Merger

I know we have a thread on this but it went a bit off topic. I can't see how the proposal will address what genesis pointed out was a 3million loss. If someone else that has studied the document can demonstrate this it would be great.

The proposals will involve clubs increasing expenditure - for example to be in the Premiership you must also be in the A League, total cost of membership 22k - at the moment its 10k in the Premier Division. You will get a grant of 10k towards employing a promtions officer, that will surely cost 50k. Plus the additional costs of the A League.

The only thing I can find that you could argue would increse revenues is the promotions officer and the prizemoney. But surely if a club reckoned a promotions officer was going to bring in an extra 100k on the gate they would have employed the person themselves already and wouldn't be waiting on a 10k grant? As for the prizemoney, now thats a massive improvement on what was available only 2 years ago, although how it can be argued that it will address the deficits existing in league revenues is wide of the mark - giving 6k to the club in 9th is not going to assist the overall viability of the league.

As for expenditure, the wages cap is in principle is a good idea, but theirs no detail on it or how it would be implemented.

It's a bit pie in the sky really. It's pretty much assumed (or hoped?) that the league will become more marketable and have increased attendances. How that will happen to any significant degree as a result of the changes, I do not know or rather I don't believe it can.

i think the idea is that with one body making all the decisions it will cut out an additional level of beurachrachy (i know i can't spell) and decisions to benifit the league can be made quicker. at present it takes to long to get agreement on a good idea and usually when u do u have missed the opportunity. there are many other levels of power that need to be gotten rid of as well but u have to start somewhere.

I don't agree that speed of decision making is the problem. Administration may be quicker, but is this reason enough for the clubs to give up control of their own destiny?
I say the same thing if its just a marketing strategy.

There does seem to be an awful lot of ground needs doing first before any of this can be realised.

It really needs the clubs FAI reps to fly the flag, and to mediate on the clubs behalf now more than ever. It imo have become a very important role.

I know, it seems to be asking clubs to give up a lot for nothing concrete in return.

Maybe this needs to be deferred and intoduced on a phased basis, for example grants for promotions officers, procedures for wage controls as a trial etc

Sorry to harp on about this but if noone can demonstrate how this will be an improvment then whywould a club go for it and why do the FAI think the clubs will go for it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ronnie

Sorry to harp on about this but if noone can demonstrate how this will be an improvment then whywould a club go for it and why do the FAI think the clubs will go for it?

---

I think we'll should be hearing a bit more on the implementation side of things soon, in the meantime its no harm asking you club.

I think the FAI taking charge is a good thing as means they have sole responsibility & cannot make excuses in future.

I've said already that for the relauch of a (new) league the proposals are not radical enough.

Seems a lot of the extra prize money will be funded by extra cost of joining the league.

I am disappointed no central marketing & pr details.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pete

I've said already that for the relauch of a (new) league the proposals are not radical enough.

---

What radical changes would you make, Pete?

I venture to guess the real radical ideas will not come out until after the merger vote, just in case it frightens to many away. as for the doc I have read it a number of times (I know sad Ba*****d )and cant find anything positive to say about it , but if it is defeated where do we go from then I believe there should have been a number of options on the table not just this take it or leave it option.
P.S Does anybody feel that most clubs will spend more money than they can afford to try and reach the new Premiership.

A Face - people in the club only know whats in the document same as us, from the few I know.
pete - FAI having sole responsibilty doesen't actually mean anything. How will that in itself make the league better?
passerby - but thats not on, telling people vote for this because we've got a nice surprise for you! If its defeated we go back and redesign it.

Quote:

---

P.S Does anybody feel that most clubs will spend more money than they can afford to try and reach the new Premiership.

---

That depends on the club. Only the middle tier of teams need to really worry about this under the FAI proposals. Sligo and Dublin need good finishes in the premier to ensure premier survival, and Bray and Waterford may be vulnerable. Meanwhile Limerick may as well release their highly paid players in July as they've no hope of going up whether they win the first or not, and Athlone are in the same boat. Shamrock Rovers could let a fair number of their squad go and still probably get promoted due to their past record. The clubs with most incentive to spend are probably Harps (who may well go up with a top 2 finish) and especially Galway who really need to win the first. Bizarrely Harps cup performance this season to date means that we'll be ranked ahead of Galway this year even if we finish one place behind them, and if we were to get a decent run in the cup that may extent to a few more league spots.

Believe me boys and girls- this season is going to get very strange indeed before it finishes!

Oh and the proposal will be passed- the clubs are being railroaded into it- it's do this or f**k off is basically the FAI line.

What's the situation with Harps' new stadium these days?

It has been put out to tender, so the club is negotiating with the developers that are interested (and there's quite a few) in taking the project on. There's not much solid information as obviously all these talks take place behind closed doors. It's hard to say how long this phase will go on for- probably for another few months, but considering the stakes its well worth taking the time to hammer out the best possible deal.

I'm wondering where the FAI stands on this sort of thing. Harps, UCD, Derry and Shamrock Rovers all have nice long term plans for stadia but nothing concrete. Are these clubs going to be judged on current stadia or planned ones?

Quote:

---

Infrastructure- 100- Considerations here to include Safe-holding (min. 3,000)Unencumbered access – Ownership / long term lessee / no. covered seats / plans re infrastructure development etc

---

That's the FAI line on this. For one thing it only takes up 10% of the marks (more if you allow for the fact that the mark available for football are actually less than the 50% stated as it's impossible to get 0 on the sliding scale, but that's another discussion).

The only thing Harps are going to suffer on here is number of covered seats- and plans for development are specifically mentioned.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ronnie

Sorry to harp on about this but if noone can demonstrate how this will be an improvment then whywould a club go for it and why do the FAI think the clubs will go for it?

---

Clubs will be offered various carrots to ensure a sufficient majority to vote it through.

More prize money, First Division winners having a shot at a Setanta place etc.

The key benefit of the merger is an end to trying to run the league by committee. Clubs all vote for their own narrow interests currently, and that parochialism will always hold the league back. The league needs to be run by a small group of professional administrators who know what they are doing and have the balls to make the difficult decisions that Irish football needs to have made.

DCFC steve - I don't accept the good of footall arguement. If the league is only as strong as its weakest club then this proposal will not improve things.
This might improve the image of the league abroad, with more invested in the top clubs and possible more success in Europe but is that actually benefitting the league, if 2 or 3 pull away permanently is that better?
I agree that the committee consensus decision making needs to be reformed, just not like this.