16 Team Premier Division / Winter Season from 2012/13 TODAY'S DAILY MAIL

**citybone** · 25/11/2011, 10:06 AM

I remember the 33 system a few years ago and that was a balls, forget about financial side, it give a unfair advantage to some clubs having more away games and possibly facing all the difficult teams away twice.

**Dodge** · 25/11/2011, 10:12 AM

Originally Posted by citybone

I remember the 33 system a few years ago and that was a balls, forget about financial side, it give a unfair advantage to some clubs having more away games and possibly facing all the difficult teams away twice.

I'm not arguing that. I'm saying the split is worse. WAY WAY worse.

They used to have the league reverse the fixtures the following seaosn. So if in 2012 you played Rovers, Sligo, Derry, Pats and Bohs away twice, in 2013 you'd have all of them at home twice. Promoted clubs replace relegated clubs in that schedule obviously

**Macy** · 25/11/2011, 10:55 AM

Originally Posted by legendz

The usual way with the third series is that it's reversed the following season with minor change due to promotion/relegation.
A clear way to earn the extra home game on the field of play would be giving the top 6 teams from the year before the extra game. Towards the end of season in mid-table, it'd be an incentive to finish higher in the table. It's an option.

You're just making it even more unfair. One less home game might be the difference between top 6 or not, and for that you'd give the same advantage the following year? The only way to do it is as it was previously done as Dodge has outlined. The split was, and would be, crap. Ultimately, the only way to level the playing field is to get it up to 16 teams and straight home and away.

I'm not hugely in favour of regionalisation (unless part of a totally different approach of a totally regionalised league and a play off for the championship). If they want to reduce costs in the first, they should make fixtures Saturday or Sunday only unless agreed by the away team. Covering lost wages/ holidays is as much of an issue as travel costs, I would've thought.

Finally, I don't see the issue with deciding the numbers in the first later.

**citybone** · 25/11/2011, 11:10 AM

Originally Posted by Macy

You're just making it even more unfair. One less home game might be the difference between top 6 or not, and for that you'd give the same advantage the following year? The only way to do it is as it was previously done as Dodge has outlined. The split was, and would be, crap. Ultimately, the only way to level the playing field is to get it up to 16 teams and straight home and away.

I'm not hugely in favour of regionalisation (unless part of a totally different approach of a totally regionalised league and a play off for the championship). If they want to reduce costs in the first, they should make fixtures Saturday or Sunday only unless agreed by the away team. Covering lost wages/ holidays is as much of an issue as travel costs, I would've thought.

Finally, I don't see the issue with deciding the numbers in the first later.

I would rather a 12 team 33 game league than a 16 team league. We don't have enough players to make 16 competitive teams, it would just increase the amount of hammerings every year and make the 1st division unviable. I am totally against 16 team league

**legendz** · 25/11/2011, 11:25 AM

Originally Posted by citybone

I remember the 33 system a few years ago and that was a balls, forget about financial side, it give a unfair advantage to some clubs having more away games and possibly facing all the difficult teams away twice.

Cork have experience of the 33 system from the First Division '10.

**Macy** · 25/11/2011, 11:41 AM

Originally Posted by citybone

I would rather a 12 team 33 game league than a 16 team league. We don't have enough players to make 16 competitive teams, it would just increase the amount of hammerings every year and make the 1st division unviable. I am totally against 16 team league

I must have imagined the PFAI giving out about the numbers of players without clubs... That not enough players bs was what was used to justify a 10 team league, but sure why not make it 6 teams and condense the players even more?

Viability of the first would depend on the numbers in it. If all applicants get in, then 16 team and a viable first is possible.

**harpin** · 25/11/2011, 12:08 PM

Originally Posted by Macy

Finally, I don't see the issue with deciding the numbers in the first later.

I do I know I can afford my season ticket at Christmas

**sligoman** · 25/11/2011, 1:06 PM

Hope the fixtures for next season come out as early as they did last year (Dec 23rd)

**BonnieShels** · 25/11/2011, 2:17 PM

Originally Posted by sligoman

Hope the fixtures for next season come out as early as they did last year (Dec 23rd)

And I hope that that's the only set of fixtures this year.

**legendz** · 25/11/2011, 2:27 PM

Originally Posted by Macy

You're just making it even more unfair. One less home game might be the difference between top 6 or not, and for that you'd give the same advantage the following year? The only way to do it is as it was previously done as Dodge has outlined. The split was, and would be, crap. Ultimately, the only way to level the playing field is to get it up to 16 teams and straight home and away.

It's a matter of opinion I suppose. I'd see it as fair reward for finishing in the top half but if that's not the view of many fair enough. It's the right decision not to announce first division numbers yet when the deadline for clubs applications is still a few days away. What's the plan going forward, will there be a meeting of the 21 clubs regards the applications of the 5 clubs?

**redobit** · 25/11/2011, 2:49 PM

The saying in football 'well its the same for both teams' is thrown out the window with this system imo. Playing a team home or away twice is a massive advantage or disadvantage. It means that a title is being infleunced by factors off the pitch, which is bull.

**legendz** · 25/11/2011, 3:20 PM

Originally Posted by redobit

The saying in football 'well its the same for both teams' is thrown out the window with this system imo. Playing a team home or away twice is a massive advantage or disadvantage. It means that a title is being infleunced by factors off the pitch, which is bull.

The clubs have agreed to it though! We can discuss it forever but it seems to be what the clubs want.

**Lim till i die** · 25/11/2011, 3:41 PM

Originally Posted by Macy

Finally, I don't see the issue with deciding the numbers in the first later.

Clubs are expected to have budgets submitted in December.

Budgets based on their levels of income and expenditure over the next twelve months.

Levels which they will be forced in some cases to take a wild guess at.

**redobit** · 25/11/2011, 4:54 PM

Originally Posted by legendz

The clubs have agreed to it though! We can discuss it forever but it seems to be what the clubs want.

Id say it was more the case that the clubs wanted change, a change from the 4 league games against a team in one season. Its hard not agree to it when it's the only option being put forward - clubs didnt have to vote on it anyway (that I know of) so its hard to know exactly who wanted.

**mypost** · 25/11/2011, 5:43 PM

Originally Posted by Dodge

I'm not arguing that. I'm saying the split is worse. WAY WAY worse.

They used to have the league reverse the fixtures the following seaosn. So if in 2012 you played Rovers, Sligo, Derry, Pats and Bohs away twice, in 2013 you'd have all of them at home twice. Promoted clubs replace relegated clubs in that schedule obviously

In our case, 1999 was the last year we had the same team on the last day of the season, as the year before.

Originally Posted by redobit

The saying in football 'well its the same for both teams' is thrown out the window with this system imo. Playing a team home or away twice is a massive advantage or disadvantage. It means that a title is being infleunced by factors off the pitch, which is bull.

Didn't affect Cork too much this year, or in 2005.

Everyone plays the same team 3 times and starts on 0 points. If you win enough games, you get what you want at the end of the year. If you don't, you won't. Nobody complains if they get drawn away in a cup 3 times and their opponents get drawn at home 3 times, it still has to be won and lost on the pitch.

My concern is that again the season is crammed into 8 months, harming our and/or someone else's European campaign, should progress be made.

**legendz** · 25/11/2011, 8:31 PM

Originally Posted by mypost

My concern is that again the season is crammed into 8 months, harming our and/or someone else's European campaign, should progress be made.

I'd agree with that. I'd like to see the season extend by about a month, by starting about 2 weeks earlier and finishing 2 weeks later. The clubs probably have issues with that though to do with the contracts they offer. Surely if a good number of clubs wanted it, they could lobby the FAI? If it's harming clubs progress in Europe if progress is being made, there'll have to be call for change?

**gufc2000** · 25/11/2011, 9:38 PM

With the June break, it would appear we are looking at more midweek games then seen as the season is still ending on the same weekend as this year

**1st time post** · 25/11/2011, 10:30 PM

Originally Posted by gufc2000

With the June break, it would appear we are looking at more midweek games then seen as the season is still ending on the same weekend as this year

3 less games though??

**seand** · 25/11/2011, 10:34 PM

I don't see why extending the season should cost clubs more. You've got the same budget for the season, you just split it over nine months instead of eight. Everyone's in the same boat. A player who might have earned 450 a week over eight months will now be offered 400 a week over nine months. Spreading it out means less of the horrendous Monday night games with attendances chopped in half.

**Charlie Darwin** · 25/11/2011, 10:48 PM

Well it matters to the players. They still need to be bringing in a certain amount of money a week. If they're going to be collecting social welfare while they're unemployed, it's in their interests that the season is as short as possible so they can get their full three months dole, otherwise they'll be asking the clubs for more money (that they don't have). Given that wages are the major expenditure for all clubs, it's in the clubs' interests too to have the season as short as is manageable.