Next Season - Promotion / Relegation

[galwayhoop]

whats the stroy next year - do the winners of 1st Division have to meet certain criteria to get into premier div? in scotland livingstone i think had to play in aberdeen for 3 months while their ground was brought up to spec - are we looking at the same scenario here?

[GuisaSaigon]

I'd imagine they will have to have a premier license

[Trainee]

1st Division winners promoted as long as they get a premier licence with last in premier going down

I think 2nd and 3rd in 1st Divison play each other in a playoff semi with the winners playing 2nd last in premier in a playoff final
(need someone to confirm about playoffs not 100%sure)

[Dodge]

Thanks to danny on the Pats MB


Merger Proposals (http://www.fai.ie/merger/pdf/eircomLeague-proposals.pdf)

2007

12 team premier, 10 team 1st division
Season starts w/e 11th March
33 games (play each other 3 times)
1 promoted + 1 relegated
+ Playoff winners

Playoff details
2nd in 1st div v 3rd in 1st div - 1 off game
Winner v 11th in Prem - Home / Away
Winner gets into prem


2008

12 team premier, 10 team 1st division
33 games (play each other 3 times)
1 promoted + 3 relegated

2009

10 team premier, 12 team 1st division
36 games (play each other 4 times)
1 promoted + 1 relegate
+ Playoff winners

Playoff details
8th in prem v 9th in prem - 1 off game
2nd in 1st div v 3rd in 1st div - 1 off game

2 winners playoff - Home / Away
Winner gets into prem

[wws]

Thanks to danny on the Pats MB



The gas part is Danny decided this whole process, and I'm not even kidding - a conversation with The Laney at the Mank derby apparently

[Rossi]

so down to 10 team premier eventually.......interesting......all in the name of competitivness no doubt.....

[forza]

When is the third tier coming in?

[OneRedArmy]

Bear in mind also that the 2008 Premier Division License (until the FAI change their mind) is the new UEFA v2 license which all the clubs competing in next years European tournaments will have to comply with. This is a higher standard than the current license, which is itself a lower standard than the current UEFA license v1.

I can see promotion being a lot harder to obtain going forward.

[Poor Student]

Bear in mind also that the 2008 Premier Division License (until the FAI change their mind) is the new UEFA v2 license which all the clubs competing in next years European tournaments will have to comply with. This is a higher standard than the current license, which is itself a lower standard than the current UEFA license v1.



What are the major obvious differences?

[higgins]

I would like to see the bar raised now in terms of promotion into the Premier division. Like it or not we have 12 teams in this new division but I think in the future we should have minimum standards for entry into the top league and award the clubs in the 1st Division who meet that standard.

If 1st is not good enough keep on going down the league... even if its 5th or 6th that end up promoted it's better to have all th teams in the top league playing in decent stadiums and being run properly than to have teams going for broke in order to get promoted.

If they know its going to do them no good if they don't have their house in order they are less likely to spend everything on players.

Same would apply to the Premier boys too but that one is harder to work out as they dont aim for anything other than europe and I can't see them being denied that that.

[holidaysong]

If 1st is not good enough keep on going down the league... even if its 5th or 6th that end up promoted it's better to have all th teams in the top league playing in decent stadiums and being run properly than to have teams going for broke in order to get promoted.

If they know its going to do them no good if they don't have their house in order they are less likely to spend everything on players.

So spend nothing on players and everything on your stadium and still get promoted if you come 6th ahead of the team who actually tried to win the division? :rolleyes:

[OneRedArmy]

What are the major obvious differences?I haven't gone through the 257 pages!!!

Its on the UEFA website under the club licensing section (v2). It would appear that it includes a lot of additional criteria that national associations can choose to include as mandatory when they transpose it into their own rules.

The key for the FAI is to continue to raise the bar gradually season by season by making more and more of the requirements mandatory, obviously flagging this ahead of time well in advance.

[Poor Student]

Higgins, they did something similar in Scotland and had to go back on it as it created stagnation. Clubs could not meet the necessary Premier Division requirements on non-Premier budgets and couldn't afford to spend on bringing up the criteria without knowing where they would be next season. If you go far down the league and promote 4th, 5th, 6th placed teams for example, it'll be like tossing those clubs to the lions. They could have a season like Waterford this year and they'd probably be worse off.

We can't even begin to apply stadium criteria in Ireland until about 75% of the clubs are up to proper standard. The first year of licencing created a fiasco where only one club were good enough and the licencing had to be fudged.

[Poor Student]

I haven't gone through the 257 pages!!!



Sorry, didn't realise it was that big.:o

[monutdfc]

Sounds like pulling up the drawbridge once the select 10 are safely in

[OneRedArmy]

Sounds like pulling up the drawbridge once the select 10 are safely inBingo!

[Sheridan]

Sounds like pulling up the drawbridge once the select 10 are safely in
That's about the size of it. Despicable, to coin a phrase. Maybe they'll disregard next season's league table/cup results and select four European representatives on the basis of historical records.

[Poor Student]

In very simple terms from: http://www.uefa.com/uefa/Keytopics/kind=128/newsId=343256.html


New club licensing provisions

Wednesday, 21 September 2005
by Mark Chaplin from Rome

UEFA's Executive Committee has approved a new version of the UEFA Club Licensing Manual – which aims to give greater consistency and better explanations as part of the ambitious club licensing system introduced by UEFA at the start of last season.

Green light

At its meeting in Rome on Wednesday, UEFA's supreme executive body gave the green light to version 2.0 of the manual, which contains significant changes to sporting criteria, and the requirement of greater financial discipline for the financial area.

Medical examinations

Sporting changes include the obligation for all players to undergo medical examinations, following the sudden deaths in recent years of several professional players. Clubs will have to supply detailed budget information as part of a stricter financial approach within the system. UEFA says that all of the changes are for the UEFA financial year which closes at the end of June 2007. This means they must be implemented for the 2006/07 season.

Quality standards

UEFA's club licensing scheme is based on a series of defined quality standards, which must be fulfilled in order for a club to be admitted to any of the UEFA competitions. These minimum requirements cover the areas of sporting, infrastructure, personnel, administration, legal and financial matters.

All benefit

UEFA is of the opinion that the clubs, the fans, the sponsors and the media are the beneficiaries of this system, as a granted licence by the national association proves that a certain quality level is achieved. The European body feels that an important step for each side is to manage their finances properly and to spend only that money that they also earn. UEFA is entitled not to admit, or even to exclude clubs from playing in its competitions if they do not meet the requirements of the licensing system.

Stronger financial criteria

"There are certain areas, especially on the financial side, where there are stronger criteria than we have had before," said UEFA Chief Executive Lars-Christer Olsson. "The ambition with the entire system is to improve the clubs' financial capability, and to increase transparency and credibility. That means that we are asking for more information than we had before, such as information concerning budgets.

Incentive system

"We are also introducing an incentive system, which means that those clubs who have reported good financial conditions over a period of time will be able to give us less information for the coming years. We are concentrating more on those clubs where we know there are difficulties. We are asking for audited statements, and we have introduced strict deadlines in the system.

Information on major changes

"The clubs also have a duty to give information on major changes – so if you sack the coach, or a sponsor disappears, which might have a major impact on the financing of the clubs, they are now obliged under the new system to give this kind of information. This is important to make the proper evaluation of the financial capacity of the clubs."

System is working

"What is important to know is that the system is already working," added UEFA communications and public affairs director William Gaillard. "What we are doing now is to make the system simpler and more efficient, and at the same time stricter, in particular in the financial area, so that things become more transparent and clubs have to report back to us at fixed times during the year, no longer according to the financial year in their individual countries.

Simpler tools

"We will pay more attention to clubs in difficulties, over a period of several years. What does not change is that the national association will remain the licensor, but the tools will become simpler for them to use - and therefore quicker."

©uefa.com 1998-2006. All rights reserved.

------------------------------------------------------------------

This sounds more worrying for the likes of Shels than it does the little clubs. In all fairness it's where the focus should be these days, on the big overspending clubs.

[pete]

I agree we now have 12 teams for new league & pointless to threaten court action & similar. I would like to see by the time the new 10 team league started that there be solid entry criteria so maintain the standards across all entrants.

[higgins]

So spend nothing on players and everything on your stadium and still get promoted if you come 6th ahead of the team who actually tried to win the division? :rolleyes:


ehhhhhhhhhhhhhh

NO!

You run the risk of 1st 2nd 3rd 4th and 5th beating you to it...

[higgins]

Higgins, they did something similar in Scotland and had to go back on it as it created stagnation.

Ok I agree the bar can't go that high but there's no point having clubs in the first division paying out large sums of money trying to make the grade and ending up in the premier with not a clue how to run a football club.

The Premier divison is our main concern and the 1st division is just there to feed into it. Maybe a day will come where we worry about lower divisions but this time round we have to focus 100% on the premier.

we need all the top team playing in decent grounds for a start. The guys in the premier although safe at the start should be told that in 3 to 5 years time they face the chop if they don't meet the grade.

This grade doesn't have to be very high, not like 5,000 seats or anything but very simple basic measures to start with and set it as a moving target whereby each year the target for another 3 to 5 years down the line is something they MUST aim for.

Or else we will have more of the Shels attitude where players get the lot and what happens with grants for grounds happens and where marketing is seen as handing out a few leaflets to those who are in the ground.

Set the bar so as there will be 3 or 4 premier clubs who have to work hard then do this over and over, when one drops below the bar they are punished. this will have to happen for any club to take things seriously enough.

[Poor Student]

Higgins, when it comes to grounds the emphasis need to be on facilities (toilets, turnstyles, handicap access, type of seats etc.) and not much on capacity. A minimum capacity of 1,500 or even 1,000 covered seats is enough. You can have a pleasant small stadium and a rotten large one.

[dcfcsteve]

Higgins, they did something similar in Scotland and had to go back on it as it created stagnation. Clubs could not meet the necessary Premier Division requirements on non-Premier budgets and couldn't afford to spend on bringing up the criteria without knowing where they would be next season.

The year after Falkirk failed to win Promotion (2003) due to not meeting the 10,000 seat mimumim stadium standard, the SPL changed its stadium entry criteria to 6,000 seats. At that time Inverness were being forced to play 150+ miles away in Aberdeen.

Gretna are currently adding 6,000 seats to their ground, in anticipation of making the SPL sometime soon.

[Mr A]

The Premier divison is our main concern and the 1st division is just there to feed into it. Maybe a day will come where we worry about lower divisions but this time round we have to focus 100% on the premier.

I don't agree with this at all. The aim of the FAI/EL should be to improve the league from top to bottom, from the top of the premier to the bottom of the A league or U20 league when they're brought in. Football is a pyramid and I don't think you will have 10 teams existing in a bubble translating as a healthy league.

The original Genisis report on the league made some very good points on the football pyramid and in particular on the issue of dual registration etc but unfortunately the FAI has ignored the one bit of the report that showed imagination and merit in my opinion.

[higgins]

Higgins, when it comes to grounds the emphasis need to be on facilities (toilets, turnstyles, handicap access, type of seats etc.) and not much on capacity. A minimum capacity of 1,500 or even 1,000 covered seats is enough. You can have a pleasant small stadium and a rotten large one.


Sorry I was getting at that when I said it didnt have to be as in a high number of seats. When I mentioned the words basic I meant having a nice neat and tidy stadium that people could sit and relax. Our crowds are tiny, having massive stadiums is not the way to go.

All I am really asking for here is that they follow through on the promise of the licence really. By now I would have expected a premier club to have falling along the way. To see that nobody hasnt and not to see a difference in the grounds around the country is a massive failure on their behalf.

[Poor Student]

Higgins, I agree with you, but as you said standards need to be aimed at what most clubs have already achieved and a few are close to. When the standards are set at something that most clubs aren't at they all sit back and say: Sure no one else will do it, they can't make a league with one or two teams.

[OneRedArmy]

A minimum capacity of 1,500 or even 1,000 covered seats is enough. You can have a pleasant small stadium and a rotten large one.It wasn't enough for last years League Cup final at Belfied which was a shambles for spectators as a result.

You've neatly focused on the one piece of criteria your own club cannot achieve in either its current home or in the Bowl (as per the current plans).

Why should only the bits of Licensing that your club can comply with apply?

Talk about self-serving!!
(Bear in mind that I'm happy to advocate something that may be detrimental to my own clubs position, ie that given Derry's uncertain situation re the Brandywell we could well be losing our Premier License in the future if things don't move quickly regards a lease).

[Student Mullet]

Originally Posted by Poor Student
A minimum capacity of 1,500 or even 1,000 covered seats is enough. You can have a pleasant small stadium and a rotten large one.It wasn't enough for last years League Cup final at Belfied which was a shambles for spectators as a result.There were 900 seats at the League cup final. 1,500 would have been perfect for a game with an attendance of 2,000 odd.

[Student Mullet]

Sorry I was getting at that when I said it didnt have to be as in a high number of seats. When I mentioned the words basic I meant having a nice neat and tidy stadium that people could sit and relax. Our crowds are tiny, having massive stadiums is not the way to go.

All I am really asking for here is that they follow through on the promise of the licence really. By now I would have expected a premier club to have falling along the way. To see that nobody hasnt and not to see a difference in the grounds around the country is a massive failure on their behalf.I agree with you. 2008 is the next big deadline. It's supposed to be the cut off point where all the criteria in the current license have to be met. As time passes it looks more likely that some of the stadia planned won't be built by then so it'll be interesting to se (if?) the FAI fudge this issue.

[higgins]

Higgins, I agree with you, but as you said standards need to be aimed at what most clubs have already achieved and a few are close to. When the standards are set at something that most clubs aren't at they all sit back and say: Sure no one else will do it, they can't make a league with one or two teams.

Those first five words ???? :D

There are realistic improvments that the FAI could come up with that would only mean a few clubs had to jump. Your right about the fact if all clubs need to do something they will all sit there and do nothing knowing full well there would be no league.

Everyone gets caught up on the seat issue here but there is plenty of areas where grounds could be improved without going back to seats!! The walkways around the pitch are a disgrace in most grounds, slanted, stones!! muck!!! kegs??? scaffolding! anything you can think of I've probably seen it lying around Tolka and other grounds. Its fairly clear when you inspect a ground that a club has an unlevel walkway, they should all be level and not full of muck at least...

The minimum distance to the pitch is something that annoys me. The walkway around Tolka is jammed when the main stand is full. For a ground with 10,000 seats and 2,000 people it makes no sense.

I can think of plenty of things that would improve the night out at a game that doesnt involve building 5,000 seated stands.

The FAI should raise the bar little by little.

[Poor Student]

It wasn't enough for last years League Cup final at Belfied which was a shambles for spectators as a result.

You've neatly focused on the one piece of criteria your own club cannot achieve in either its current home or in the Bowl (as per the current plans).

Why should only the bits of Licensing that your club can comply with apply?

Talk about self-serving!!
(Bear in mind that I'm happy to advocate something that may be detrimental to my own clubs position, ie that given Derry's uncertain situation re the Brandywell we could well be losing our Premier License in the future if things don't move quickly regards a lease).

Can you name another occasion in last 5 years that UCD needed that kind of capacity aside from the League Cup final? It's not self-serving. As someone who supports a club with a small fanbase I know the irrelevance of talking about large minimum seated capacities. We could spend money building extra seats and see them remain empty to satisfy arbitrary criteria if you liked. The plans for the Bowl do include 1,500 seats.