View Full Version : What criteria should the FAI use?
OneRedArmy
31/01/2006, 7:21 PM
Now that we have actually established the clubs voted only to approve in principle an approach which used additional criteria other than strict league placing to form the Premier Division in 2007, what should that additional criteria be?
I'm in favour of strict inplementation of licensing, ie including the infrastructure as it was orginally drafted in 2004 before being watered down. No waivers unless construction of new facilities is underway or subject to contract and the stadia requirements increasing on a sliding scale going forward (eg. +2 years. 3k seats, 5yrs 6k seats or whatever).
Full academy requirements as currently increasing over time.
Clubs should be require to commit to a marketing buget and plan, with agreed spending and other targets, with grant funding on a matched basis to be provided from the FAI. No marketing, no license.
More regular financial reporting to the FAI (ie interim figures) as audited accounts are filed too late to indicate problems.
Poor Student
31/01/2006, 8:50 PM
There should be a very realistic minimum stadium capacity. I'd say 1,500-2,000. The main stadium requirements should be to do with more general stuff likes toilets, quality of stand and seats, safe exits, floodlighting etc.
As for general requirements, I'd say being financially sound and tax compliant. I'd say an academy is OTT but clubs should be required to have an U-21 and U-18 team to compete in national competitions at both levels.
pineapple stu
31/01/2006, 8:52 PM
League placings obviously. Then whatever's in UEFA Licencing. One of the best things to happen to the league being completely screwed up by the people in charge. No room for anything subjective like marketing potential or the likes.
OneRedArmy
31/01/2006, 9:43 PM
League placings obviously. Then whatever's in UEFA Licencing. One of the best things to happen to the league being completely screwed up by the people in charge. No room for anything subjective like marketing potential or the likes.
Surely it was the clubs that screwed licensing up by not taking it seriously when it came in first in 2004? The El was left with two options, fudge licensing or have one club in the Premier Division.
The clubs are effectively the EL, as they must ratify proposals and rule changes. So the licensing farce was effectively a reflection of how seriously most clubs took it.
Compliance is the responsibility of the clubs, the League/FAI should be responsible for setting standards and monitoring compliance.
citybone
31/01/2006, 9:54 PM
1,000-2,000 covered seats
50 media seats
wheelchair spots/seats?
minimal floodlight flux of eg. 400+
mens/womens/disability toilets
no grass terreces.
safe exits
media box and telivision camera gantry
any terracing has to be in perfect condition
hamish
31/01/2006, 10:04 PM
50 media seats
Yeah, citybone, and a full time remedial teacher to assist them, given the
sh!te sports "journalists" we have here.:D
pineapple stu
31/01/2006, 10:05 PM
Surely it was the clubs that screwed licensing up by not taking it seriously when it came in first in 2004? The eL was left with two options, fudge licensing or have one club in the Premier Division.
While the clubs aren't blameless, the FAI clearly set the tone by overlooking glaring failures to meet licencing (e.g. Rovers, and God knows what else). The case could well be made that the FAI screwed up by setting the standards too high initially - it's great to see clubs striving for an increase in standards, but there's only so much you can do with very limited cash in a short period of time.
League placings obviously. Then whatever's in UEFA Licencing. One of the best things to happen to the league being completely screwed up by the people in charge. No room for anything subjective like marketing potential or the likes.
Agree 100%!!
Koh
Licence and league placings. I would enforce the rules on having to have the A licence for the premier though.
I'm not sure where I stand on work in progress for the infrastructure - I think they should insist on something a bit more than plans really. Have to have the concrete (no pun intended) plans in place and work progressing, not just some pretty pictures. I think there is no option given the lack of funding, however some clubs have been waffling on about new grounds without even getting planning permission let alone starting work for years now...
No sham things like potential or marketability though. Has to be quantifiable critea with minimum standards to be attained, not some ranking system they'll make up when it suits.
Bald Student
01/02/2006, 11:43 AM
I'm in favour of strict inplementation of licensing, ie including the infrastructure as it was orginally drafted in 2004 before being watered down. No waivers unless construction of new facilities is underway or subject to contract and the stadia requirements increasing on a sliding scale going forward (eg. +2 years. 3k seats, 5yrs 6k seats or whatever).I agree 100%.
Implement the licencing as it was 2 years ago and league placing after that.
Any change in the infrastructure part of the licencing should be signalled at least 2 years in advance (ideally more). The problem with the licencing in 2004 was that clubs were only given a few months to sort out infrastructure issues. That was an unrealistic timescale.
Schumi
01/02/2006, 2:17 PM
As with everyone above, league placing with licencing properly enforced. If that leaves the premier division with 6 teams in then so be it. There has to be seen to be real consequences for not bothering to comply with the licencing.
As with everyone above, league placing with licencing properly enforced. If that leaves the premier division with 6 teams in then so be it. There has to be seen to be real consequences for not bothering to comply with the licencing.
exactly
Bald Student
01/02/2006, 2:38 PM
And the problem of six teams in the premier probably wouldn't arise anyway. All the current premier except UCD, Bray and DCFC have 1,500 covered seats as well as a few of the first division.
And the problem of six teams in the premier probably wouldn't arise anyway. All the current premier except UCD, Bray and DCFC have 1,500 covered seats as well as a few of the first division.
exactly, bye bye UCD!
OneRedArmy
01/02/2006, 3:12 PM
exactly, bye bye UCD!
Its taken a week and a thousand posts but finally they've hung themselves :p :D
HarpoJoyce
01/02/2006, 3:12 PM
exactly, bye bye UCD!
I've heard that I few times before. We're still here.
It must be very frustrating for bitter football fans to know that they havn't killed off UCD AFC.
I've heard that I few times before. We're still here.
It must be very frustrating for bitter football fans to know that they havn't killed off UCD AFC.
not at all! this shake up spells the end for UCD unless they build a decent ground by next season
Schumi
01/02/2006, 3:26 PM
And the problem of six teams in the premier probably wouldn't arise anyway. All the current premier except UCD, Bray and DCFC have 1,500 covered seats as well as a few of the first division.
There's more to licencing than the number of seats in your ground. A lot more.
Kildare Lad
01/02/2006, 4:49 PM
There's more to licencing than the number of seats in your ground. A lot more.
Thats true, but i bet your just saying that because your club hasnt got that amny covered seats
Schumi
01/02/2006, 4:55 PM
Thats true, but i bet your just saying that because your club hasnt got that amny covered seatsLook, I accept that if the licencing requirements were fully implemented, we wouldn't pass because of our ground (neither would Kildare incidentally). However lots of other clubs wouldn't pass due to the financial tomfoolery that many of them have been up to for quite a while, Rovers were just the only ones to have been caught.
OneRedArmy
01/02/2006, 11:23 PM
Look, I accept that if the licencing requirements were fully implemented, we wouldn't pass because of our ground (neither would Kildare incidentally). However lots of other clubs wouldn't pass due to the financial tomfoolery that many of them have been up to for quite a while, Rovers were just the only ones to have been caught.
The infrastructure requirements was the section that was most watered down post 2004 and is the section that is hardest to get compliant with.
I've no doubt you are correct that other bits of licensing, notably finance and legal are being breached left, right and centre.
Student Mullet
02/02/2006, 12:47 AM
OK,
How about 1,500 covered seats and having all your taxes paid and up to date?
Who does that leave?
As an aside, is Looping still on this forum?
Block G Raptor
03/02/2006, 10:34 AM
The main criteria for inclusion should be the condition that you were not relegated in 2005
Maynard
03/02/2006, 12:45 PM
The main criteria for inclusion should be the condition that you were not relegated in 2005
Bingo.
Maynard
03/02/2006, 12:46 PM
Bingo.
Or 2006 for that matter:o
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.2 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.