FAI proposals for future of Eircom League...

[sullanefc]

Sullane name changes dont work. Look at CHF for example. A deluded seery thought that by changing the name of Home Farm he would be in the CL in 5 years:D



Yes, but I feel they went about it the wrong way. They tried to win over the support of the whole city and it has not worked.

For fans to adopt a team, they have to be able to associate with that team.

Aren't rovers going to Tallaght because it is a big catchement area and to convert the good people of Tallaght into Rovers fans.

My new names (BTW don't take offence, these are only mockya names)

Shamrock Rovers of Tallaght.

Shelbourne of Drumcondra (for how long I don't know)

St Patricks Athletic of Inchicore

Bohemians of Phibsboro (or whatever area they are moving to)

Blackrock FC (formerly UCD)

Fingal FC (formerly Dublin City - formerly Home Farm Fingal - formerly etc etc)

[pineapple stu]

Now you have to be taking the ****! :D

[NY Hoop]

How would they? Clearly you have no experience of intermediate/junior soccer in Donegal.

The USL contains teams from Donegal only and I suspect Monaghan wouldn't be too pleased about having to make rediculous journeys to Keadue Rovers or Glenea United regularly...

It's hell for us and we're in the same county :)

Donegal only? Selfish *******s:D

UCD fans wake up this is good for the league.


KOH

[pineapple stu]

UCD fans wake up this is good for the league.
So I keep hearing. But nobody says how, without just quoting UEFA Licencing verse for verse. Which apparently we have implemented already.

[Real ale Madrid]

The only criteria for inclusion to the Premiership in my opinion is - on the pitch 100%. UCD and Dublin City have every right to feel aggrived if they get booted down to Division One. Its up to all the other clubs with thier millions of fans to get thier houses in order and ensure that they are better ON the pitch. Anything else is not in the spirit of the game we all love. We can still implement all of the Genesis report without picking and choosing the teams we have in the top flight.

[sullanefc]

UCD fans. One question. How do ye propose that attendances are increased and hence lead to a better supported league??

No response??:confused:

[pineapple stu]

No response??:confused:
Eyes open. (http://www.foot.ie/showpost.php?p=481221&postcount=96)

[Magicme]

The only criteria for inclusion to the Premiership in my opinion is - on the pitch 100%. UCD and Dublin City have every right to feel aggrived if they get booted down to Division One. Its up to all the other clubs with thier millions of fans to get thier houses in order and ensure that they are better ON the pitch. Anything else is not in the spirit of the game we all love. We can still implement all of the Genesis report without picking and choosing the teams we have in the top flight.

As a mons fan that would make me happier than being booted out for other reasons. Its only fair that its results that count.

[monutdfc]

I really don't want to get involved in this whole debate (I have to say both sides make valid points), but to put the prize money in context, the oprize for the league winners is less than the FAI are paying Bobby Robson per annum as a part-time consultant.

[sullanefc]

Eyes open. (http://www.foot.ie/showpost.php?p=481221&postcount=96)

Hardly anything to get excited about :rolleyes:

So in 20 years your attendance will have shot up to 1500. WOW amazing :eek:

[pineapple stu]

Good stuff - a perfectly adequate response to your question dismissed with pure sarcasm and not a jot of reasoned fact. Congratulations.

[sullanefc]

Good stuff - a perfectly adequate response to your question dismissed with pure sarcasm and not a jot of reasoned fact. Congratulations.

Responded with sarcasm. Well done :rolleyes:

And where in my post was I saying that I was quoting fact? When you have not stated any facts why this proposal will fail.

You still haven't answered my question though. How do you propose to increase your attendances? And I'm talking about big increases!!

[dcfcsteve]

Did you ever meet Jim Roddy? Seriously? If I hadn't met both of yez, I'd swear blind you were the same person. You both have this utter belief - bordering on arrogance - that the league is on the cusp of something huge and it just takes a small tweak to get it right. But when pressed, neither of yez can actually put forward any sort of path from now to your proposal. Yet you both expect to be taken seriously despite this glaring omission. Quite remarkable. And quite frankly, one of Jim Roddy is more than enough without a clone knocking around...!

Well I don't believe that Jim and I have ever been seen in the same room at the same time, so you might be onto something there.... :D

PS - I've highlighted how there can never be an exact science between what sports administrators do and attendances. That is a fact. You can build the best stadiums, introduce the highest prize money, and bring in the best players in the world - like the Americans did in the 1970's - and still fall flat on your face. Likewise, you can have an average team playing in a poor league out of a rubbish stadium - like Derry City did in 1985 - and attract 10,000+ to home games and take an average of 4,000+ away. Football attendances are about human psychology and human behaviour - not about direct-line cause-and-effect bean counting. This is not and never can be an exact science. Please accept this and stop asking for conclusive proof in an arena where you know it can never exist.

If you accept that there cannot be imperical evidence to conclusively prove that more stable and better funded clubs with closer links to their local community playing out of improved facilities will lead to an increase in attendances then the debate therefore progresses onto one of value judgements - based on common sense, gut feel, and (hopefully) objective analysis. And on these elements I personally believe that the proposals for more stable and better funded clubs playing out iof better facilities is, on balance, likely to have a positive impact upon attendances. We can argue about how much better (and god knows why you're constantly trying to pin me to a figure of 6,000) but we have no conclusive proof so it's moot.

[NY Hoop]

So I keep hearing. But nobody says how, without just quoting UEFA Licencing verse for verse. Which apparently we have implemented already.

How? Eh increased prize money, regulated wages, a chance for a first division team to be in the Setanta Cup. Look at the bigger picture. The league is not dying as is but it is just carrying on as usual. This will make the league better and I cannot for a minute understand how anybody with the league at heart doesnt want this to happen.

Sullane its a bit early to be drunk isnt it?:D

KOH

[sullanefc]

clubs with closer links to their local community playing out of improved facilities will lead to an increase in attendances

Thank you :)

Link to local communities is Vital IMO. Who do UCD represent?? Former students/current students?? Who do Dublin City represent?? The whole of Dublin?? Less than 100 attendance? Hardly.

[sullanefc]

Sullane its a bit early to be drunk isnt it?:D


Do I come accross that way?? :o :D

[pineapple stu]

This is not and never can be an exact science. Please accept this and stop asking for conclusive proof in an arena where you know it can never exist.
The problem is that this is such a radical proposal, with potentially serious effects on certain clubs, that it would want to have some sort of evidence behind it that it's going to work. There's no point just going ahead with it for the craic. If there's no proof that it's going to do anything - as you seem to acknowledge - then it can't be backed. Again, the rest of your post proposes UEFA Licencing. Why don't we just implement that system properly rather than all this nonsense?


and god knows why you're constantly trying to pin me to a figure of 6,000
I apologise. 4000-5000 was your quote (http://www.foot.ie/showpost.php?p=481132&postcount=58).


You still haven't answered my question though. How do you propose to increase your attendances? And I'm talking about big increases!!
I don't really see the need to justify my club to you, to be honest. However, links to schools have been introduced in the last four or five years (after we dropped targetting the college and expanded into the surrounding localities), summer soccer camps have been very popular, there've been community projects in disadvantaged areas which have been popular, we're trying the Saturday evening switch as more family friendly, etc., etc.

May I ask as to what any other club is doing that we're not? I don't see any other club recording "big increases!!", as you seem to require.

[pineapple stu]

There's a free ground for one. And there's the scholarship sytem for 2. UCD would be basically like ICBINHF without Seery if both of these were removed
Oh dear God...

Lots of clubs get free grounds from the local council. UCD FC have to pay for every scholarship given.


How? Eh increased prize money, regulated wages, a chance for a first division team to be in the Setanta Cup.
So bring them in and drop the rest of the nonsense...?

[NY Hoop]

Only thing that needs to be dropped is the name change which is embarrassing. The Irish league adopted criteria somewhat similar a few years ago to determine the top division. Honestly dont see the problem. When the dust settles we'll have a better league. AGAIN if UCD are demoted you can get promoted.

This is the turning point for the league. With increased money clubs can improve facilities including proper tv gantries which will mean more tv coverage which will mean, hopfully, improved attendances. The last few years have seen great strides in the league, the summer football was the beginning and these proposals can propel the league forward into a respected, viable entity.

KOH

[John83]

There's a free ground for one.
As opposed to a council built and owned one? :rolleyes:

And there's the scholarship sytem for 2.
Which the club pays for. :rolleyes:
What an utterly ignorant post.

[Ronnie]

Explain increased money. How does the proposal as is increse money availale to a club?

[John83]

When the dust settles we'll have a better league. AGAIN if UCD are demoted you can get promoted.
We already did that thanks. I don't see why our attendances should require us to do it again.


This is the turning point for the league. With increased money clubs can improve facilities...
Except that increased prize money doesn't require hand picking clubs, while UEFA licencing should bring about the infrastructural stuff on its own.

[sullanefc]

I don't really see the need to justify my club to you, to be honest. However, links to schools have been introduced in the last four or five years (after we dropped targetting the college and expanded into the surrounding localities), summer soccer camps have been very popular, there've been community projects in disadvantaged areas which have been popular, we're trying the Saturday evening switch as more family friendly, etc., etc.

Well congratulations then. All very good projects *thumbs up*

But, serious question here.... Do you think that people in the surrounding area of UCD would have a problem supporting a team with UCD in its title?? People who never attended UCD. People who attended another University and would refuse to support UCD. Working class people in the area who find Universities elitest??

I seriously think that UCD are limiting their options with this name.



May I ask as to what any other club is doing that we're not? I don't see any other club recording "big increases!!", as you seem to require.
None. But I find myself being envious of the way that the IRFU radically changed rugby on this island 10 years (or so) ago. Look at Munster and Leinster now. They are huge. It just goes to show what good marketing can do. I would love if CCFC were as big as Munster.

I honstly feel that the FAI are trying to change our league for the better. And these proposals could possibly do the trick.

[John83]

But, serious question here.... Do you think that people in the surrounding area of UCD would have a problem supporting a team with UCD in its title?? People who never attended UCD. People who attended another University and would refuse to support UCD. Working class people in the area who find Universities elitest??
I'm sure it has an effect, but I don't think it's something that can't be overcome. No one ever attended a "Bohemians", but it's not bothering their fans. The area's primarily middle class anyway too.

[dcfcsteve]

The problem is that this is such a radical proposal, with potentially serious effects on certain clubs, that it would want to have some sort of evidence behind it that it's going to work. There's no point just going ahead with it for the craic. If there's no proof that it's going to do anything - as you seem to acknowledge - then it can't be backed.

Not addressing the core problems affecting a weak league, purely on the grounds that by it's nature there can never be any conclusive evidence to prove or dispute the impact of any proposed change, is a farcical manifesto for complete inertia.

Sure let's all just sit around doing nothing and just pray for things to get better.... :rolleyes:



Again, the rest of your post proposes UEFA Licencing. Why don't we just implement that system properly rather than all this nonsense?

Licensing would be an incredibly slow way of achieving exactly the same desired end. Why tease the proverbial plaster off the wound slowly, when conventional wisdom suggest the pain is less if you rip it off quickly ? If the rigidity of Licensing criteria did increase progressively, there would undoubtedly come a time when clubs like UCD and Dublin City would no longer to meet them - so you'd be in the same position you are now ! You're already complaining about a proposal to increase the required number of seats from 1,500 to 3,000 (as if 3,000 seats would ever be acceptable ina successful preier league anyway !). What if that got pushed to 4,000 ? Why should changes be delayed for the rest of the league, just to prolong the eventual day on which certain clubs inevitably find they no longer meet the rising tide of standards ? That is the key point here - clubs with limited potential are exposed one way or another.

If the FAI really wanted to, they could just raise the Licensing bar to exclude the likes of UCD, which negates somewhat your conspiracy theory.



I apologise. 4000-5000 was your quote (http://www.foot.ie/showpost.php?p=481132&postcount=58).

Thank you. And it was an expression of a vision that I'm sure everyone with an interest in Irish football would like to see happen. Attendances may be more or they may be less under such changes - we can only estimate them. But trying to denigrate a proposal for progress on the minutae on one person's individual vision for the positive impact it could have is straw-clutching.

[pineapple stu]

As for scholarships, the point is it's a handy way to attract promising players.
It is. Which makes it a good idea - something to be praised rather than mocked. Which is why other clubs are copying us. So your point, again, is moot.

The problem here is that a lot of people are remarkably stuck in their prejudicial views about UCD as a club, even though those views bear no resemblance to reality.


As for your reference back to Licensing - that would be an incredibly slow way of achieving the same desired end. Why pull the plaster off the wound slowly, when conventional wisodm suggest the pain is less if you rip it off quickly ?
But there's no indication that the proposal is analogous to ripping the plaster off. Conventional wisdom would also state that it's at least better to rip the plaster off slowly rather than hack your arm off to cure the cut.

[John83]

Sure let's all just sit around doing nothing and just pray for things to get better.... :rolleyes:
Sitting around doing nothing? **** off with your strawman argument.


As for your reference back to Licensing - that would be an incredibly slow way of achieving the same desired end.
Would it? You think cherry picking teams is going to suddenly fix everything, but you've still shown nothing to back that up.

Licencing will improve the product and that can't hurt. That's why we support it. Dicking around with everyone outside the top four or five will do nothing but futher harm the competitiveness of the league.

[pineapple stu]

Not addressing the core problems affecting a weak league, purely on the grounds that by its nature there can never be any conclusive evidence to prove or dispute the impact of any proposed change, is a farcical manifesto for complete inertia.
It would be foolish. But it's not what I'm proposing. I'm calling for proper implementation of UEFA Licencing. You've so far ignored my calls to explain why UEFA Licencing (which we have) can't do what you think this new proposal will.

[sullanefc]

I'm sure it has an effect, but I don't think it's something that can't be overcome. No one ever attended a "Bohemians", but it's not bothering their fans.
Links to their local communities/families passing on the trend of following Bohemians/History.



The area's primarily middle class anyway too.
Rugby fans then :D

[pineapple stu]

In that case, yes - I agree. But it should be pointed out that our link with the college is a very clever way of being competitive rather than a way of leeching off someone else financially, as you initially argued.

[sullanefc]

But there's no indication that the proposal is analogous to ripping the plaster off. Conventional wisdom would also state that it's at least better to rip the plaster off slowly rather than hack your arm off to cure the cut.

But there's no indication that cutting UCD and Dublin City from the premier league is analogous to hacking your arm off. More like clipping toe nails if you ask me.

[John83]

Rugby fans then :D
Some of our best fans are rugby fans. Of course, some of us are less interested in it too. Pineapple even goes so far as to dislike it. :D

[Ronnie]

I still can't get this. We set criteria, we judge clubs on this criteria and we establish the division based on this and then what? We have 12 super clubs?

Does it give any indication of the how? Is the how just a marketing plan?

Forget who is in or out for now, anyone who has seen this explain the how please.

[pineapple stu]

Thank you. And it was an expression of a vision that I'm sure everyone with an interest in Irish football would like to see happen. Attendances may be more or they may be less under such changes - we can only estimate them. But trying to denigrate a proposal for progress on the minutae on one person's individual vision for the positive impact it could have is straw-clutching.
But my overall point is that you still haven't shown why this is so much better than competent implementation of UEFA Licencing, which we currently have.

Why vote in a more extreme version of what we we already have? One which will more likely drag the league through the mire once again rather than promote it?

[John83]

But there's no indication that cutting UCD and Dublin City from the premier league is analogous to hacking your arm off. More like clipping toe nails if you ask me.
And when we grow back? Is the league going to keep relegating us on the grounds that we're not cool enough? Why does relegating us on non-football grounds help the league?

[John83]

I still can't get this. We set criteria, we judge clubs on this criteria and we establish the division based on this and then what? We have 12 super clubs?

Does it give any indication of the how? Is the how just a marketing plan?

Forget who is in or out for now, anyone who has seen this explain the how please.
Exactly.

[sullanefc]

And when we grow back? Is the league going to keep relegating us on the grounds that we're not cool enough? Why does relegating us on non-football grounds help the league?

That was a joke by the way. :D

[NY Hoop]

And when we grow back? Is the league going to keep relegating us on the grounds that we're not cool enough? Why does relegating us on non-football grounds help the league?

There is no guarantee you will be relegated. So enough with the siege mentality. Secondly from looking at this it looks as if its a one off proposal. AGAIN see the bigger picture please.

KOH

[Mr A]

From having read the document- UCD are unlikely to suffer much from the changes, but Dublin City probably are. Overall it looks good, although it makes no sense to me to keep the 12 team premier for 2 years and then change. What if it's working out well- why change again? If the 12 team premier isn't the way to go why leave it there for 2 years? I'd prefer a 12 team premier with plenty of ups and downs every year.

The big winners are going to be Shamrock Rovers, who will gain a lot of points based on their performance when they were a financial basket case. Big losers could be Sligo Rovers who need to finish well up this year to avoid being dragged down by their 5 year record.

Also, there no mention of an U18 league or dual registration, both of which I think are very important.

[dcfcsteve]

It would be foolish. But it's not what I'm proposing. I'm calling for proper implementation of UEFA Licencing. You've so far ignored my calls to explain why UEFA Licencing (which we have) can't do what you think this new proposal will.


I haven't ignored your calls - I've answered them very clearly above !

Licensing can achieve broadly the same result, but over a dramatically longer time scale. You may think that Irish football has 10 years to play around with creeping towards exactly the same point that this new FAI proposal would get it to anyway, but I don't. Why delay the ineviatble ??

Licensing will not save UCD either. Under increasingly stringent criteria, there will come a time when UCD will inevitably fall foul of it, and find themslves removed form the premiership on off-the-pitch criteria. As I mentioned - you're already complaining about the increase in seat requirement from 1,500 to 3,000. As if 3,000 seats should ever be even close to acceptable in our Premier Division !! What about when the requirement gets raised to 4,000 seats ? Then 5,000 ? Then higher still ? Are you honestly telling me that UCD will be able to maintain the same pace in meeting increases in the height of the Licensing bar as much bigger clubs will be ? If not, then you'll inevitably fall foul of them at some stage. At which stage you'll be removed from the Premier for failing to meet off-the-field criteria. Why are you holding faith in licensing when the end result is almost certain to be the same, and every other club will have been held-back in the meantime ?

[pineapple stu]

I still can't get this. We set criteria, we judge clubs on this criteria and we establish the division based on this and then what? We have 12 super clubs?

Does it give any indication of the how? Is the how just a marketing plan?

Forget who is in or out for now, anyone who has seen this explain the how please.
Everyone's rated out of 1000 points. You can score up to 300 points (decreasing in increments of 10 down to 90 points) for how you've done in the last five years. This is rated by a formula which gives marks for Premier Division placing, League Cup performance and FAI Cup performance. You can score a further 200 points for this year's league placing, and a minimum of 60. There's also marks for European results in recent years.

So that's the on-field stuff. There's then marks - 100 or 150 each - for how your UEFA Licencing went in the past couple of years, whether you have a ground with 3000 official safe capacity, what geographic location you're in and the dilution of that area and your general business plan for progress, which would include attendances for the past two years and other such details. I don't know how marks would be allocated there.

You can see that on-field is a matter of fact, while the rest is hugely subjective. What it means is that this season is largely irrelevant - there just aren't the marks going for this year to change anything in any meaningful way.

The top 12 clubs who get an A Licence make up the Super-Duper league.

I was told that the plan is for promotion and relegation to be based on a comparison of top of the First versus bottom of the Premier, with the club getting more points to enter the Premier. This, by definition, would be the Premier club as that's the reason they're in the Premier in the first place, and you're going to stagnate in the First and not in the Premier. So it'd be very hard to gain promotion from the First.

Danny posted an article from the Indo today on this thread which gives a fairly good overview.

[sullanefc]

I haven't ignored your calls - I've answered them very clearly above !

Licensing can achieve broadly the same result, but over a dramatically longer time scale. You may think that Irish football has 10 years to play around with creeping towards exactly the same point that this new FAI proposal would get it to anyway, but I don't. Why delay the ineviatble ??

Licensing will not save UCD either. Under increasingly stringent criteria, there will come a time when UCD will inevitably fall foul of it, and find themslves removed form the premiership on off-the-pitch criteria. As I mentioned - you're already complaining about the increase in seat requirement from 1,500 to 3,000. As if 3,000 seats should ever be even close to acceptable in our Premier Division !! What about when the requirement gets raised to 4,000 seats ? Then 5,000 ? Then higher still ? Are you honestly telling me that UCD will be able to maintain the same pace in meeting increases in the height of the Licensing bar as much bigger clubs will be ? If not, then you'll inevitably fall foul of them at some stage. At which stage you'll be removed from the Premier for failing to meet off-the-field criteria. Why are you holding faith in licensing when the end result is almost certain to be the same, and every other club will have been held-back in the meantime ?
Deja-vu :D

[Jerry The Saint]

This will make the league better and I cannot for a minute understand how anybody with the league at heart doesnt want this to happen.



And I cannot understand how anybody with the league at heart thinks it's acceptable that the Premier Division will consist of teams arbitrarily chosen by a panel of individuals appointed by John Delaney:


They will have to go through a complicated criteria process to determine who will make the cut and this will be overseen by an Independent Assessment Group (IAG) chaired by former UEFA vice-president Des Casey.

The IAG also include former Irish Sports Council chairman Pat O'Neill, Dublin City manager John Fitzgerald, former international Niall Quinn and FAI Project Manager Helen Raftery.

Let's be realistic, there's enough vagueness in the criteria for us all to know that this is exactly what will happen.


League Structure based on following criteria

50% on the field sucess - 20% on this season, 30% over last 5 seasons


We do not know how first division results will be graded against premier results but this criteria would appear to rule out Sligo Rovers for one.


10% on Infastructure
15% on Uefa License

Again need more clarification on Infrastructure requirements. This should be covered in the UEFA Licensing anyway. If minimum seating capacity is now 3,000 this would rule out almost all clubs. Why make Licensing worth 150 points out of 1000 anyway? The idea behind it was that membership of the league was dependent on football performance and whether or not you got a Premier license. Why does an increase in prize money (of less than Bobby Robson's part-time salary) and the introduction of a salary cap need to have all this other nonsense associated with it. Setanta Cup spot for 1st Division champions - extreme tokenism.


15% on Sustainablity and Future Plans

The heart of the proposal - I don't see how this can be determined objectively. We've seen great plans from every club and many of them never materialise or are delayed forever (e.g. 10 years and counting on Tallaght). As of now, Shelbourne have no stadium plans apart from confirming that it is not sustainable for them to stay in Tolka.

More worryingly for me is what happens when the future plans of a club - stay in Richmond - contradict the future plans of the FAI - force the club to go to Tallaght.


10% on Location

The decentralisation argument - Is it better to have teams close to population centres or spread out around the country? Is Longford a "better" location than South-East Dublin? Is Sligo better than Bray? Limerick or Tallaght?

Not to mention the mockery this makes of the current season -

Longford have a good recent record, infrastructure so they look to be safe. Although they have performed poorly on UEFA Licensing this is only 15% of the total mark and so is now less significant. Derry, Cork and Drogheda (at Dundalk's expense) have good locations so they will be there. Shelbourne and Bohs would get in on past season results at least. Shamrock Rovers fans seem to be very confident of getting in as well - the staunch support of the FAI for their "future plans" for Tallaght would probably be the main factor for their inclusion, no matter how far these plans have developed by the start of the new season (they will be disappointed that History/Tradition is not one of the criteria:) ).

By my rough reckoning that would leave 5 places for the remaining clubs to battle it out for in two ways:

1. On the field
2. Making sure their future plans go along with the plans of the FAI hierarchy.

So realistically, this 'Premiership' (and a big red flag there for anyone who doesn't doubt the competence/sanity of the people behind this proposal) would have 5 clubs from

- Pats
- Dublin City
- Sligo
- Bray
- Waterford
- Limerick
- Galway
- Finn Harps
- Athlone
- Dundalk (although there may not be room for two teams in Louth).

[pineapple stu]

I haven't ignored your calls - I've answered them very clearly above !

Licensing can achieve broadly the same result, but over a dramatically longer time scale. You may think that Irish football has 10 years to play around with creeping towards exactly the same point that this new FAI proposal would get it to anyway, but I don't. Why delay the ineviatble ??
But you still seem to think that this new proposal will make everything better like magic - certainly move things along at a quicker pace than Licencing. There's no evidence for that. Things like building new grounds/improving grounds take time. Since Licencing came in, you've seen big steps in that regard - Athlone, Bohs, Bray, Cork, Derry, Drogheda, Dundalk, Harps, Galway, Limerick, Pat's, UCD and Waterford anyway have all announced plans for ground improvements. That's fairly quick pace, if you ask me. I don't see how some spurious document which actively cherry-picks a Premier Division is going to achieve this any quicker. So why bother if it's going to lead the league into controversy and ridicule?

[pineapple stu]

We do not know how first division results will be graded against premier results but this criteria would appear to rule out Sligo Rovers for one.
22 marks for winning the Premier down to 1 for last in the First. Add that up over five years, add in the Cup results (10 for winning the FAI Cup down to 1 for getting knocked out in the second round), League Cup results (8 for winning down to 1 for group stage) and European results (1 for a win and ½ for a draw). Then sort by total score and appoint 300-290-280-...-110-100-90 to the clubs.

200 down to 60 for this season. An average gap of 6.363636, so don't know how that'll be worked out exactly.

[WeAreRovers]

Shamrock Rovers fans seem to be very confident of getting in as well - the staunch support of the FAI for their "future plans" for Tallaght would probably be the main factor for their inclusion, no matter how far these plans have developed by the start of the new season (they will be disappointed that History/Tradition is not one of the criteria:) ).


Jerry - no-one at Rovers thinks that we'll get in on the strength of our history. We will however be there on the strength of our fanbase (even in the 1st Division), the way the club is being run now - prudently and responsibly, our involvement in the community in Tallaght (24 schoolboy teams, schools link-up started, Tallaght IT link etc), our "brand" etc etc.

Also, you'd want to start looking a wee bit closer at Pats. Any idea of Mr Mulvey's plans? They sure as hell don't involve Pats playing in Richmond.

KOH

[Ringo]

From having read the document- UCD are unlikely to suffer much from the changes, but Dublin City probably are. Overall it looks good, although it makes no sense to me to keep the 12 team premier for 2 years and then change. What if it's working out well- why change again? If the 12 team premier isn't the way to go why leave it there for 2 years? I'd prefer a 12 team premier with plenty of ups and downs every year.

The big winners are going to be Shamrock Rovers, who will gain a lot of points based on their performance when they were a financial basket case. Big losers could be Sligo Rovers who need to finish well up this year to avoid being dragged down by their 5 year record.

Also, there no mention of an U18 league or dual registration, both of which I think are very important.

Raise’s some interesting legal questions about Rovers previous points. What happens when the teams relegated bounce back up? Change the teams in the premiership again? No doubt this will end up in court

[sullanefc]

Raise’s some interesting legal questions about Rovers previous points. What happens when the teams relegated bounce back up? Change the teams in the premiership again? No doubt this will end up in court

You going to sue, Rocky?

[JW.]

Rebranding the league as "the Premiership" smacks of sycophancy. Why not call it the Super League or something corny like that. Imagine the confusion on the radio sports bulletins. Are we now some branch of the English monster?

[Student Mullet]

you're already complaining about the increase in seat requirement from 1,500 to 3,000. As if 3,000 seats should ever be even close to acceptable in our Premier Division !Steve,
I think the complaint is that the requirement is being changed with a few weeks notice which is not a realistic timescale for building a new stand.