LEAGUE RECONSTRUCTION: WHAT WORKS BEST FOR CELTIC?
- BY LIAM CARRIGAN
- 1 day ago
- 4 min read
Brendan Rodgers voiced his opposition yesterday to the proposal to cut the current Scottish Premiership down to just 10 teams.
Though he didn’t go into specifics, he did say that we should make the league bigger, not smaller.
Almost all fans seem to agree with him. There are a number of different opinions however as to the best way to achieve this.
Of all the various options being thrown around in discussions right now, which one would be in Celtic’s best interest to pursue? Let’s discuss
What Would Celtic’s Ideal League Set-up Look Like?
First of all, we need to establish who we’re talking about when we say “Celtic” as an overall idea. It’s not just the football club as a business, it’s the players, the manager, and most importantly the fans.
There is no solution that will leave all of the above 100% happy. So, compromise is essential.
I’ve heard 14, 16, 18 and to a lesser extent 20 team leagues being mentioned as worthy of consideration.
So, let’s go through each of these and see how they impact all of Celtic’s relevant stakeholders.
A 14 team League is complicated. Playing each other twice, once at home and once away would only give us 26 games, so the much maligned, “split” would still be necessary.
Say we split after those 26 games, that would leave 6 final games. Top seven and bottom seven. So, three home, three away, bringing the total to 32 games. Quite the reduction from the current 38 game campaign.
Probably too much of a reduction. Clubs wouldn’t want to give up 3 or 4 games of matchday revenue. Less games also means less TV money, unless the SPFL suddenly develop a backbone and actually demand the TV companies give us a proper deal.
Players and managers would be happy with less fixtures, and if it translated into lower season ticket prices, then maybe fans would get on board with it too.
Personally though, I want to watch Celtic as much as I can, and I am not a fan of the split. So, I think 14 is a non-starter.
For mostly the same reasons as above, I’d also rule out a 16-team league. Playing each other twice would only make a 30-game season. There is the option of doing the dreaded split once again, for 7 more games, but I don’t think anyone wants that.
Aside from my own personal distain for the split, I just think it’s really inconsiderate for fans.
Many fans travel great distances to see their teams.
Both Celtic and Rangers have notable contingents that travel from England and Ireland each week to see their team.
This requires booking transport, time off work, maybe hotels.
It simply isn’t fair that fans of these two huge clubs will get, at best, about 3 or 4 weeks’ notice to make their plans and arrange getting to the next Glasgow Derby.
It shows a total lack of respect for the customer. And primarily that is what we are. Football is a product and we pay huge sums of money to consume it each year.
We deserve better than this situation, where we literally don’t know where we are going from one week to the next until the 33rd round of fixtures concludes.
An 18 team League seems to be the most popular among fans. 34 games, so, it’s a reduced workload for players and managers too. And there’s greater variety of opposition.
The obvious obstacles are TV companies, who demand 4 Glasgow Derbies a season, because let’s face it, that’s the only Scottish football they’re actually interested in broadcasting.
There is also the issue of smaller clubs, who, as I mentioned before, have acquired a very unhealthy addiction to the money of Celtic and Rangers supporters.
Many of them would claim they can’t survive without those big paydays of a guaranteed sell-out 4 times a season when Celtic and Rangers come to visit.
My immediate counter-argument to that is: You would attract more of your own fans if you played in a more varied and interesting league.
And to be brutally honest, if St. Johnstone or Dundee can’t fill their stadiums, that’s not Celtic’s problem, or Rangers’ problem for that matter.
Clubs shouldn’t calculate their budgets based on the whims of other teams’ fans.
After all, with the notable and sad exception of Inverness Caley Thistle, most of the teams in the Championship seem to be doing ok. And the level playing field there has made for a genuinely interesting competition that frequently throws up surprises.
My personal preference would be a 20-team league. Promote the top 8 from the Championship and then merge what’s left into league one and league two creating a second tier of 22 clubs. This could then be split into 12 and 10.
Or possibly two sets of 12, if we want to move up a couple of teams from the Highland and Lowland leagues.
It’s simple, it would generate interest and it spreads the wealth among more teams.
We could also allow 3 promotion places and 3 relegation places between these divisions to give a wider spread of teams a chance of playing in the top flight.
This would also ensure a wider distribution of that all-important Celtic and Rangers revenue, with the big two visiting a wider variety of smaller clubs and hopefully bringing plenty of fans with them.
Ultimately, nothing meaningful will change until someone in power at the SPFL develops the courage to stand up to Sky TV and the others and say “No!”. You don’t pay us enough to demand the level of control you currently exert on our league.
Until that happens, these same arguments will keep happening and fans will keep being ignored. Celtic will be fine whatever happens, but for the rest, the interest continues to dwindle in a league format that has long surpassed its sell-by date.