Covid 19 - LOI Ramifications

[Kiki Balboa]

Relegate them. Sligo, Pats and Waterford are trying to bully Irish football.

[Longfordian]

Admittedly I haven't been paying too much attention to the games so far but why are Pats so worked up about relegation? They're not very likely to go down. Is it just that Kelleher appears to have fallen out with the new regime?

[Yossarian]

Seems to me that Kelleher doesn’t want the league to come back at all and will find an objection to any proposal. Maybe that’s something to do with his broken relationship with the new FAI leadership. I personally think Pats would be safe enough from relegation anyway.

[D24Saint]

Admittedly I haven't been paying too much attention to the games so far but why are Pats so worked up about relegation? They're not very likely to go down. Is it just that Kelleher appears to have fallen out with the new regime?

Id say it’s simply down to money.He funds the club and obviously doesn’t feel he should be put in a position where he pumps in more than he has allowed for which has been in recent times average of €500-700 k a year. I would assume most Pats fans don’t know the full picture so speculation from others is total conjecture. I’m on the fence myself I want football back but only in a sensible financial environment. I don’t agree that clubs of lesser means should dance to the tune of the FAI and the european qualified clubs , a deal should be fair to all.

[RathfarnhamHoop]

From the sounds of it the FAI have put together a package that covers the loss of gate receipts now.
The issues now are how streaming is done and relegation and promotion.
You'd hope that the latter really wouldn't be an issue and the former had a quick resolution but in the LOI that was never going to be the case

[Kiki Balboa]

Is it possible that it has something more to do with St. Pats releasing players and management? (Or maybe not?)

[RathfarnhamHoop]

Is it possible that it has something more to do with St. Pats releasing players and management? (Or maybe not?)

Don't think anyone really knows the story with Pats. The most popular theories are a personal fight with an FAI board member and looking for an easy out of the club.
My money would be on it being something personal but it's really a guessing game as far as Pats are concerned.

[placid casual]

I’m on the fence myself I want football back but only in a sensible financial environment. I don’t agree that clubs of lesser means should dance to the tune of the FAI and the european qualified clubs , a deal should be fair to all.
We've spent the past month dancing to the tune of the minority. It's time to change the record. Stay on the dance floor if you want.

[Redbull]

Relegate them. Sligo, Pats and Waterford are trying to bully Irish football.
Easy for a Dundalk fan to say ‘relegate them’
Not every club have the resources that ye have.
I take it that you’d rather p!ss the league along with one or two other clubs every year rather than have a competitive league?
As for the likes of Sligo Rovers bullying Irish football, That’s the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever read on here.
In the best of weeks we are fighting tooth and nail to survive, Rovers are doing what gives the club the best chance of survival as a football club.

[sbgawa]

Relegation is a must or the first division might as well not come back which would be completly unfair on those players / clubs.
two playoff matches with no guaranteed relegation but two possibles is the likely solution.
If Cork , Waterford et wont accept that then they really just dont want to play.
Keleher is just throwing his toys out of the pram because he laid off all his players and doesnt want to come back full stop

[El-Pietro]

Relegation is a must or the first division might as well not come back which would be completly unfair on those players / clubs.
two playoff matches with no guaranteed relegation but two possibles is the likely solution.
If Cork , Waterford et wont accept that then they really just dont want to play.
Keleher is just throwing his toys out of the pram because he laid off all his players and doesnt want to come back full stop

I don't believe there has been any indication that Cork City are one of the clubs who do not wish to continue with the season. We are back training already and have a MSC game scheduled for July 24th. The rumours have consistently singled out Sligo and Waterford, with Pats named as the third club.

I and other Cork City fans have our concerns about the financial implications for returning to play without crowds and would like to see actual financial guarantees from the FAI rather than vague promises fom an organisation we trust as far as we could throw Niall Quinn, as well as concerns about the integrity of an 18 game season but we do not speak for the club, and there are many City fans who just want us to get back playing.

[RathfarnhamHoop]

I really don't get claims that 18 games is in any way unfair. It's not ideal but none of this is. The whole point of a league is that your points are compared to other clubs and once clubs have the same amount of rounds played I think a table based on the is objectively fair. Obviously as with any dataset the larger amount of data the more accurate it'll be but if 18 is the best we can do then it is fair so far as everyone will play the same amount of games against the same opposition.

I have a feeling though that even if it was 3 rounds of games on the table the same clubs would be claiming its unfair based on playing certain teams away twice and at home once.

The only real argument against it is that clubs would take games earlier in the season more seriously if the season was shorter but to be honest I doubt any players will actually back that up if you asked them and any clubs that would claim that deserve to be less well off for being idiots

[El-Pietro]

I really don't get claims that 18 games is in any way unfair. It's not ideal but none of this is. The whole point of a league is that your points are compared to other clubs and once clubs have the same amount of rounds played I think a table based on the is objectively fair. Obviously as with any dataset the larger amount of data the more accurate it'll be but if 18 is the best we can do then it is fair so far as everyone will play the same amount of games against the same opposition.

I have a feeling though that even if it was 3 rounds of games on the table the same clubs would be claiming its unfair based on playing certain teams away twice and at home once.
And the club at the top of the table with a 3 point advantage has a clear reason to want to just play the games so they have a vetter chance of CL football. Every club is looking ta this from their own point of view with their own biases clousing their decision making.
I have said before that even with 18 games we should have relegation but that it is a far from ideal situation. Clubs made budgets and signed players based on a 36 game schedule. Cork City brought in a number of loan players, with the expectation that they would be available for all the pre July games and possibly beyond. We will now be looking at only having them for 5 out of 18 games rather than 20+ out of 36. That is not the leagues fault but it clearly changes what our squad looks like for a 13 game relegation battle.

Whoever wins this years league will have an mental asterisk over their title from many fans, a 36 game season is a marathon and weeds out the weaker teams. Luck is less of a factor the longer a season is, the effects of a two or three game injury or suspension are far more serious across an 18 game season than they are for a 36 game season.

I don't think you can blame teams at the bottom of the season for trying to save themselves from relegation by arguing any point they have. I would eventually say lets find the best solution and go with it, bu if they can find a way to give themselves a better chance of avoiding relegation then you can't begrudge them that argument.

[RathfarnhamHoop]

And the club at the top of the table with a 3 point advantage has a clear reason to want to just play the games so they have a vetter chance of CL football. Every club is looking ta this from their own point of view with their own biases clousing their decision making.
I have said before that even with 18 games we should have relegation but that it is a far from ideal situation. Clubs made budgets and signed players based on a 36 game schedule. Cork City brought in a number of loan players, with the expectation that they would be available for all the pre July games and possibly beyond. We will now be looking at only having them for 5 out of 18 games rather than 20+ out of 36. That is not the leagues fault but it clearly changes what our squad looks like for a 13 game relegation battle.

Whoever wins this years league will have an mental asterisk over their title from many fans, a 36 game season is a marathon and weeds out the weaker teams. Luck is less of a factor the longer a season is, the effects of a two or three game injury or suspension are far more serious across an 18 game season than they are for a 36 game season.

I don't think you can blame teams at the bottom of the season for trying to save themselves from relegation by arguing any point they have. I would eventually say lets find the best solution and go with it, bu if they can find a way to give themselves a better chance of avoiding relegation then you can't begrudge them that argument.

I also don't get the budgeted for more games arguments. If you assume no fans in ground then playing more games actually costs the smaller clubs money in terms of contract extensions. The extra games in the budget are all ticket money so playing more games unless fans are in doesn't make the budget any bigger and the FAI fund covers the vast majority of lost ticket revenue for a full season of fixtures anyway.

There'll be more than a mental astrix I'd imagine there'll be an actual astrix beside the season as a whole.

And I actually think you can begrudge one party putting their own self interests ahead of the group as a whole. If we resume under the proposed rules one maybe two teams could suffer relegation, if we don't resume at all half the league could go bankrupt

[El-Pietro]

I also don't get the budgeted for more games arguments. If you assume no fans in ground then playing more games actually costs the smaller clubs money in terms of contract extensions. The extra games in the budget are all ticket money so playing more games unless fans are in doesn't make the budget any bigger and the FAI fund covers the vast majority of lost ticket revenue for a full season of fixtures anyway.

There'll be more than a mental astrix I'd imagine there'll be an actual astrix beside the season as a whole.

And I actually think you can begrudge one party putting their own self interests ahead of the group as a whole. If we resume under the proposed rules one maybe two teams could suffer relegation, if we don't resume at all half the league could go bankrupt
You addressed the budgeted for 36 games point and ignored the rest of my post. Its not just the number of games, its the way they were laid out, its how one red card can take a player out for 11% of the season. Teams agreed to 36 games, you can't just impose an 18 game season on them without getting agreement on it. Its not just about money, its about the sporting integrity and how a shortened season impacts that.
Is there going to be a transfer window? Can Cork City replace the players they had on loan? If so what is our budget? How is the government money going to be shared? Do we all get an even slice of the pie, or do teams who budgeted for higher crowds get a higher slice?


And I actually think you can begrudge one party putting their own self interests ahead of the group as a whole.
You're right, we should ignore Shamrock Rovers fans calling for a resumption under an 18 game season without any discussion of what that would mean financially or from a sporting integrity point of view because they are eager to press home their 3 point advantage.


If we resume under the proposed rules one maybe two teams could suffer relegation, if we don't resume at all half the league could go bankrupt
I don't buy this at all. If anything resuming without cast iron guarantees on the finances could ruin half the league. I'm yet to see those guarantees, or any information about the breakout of the finances other than a vague headline or 2 about 2 million euro.

[RathfarnhamHoop]

You addressed the budgeted for 36 games point and ignored the rest of my post. Its not just the number of games, its the way they were laid out, its how one red card can take a player out for 11% of the season. Teams agreed to 36 games, you can't just impose an 18 game season on them without getting agreement on it. Its not just about money, its about the sporting integrity and how a shortened season impacts that.
Is there going to be a transfer window? Can Cork City replace the players they had on loan? If so what is our budget? How is the government money going to be shared? Do we all get an even slice of the pie, or do teams who budgeted for higher crowds get a higher slice?


You're right, we should ignore Shamrock Rovers fans calling for a resumption under an 18 game season without any discussion of what that would mean financially or from a sporting integrity point of view because they are eager to press home their 3 point advantage.


I don't buy this at all. If anything resuming without cast iron guarantees on the finances could ruin half the league. I'm yet to see those guarantees, or any information about the breakout of the finances other than a vague headline or 2 about 2 million euro.

Read back, I prefaced everything I said based on the fact that finance no longer seems to be the issue. That's based on all talk of complaints regarding it dying after the FAIs latest package offer and numerous journalists saying it was deemed acceptable.

As I also said it is not ideal but it is fair, clubs that have lost players or have players stuck abroad stopped paying them, those that don't didn't I mean it's really that simple, continue to pay your players and you can control their availability, you don't and you can't. Again not ideal but fair in that it applied across the board. Clubs know the risks with loans and if you take a player on loan you're fully aware of the risks, obviously covid has highlighted some of them but they're not new. Sure your man Dalling would have faced a lengthy ban in a country with a half decent disciplinary system anyway for his horrendous tackle in the rovers game anyway.

There's obviously going to be a registration window like there is every year, they're hardly going to cancel it.

I'm not saying teams should resume based on the fact Rovers are leading, I'm saying it because football clubs refusing to play football because the amount of teams that they agreed to be at risk of relegation are still at risk of relegation is ****ing ridiculous, its not even Sunday league type carry on it wouldn't even be done there.

Wait a minute you a random fan haven't been informed of an exact breakdown of the financial package? Get in touch with quinn there he must have left you off the mailing list by mistake.

Thing is how is it less fair on Sligo to decide relegation on 18 games than it is Waterford? Both planned for 36 games, both have players from abroad. Or how is it less fair on Cork than Harps? I could go on. Its fair to decide a league on 18 games because everyone has planned for 36 games so it's equally **** for everyone, yeah some clubs plans are up in the air more than others, that can happen any season losing a player to injury, sacking a manager, the plan just simply not working.

It's **** that the league isn't getting its full run, but it is equally **** for everyone to argue that there shouldn't be relegation is stupid because its not as if clubs are being singled out. We could replay the first 4/5 rounds and easily get the exact same results would they be unfair? No. Its football, the whole basis of a league is that your points are in proportion to the other teams in the league. Playing everyone home and away once is the quite simply a fair way to do it. If we wanted the most accurate league possible we'd play a season of 36 matches in 10 pools of two with the top team going up and the bottom going down, but we don't, cause its stupid, just like a football club that signed up for a league with relegation refusing to play football because they might be the team relegated, that's just plain stupid no matter how you look at it

[Martinho II]

The thing i found most interesting when reading about teams refusing to continue playing in the league from resumption ie Sligo their pts total would stay the same with the games that they are played already instead of excluding them from the table altogether?
I would have imagined that they would have done like Dublin City did years back and declaring games that were played already declared null and void cos they pulled out of league mid season.

[Nah Nah Nah Nah]

Seeing as we have 0 points we’re probably a bad example!

[Neish]

Some fans and clubs need to get a grip, blaming the FAI for doing the right thing for once and demanding clubs reach agreement, covid-19 is no ones fault and its unfair to punish the first division clubs because of it. I see no reason the same relegation & promotion structure can't apply to a 18 game league than it would to a 36.

This just show why there is a need for a independent body running the LOI and not the clubs themselves with everyone looking after number 1

[Nah Nah Nah Nah]

Either just one team relegated or 12 team league next year with chance of 1 down and 3 up talked about in the papers today

[RathfarnhamHoop]

Imagine being a player at one of these clubs and hearing that your board don't think your capable of playing well enough to stay up. Talk about a kick to the balls.

[oriel]

I really don't get claims that 18 games is in any way unfair.

I can see both sides of the argument with this, 13 more games (for most) being too short, then on the other side, clubs* will want players off their books end of October to help them budget in what has been an unprecedented year for everyone.

Just on the 13 more games RH, I trust you will have no qualms about this if you finish second this season?

*Dundalk, Rovers, are paying 12 months, not sure about the rest, Cork also were up to end of 2018, I think?

[D24Saint]

I can see both sides of the argument with this, 13 more games (for most) being too short, then on the other side, clubs* will want players off their books end of October to help them budget in what has been an unprecedented year for everyone.

Just on the 13 more games RH, I trust you will have no qualms about this if you finish second this season?

*Dundalk, Rovers, are paying 12 months, not sure about the rest, Cork also were up to end of 2018, I think?

Don’t think any other clubs are paying players for twelve months.

[Scrufil]

Forgive me if suggested before, but why not make relegation, and relegation only a 2 season solution? 18 games this year, full season next year.

[RathfarnhamHoop]

I can see both sides of the argument with this, 13 more games (for most) being too short, then on the other side, clubs* will want players off their books end of October to help them budget in what has been an unprecedented year for everyone.

Just on the 13 more games RH, I trust you will have no qualms about this if you finish second this season?

*Dundalk, Rovers, are paying 12 months, not sure about the rest, Cork also were up to end of 2018, I think?

If we play an 18 game season and finish second I'll be no more annoyed than if we finished second after 36 games.

Win or lose this season there's going to be an astrix beside it either way but an 18 game season in the fairest way to do it

[Martinho II]

Forgive me if suggested before, but why not make relegation, and relegation only a 2 season solution? 18 games this year, full season next year.

wot do u mean by that Scrufil? I am a bit puzzled?

[D24Saint]

Imagine being a player at one of these clubs and hearing that your board don't think your capable of playing well enough to stay up. Talk about a kick to the balls.

Dont know , are most players bothered or engaged with internal club/league politics id imagine most of if goes over their head. Id say most players are concerned with their training and dressing room politics , a lot of players are just kids in their early twenties. I wouldn't say the majority would take any offence from board level politics.

[Nesta99]

wot do u mean by that Scrufil? I am a bit puzzled?

I will guess at a typo and promotion is meant with relegation of more than usual numbers next season or over 2 seasons. At least I doubt it was meant as no promotion in season 2 with relegation only!

[Scrufil]

wot do u mean by that Scrufil? I am a bit puzzled?

You make an aggregate of both seasons to determine relegation. Fairest solution. One team is promoted end of this season. Play with 11 teams next season in top division, 9 teams in 1st division and at end of next season aggregate decides who goes into playoffs with aim of reverting to 10 teams in each division at start of 3rd season from now.

It has been done before, the aggregate stuff, (badly at the time) so it is nothing new.

One other fly in the ointment could be that teams don't agree on idea of 5 subs or not.

[D24Saint]

https://www.independent.ie/sport/soccer/league-of-ireland/league-of-ireland-fans-need-to-grow-up-and-accept-its-place-in-the-sporting-pecking-order-39321624.html

Know your place condescending hack, knowing your place isn't a very Irish trait for a start. This country has always boxed above its weight politically, culturally and in terms of sporting achievements. The fans of the league of Ireland are no different and will always seek more for it and I hope that doesn't stop.

[oriel]

Football has to come back sooner or later, that's the hope from most clubs, although I read we have agreedment now with 9 out of the 10 PD clubs.

What I'd be concerned about would be the return of the 12 team PD in 2021 just to facilitate FD clubs. That would almost certainly be a return to 33 games, never a fan of that. This could see sides curently at the bottom like Sligo having to visit Dundalk and Rovers twice, while say FH only have one away game v these two. It does generally rotate the following season, but that's no good for the team who has been relegated.

A 10 team PD has really given most games a competitive edge in my view, and has raised standards, often in the 12 team PD, once teams are safe around early Oct, they have nothing to play for, plus fair few hammerings too from memory, which serves no benefit.

[pineapple stu]

What I'd be concerned about would be the return of the 12 team PD in 2021 just to facilitate FD clubs.
If there's a 12-team Premier next season, it's because no team(s) will have been relegated from the Premier this season.

So that'd mean it's to facilitate the PD clubs, not the FD clubs.

[The Lilywhites]

Why are the first division clubs crying about 1 up? It's happened before in the division where only 1 went up with no playoffs. There wasn't much crying those years from what I remember.

[oriel]

Yes in hindsight thats a fair point (re Pineapple's post).

I would still prefer a 10 team PD though.

[pineapple stu]

I don't have the background, but at the start of the season, the promotion structure was one up and a playoff.

Why should that now change to one up and no playoff?

[The Lilywhites]

I don't have the background, but at the start of the season, the promotion structure was one up and a playoff.

Why should that now change to one up and no playoff?

I've no opinion on it really but the objective now is to just get the season, in whatever way, finished. Everything has changed so 1 up 1 down would be fine I think.

It's happened before in the first division so it's hardly anything new, even if it's different to what was originally going to happen in a normal length season.

[pineapple stu]

That's no reason at all to change promotion mid-season to be honest.

[Martinho II]

When was the last time that there was only one side promoted from the 1st division only?

[pineapple stu]

2017 I think - Waterford won it as the leagues changed size (again)

[nigel-harps1954]

A straight one down, one up, seems a bit harsh on the FD clubs battling for playoffs.

I actually quite like the FD clubs proposal of 1 up automatically and the playoff between 2 PD and 2 FD teams with no automatic relegation.

[RathfarnhamHoop]

Why are the first division clubs crying about 1 up? It's happened before in the division where only 1 went up with no playoffs. There wasn't much crying those years from what I remember.

It's happened before and it was **** with the league decided well in advance and everyone just playing for nothing.
Whatever happened to learn from our mistakes or is that only when it's convenient?

Any Premier Division team that doesn't fancy their chances in a playoff against a First Division team doesnt deserve to be in the Premier Division anyway.

The system everyone agreed to is still perfectly fine clubs are taking the **** trying to change it now for absolutely no good reason.

I would love to know what they deem to be "unfair" about a play off....

[The Lilywhites]

It happened in 2008 when the league went down to the last kick of the season. But carry on...

[pineapple stu]

What happened in 2008?

Promotion was changed mid-season? Don't think so.

So the question remains - why should it change now?

[The Lilywhites]

Because the whole season's schedule has changed. That was based on a normal length season.

The original playoff setup was a joke anyway where the 6th placed team in the first division could end up getting promoted ffs.

[pineapple stu]

That's still not a reason to change promotion

At the end of the day, you'll have a team in 9th in the Premier and 2nd in the First, just like every other year.

No reason whatsoever to change promotion.

[The Lilywhites]

The whole terms of the season has changed, so I don't see a problem with everything being up for discussion tbh.

[pineapple stu]

But you still haven't given a reason why promotion/relegation should change?

The play-offs are nonsense of course, but if the First Division clubs want to shorten that, it's up to them to agree something.

[John83]

But you still haven't given a reason why promotion/relegation should change?
If they're playing a shortened season, then the odds of being relegated because of luck rather than ability rise (fewer games (measurements) means random events are more impactful). That's an argument for fewer teams relegated. Likewise, a team is more likely to miss out on promotion based on bad luck if you play fewer rounds; that's grounds to be more generous to teams seeking promotion. How you weigh those factors is another argument, as is how best to compensate those clubs.

Let's try an analogy. Imagine you'd been put on notice at work back in March: pull up your socks by July, or you're gone. Fair enough, you say, I like this job and I can turn this around. Then lockdown meant you were on furlough until today. Would you feel hard done by if you boss decided to fire you based on the work you did between today and Wednesday, under anything but normal circumstances?

[The Lilywhites]

But you still haven't given a reason why promotion/relegation should change?

The play-offs are nonsense of course, but if the First Division clubs want to shorten that, it's up to them to agree something.

Eh, because the length of the season and everything else is out the window, so everything is up for discussion / change.

The First Division clubs shouldn't be deciding anything, or PD clubs for that matter. The FAI should just make the decision. It's gone on long enough now. It's ridiculous how long it has gone on.

Tbh, I couldn't care less if there are playoffs or no playoffs, but I can see why it's possibly being changed now given how the year has gone.

[RathfarnhamHoop]

It happened in 2008 when the league went down to the last kick of the season. But carry on...

Did I just imagine the 2017 season so....