Skip to content

The Future of Football – We Want YOUR Views

December 20, 2010

THE SONSTRUST is keen to hear from as many Dumbarton supporters as possible about what they think of current proposals to restructure football in Scotland.

In terms of the media debate, this is presently being driven by options for the SPL. But it has massive implications for Scottish Football League clubs such as our own which should not simply go by default, or be seen as a secondary consideration.

In addition to the SPL 1 & 2 idea (which will now not be discussed by the current SPL sides until January 2011, with quite a few already expressing concern), the second part of the McLeish enquiry into the future of the game puts forward the idea that the lower leagues in Scotland, currently part of the SFL, should be ‘regionalised’. The idea of incorporating SPL ‘B’ teams into those leagues is also being put forward.

The Sonstrust wants to write to Dumbarton FC, the SFA and the SFL in the New Year, putting forward the concerns, responses and ideas of Sons fans and Trust members.

So from today we are starting a consultation process. We will also be contacting you in a variety of other ways – but the most immediate way of communicating YOUR views on reconstruction and regionalisation (specifically) is by leaving comments here.

PLEASE TELL US WHAT YOU THINK – and encourage your friends who haven’t yet joined the Trust to do so. There’s never been a more important time for supporters to stand together, to ensure that changes to the future of our game are held accountable to the fans, not just to commercial and ‘big club’ interests.

24 Comments leave one →
  1. December 20, 2010 3:32 pm

    I’ve been racking my brain to think of any real advantage in regionalising the lower leagues and allowing the SPL1 clubs’ reserve sides in. I suppose some clubs would save on travel costs but as has been pointed out elsewhere, those on the cusp of north and south would have their costs increased if they were unlucky enough to play in the northern half for a few seasons.

    It’s not the league set ups that are wrong it is the lack of competition within the top one. It isn’t travel costs but wage costs which are too high. I’ve been looking through the report to see how the fact that two teams have won the SPL/top league for the last 25 years is to be addressed.


    The criterea for SPL 2 will be interesting. I don’t see many of the remaining SFL sides being able to install undersoil heating and 3,000 seats.

  2. December 20, 2010 4:59 pm

    I agree with your observations, Rab. Plus, regarding the the SPL1 clubs’ reserve sides: the policing and admin costs would offset the gains, which I suspect would be short-term in relation to attendance. Old Firm fans are not even interested in watching their A sides play ‘diddy’ teams at home in the Cup, and the idea that their ‘local’ supporters would turn out to see B or Affiliate teams (which is it to be, by the way?) play ‘minnows’ on a routine basis is extremely fanciful. The sofa and TV football would still have more appeal.

    The cultural gulf between higher and lower league supporter mentalities is considerable, and we ignore it at our peril. That’s aside from the degradation resulting to SFL clubs and leagues being used as the optional training ground of the wealthy. It might mean that even winning your own league would become out-of-reach.

    As for regionalisation – this is being proposed mainly, it seems, to create a ‘drawbridge’ between the small teams and SPL1 & 2 ‘big boys’. The SPL plan is thin enough as it stands (as a number of existing SPL clubs clearly recognise), so in order to sidestep the difficult-to-combat argument that the ‘brand’ is actually being diluted (with the only real aim to increase revenues for the richest from more televised OF clashes), a cachet of false exclusivity is being generated by proposing the quarantining and de-sizing of the ‘minor’ clubs.

    In effect, however, what is being proposed is reducing Scottish football to 20 professional teams, and then terminating the *national* game at that point. Regional leagues with uneven set-ups, part-time or amateur sides mostly stranded for ever (unless a bored sugar daddy comes along) and a concomitant continuing decline in standards (young, truly promising players will not see this as a fruitful nurturing ground!) will have no soul or purpose. That means a further decline in overall attendance. The writing is on the wall if we take this path.

    Regionalisation is therefore a recipe for turning clubs like Dumbarton into juniors in all but name, and it has certainly not been developed by asking the key question, “How do we raise the flag, spirits, standards, and viability of *Scottish football as a whole?*” That, along with the corrosive impact of the wholesale dominance of the OF, is another central concern that Henry McLeish, perhaps constrained by political and financial interests ‘down the corridor’, has not taken as central to his enquiry. But ignoring the big issues and making money for the few is not actually being ‘realistic’ (as will be claimed), it is avoiding inconvenient truths.

    I have some nascent ideas about what a credible structural / financial alternative might look like, but I’ll mull more on those and listen to what others have to say (many of whom will know far more than me), before going further – except to observe that the “it isn’t travel costs but wage costs which are too high” remark is spot on. And that a regulatory framework (based on sustainability criteria) to ensure that club directors and investors do not suddenly lose all business sense and strategic acumen when they get their hands on ‘football product’ is absolutely vital. Oh, and a minimum 25% democratic community ownership is also crucial.

  3. Steven permalink
    December 20, 2010 7:03 pm

    The top league should have 16/18 teams in it….3 down and 1 play off place. 2nd/3rd leagues should be 16 and a within a pyramid system. It get’s rather boring playing the same teams 4 times on league duty. Get the BBC to buy the TV rights to the 2nd and 3rd leagues. Every game should kick off on a saturday at 3pm. We do need a massive overhaul. If it’s broke FIX IT!

  4. December 20, 2010 8:19 pm

    Where do I begin?

    These proposals are not to the benefit of Scottish football as a whole.

    They would do nothing – absolute zero – to improve the national team’s efforts to qualify for major championships.

    They would do nothing to further the development of young players – quite the reverse: their appearance in first teams would be much less likely.

    Neither would the base of the game be widened and strengthened. It would almost certainly mean the demise of the current SFL clubs who have little chance of ever reaching Division 1, far less the SPL. By and large these clubs live within their means and on occasion turn up players whom the bigger clubs have missed. They also have dedicated fans (albeit in small numbers) who are passionate about their allegiances and would be lost to the game if their clubs were to go under.

    Any clubs who aspire to SFL membership will not gain from this either as very shortly there wouldn’t be an SFL to aspire to. The new SPL2 won’t let the likes of Spartans in, you can be sure of that.

    What the proposals might do is ensure that the Old Firm continue to receive the lion’s share of television exposure – and monies – and entrench the current imbalance that is the true source of Scottish football’s malaise. (Two teams win most of the competitions and the rest barely get a look in.)

    They will also make sure that the SPL1 and 2 is in fact a closed shop.

    And as for regionalisation below the SPL, that would largely deprive me of the chance to watch my team as I no longer live in its area. At the moment I can attend lots of away games; under regionalisation that would probably change. From being a frequent attender at matches, I would become more or less a stranger to Scottish football.

    The suggestion that SPL reserve teams should play in the regionalised league below SPL1/2 is simply outrageous. They had a reserve league of their own and disbanded it. Let them set it up again or else loan their reserves out to gain experience. Do not sully a totally different competition with teams you can’t be bothered to cater for otherwise. Foisting them on someone else is more than high-handed. It smacks of bullying.

    I can’t tell you the despair that these proposals have engendered in me. Quite simply, without the prospect of promotion and relegation throughout the Scottish football system – I am by no means against a pyramid coming into being provided that there is a suitable league for demoted SFL clubs to play in – but, remember, for most of those located in West and Central Scotland there isn’t at the moment – then there is little point in carrying on.

    The main things that would free up the current arrangements and lessen the staleness that abounds are either

    1. immediately increasing the available promotion spots from SFL1 to the SPL, or

    2. getting rid of playing teams four times a season (in other words increasing the size of the various divisions.)

    That last would probably mean only one SPL league and two SFL divisions.

    I do hope the teams at the top of the SFL Div 1 won’t be seduced by the mere possibility of games against the ugly sisters that they will go for this.

    In fact, they’re probably going to do better in attendance terms if they are doing reasonably well in the SFL than if they were struggling in the SPL.

    Top division; 16 with three up/down, perhaps a play off for another place.
    Other divisions at least as large, similar promotion/relegation arrangements except at bottom, see below. This will increase fluidity and decrease boredom.
    Attendance money to be shared between clubs; not kept by home team as at present.
    All TV monies to be distributed throughout the leagues. No SPL games on TV without agreement to showcase lower divisions too. (Can’t see those three happening but they ought to be insisted on.)
    No regionalisation till below the present SFL.
    There could be a play off system for HL, EoS and SoS winners and the bottom SFL club provided there is a league for say Queen’s Park, The Shire or Albion Rovers to play in – EoS and SoS are non-starters in that regard, the HL too much travel.

  5. December 20, 2010 8:22 pm

    I forgot to add:
    NO B teams in the lower divisions.
    Under no circumstances whatsoever should this be contemplated.

  6. David Carson permalink
    December 20, 2010 10:23 pm

    I can add very little to what my fellow members have stated above, but would actually go further than Jack D is respect of the ‘B’ team idea; should Dumbarton Football Club vote to either endorse this or have it included in any package of changes then I would walk away from football.

    And that would not be quite as drastic a step as it sounds, as I have felt for some considerable time that football in general, and the Scottish game in particular, has been moving steadily away from where it once was in society and where I would have liked it to remain.

    It has come to mirror wider society in so many aspects; naked self-interest, rampant greed, the growing disparity between rich and poor, the steady erosion of democratice principle, and always now accompanied by an Orwellian narrative.

    All of which will no doubt do little to stop many SFL Directors racing thro the ‘Ayes’ Lobby. I wish the Sonstrust well in convincing the Board of DFC, and maybe more pertinently the Board of Brabco.

  7. graham gallagher permalink
    December 21, 2010 12:56 am

    i think the top league should have 20 in it with each playing twice and three down automatically . then having top two of a 20 league first divison and a playoff winner going up .
    then a 10 league 2nd divison with teams like spartans and cove rangers and clydebank anyone who is wanting in from highland leagues or central leagues or where ever.
    have 2 up from 2nd and two down from first and change nothing cause nothing wrong with cups.

  8. Iain MacKenzie permalink
    December 21, 2010 8:29 am

    What Scottish football should be doing is making it more inclusive and less about the top tier taking more and more money out of it at the expense of the rest. Whatever the outcome I personally would like to see more money spread proactively amongast all strata of Scottish football. After all it is in our interest to have a strong national team- wouldn’t that be nice?

  9. Andrew McCulloch permalink
    December 21, 2010 8:39 am

    Is it not interesting who is indeed leading this revolution? Why do the SPL and more importantly 6 clubs in that league, be allowed to dictate the future path of Scottish football? The SPL plans aren’t revolutionary; the whole thing reeks of self preservation and shortsightedness.

    I for one am in favour of change, BUT NOT to the detriment of others. Any change should be democratically thought out with every level of football considered (and consulted!). For too long our game has been in the fate of bureaucrats and dreamers. Let’s bring the game back to the fans. Why does this country of 5 million people have so many governing bodies (is there any need for the SFA, SPL, SFL SJFA, Schools FA, Scottish Amateur FA etc etc)? Every club in Scotland should be able to find their level in a structured fair system, be it Full time, Part time, Junior or Amateur BUT only if they want to be in such a system.

    I’d like to the top half of Scottish football follow a similar model to the Germans. Football in this country has become stale due to the tunnel vision of tradition, bureaucracy, greed and self interest. A couple of ideas could be considered:

    – Slash gate prices
    – Wage bill can’t be over 50% of club turnover
    – A fan representative (at least one) in every boardroom of every senior club
    – Playoffs (Promotion, Relegation, Europe etc)
    – Bigger Leagues, Fewer league games (playing each team no more then twice)
    – Open the Senior Leagues to all who want to be apart of it.

  10. Alan Findlay permalink
    December 21, 2010 11:57 am

    I see today that the OF via Messrs Lennon and Smith are rubbishing the Dundee United title play-off idea.

    A bit rich given that’s the type of system that is to be imposed on the lower league teams under the 10-10-2xregional set-up currently in ‘favour’.

  11. Robert Hosie permalink
    December 21, 2010 7:35 pm

    I would recommend at top league of 16 or 18 as other have said, each playing twice rather than 4 times as other have stated. The Old Firm only seem to be interested in getting rich at the benefit of others. How many players have had good games against them and then they are signed by the Old Firm, only to play in the reserves? This I think does not help the game.- fans one minute have an exciting player and hopefully attendances rise – the player is sold and morale of the fans sinks. There is talk of meaningless games if the league is increased, but look at the likes of Inverness who were promoted this season and are right up there. I am sure their fans don’t have meaningless games.

    The introduction of B teams to the lower league should not be allowed- was it not the SPL who decided to abolish their reserve league? Also who should play in the B team. A few good first team players needing games to come back from injury could inflict a heavy defeat on a team going well in the league and may result in them losing out on promotion. I also don’t think may lower league fans would be interested in watching a reserve team, I am sure they would rather have a new team added to the league – Annan for example have brought more to the game and their local community than an Old Firm B Team. I don’t know how many fans go to watch reserve games, but I expect not many.

    On regionalisation I am not sure how it would work, especially around promotion or relegation – or perhaps it will not happen at all. Where is the incentive for teams if you are stuck in a particular region? I am sure most fans look forward to an away day even if there is a bit of travel involved.

    Friday night football is also being mooted- No to it, I think it would result in a decrease in fans, especially the “younger” fans, who would rather go out with their mates.

    I hope the Sonstrust is able to persuade the DFC Board not to back the changes. It might be worth the Trust having a votes among the Trust members on say 6 to 10 relevant issues and present this to Dumbarton Board of Directors. I would have no problem if my Sons Trust number was quoted on the questionnaire as this could be used to verify the vote.

    Remember this change not only affects the clubs but the fans, without whom there would be no clubs! Unfortunately the Old Firm seem to say “I want – I get”

  12. Ken Doig permalink
    December 21, 2010 8:51 pm

    I agree with comments rearding playing each other 4 times a season. This in my opinion, more than any other action has been instrumental in knocking the stuffing out of scottish footbal. The top league should go back t0 playing twice, a league of16 would be an ideal we could still just about support two lower leagues with perhaps a comprimise of regional cup competetion and winner of each region playing for national trophy. Ican remember the days of 5-6 thousand watching great games between us Partick Thistle or Falkirk with the correct decisions taken now, perhaps we could return to them in the future or is this just wishful thinking?

  13. gordon meikle permalink
    December 21, 2010 11:16 pm

    Scottish football sadly has been badly ran for many years with vested interest ruling over the need to improve the quality and administration of the gameThose who have power will hang on to it at any length allowing the sport to stagnate.
    There is no immediate panacea. No matter how you shuffle the league system we live in a small country with a small population meaning that the vast majority of clubs will always have moderate attendances and have limited potential
    I would like to see a pyramid system brought in to allow clubs to find their true potential but cannot see a time when the Old Firm will be truly challenged because of footballs historical background
    How things can be improved is hard to fathom as nowadays people have many more leisure choices rather than just attending football games.Personally I would like to see summer football as I think that better weather would bring out bigger crowda as well as improve the quality of the fare on view
    Basically we must get back to grassroots and encourage children to play and watch football from an early age. Perhaps free entry for all under 16’s could be an idea
    Whatever happens something positive must be done or Scottish football will become even more of a third rate affair with interest dwindling on a year by year basis

  14. David Richardson permalink
    December 22, 2010 10:16 pm

    I don’t see anything in the proposal that will change scottish football for the better. It just looks like the SPL wanting more, more money, more say , more everthing. Smaller leagues mean more pressure to survive less attractive football.
    We need a bigger league witn only 2 fixtures against each team. The SPL decided a reserve league was to expensive.
    Why don’t need them and I believe most SFL teams supporters want them.
    The juniors have regionalised leagues are the proposals there to encourage us to leave the SFL for the juniors.
    I am not against a pyramid system but it needs a lot of thought and work put in before it could be up and running.

  15. Jim McAllister permalink
    December 23, 2010 8:41 am

    Re League reconstruction.
    SPL2 has been mooted for a number of years and is going to happen in some shape or form.

    I’m against regionalisation as you play the same clubs season in season out. If there is limited room for movement between divisions, appeal will diminish.

    In relation to the introduction of “B” teams, this is a DEFINITE NO.

    The Old Firm have more than enough power without influencing more in the lower divisions. I will cease watching Scottish Football if this comes to fruition.

    When we play football MUST change. Either a Mar-Nov season or a Jul-Nov; Mar-May season. It works elsewhere, why not here. We can no longer claim pitch protection is the answer as the local authorities have the final say.

  16. David Kemp permalink
    December 23, 2010 10:47 am

    Regionalisation would lead to a decrease in fans coming through the turnstiles, as who wants to watch the same teams year after year. This season, we are playing 4 different teams from last year which gives us a bit of variety.

    I think we should revert to summer football asap, since this will be at least the third consecutive year we will be playing Sat- Tues all the way through March and into April.This also affects the attendances as fans will pick and choose which games to attend depending on their personal finances. The weather means we have a winter break already, so I think the time has come to stop fighting against mother nature.March – October would be my preference.This could be done by playing 3 midweek games in the height of the summer in addition to all Saturdays and finishing in mid-October. Last season we played a total of 8 midweek games, almost quarter of the season. I haven’t really thought this through properly yet and I realise the cup tournaments have to be fitted in somewhere along the way.

    B teams is an absolute and unequivocal NO! I feel they would remove any competition from the league. We have gained from having SPL teams sending youngsters out on loan and I’m sure other SFL clubs have and I see no need for this to change.

    Finally, I saw an Albert Einstein quote yesterday. “The significant problems we face cannot be solved by the same level of thinking that created them”

  17. sonsdiary permalink
    December 23, 2010 10:26 pm

    The biggest fear for me is the ego and fantasies of single club ownership like ours.
    I reckon we hve 4 dangers in our league : Ourselves with Brabco, Livi with the Bookie/antique dealer, East Fife who recently unveiled plans for a new stadium and Airdrie Utd.
    This added to 1st division gives a lot of votes for change.
    It is up to us to lobby club officials to see what their views are.
    I have already started and was told by a director that personally he was against it in the form proposed but recognised that changes may come as he coudn’t speak for other board members.
    The SPL disbanded their reserve league on economic grounds.
    Ach we will just use the “diddy”teams they will love us.
    You couldn’t make it up. I think there will be a lot of opposition as Blazers are on a shoogly peg in the SFL,
    and they talk about self preservation? oh the irony.

  18. Ian Hendry permalink
    December 24, 2010 2:44 am

    10 team leagues are for babies. A minimum of 16 teams is necessary. You can have a close down & can still play all cup ties without over taxing players. It makes sense to play the same team every 2nd week. I don’t think anybody wants anything like that, but the money brokers want that. DON”T LET THAT HAPPEN

  19. Robert O'Donnell permalink
    December 28, 2010 7:42 pm

    Henry McLeish’s proposals for league reform is an agenda for the real power in Scottish Football (Celtic, Rangers and the clique that is the SPL) to look after their own financial interests and has nothing whatsoever to do with benefiting Scottish football as a whole. I think we would all like to see change; with most of us opting for larger leagues and more automatic promotion/relegation places; certainly not two divisions of 10 teams with the SPL 2 cabal effectively being a ‘closed shop’ for clubs not deemed worthy enough. Regionalisation and having SPL ‘B’ teams in the lower leagues would just compound the difficulties already facing teams and undermine the leagues altogether, as it would be operating as a reserve league for the SPL; which has already been pointed out by fellow fans; the SPL scrapped in 2009/2010. If these proposals did get the go-ahead then it would likely mean dwindling attendances, poor quality football, clubs playing less of a role in the community they represent and ultimately; extinction for most.
    Personally, i would like to see the SPL disbanded altogether as they have done nothing positive for Scottish Football since their formation and have only ever saught to look after themselves. I can only see short term gain for the few and long term misery for the majority in these proposals and i hope the Sons Trust lead the way in fighting them and can work with other Supporters Trusts/Associations to ensure that as fans we have a very strong voice which is heard by the people who run our game and also to let them know we will not be forced into decisions made by the powerful minority.

  20. Proggie Ed permalink
    December 29, 2010 2:59 pm

    I start from the answer to the question, ‘What gives us a do-able number of games without Olympic style gymnastics of stupid splits’. That gives me 10 or 18 for any division. The lower one could be 20 as we don’t get caught up in cup runs very often, or a couple of 12, but for simplicity, I’ll stick to 10 or 18.

    For 10:
    1. Competitive league with just about every game meaning something.
    2. Er, that’s about it.
    3. OK, the old firm and Sky get their 4 meetings.

    Against 10:
    1. Defensive and boring football in an attempt to avoid defeat and cling on to membership.
    2. No youth development for the same reason.
    3. Fans bored with playing the same teams over and over again.
    4. Basically the problems you’ve got with the existing 12!
    5. The myth of 4 games at home bringing in huge revenues. Talking to a director of a Premier side, he commented that apart from the luck of the draw getting one of the of at home when they can win the league, his club hadn’t had over 6,000 against the of since Big Ben was a wrist watch. So say that means mibbi 3,000 extra fans per game x £20. We seem to have a desire for 4 meetings against the of per season to make around £250,000 per year. OK, not peanuts, but hardly the basis to build the entire future of Scottish football on.

    For 18:
    1. Elbow room. OK some games are meanigless, but that gives the chance to:
    2. Develop youth players in the meaningless or easy games.
    3. Play the attacking football managers are always going on that they’d love to play. Being honourable men, here’s their chance.
    4. Wider choice of opposition.
    5. Only having to play opposition twice.
    6. Scope for 2 up 2 down plus playoffs for a third spot without involving half the league!
    7. Possibility of 3 up / down reduces the ‘meaningless’ matches.

    Lower leagues:
    1. Top 18 could mean up to three spots available to fight for.
    2. Think the B team suggestion is dreadful, but not a walk away scenario. Indeed, if the bargaining tool for getting a top league of 18, could put up with it as a last resort. Before it sets the ‘anti’ brigade off, re-read the last 4 words of the last sentence and first 7 of the first.
    3. If you want a walk away show stopper, it’s the regionalisation. Nuts idea. Ain’t enough teams in the north, so some central teams would actually have more travelling. Likewise west / east (Berwick to Elgin anyone?). To regionaise because of travel costs is as daft as voting for 4 matches in the top league of 10 for the suggested c. £250k.
    4. Can’t get worked up about the numbers for lower league / leagues. Which is another way of saying I haven’t thought about it. Really depends on the decision about a) numbers in top division(s) and b) the B team question.

    To summarise the above ramble: a top div of 18, no regionalisation of lower league(s), and no to B teams, but can live with it.

  21. December 29, 2010 4:31 pm

    Instead of regionalised leagues, it may be better to have a big league of 24, leaving 18 teams in the spl. 46 games . 34 games
    Breaks boredom of playing same team 4 times. The standard of football between the 2-3 is much the same. All the teams particularly2 teams in the 1st have already been deemed not good enough for SPL 1/or 2

    This still gives them the chance to prove different.

    The league cup can be revamped to home and away with away goals counting double.
    this means alot of games, perhaps the “Alba” cup could be ditched Funny thing the current league positions almost reflect their potential,fan base etc. Excluding Dundee,Livingston,Ayr& Airdrie?

  22. Stephen permalink
    January 5, 2011 10:19 am

    Most fans seem to think that a bigger league is the answer. Our proggie editor seems to think that this will give us attractive games and more chance to develop youth. Does no one remember why the premier league (not the spl) was formed in the first place. It was because the old two division system was so boring with endless meaningless games and the vast majority of teams’ season being over by Christmas. A league of 18 would not be a success because it would reduce crowds. Crowds at the top level now are generally higher than they were in the late sixties/early seventies so the clubs arnt going to risk altering that
    The biggest problem is that entry into the top division is so restricted. Both by only having one promotion place and by the hugely restrictive ground conditions which clubs have to meet. It is those conditions that have caused financial problems for many clubs which they may never recover from unless they get back into the spl. And with only one place that is all the more difficult so they spend more money and the cycle goes on.
    Nothing wrong with four divisions of ten as long as there is two up and two down and no excessive restrictions preventing teams winning promotion

  23. Alan Findlay permalink
    January 6, 2011 10:21 am

    Stephen – the original Premier League was indeed set up to try and avoid the so-called meaningless games scenario, at the behest of Rangers and Celtic. Nothing it would seem has changed.

    I would like to see the evidence though that describes the term meaningless in terms of a football match as it applies to any new proposal.

    One of the arguments I hear in retaining a 10-team top league is that expansion means less income. Really? If we had less fixtures, which a bigger league would bring, then existing funds could be spread evenly and with said fewer matches, overheads are reduced.

    Let’s not forget the competition argument too ; surely to goodness if there was a chance other clubs could actually win the league this would raise profile to attract crowds and sponsors?

    The Rangers/Celtic effect is also wiped out with less games. Can’t be bad IMO.

    In our (so-called) top league, very few opportunities exist for younger players to develop. The fear of relegation has brought in the foreign influence, so perhaps with an expanded league more chances are created for development.

    Anyway bottom line is this. Fans do not want two leagues of 10 of elite clubs with a glass bottom designed to keep so-called wee clubs out.

  24. David Ferguson permalink
    January 11, 2011 11:31 am

    That Einstein quote above sums it up for me. I’ve not heard anything from the plans we’ve been given from the SPL to inspire me to keep supporting my team, as you can see from the comments above I’m not the only one. It baffles me that we can bang our heads together on here and come up with something that is beneficial to ALL, yet the people who “run” our game can’t. I’d hate to see Scottish clubs go out of business but that’s is exactly what will happen if any of these plans go ahead. When I was much younger a wise auld man said to me “players, managers and board members come and go, but fans are always constant”. I fear that won’t be the case for much longer.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: