That's why I said 'I' and not everyone;)Quote:
Originally Posted by micls
Printable View
That's why I said 'I' and not everyone;)Quote:
Originally Posted by micls
You did, and at first tried to say that the situation would be no different. Finally you admitted that it would be more difficult for the "smaller" clubs to compete. Then you argued that the "smaller" clubs are so far behind that a little extra difficulty won't have an effect, so the "smaller" clubs shouldn't even worry about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by OneRedArmy
While that may apply to you, there are plenty of posters on here who have done what DeManetc said and based their decision not to support the proposals on an objective appraisal, something which your appraisal clearly was not.Quote:
Originally Posted by OneRedArmy
Apart from micls, there hasn't been one poster who has even seriously attempted to show why the proposed AIL isn't a bad thing for "smaller" clubs.
A lot of fans are against it because it isn't fair towards every club. I'd feel the same way even if Limerick were invited. (easy to say, I know, you'll just have to trust me)Quote:
Originally Posted by micls
I'd wager you're right. But I'd also wager that the FAI will show far more concern for the "smaller" clubs among the eL than a new business consortium will. I think the views of the fans of clubs not invited are closer to being aligned with what's good for the league as a whole than the views of fans of clubs invited.Quote:
Originally Posted by micls
if by "good for the league" you mean "holds the pro clubs back so the part timers get to have some nice days out every now and again".
Gavin, here's a post of mine from 4 pages ago on this thread, in response to a simiar "holding the top clubs back to help the stragglers" point of view.Quote:
Originally Posted by GavinZac
There are a couple of parts I'd like to stress.Quote:
Originally Posted by osarusan
You (or anybody else, to the best of my memory) haven't disputed the contents of the second paragraph. It is simply unfair to give money to clubs at the expense of others.Quote:
But this gap in quality has happened naturally, it has happened from the starting point of a level playing field. I have no problem with that.
Under the proposed AIL structure, it appears that lots of money would be given to the top clubs to improve further, while little to none would be given to the clubs at lower levels. When a club is relegated, they are to be given "parachute money" to allow them cope in the lower league, and, I assume, to help them get promoted again as quickly as possible. This is not a level playing field. The gap in quality is being artificially widened. Even the supporters of an AIL (in its current format) have admitted that.
What I don't want, and what the fans of "smaller teams" don't want is the implementation of a system which favours bigger clubs at the expense of smaller clubs.
This is what I want, and this is all I want. Fairness. It is surely not unreasonable to ask. But it is something that the proposed AIL structure won't provide.Quote:
It is not a case of the FAI holding the big clubs back, and helping the others to catch up - it is a case of ensuring that whatever progress made by any club is done fairly.
But Gavin, you have continually tried to portray this desire for fairness as begrudgery -
My reply -Quote:
Originally Posted by GavinZac
Looking at my last paragraph again -Quote:
Originally Posted by osarusan
Again, nobody has argued with this view.Quote:
Creating a situation which allows the gap between the AIL premier division teans and the rest to widen does not, in my opinion, improve the quality of football on the island. It will improve the quality of a minority of clubs, while the quality of the majority of clubs, and the means by which to improve their quality, will be reduced.
Why are you so surprised or bothered that fans of smaller clubs are against a the implementation of a system which is openly biased against us, which will make it more difficult for us to improve in the future because of financial aid to bigger clubs, and which will not be beneficial, in general, to football on the island?
Fairness is in the eye of the beholder. Your view of fairness is subjective and is based on your supporting a "small" team.Quote:
Originally Posted by osarusan
Look at it from a slightly different point of view. I support a team which I, and lots of other fans, invest a lot of money funding, and time running and supporting. Why on earth is it "fair" that my team should be held back from receiving the rewards of this work by other clubs who, for whatever reason, cannot match that level of effort?
We can argue all day and night whether football should be run in a socialist manner, but I can't see a way to grow the game quickly enough where all parties benefit equally. You are looking for some kind of utopia which doesn't exist.
Lots of people at lots of 'small' clubs invest a lot of their own money and time running and supporting their club - probably more than ye 'big' club fella's.Quote:
I support a team which I, and lots of other fans, invest a lot of money funding, and time running and supporting.
Don't doubt that, but not enough of them do it. Thats why they are small.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redie
First - the comments in your most recent post, which I've highlighted in bold - the rewards for your efforts are that you have a better team than we do, you have bigger crowds than we do, you are in the top division, you play in Europe, you win prize money....while we do none of these things. You've made more effort as a club, and you're in a better position as a result - to this I said -Quote:
Originally Posted by OneRedArmy
My point is that under the current system, Derry's, and other clubs' progress was made through their own efforts. They improved their own quality under a governing body which was fair to every club.Quote:
Originally Posted by osarusan
The problem I have is that under the proposed AIL structure, the governing body itself will be biased towards the better and more profitable teams. That simply isn't fair.
A post of yours from earlier in this thread -
In this case, fairness is not subjective. You, as admitted by you, have no pretense of even trying to be fair.Quote:
Originally Posted by OneRedArmy
You seem to be perfectly happy for your club to benefit even though the governing body is not being impartial.
I want the governing body to be impartial and unbiased towards every club, and let the clubs continue to progress at the rates they are currently.
Where above have I argued with this point??Quote:
Originally Posted by OneRedArmy
There are of course many reasons for the "lack of support for senior football in the city"
My objection was to the implication that Limerick are some kind of special case that will never garner support.
By the By attendance figures would seem to suggest the Limerick public are not much more apathetic than the Dublin public.
Herein lies the problem. This is fundamentally a lowest common denominator approach and therefore appeals to the smaller clubs.Quote:
Originally Posted by osarusan
I genuinely don't see why it is??Quote:
Originally Posted by OneRedArmy
Osarusan, God love you patience, but you're wasting your time repeating your reasoned arguments on these people, rest assured that the rest of us agree with you :)
You don't see why funding shouldn't always be distributed on a pro-rata basis?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lim till i die
Well, as I understand it, the moneymen behind the AIL are only interested in a limited field of "big" names. They have no interest in the lower tier as sponsors and TV have no interest in this. What this broadly means is that the wider market has no interest in teams outside of the top tier. Therefore funding teams outside the top tier is an artificial redistribution of income taking money away from the top teams.
What I repeated said above is that this doesn't actually happen at the minute (except for the odd occasion when a smaller club gets a big cup draw).
Quote:
Originally Posted by osarusan
The opposite to my above post is that the governing body is biased towards certain clubs and actively helps some clubs progress faster than they have been, while hindering the progress of others by ignoring them.Quote:
Originally Posted by OneRedArmy
Is that what you want? Are you happy with this premise as the system under which the AIL will be run?
The rest of who?Quote:
Originally Posted by jebus
Personally, when I'm in disgreement with you, I generally feel I'm going in the right direction.
If thats what it takes to bring about a sustainable professional league (and thats a big if) then yes, I won't lose much sleep that it will make it tougher for clubs currently in the lower divisions to break into the top tier.Quote:
Originally Posted by osarusan
The alternative that you suggest holds little attraction for sponsors and therefore is the utopia that I mentioned earlier. I would also query what progress would be hindered? Is there really progress being made?
The equitable solution you are suggesting would work only if money was chanelled through the FAI and as this wouldn't be attractive from a sponsorship point of view, would have to be supplemented by public money, which is highly unlikely to ever get off the ground.
Capitalism is fundamentally unfair in its Darwinian approach to picking out winners and losers, and being realistic, there is probably a fairly sizeable chance the whole thing will go tits up anyway. So maybe you will get the last laugh.
But at least someone is trying to raise the bar.
Originally Posted by OneRedArmy
Well how come RTE showed Athlone v Finn Harps live last seasonQuote:
They have no interest in the lower tier as sponsors and TV have no interest in this.
If the professional league consists of a few chosen clubs who are being given funds by a governing body out for profit at the expense of clubs who don't fit their plans, I wouldn't say it is definitely "sustainable".Quote:
Originally Posted by OneRedArmy
For some, not all.Quote:
Originally Posted by OneRedArmy
Right back at you champQuote:
Originally Posted by OneRedArmy
Right then I assume when Limerick next win a trophy, you'll be all in favour of dividing the prize money out equally.Quote:
Originally Posted by osarusan
Because its tiring, its like arguing with a creationist who isn't making a lick of sense but who has it very much in his interest to stick to his guns lest his values, and the time and money he has put into sustaining them, come crumbling apart.Quote:
Again, nobody has argued with this view.
Of course I can see your argument, but its pretty damn flawed. Would you consider the current "cascading" of prize money unfair? I mean, the top clubs get far more than the bottom ones; that's perpetuating and making the gap between the clubs larger. Unfair! Right? So essentially you must also not want that to continue, and certainly not with 4 clubs inserted above you. Which is, of course, nonsense because football is competitive and selfish and always has and always will be. I'd imagine you'd have the same begrudging response if 4 of the clubs below you (were there 4 clubs below you last season?) received massive external investment and moved you 4 rungs down the ladder in a similar fashion.