THESE HAVE BEEN COPIED FROM A POST BY A DEE4LIFE MEMBER AND REPRESENT HIS PERSONAL VIEWS.

Typical nonsensical short-term thinking from the Self Preservation League,
which any right-minded lower-division club chairman should dismiss out of
hand.

According to the BBC, the new "SPL Two" would:

Retain the present one-up, one-down system from the SPL to the First
Division.
In other words, no change.

Replace the club finishing tenth in the new second division with the top
side in the surviving SFL league below.
In other words, no change.

Force the ninth-placed team into a play-off against a side missing out on
automatic promotion.
In other words, no change Div 1-Div 2, good news for the SPL, so why not
introduce it immediately within the current structure?

Restrict entry to clubs with a 3,000 all-seater stadium and a pitch
protection scheme. (Criteria, such as a minimum of 6,000 seats, for entry to
the SPL is retained).
Terrible news for forward-thinking clubs like Gretna, who would have been
denied promotion last year.

Require clubs to play in reserve and under-19 league.
Terrible news for clubs who can't afford to run both, such as Dundee.

Require clubs to have an approved youth development programme.
Common sense, SFL could require this without a change in structure.

Require clubs to have audited accounts to be lodged with the league each
year.
In other words, no change (already required under SFA charter scheme which
is a UEFA requirement.

Require clubs to "demonstrate current best practice in corporate
governance".
Again, just common sense - but is good corporate governance expanding your
ground to an unrequired seated capacity on the offchance of promotion?

Any club wishing to leave the SFL must serve two years notice, unless 20 of
the 30 clubs that make up Divisions One, Two and Three support the change.
Virtually guarantees that clubs will be relegated from Div 1 to Div 2 in 2
years' time which clubs below them promoted to SPL2, since make-up of 10
clubs in Div 1 cannot be known 2 years in advance. In other words, promotion
not on merit.

Interesting that Geoff Brown was also quoted in the Courier as saying that
"hopefully" SPL2 would generate additional income.

I can't see anything in the proposals which offer additional income or
security to clubs in either the SPL or SPL2. Surely the only sensible
solution for Scottish Football is a top division of 16 or 18 clubs, which

1) Reduces the number of games played to 30 or 34 games, which in turn
- reducing complaints of fixture congestion
- reduces demands on players' fitness
- allows more time for preparation for internationals
- reduces need for less popular midweek games
- reduces financial burden on fans who watch all games

2) Complies with UEFA recommendation of minimum 16 teams in top division,
which are likely to be applied and force restructure of SPL & SPL2 in near
future anyway

3) Virtually removes threat of relegation for current SPL clubs (only
Hearts, Celtic & Rangers free from fear of relegation today), which in turn
- allows "best practice in corporate governance" by planning budgets more
than 1 year at a time
- allows mid-table sides to field more youth players without so much
pressure on results in mid-late season
- more youth players means lower wage bills

4) More equitably shares wealth among a sustainable number of full-time
clubs (ultra-radical suggestion would be a return to gate receipt sharing,
with equal prices at all grounds, so clubs compete on tactics and play, not
bank balance - Old Firm could opt out and leave other 16 clubs to run their
own top league)

4) Increases public interest in fixtures, with only 1 home and 1 away
meeting per year between sides (ex cups). While the major downfall is the
loss of Old Firm revenue, crowds should in the long term increase.

5) Increased TV exposure for the additional SPL sides, allowing them to
generate more sponsorship and advertising revenue, and possibly giving
greater exposure to young players leading to more international exposure
and/or transfer fees.

And probably a lot of other good points!

Below the 18 team SPL, I'd propose an SFL North and SFL South, either 12
teams in each eg no new SFL members, or 16 teams each eg 4 Highland and
South of Scotland teams. The SFL sides would almost all be part-time, so
relegated SPL sides would theoretically have a better chance of bouncing
straight back up. 2 automatic up/down spots with bottom 2 SPL replaced by
winners of SFL N&S, with 2nd & 3rd in each of North & South playing off each
other, then 3rd bottom of SPL (would even work fixture wise, with 30 games
then play-offs, before SPL game 34).

Time for the fans to make themselves heard and oppose SPL2 before it puts
the nail in the coffin firstly for clubs in Div 2 and 3, then the Div 1
clubs who are guaranteed no additional income from this latest
self-preservation proposal.

Some interesting points, and in general backs up my opinion that unless we have a constant 'flow', i.e. two up and two down between ALL leagues (obviously there would have to be certain criteria met WITHIN REASON regarding ground capaciies etc.), things will stagnate. Unless more flow is allowed between the leagues, the SPL will remain the Stagnant Pond League.

I like the idea of only meeting once home and once away, but I'd like to see a radical change where the numbers in the leagues remained the same but have a 'mini-season' that only lasted half as long. Teams could play home and away, then have promotion and relegation at Christmas. From January until May another 'mini-season' could be played, with promotion and relegation taking place once again.
That way, relegated clubs might only have to spend six months out of the top division. Of course, the same might apply in reverse to promoted clubs, but overall the whole thing would be more balanced and there wouldn't be so much of a gap developing between the upper and lower reaches of the Scottish League / SPL system.