Originally Posted by
Macy
From a Premier Division club point of view it's bad, as the repetitive nature does take it's toll in terms of quality of football and attendance. Most leagues have moved away from this format towards a larger league. The logic that it will create 10 top professional clubs automatically is flawed imo.
Obviously for the First Division clubs that would be near the top, it's also a bad thing. They miss out on the big gates that they would get from the top teams, which obviously impacts on budgets and the wider quality. Too many clubs in the first are realistically out of the promotion hunt from the very start of the division. It also encourages too much unsustainable chasing of the automatic promotion spot.
Ideally, I would like to see a 16 team league, with relegation/ promotion out of either a first or regional leagus. But as ever, I'd prefer to see decisions made on a measurable basis. We're essentially going for a 10 team league based on a whim, and if clubs "feel" it isn't working we'll change it to something else on a whim too. In the last few years we've had 10 team league, 12 team, and now back to a 10. We've had the move to summer football. None of them gave measurable targets as to what they would achieve, so we've no way of knowing one way or another.
Are the crap attendances (which are contributing to the financial problems) because of the league format or because of summer football - or has the FAI (or club promotion officers) ever bothered their hole to properly research it to find out. Has what needs to be changed to attract more people ever been researched? Has other, more initative formats ever been investigated and researched? I think we know the answer.