eL "relaunch" - Questions for those against

[Roverstillidie]

A: Have any of you seen the document that was distributed to the clubs on Saturday?

b: Where does it say in any of the FAI policy documents on the league that teams will be removed from senior football on the basis of geography? (a la the thread begun by a UCD fan about the impending removal of a louth club. utter specualtion).

c: where does it say promotion/relegation for 2007 will be decided on anything other than position on the field?

d:where did the phrase 'potential support base' that is being bandied about come from?

E: Does anyone know what 4 clubs voted against for a fact, and if not, why are people offering opinions on who those clubs are?

f: do you seriously believe 18 of the 22 clubs voted themselves into danger?

my broad point here is that doomsday scenarios are being offered by certain people on this site who profess to have some inside track. either put up, or shut up until we see what the FAI actually propose to the clubs.

you may well be right, but at the moment it is all idle speculation based on suspicion of john delaney's motives, and it is not helping this important debate on the future of football in this country. :ball:

[A face]

Point taken !!

[pineapple stu]

A: Have any of you seen the document that was distributed to the clubs on Saturday?
Yes. Though as a UCD fan, maybe my view doesn't count?


b: Where does it say in any of the FAI policy documents on the league that teams will be removed from senior football on the basis of geography? (a la the thread begun by a UCD fan about the impending removal of a louth club. utter specualtion).
d:where did the phrase 'potential support base' that is being bandied about come from?
Nobody is claiming clubs will be removed from senior soccer. The other criteria aren't specifically mentioned in the proposal, but from consistent reports in the press and from my own discussions with committee members of other clubs (plural), the criteria are going to include marketability, geography, potential and facilities. The Louth thread I've explained there - it's intended as speculation to make people think about what's being voted on.

Clubs will be relegated by the FAI despite potential good seasons. That much is clear from reading between the lines. There is no other reason for the FAI to disband the league and ask for everyone to apply again other than that the FAI want to cherry-pick the league teams. The FAI already have the powers to relegate teams based on UEFA Licencing, so this has to be about more than that.


c: where does it say promotion/relegation for 2007 will be decided on anything other than position on the field?
At the end, where it says that teams will have to apply for membership to the League in July, and that for this purposes league position will only count for part of the criteria used to make the decision.


E: Does anyone know what 4 clubs voted against for a fact, and if not, why are people offering opinions on who those clubs are?
Yes. Don't think it's overly relevant to reveal who.


you may well be right, but at the moment it is all idle speculation based on suspicion of John Delaney's motives, and it is not helping this important debate on the future of football in this country.
With the FAI involved, I don't think it does anyone any good to wait until they screw up to decry the whole issue. You have to critically analyse what's being presented to you. Accepting what the FAI say as Gospel is about the single worst thing you can do if you're interested in the future of football in this country.

[Passive]

Roverstillidie in talking sense shocker!

[Roverstillidie]

PS,

on A: are you saying you have seen a copy of the document presented to the league clubs, in private, today? are you in limerick at the moment?

b: what document are you referring to? im not interested in 'reports in the press' or unnamed committe members opinions of a document they hadnt seen either, hence the point of the thread.

c: again, what document?

d: you missed this one

e:im not doubting you do, i would be intrigued to know how you know the results of a vote help in private today, but others are punting names around like facts

[pineapple stu]

on A: are you saying you have seen a copy of the document presented to the league clubs, in private, today? are you in limerick at the moment?
The FAI is obliged to give clubs 28 days' notice of the AGM and any motions proposed, as is common requirement in company law.


b: what document are you referring to? im not interested in 'reports in the press' or unnamed committe members opinions of a document they hadnt seen either, hence the point of the thread.
Here I'm referring to the document from the FAI to all clubs.


c: again, what document?
Ditto.


d: you missed this one
Nope. Grouped with (b).


I'm not doubting you do, I would be intrigued to know how you know the results of a vote help in private today, but others are punting names around like facts.
There were four clubs who were particularly against the proposal. They know who each other are - solidarity and power in union and all that. I know people involved with all of them.

[Roverstillidie]

PS, it was made clear that the delgates at todays conference recieved more information on the FAI's proposals on which to vote. the document you are referring to is clearly not what i asked about in question A above, meaning you missed a glorious chance to shut up.

18-4 was the result, so im assuming it (as soccerc said having actually seen it) isnt sunshine and flowers for all clubs, isnt the end of senior football as we know it, regardless of the spin you are trying to put on it.

[soccerc]

PS,

on A: are you saying you have seen a copy of the document presented to the league clubs, in private, today? are you in limerick at the moment?

b: what document are you referring to? im not interested in 'reports in the press' or unnamed committe members opinions of a document they hadnt seen either, hence the point of the thread.

c: again, what document?

d: you missed this one

e:im not doubting you do, i would be intrigued to know how you know the results of a vote help in private today, but others are punting names around like facts

I am neither for or against the merger and probalby lean more towards the latter so maybe my view doesn't count.

The document was distributed to the meeting today in Limerick and voted upon. 18 clubs voted for while 4 abstained, they did not vote against. There is a very subtle difference. The reasoning behnd the abstentions was I understand as they did not know what the would be voting for or against. (Yes I know who the four are, no conjecture and one of them is a little bit surprising to say the least).

I wasn't in Limerick but thankfully someone just happened to send it to me using that old fashion telecom technology - the fax machine. No doubt there will be something in Sundays newspapers and a little more on Mondays but as there were only a small number of media in attendance, (seemingly the Euro draw in Switzerland was more important or rather they could not get flights home until this morning).

[pineapple stu]

PS, it was made clear that the delgates at todays conference recieved more information on the FAI's proposals on which to vote. the document you are referring to is clearly not what i asked about in question A above, meaning you missed a glorious chance to shut up.
So now you're telling me what I saw and what I discussed with club committee members?

Where as this made clear, incidentally? You give out to me for lack of quotes (even though I quote official documents), and then you post an unsubstantiated comment like that?

It is quite probable that clubs asked for more information and were given it. That doesn't change the fact that I saw the proposal.

[Roverstillidie]

I explicitly asked did those, like yourself, who are agitiating to block these proposals in advance of their announcement did you see TODAYS supplimental documents. you tried to pretend you had, when i pushed it turns out you have not, so are privy to the same info we all are.

i am asking does anyone KNOW whats on the table, you have proven you dont, so please stop wasting bandwith pretending you do. im not interested in hearsay and gossip, im interested in the ACTUAL story, which you are clearly not partial to.

[pineapple stu]

I explicitly asked did those, like yourself, who are agitiating to block these proposals in advance of their announcement did you see TODAYS supplimental documents.
I haven't seen any proof from you that supplimental documents exist. Unless you provide a link, I'm goig to have to assume you're making stuff up to discredit my argument. Which is a pretty poor counter-argument from you, it must be said.

Also, why would these supplimental documents be in any way different in proposition to those already sent out? If a different proposal were proposed, it would be voted out on a technicality of company law (which applies to associations also).


so are privy to the same info we all are
Have you seen the initial FAI proposal as sent to all clubs? (Answer - no, evidently). So I'm quite clearly not privy to the same information as you are. And by extension I'm quite clearly not privy to the same information as evreyone else.

[soccerc]

Just to clarify, in case someone gets the wrong end of the stick, or that someone feels the need to try and discredit one of the four non voters.

The items faxed to me today came courtesy of one of the non abstainers, in other words one of the clubs who voted yes to back the proposals.

[Roverstillidie]

I haven't seen any proof from you that supplimental documents exist. Unless you provide a link, I'm goig to have to assume you're making stuff up to discredit my argument. Which is a pretty poor counter-argument from you, it must be said.


see soccerc's post above and then grow up.

you do not have an inside track on this, so give over. Im talking all your recent ramblings on this subject with a large pinch of salt if this is your style.

[pete]

Quality of facilities was always supposed to be criteria for entry to the Premier division but never implemented properly. If some clubs have not been trying to improve their situation then they can hardly say they weren'r warned.

[JC_GUFC]

I don't really see the big deal with this - the idea behind this is to improve the marketability of the league - attract bigger crowds and bring up standards. It's actually a positive thing the FAI are trying to do. :eek:

Every club should be able to market themselves and argue for a place in the Premier Division. Dublin City & UCD have an advantage over the likes of Monaghan & Kilkenny because you're actually Premier Division clubs and have proved you've got what it takes to get up there.

[rerun]

I don't really see the big deal with this - the idea behind this is to improve the marketability of the league - attract bigger crowds and bring up standards. It's actually a positive thing the FAI are trying to do. :eek:

Every club should be able to market themselves and argue for a place in the Premier Division. Dublin City & UCD have an advantage over the likes of Monaghan & Kilkenny because you're actually Premier Division clubs and have proved you've got what it takes to get up there.

I hope you're right. Personally, I think that clubs like UCD are going to get shafted.

[CollegeTillIDie]

I hope you're right. Personally, I think that clubs like UCD are going to get shafted.

Well if they are going to dispose of well run clubs (e.g. U.C.D.)that never have had to be baled out by the F.A.I. , never had a points deducted because of a player registration problem, that has always lived within it's budget ,and has contributed two of the finest administrators seen in League football in this country in the past 30 years then the whole project is doomed to failure.

[OneRedArmy]

The four clubs who voted no are named in todays Indo.

No surprises that UCD and Dublin City were among them.

Leaving aside the supposed requirements on average crowds etc, how do UCD propose to meet the existing infrastructure requirements (as drafted, not as implemented) in the Bowl?

In my mind, UCD won't be shafted, they may however not meet the enhanced criteria for inclusion in the Premier Division.

Belfield, either Stadium or Bowl, has woefully inadequate facilities at present. Can any of the UCD fans provide firm plans to meet the existing covered seating and other infrastructure requirements, never mind enhanced ones?

[Bald Student]

I'll agree with you OneRedArmy if the infrastructure requirements are implemented evenly. UCD have 800 covered seats. If no club in the new premier has fewer than this then the process will have been fair.

Some current premier clubs who voted in favour of the proposal have fewer than this which makes me suspicious. There would be less need for suspicioun if the whole process had been discussed and debated publically as genesis recommended.

UCD's plans for the Bowl are covered in another thread here.

[OneRedArmy]

I'll agree with you OneRedArmy if the infrastructure requirements are implemented evenly. UCD have 800 covered seats. If no club in the new premier has fewer than this then the process will have been fair.

Some current premier clubs who voted in favour of the proposal have fewer than this which makes me suspicious. There would be less need for suspicioun if the whole process had been discussed and debated publically as genesis recommended.

UCD's plans for the Bowl are covered in another thread here.
Open to correction but off the top of my head, only Bray have less covered seats than UCD, and they voted against, along with Dublin City, who have no long-term ground (with Shels and Bohs co-habiting).

One logical conclusion to draw from this is that these clubs are effectively voting against the implementation of proper infrastructure requirements.

[pineapple stu]

Allow me to correct you so -

The Irish Times notes that UCD, Dublin City, Monaghan and Waterford abstained, which would mean Bray did vote for.

Drogheda have about 200 seats. In last year's Premier, Harps and Rovers had 200-ish and none.

I'll leabe you to do some research on UCD's new ground proposals so you can contribute meaningfully to that debate. As Bald Student said, it's been covered here plenty of times before.

[OneRedArmy]

Allow me to correct you so -

The Irish Times notes that UCD, Dublin City, Monaghan and Waterford abstained, which would mean Bray did vote for.

Drogheda have about 200 seats. In last year's Premier, Harps and Rovers had 200-ish and none.

I'll leabe you to do some research on UCD's new ground proposals so you can contribute meaningfully to that debate. As Bald Student said, it's been covered here plenty of times before.
Sorry, I'd assumed Drogheda's ground plans were so concrete (ie ready for season 2007 as we were told) that they would have more than 800 seats by the time the requirements were implemented.

Also the Indo indicated that Bray and Kilkenny abstained along with UCD and Dublin City, apologies if this is incorrect.

I look forward to reading UCD's ground plans for the Bowl. Where is the thread referred to?

PS the last time I was in Dalymount to see Rovers they had lots of seats and they will have plenty this year as well in Tolka. Remember, ground-sharing is the way forward.

[Bald Student]

On a side point,
Would UCD and DCFC keep their place in the premier if they played out of one of the other club's grounds?

[Bald Student]

I look forward to reading UCD's ground plans for the Bowl. Where is the thread referred to?Mullet gave an outline of the situation here: http://www.foot.ie/showpost.php?p=426701&postcount=172

in this thread: http://www.foot.ie/showthread.php?t=33069&page=9

[OneRedArmy]

On a side point,
Would UCD and DCFC keep their place in the premier if they played out of one of the other club's grounds?
If the ground met the infrastructure and other requirements then, unless some kind of geographic limit is introduced, I don't see why not.

However, in reality it looks like DC will be homeless when Tolka is sold and Shels go to Dalyer. So DC would have to move into UCD. Just can't see that happening.

[pineapple stu]

Also the Indo indicated that Bray and Kilkenny abstained along with UCD and Dublin City, apologies if this is incorrect.
Strange - Ireland on Sunday said UCD, Monaghan, Kilkenny and DC. Irish Times said UCD, Monaghan, DC and Waterford. I would have thought Bray would have abstained. Now I don't know.


PS the last time I was in Dalymount to see Rovers they had lots of seats and they will have plenty this year as well in Tolka. Remember, ground-sharing is the way forward.
But by the same logic you knock Dublin City, Rovers will have no long-term option once Shels and Bohs move in (which I don't think will happen, but that's another issue. Unless you're counting Tallaght, in which case, you'll have to count Belfield Bowl as well.

[Bald Student]

unless some kind of geographic limit is introduced, I don't see why not.Do you think that some kind of a geography limit should be introduced?

[JC_GUFC]

This is ******** and I am tired of Galyway fans hiding behind Dellaney's pinny. Galway may get up but they will go back down again. I don't care how nice a city Galway is and how promising it's location, Galway (under its various names) have been minnows right from the start. I remember them and Thurles Town being anchoured to the bottom of the table, in the days when they could continually survive in the top flight by virtue of there being no second flight. **** all use that safety net was in encouraging progress.

Unless the FAI have a plan to keep the likes of Galway on some top flight life support indefinitely then Darwinism will scythe them down again. Despite what Delaney and Genesis think you can't alter the DNA of the soccer supporting public in this way.

If the so called weaker clubs are to be strong armed out of the league then let it be to make way for top class clubs like Glentoran, Linfield, Portadown etc, not some minnows like Galway. That is how strong league are made, by having the best clubs.

What are you on about?! We've only ever had 2 "guises" as you like to call it - we were called Galway Rovers when we first joined the league - and apart from Derry City all new teams to the league have struggled.

In the last few season's we've been poor and were embarassingly bad the last time we got promoted but that was to do with off the field problems(Bohs would know nothing about that!), we actually had a decent end to that season but were so far off there was no way we could survive.

The club has now been restructured, as recommended by the Genesis report, and is ambitious, similar to the situation Drogheda were in about 4 years ago.

No-one is saying we should automatically be in the Premier Division and I would be against us going up should we not finish in the top 2 this season but we have one of the strongest squads in the division and should be in the top 2! Then you'll be able to come to Galway and admire how nice a city it is compared to the slum you're from.

[OneRedArmy]

But by the same logic you knock Dublin City, Rovers will have no long-term option once Shels and Bohs move in (which I don't think will happen, but that's another issue. Unless you're counting Tallaght, in which case, you'll have to count Belfield Bowl as well.
I am taking it at face value that Tallaght will be ready to occupy, or close to by season 07 and similarly the Bowl.

I would imagine however that enhanced infrastructure requirements will form part of the Premier division application at the end of this season (eg 3,000 seats with 5,000 in 3 years or something similar). Put simply, the Bowl proposals referred to above (1,500 seats) are simply aimed at minimum existing standards.

I'm not victimising UCD, for example if Derry don't secure ownership of their ground soon the Council has indicated that they don't have major investment plans, therefore we would been in severe trouble with no possibility of acquiring land for greenfield development.

[Bald Student]

There's a seperate problem with that, OneRedArmy. UCD, like all clubs are ment to under the licencing, have plans to meet the current requirement. It is unreasonable to change an infrastructure requirement in June and expect clubs to be ready in March. Building stadiums takes longer than that.

[Dodge]

especially when they make them have minimum standards and expect the club to pay for all of it

[OneRedArmy]

There's a seperate problem with that, OneRedArmy. UCD, like all clubs are ment to under the licencing, have plans to meet the current requirement. It is unreasonable to change an infrastructure requirement in June and expect clubs to be ready in March. Building stadiums takes longer than that.
No real objections to that. As long as "plans" are binding and legally signed off by clubs.


especially when they make them have minimum standards and expect the club to pay for all of it
Grant money has generally been made available for a percentage of the work and I don't see what the problem is for clubs to pay for most of the work? That surely incentivises clubs with a growth agenda? Matched funding or similar is common the world over.

[Dodge]

The problem is that clubs are broke and CANNOT pay for it...

[OneRedArmy]

The problem is that clubs are broke and CANNOT pay for it...................because they've been paying too much of their revenue on wages.

Hence the need for licensing and other long-term planning as most clubs are unwilling to move from a short-term point of view.

[pete]

The "stand" in Belfield is glorified bleechers & has dubious safety. Other than that there are no terraces & just more open bleecher seats. belfield does need large capacity but it does need a proper stand & terraces.

[pineapple stu]

I would imagine however that enhanced infrastructure requirements will form part of the Premier division application at the end of this season (eg 3,000 seats with 5,000 in 3 years or something similar).
I wouldn't be too sure about that. For a start, with the Premier Division average around 2,000, most clubs don't need 5,000 seats. Those that on occasion do - Bohs, Shels, Cork mainly - already have 5,000 seats. Secondly, unneccessarily forcing clubs to keep adding seats will take money away from improving the team and will lead to a weaker league, not a stronger one.

The Belfield Bowl specs are indeed minimum UEFA Licence requirements. I don't see a problem with that. It suits our requirements, and if you are to suggest that the specs aren't good enough, then that's an issue for UEFA Licencing, not us.

Thank you Pete for the pointless dig at UCD. You may ask Derry fans just how safe the stand is when there were 400-odd of them bouncing up and down in it during the League Cup Final. "The strongest wee stand in Ireland" was how it was described on their forum, in fact.

[Bald Student]

Hence the need for licensing and other long-term planning as most clubs are unwilling to move from a short-term point of view. That's it exactly. Long term planning does not involve setting the league format a month before the season starts or deciding next June which clubs will be in the premier in 2007 and what the criteria are. Two years ago the clubs were told that 1,500 covered seats would be the infrastructure standard set for the premier, along with the various other off the field requirements.

The goalposts are now being moved and at very short notice.

[OneRedArmy]

I wouldn't be too sure about that. For a start, with the Premier Division average around 2,000, most clubs don't need 5,000 seats. Those that on occasion do - Bohs, Shels, Cork mainly - already have 5,000 seats. Secondly, unneccessarily forcing clubs to keep adding seats will take money away from improving the team and will lead to a weaker league, not a stronger one.

The Belfield Bowl specs are indeed minimum UEFA Licence requirements. I don't see a problem with that. It suits our requirements, and if you are to suggest that the specs aren't good enough, then that's an issue for UEFA Licencing, not us..
I think you are mis-interpretating UEFA licensing. UEFA licensing is a set of minimum standard that national associations are free to set superequivalence over.

And given that growth of domestic soccer attendance is one of the goals, surely setting future requirements higher than currently is a must, to allow for growth in attendance? Otherwise we are admitting that attendances will never improve.

And as for infrastructure requirements reducing on pitch standards due to diverting wages to improving stadia? Thats only true if revenue doesn't increase.

The only clubs that have something to fear are those that are close to or are maximising their revenue & therefore potential based on current rules (or lack theirin). Those clubs that have little chance of improving attendances regardless of investment & whose interests are best served by other clubs not growing.

The saying goes that a rising tide lifts all boats, but in the case of the EL there are a few clubs who would capsize on the rising tide.

[pineapple stu]

I'm aware that UEFA Licencing is merely a minimum requirement. However, I don't see the need for raising the tide quite as quickly as you have suggested. Obviously if crowds rise to 10,000, we'll need to have done sometihng about the grounds. But if all the money is spent on improving facilities to what we hope we'll need in 20 years, you're going to be left with poor teams playing in brilliant grounds no-one wants to watch.

For the record, there's no reason why UCD (as you asked) couldn't increase the capacity of the Bowl to, say, 3000 given sufficient notice and grant assistance. Same as for any club.

[Bald Student]

The saying goes that a rising tide lifts all boats, but in the case of the EL there are a few clubs who would capsize on the rising tide.What we need is some kind of mechanism to seperate the two types of clubs. I propose that each club playes a series of 30 to 40 games against their rivals on a round robin basis. The clubs which do poorly in this competition could me moved to a lower league to be replaced by clubs which did well in the league immediatly below.

[OneRedArmy]

What we need is some kind of mechanism to seperate the two types of clubs. I propose that each club playes a series of 30 to 40 games against their rivals on a round robin basis. The clubs which do poorly in this competition could me moved to a lower league to be replaced by clubs which did well in the league immediatly below.
Sounds good.

Would you hold this tournament in a glorified cowshed or in a modern stadium with facilities designed to attract families and make watching the game less of a hardship?

[Bald Student]

Sounds good.

Would you hold this tournament in a glorified cowshed or in a modern stadium with facilities designed to attract families and make watching the game less of a hardship?I vote for a modern stadium. In fact I'd go so far as to say that any club which does not have a stadium of a certain standard should not be allowed to enter this competition.

I remember being promised such a competition about three years ago.

[pete]

AFAIK all clubs have equal access to infrastructure grants (except for shels of course who live in Delaneys pocket ;) ) with the exception of smaller once off grants to european qualifiers.

I think everyone has to accept that the Premier division must have minimum standards off the pitch but of course they need to realistic. I would suggest minimum capacity & minimum seats level amoung others.

[Bald Student]

I think everyone has to accept that the Premier division must have minimum standards off the pitch but of course they need to realistic. I would suggest minimum capacity & minimum seats level amoung others.Exactly,
I think we're starting to reach a consesus on the issue. The consesus we're reaching is very similar to what the licencing should have been two years ago.

[dcfcsteve]

We've only ever had 2 "guises" as you like to call it - we were called Galway Rovers when we first joined the league - and apart from Derry City all new teams to the league have struggled.

I agree with your point overall JC, but whilst I'd love it to be true I think it's a bit harsh to state that City are the only new team to the league not to have struggled.

Cork City only joined in 1984. There was no Cork team for the 2 previous seasons, so they were a proper new team. They're far from struggled.

Longford Town also joined in 1984, and have been quite successful over all. Two FAI Cups, a League Cup, consolidation in the Premier division (top 5 finish in 3 of the last 4 seasons) and a half-decent stadium could hardly be considered struggling. Particularly given the size of their town. Though they do struggle in Europe.... :p

Bray could also be considered successful. Two FAI Cups, 3 Frst Division titles (including the inaugural one), and now Premier Division consolidation after a series of yo-yo's (mid-table last year). Not bad for a small new club.

[CollegeTillIDie]

I am taking it at face value that Tallaght will be ready to occupy, or close to by season 07 and similarly the Bowl.

I would imagine however that enhanced infrastructure requirements will form part of the Premier division application at the end of this season (eg 3,000 seats with 5,000 in 3 years or something similar). Put simply, the Bowl proposals referred to above (1,500 seats) are simply aimed at minimum existing standards.

I'm not victimising UCD, for example if Derry don't secure ownership of their ground soon the Council has indicated that they don't have major investment plans, therefore we would been in severe trouble with no possibility of acquiring land for greenfield development.

Well you could always get a greenfield site slightly back over the border in Co. Donegal, but within easy reach of your present ground. :D

[CollegeTillIDie]

I agree with your point overall JC, but whilst I'd love it to be true I think it's a bit harsh to state that City are the only new team to the league not to have struggled.

Cork City only joined in 1984. There was no Cork team for the 2 previous seasons, so they were a proper new team. They're far from struggled.

Longford Town also joined in 1984, and have been quite successful over all. Two FAI Cups, a League Cup, consolidation in the Premier division (top 5 finish in 3 of the last 4 seasons) and a half-decent stadium could hardly be considered struggling. Particularly given the size of their town. Though they do struggle in Europe.... :p

Bray could also be considered successful. Two FAI Cups, 3 Frst Division titles (including the inaugural one), and now Premier Division consolidation after a series of yo-yo's (mid-table last year). Not bad for a small new club.

Well our club was accepted into the League in 1979 when the second Cork Club at the time(i.e. Cork Celtic) did not get it's financial house in order!
U.C.D. won the F.A.I. Cup in 1984 have finished 4th in the top flight on two occasions, the second of which in 2000 saw us qualify for the U.E.F.A Intertoto Cup. Our previous spell in the Premier Division lasted 9 years.
One First Division title , two runner-up spots considering our resources not bad at all!

[rerun]

Bother me, why not play a 22 team league in 2007, the top 10 go into the eircom i-League 1 and the the bottom 12 go into eircom i-League 2 for season 2008? Who's with me?

[pete]

A 22 team league even for 1-2 years is stupid idea. The current 10 teams in the 1st division are there because they not good enough for the Premier.

[Bald Student]

A 22 team league would just be boring. The boring mid-table would be huge and without relegation the bottom of the table would be just as boring.