eL "relaunch" - Questions for those against

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:

Point taken !!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roverstillidie

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by roverstillidie

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by roverstillidie

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by roverstillidie

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by roverstillidie

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.

Roverstillidie in talking sense shocker!

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roverstillidie

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roverstillidie

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by roverstillidie

c: again, what document?

---

Ditto.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roverstillidie

d: you missed this one

---

Nope. Grouped with (b).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by roverstillidie

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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

---

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).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by roverstillidie

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

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.

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rerun

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.

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?

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.