League structure: We don’t need more debate

BE careful what you wish for.

It is a well-worn phrase and one the membership of the SFL should be chewing on right now.

The country’s lower-league clubs met at Hampden last Thursday to discuss reconstruction.

They failed to make a formal approval of the plans for 12-12-18 that have been put forward, or to reach agreement over the controversial issue of timescale.

That is a shame.

I have warned in this column my fears there will be no major changes made in time for the beginning of the next campaign.

Should that be the case, I am convinced it will be the membership of the SFL which loses out.

In agreeing to the unification of the bodies and authorising a more even distribution of cash, the SPL effectively gave the lower leagues what they were asking for.

The price demanded was the reconstruction model should be of their choosing 12-12-18.

If, as looks likely, they fail to deliver in time for the 2013-14 campaign, I genuinely don’t believe the SPL will be too bothered.

They will be able to argue, without fear of contradiction, that they have done their bit.

Never forget the status quo suits them.

The problem for the SFL is how to get everyone singing from the same hymn sheet.

That is no easy matter when you are dealing with clubs with very different agendas.

Those in the current First Division can be rightly excited about the possibility of going into a set-up which would offer a split into a ‘play-off’ league of eight in mid-season.

Equally, Rangers and Chief Exec Charles Green (right) as Third Division champions in-waiting, are entitled to be less than thrilled at the prospect of not getting full benefit of the promotion that goes along with the title win.

The waters were actually muddied further on Thursday with the discussion of a 12-12-10-10 set-up as an alternative.

That would have the advantage of allowing Rangers a proper promotion.

Personally, I quite like the idea of 12-12-10-10 just not in the suggested format.

More sensible, surely, is to have the bottom leagues split along geographical lines.

That would offer major savings for the country’s smallest clubs when it comes to travel costs.

Fans, too, traditionally relish games against their local rivals.

It is a proposal, though, which again throws up as many questions as it answers.

Who, for example, would be the two new clubs brought into the fold? Yet more debate is not what is needed at this time.

The momentum for change that has picked up in the last 12 months shouldn’t be allowed to dissipate.