just might work, although the howls of anguish and the opposition to it would make Independence Referendums 1 and 2 and Brexit look like croquet parties on an English vicarage lawn in comparison. So, it is never even going to be suggested, far less discussed.

 

Who Is Afraid of Change? 

 

But, we really SHOULD (again) be discussing change in Scottish Football, but, maybe this time round, we should be actually implementing change, real change, rather than a shuffling of the deck-chairs. Or, how much further down the European pecking order than our current 26^th place out of 55 does the SFA have to slide, before something is done?

Of course, one of the problems, perhaps the principal problem with Scottish Football is – the SFA is responsible from everything, from the National Team down to Dukla Pumpherston, but, the SPFL, and in particular its top 12 clubs appear to have too-much influence; while received wisdom is, they take their cue from the Big Two – everything is run to suit them.

For instance, England and Wales, with a population of just over 58 million, supports 92 Football League and Premiership clubs. Scotland, with a population of just over 5 million, supports 42 SPFL clubs. On a pro-rata basis, we ought to have just eight clubs in “Senior Football”.

BUT, received wisdom has it that Scotland has, per head of population, the highest attendances in Europe – despite the shite we have been having served up to us over recent years, we love the Beautiful Game – even when, as with yesterday's Partick Thistle v Livingston game, beauty was in the eyes of the beholder.

Do We Have Too-Many Senior Clubs?

 

So, the question is, how many “Senior” teams can we support and should we have? I honestly do not know for sure, but, one thing I do know, we have to have a cull of the current 42 clubs, and, we have to find a meaningful role for those we cull. But, what to do?

As I understand it, only half, 21 of the 42 SPFL clubs are full-time clubs, therefore fully “professional”. If we are thinking of any change to the format, the commitment of these clubs to being fully-professional, must be safe-guarded. But, in safe-guarding this top level of clubs, we must be certain they are sustainable.

Old Aristotle Armstrong is very much against the SRU's implementation of what he calls: “Stupid-6”. He is not against it in theory, in fact, he thinks it is a good idea to set-up a sustainable top flight of the club game, while he sees benefits from their suggestions for change further down Rugby's food chain; but he feels the SRU as made a right pig's ear of what they have done so far.

So, why doesn't the SFA take a leaf from the Murrayfield play book? Don't be afraid of change, or trying new ideas. Why not try:

• Two, ten-club Conferences, similar to Rugby's PRO14. *
• Home and away inter-conference games, with single cross-conference games, giving a 28-game regular season. **
• Cross-conference play-offs, two-legged affairs, similar to European games, leading to a full end of season “league table” 1-20, sorting-out the European places for the following season. ***
• Conferences under-pinned by regional “semi-professional” leagues, under-pinned again by regional leagues in which no payments other than strictly-regulated expenses are allowed. ****
• Standards for club facilities at each level agreed and strictly enforced.
• Implement and strictly enforce the “Eight-diddies rule” - i.e. either 8 of the 11 players on the park at any one time have to be “Scotland-qualified”, or 70% of a match-day squad have to be “Scotland-qualified.”
• For competitions which do not carry European qualification for winning them (e.g. the League Cup), only “Scotland-qualified” players can play.
• Strictly cap squad numbers in the Conferences, but, allow dual-registration with lower league clubs and feeder club arrangements for development purposes.*****
• At senior conference level - “strict liability” over supporters' behaviour will apply.
• Look to implement a membership scheme for clubs at the earliest opportunity.

 

These are my initial cogitations on this thorny matter. The items marked with an asterisk *, will be expanded on further in part two of this series.