Dassa, aside from Linfield and Glens what clubs are big enough up north to be competitive in a 12 team all island league?
Printable View
Dassa, aside from Linfield and Glens what clubs are big enough up north to be competitive in a 12 team all island league?
well people talk about future potential of D,Celtic. so in the long term them, also a competitive Portadown side would be ambitous enough and also Ballymena, possibly Glenavon(one of the nicest stadiums for irish football, pity about the team on the pitch for their fans)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dassa
For all the talk about DC I gather their spectator facilities are nil so their potential may be overstated, even if they are promoted.
A ground share with Cliftonville may not be the answer, especially if Cville think they may lose fans to DC.
Although it's not exactly scientific, I suppose it comes from (a) listening to the IL fans on the Irish League Forum and (b) my own judgement coming from looking at the Setanta Cup. I really thought Glentoran would do a lot better this year as I thought Portadown would. Neither were at the races and this despite playing our teams who had barely started our own season and them with 3/4's of a season behind them.Quote:
Originally Posted by superfrank
I suppose I was more making the point that there would most likely be more teams from the Republic in an All Ireland Premier League than there would teams from the North. At a guess a 16 team AIL could be made up of the following teams (in no particular order);
Bohs
Cork
Drogheda
Shels
Pats
Derry
Longford
Sligo
Waterford
Bray
Linfield
Glentoran
Portadown
Dungannon
Cliftonville
Newry
Anyway don't be offended if your team isn't here, I don't feel too strongly if it's Bray or UCD to be honest or Dublin City or Shamrock Rovers.
Our participation in the MSC is more to stay well in with our landlords.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poor Student
Plus to give them a decent gate for the final. At least there would be if Cobh didn't lose to MSL teams in the semis every year:D
Dc have had three years in the 1st division to bring their ground up to standard. I know clubs like Loughgall and Armagh who have got up have poor enough grounds however they are still substancially better than that on offer at DC. DC seem to be using the notion that they want put the effort into their ground until assured promotiom and this leaves it to late to sort it out before season starts, shortsighted on their behalf? possibly.Quote:
Originally Posted by paudie
As for Cliftonville groundsharing, not sure. They are a very good club in terms of helping others out (Ards). But could their pitch take that sort of action?
That's reasonable enough. Falkirk had the same problem in Scotland. The money could only be set aside if they were guaranteed promotion to offset the expenditure, yet the deadline for the critera was before promotion could be guaranteed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dassa
There's only been four teams from the North in the Setanta Cup: Linfield, Glentoran, Portadown and Dungannon. There's only been five teams from the Republic: Cork, Shels, Drogs, Longford and Derry.Quote:
Originally Posted by CharlesThompson
You can't compare both leagues when only 9 teams out of 38+ (I don't know how much teams are in the Irish First Division) play each other in competitive matches.
[QUOTE=superfrank There's only been five teams from the Republic: Cork, Shels, Drogs, Longford and Derry.
[/QUOTE]
a one man border commission!
Very irredentist too. He's annexed territories from both Northern Ireland and the People's Republic of Cork.;)Quote:
Originally Posted by sonofstan
AI league aside what would most people see as the right number for EL
10
12
14
16
You're probably right, but the fact that the four teams from the eL were a damn site better than the bulk of the 4 sides from the IL which in all honesty is thin at the top in terms of quality, would allow one come to a general conclusion that the eL clubs in general are better than the IL Clubs as was proved this year. Admittedly, this is not an exact science, but nobody has hard facts on this assumption, but it is my view.Quote:
Originally Posted by superfrank
12 is about right I think. Playing everyone 4 times is too much IMO and I don't think there's enough quality to have any more than 12 unfortunately. Ideally, I'd like 16, playing everyone twice but there certainly aren't enough good teams for that now (if ever).Quote:
Originally Posted by Dassa
Anopther to remember is that clubs want as many game as possible (clubs, not managers) as it means more income. They're unlikely to want 3/6 less games