eL "relaunch" - Questions for those against

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

30/01/2006, 1:08 PM
pineapple stu

Allow me to correct you so -

The Irish Times notes that UCD, Dublin City, Monaghan and Waterford abstained, which would mean Bray did vote for.

Drogheda have about 200 seats. In last year's Premier, Harps and Rovers had 200-ish and none.

I'll leabe you to do some research on UCD's new ground proposals so you can contribute meaningfully to that debate. As Bald Student said, it's been covered here plenty of times before.
30/01/2006, 1:43 PM
OneRedArmy

Quote:

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

Allow me to correct you so -

The Irish Times notes that UCD, Dublin City, Monaghan and Waterford abstained, which would mean Bray did vote for.

Drogheda have about 200 seats. In last year's Premier, Harps and Rovers had 200-ish and none.

I'll leabe you to do some research on UCD's new ground proposals so you can contribute meaningfully to that debate. As Bald Student said, it's been covered here plenty of times before.

Sorry, I'd assumed Drogheda's ground plans were so concrete (ie ready for season 2007 as we were told) that they would have more than 800 seats by the time the requirements were implemented.

Also the Indo indicated that Bray and Kilkenny abstained along with UCD and Dublin City, apologies if this is incorrect.

I look forward to reading UCD's ground plans for the Bowl. Where is the thread referred to?

PS the last time I was in Dalymount to see Rovers they had lots of seats and they will have plenty this year as well in Tolka. Remember, ground-sharing is the way forward.
30/01/2006, 1:45 PM
Bald Student

On a side point,
Would UCD and DCFC keep their place in the premier if they played out of one of the other club's grounds?
30/01/2006, 1:54 PM
Bald Student

Quote:

Originally Posted by OneRedArmy

I look forward to reading UCD's ground plans for the Bowl. Where is the thread referred to?

Mullet gave an outline of the situation here: http://www.foot.ie/showpost.php?p=426701&postcount=172

in this thread: http://www.foot.ie/showthread.php?t=33069&page=9
30/01/2006, 1:55 PM
OneRedArmy

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bald Student

On a side point,
Would UCD and DCFC keep their place in the premier if they played out of one of the other club's grounds?

If the ground met the infrastructure and other requirements then, unless some kind of geographic limit is introduced, I don't see why not.

However, in reality it looks like DC will be homeless when Tolka is sold and Shels go to Dalyer. So DC would have to move into UCD. Just can't see that happening.
30/01/2006, 2:00 PM
pineapple stu

Quote:

Originally Posted by OneRedArmy

Also the Indo indicated that Bray and Kilkenny abstained along with UCD and Dublin City, apologies if this is incorrect.

Strange - Ireland on Sunday said UCD, Monaghan, Kilkenny and DC. Irish Times said UCD, Monaghan, DC and Waterford. I would have thought Bray would have abstained. Now I don't know.

Quote:

Originally Posted by OneRedArmy

PS the last time I was in Dalymount to see Rovers they had lots of seats and they will have plenty this year as well in Tolka. Remember, ground-sharing is the way forward.

But by the same logic you knock Dublin City, Rovers will have no long-term option once Shels and Bohs move in (which I don't think will happen, but that's another issue. Unless you're counting Tallaght, in which case, you'll have to count Belfield Bowl as well.
30/01/2006, 2:00 PM
Bald Student

Quote:

Originally Posted by OneRedArmy

unless some kind of geographic limit is introduced, I don't see why not.

Do you think that some kind of a geography limit should be introduced?
30/01/2006, 2:06 PM
JC_GUFC

Quote:

Originally Posted by BohsFan

This is ******** and I am tired of Galyway fans hiding behind Dellaney's pinny. Galway may get up but they will go back down again. I don't care how nice a city Galway is and how promising it's location, Galway (under its various names) have been minnows right from the start. I remember them and Thurles Town being anchoured to the bottom of the table, in the days when they could continually survive in the top flight by virtue of there being no second flight. **** all use that safety net was in encouraging progress.

Unless the FAI have a plan to keep the likes of Galway on some top flight life support indefinitely then Darwinism will scythe them down again. Despite what Delaney and Genesis think you can't alter the DNA of the soccer supporting public in this way.

If the so called weaker clubs are to be strong armed out of the league then let it be to make way for top class clubs like Glentoran, Linfield, Portadown etc, not some minnows like Galway. That is how strong league are made, by having the best clubs.

What are you on about?! We've only ever had 2 "guises" as you like to call it - we were called Galway Rovers when we first joined the league - and apart from Derry City all new teams to the league have struggled.

In the last few season's we've been poor and were embarassingly bad the last time we got promoted but that was to do with off the field problems(Bohs would know nothing about that!), we actually had a decent end to that season but were so far off there was no way we could survive.

The club has now been restructured, as recommended by the Genesis report, and is ambitious, similar to the situation Drogheda were in about 4 years ago.

No-one is saying we should automatically be in the Premier Division and I would be against us going up should we not finish in the top 2 this season but we have one of the strongest squads in the division and should be in the top 2! Then you'll be able to come to Galway and admire how nice a city it is compared to the slum you're from.
30/01/2006, 2:21 PM
OneRedArmy

Quote:

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

But by the same logic you knock Dublin City, Rovers will have no long-term option once Shels and Bohs move in (which I don't think will happen, but that's another issue. Unless you're counting Tallaght, in which case, you'll have to count Belfield Bowl as well.

I am taking it at face value that Tallaght will be ready to occupy, or close to by season 07 and similarly the Bowl.

I would imagine however that enhanced infrastructure requirements will form part of the Premier division application at the end of this season (eg 3,000 seats with 5,000 in 3 years or something similar). Put simply, the Bowl proposals referred to above (1,500 seats) are simply aimed at minimum existing standards.

I'm not victimising UCD, for example if Derry don't secure ownership of their ground soon the Council has indicated that they don't have major investment plans, therefore we would been in severe trouble with no possibility of acquiring land for greenfield development.
30/01/2006, 2:28 PM
Bald Student

There's a seperate problem with that, OneRedArmy. UCD, like all clubs are ment to under the licencing, have plans to meet the current requirement. It is unreasonable to change an infrastructure requirement in June and expect clubs to be ready in March. Building stadiums takes longer than that.
30/01/2006, 2:31 PM
Dodge

especially when they make them have minimum standards and expect the club to pay for all of it
30/01/2006, 2:50 PM
OneRedArmy

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bald Student

There's a seperate problem with that, OneRedArmy. UCD, like all clubs are ment to under the licencing, have plans to meet the current requirement. It is unreasonable to change an infrastructure requirement in June and expect clubs to be ready in March. Building stadiums takes longer than that.

No real objections to that. As long as "plans" are binding and legally signed off by clubs.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dodge

especially when they make them have minimum standards and expect the club to pay for all of it

Grant money has generally been made available for a percentage of the work and I don't see what the problem is for clubs to pay for most of the work? That surely incentivises clubs with a growth agenda? Matched funding or similar is common the world over.
30/01/2006, 3:17 PM
Dodge

The problem is that clubs are broke and CANNOT pay for it...
30/01/2006, 3:24 PM
OneRedArmy

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dodge

The problem is that clubs are broke and CANNOT pay for it...

................because they've been paying too much of their revenue on wages.

Hence the need for licensing and other long-term planning as most clubs are unwilling to move from a short-term point of view.
30/01/2006, 6:05 PM
pete

The "stand" in Belfield is glorified bleechers & has dubious safety. Other than that there are no terraces & just more open bleecher seats. belfield does need large capacity but it does need a proper stand & terraces.
30/01/2006, 6:36 PM
pineapple stu

Quote:

Originally Posted by OneRedArmy

I would imagine however that enhanced infrastructure requirements will form part of the Premier division application at the end of this season (eg 3,000 seats with 5,000 in 3 years or something similar).

I wouldn't be too sure about that. For a start, with the Premier Division average around 2,000, most clubs don't need 5,000 seats. Those that on occasion do - Bohs, Shels, Cork mainly - already have 5,000 seats. Secondly, unneccessarily forcing clubs to keep adding seats will take money away from improving the team and will lead to a weaker league, not a stronger one.

The Belfield Bowl specs are indeed minimum UEFA Licence requirements. I don't see a problem with that. It suits our requirements, and if you are to suggest that the specs aren't good enough, then that's an issue for UEFA Licencing, not us.

Thank you Pete for the pointless dig at UCD. You may ask Derry fans just how safe the stand is when there were 400-odd of them bouncing up and down in it during the League Cup Final. "The strongest wee stand in Ireland" was how it was described on their forum, in fact.
30/01/2006, 6:46 PM
Bald Student

Quote:

Originally Posted by OneRedArmy

Hence the need for licensing and other long-term planning as most clubs are unwilling to move from a short-term point of view.

That's it exactly. Long term planning does not involve setting the league format a month before the season starts or deciding next June which clubs will be in the premier in 2007 and what the criteria are. Two years ago the clubs were told that 1,500 covered seats would be the infrastructure standard set for the premier, along with the various other off the field requirements.

The goalposts are now being moved and at very short notice.
30/01/2006, 7:24 PM
OneRedArmy

Quote:

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

I wouldn't be too sure about that. For a start, with the Premier Division average around 2,000, most clubs don't need 5,000 seats. Those that on occasion do - Bohs, Shels, Cork mainly - already have 5,000 seats. Secondly, unneccessarily forcing clubs to keep adding seats will take money away from improving the team and will lead to a weaker league, not a stronger one.

The Belfield Bowl specs are indeed minimum UEFA Licence requirements. I don't see a problem with that. It suits our requirements, and if you are to suggest that the specs aren't good enough, then that's an issue for UEFA Licencing, not us..

I think you are mis-interpretating UEFA licensing. UEFA licensing is a set of minimum standard that national associations are free to set superequivalence over.

And given that growth of domestic soccer attendance is one of the goals, surely setting future requirements higher than currently is a must, to allow for growth in attendance? Otherwise we are admitting that attendances will never improve.

And as for infrastructure requirements reducing on pitch standards due to diverting wages to improving stadia? Thats only true if revenue doesn't increase.

The only clubs that have something to fear are those that are close to or are maximising their revenue & therefore potential based on current rules (or lack theirin). Those clubs that have little chance of improving attendances regardless of investment & whose interests are best served by other clubs not growing.

The saying goes that a rising tide lifts all boats, but in the case of the EL there are a few clubs who would capsize on the rising tide.
30/01/2006, 7:35 PM
pineapple stu

I'm aware that UEFA Licencing is merely a minimum requirement. However, I don't see the need for raising the tide quite as quickly as you have suggested. Obviously if crowds rise to 10,000, we'll need to have done sometihng about the grounds. But if all the money is spent on improving facilities to what we hope we'll need in 20 years, you're going to be left with poor teams playing in brilliant grounds no-one wants to watch.

For the record, there's no reason why UCD (as you asked) couldn't increase the capacity of the Bowl to, say, 3000 given sufficient notice and grant assistance. Same as for any club.
30/01/2006, 7:50 PM
Bald Student

A Radical Proposal

Quote:

Originally Posted by OneRedArmy

The saying goes that a rising tide lifts all boats, but in the case of the EL there are a few clubs who would capsize on the rising tide.

What we need is some kind of mechanism to seperate the two types of clubs. I propose that each club playes a series of 30 to 40 games against their rivals on a round robin basis. The clubs which do poorly in this competition could me moved to a lower league to be replaced by clubs which did well in the league immediatly below.

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page