I remember the 33 system a few years ago and that was a balls, forget about financial side, it give a unfair advantage to some clubs having more away games and possibly facing all the difficult teams away twice.
I remember the 33 system a few years ago and that was a balls, forget about financial side, it give a unfair advantage to some clubs having more away games and possibly facing all the difficult teams away twice.
I'm not arguing that. I'm saying the split is worse. WAY WAY worse.Quote:
Originally Posted by citybone
They used to have the league reverse the fixtures the following seaosn. So if in 2012 you played Rovers, Sligo, Derry, Pats and Bohs away twice, in 2013 you'd have all of them at home twice. Promoted clubs replace relegated clubs in that schedule obviously
You're just making it even more unfair. One less home game might be the difference between top 6 or not, and for that you'd give the same advantage the following year? The only way to do it is as it was previously done as Dodge has outlined. The split was, and would be, crap. Ultimately, the only way to level the playing field is to get it up to 16 teams and straight home and away.Quote:
Originally Posted by legendz
I'm not hugely in favour of regionalisation (unless part of a totally different approach of a totally regionalised league and a play off for the championship). If they want to reduce costs in the first, they should make fixtures Saturday or Sunday only unless agreed by the away team. Covering lost wages/ holidays is as much of an issue as travel costs, I would've thought.
Finally, I don't see the issue with deciding the numbers in the first later.
I would rather a 12 team 33 game league than a 16 team league. We don't have enough players to make 16 competitive teams, it would just increase the amount of hammerings every year and make the 1st division unviable. I am totally against 16 team leagueQuote:
Originally Posted by Macy
Cork have experience of the 33 system from the First Division '10. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by citybone
I must have imagined the PFAI giving out about the numbers of players without clubs... That not enough players bs was what was used to justify a 10 team league, but sure why not make it 6 teams and condense the players even more?Quote:
Originally Posted by citybone
Viability of the first would depend on the numbers in it. If all applicants get in, then 16 team and a viable first is possible.
I do I know I can afford my season ticket at ChristmasQuote:
Originally Posted by Macy
Hope the fixtures for next season come out as early as they did last year (Dec 23rd)
And I hope that that's the only set of fixtures this year.Quote:
Originally Posted by sligoman
It's a matter of opinion I suppose. I'd see it as fair reward for finishing in the top half but if that's not the view of many fair enough. It's the right decision not to announce first division numbers yet when the deadline for clubs applications is still a few days away. What's the plan going forward, will there be a meeting of the 21 clubs regards the applications of the 5 clubs?Quote:
Originally Posted by Macy
The saying in football 'well its the same for both teams' is thrown out the window with this system imo. Playing a team home or away twice is a massive advantage or disadvantage. It means that a title is being infleunced by factors off the pitch, which is bull.
The clubs have agreed to it though! We can discuss it forever but it seems to be what the clubs want.Quote:
Originally Posted by redobit
Clubs are expected to have budgets submitted in December.Quote:
Originally Posted by Macy
Budgets based on their levels of income and expenditure over the next twelve months.
Levels which they will be forced in some cases to take a wild guess at.
Id say it was more the case that the clubs wanted change, a change from the 4 league games against a team in one season. Its hard not agree to it when it's the only option being put forward - clubs didnt have to vote on it anyway (that I know of) so its hard to know exactly who wanted.Quote:
Originally Posted by legendz
In our case, 1999 was the last year we had the same team on the last day of the season, as the year before.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dodge
Didn't affect Cork too much this year, or in 2005.Quote:
Originally Posted by redobit
Everyone plays the same team 3 times and starts on 0 points. If you win enough games, you get what you want at the end of the year. If you don't, you won't. Nobody complains if they get drawn away in a cup 3 times and their opponents get drawn at home 3 times, it still has to be won and lost on the pitch.
My concern is that again the season is crammed into 8 months, harming our and/or someone else's European campaign, should progress be made.
I'd agree with that. I'd like to see the season extend by about a month, by starting about 2 weeks earlier and finishing 2 weeks later. The clubs probably have issues with that though to do with the contracts they offer. Surely if a good number of clubs wanted it, they could lobby the FAI? If it's harming clubs progress in Europe if progress is being made, there'll have to be call for change?Quote:
Originally Posted by mypost
With the June break, it would appear we are looking at more midweek games then seen as the season is still ending on the same weekend as this year
3 less games though??Quote:
Originally Posted by gufc2000
I don't see why extending the season should cost clubs more. You've got the same budget for the season, you just split it over nine months instead of eight. Everyone's in the same boat. A player who might have earned 450 a week over eight months will now be offered 400 a week over nine months. Spreading it out means less of the horrendous Monday night games with attendances chopped in half.
Well it matters to the players. They still need to be bringing in a certain amount of money a week. If they're going to be collecting social welfare while they're unemployed, it's in their interests that the season is as short as possible so they can get their full three months dole, otherwise they'll be asking the clubs for more money (that they don't have). Given that wages are the major expenditure for all clubs, it's in the clubs' interests too to have the season as short as is manageable.
Yeah, would agree. Particularly re Euro games, the congestion is a bit manic and counter-productive, re over-stretching playing resources and mid-week and Monday games.Quote:
Originally Posted by seand
Point re players signing on -- how many teams have full-time pros. IE aren't many of them working and playing - particularly in First Division?
Off-Season, even if the players were 'working' ie playing with the club, training whatever, for one or two days a week with club, would they not still get a few squids at dole?
Unemployed?? The vast majority are part-time players and the majority of those have jobs outside of football.Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlie Darwin
The clubs don't want to pay them an extra week or two's wages, that's why it's as short as possible. That's fine if you finish your season on the last league night. Not so fine if you, as we are this year, playing into November and December.
Narrow-minded focus again. :rolleyes:
A fairly complicated piece of biz i believe.Some clubs wont produce p45's/p60's until the SW or tax crowd give them a severe nudge or a warning !Quote:
Originally Posted by shellyriver
It was always going to happen some time that a club would wind up in Rovers position playing football up until December after an early finish to the season. Did Rovers have to extend contracts as some players who would've been on 42 weeks contracts? If it becomes the norm that one or two clubs are involved in the group stages, extending the season is something I'm sure that will have to be reviewed? It does seem to be in the clubs' interests to have the season as short as is manageable at the moment but that can always change.
I can only speak for LTFC over the years bit I don't think we've ever agreed to pay loss of earnings to players even when we were spending proper money. They worked around games and training, though I'm sure there were convenient illnesses that caused them to miss the odd day of work.Quote:
Originally Posted by Macy
My heart bleeds for ya... such tripe mypost.Quote:
Originally Posted by mypost
This makes sense and is about the fairest way to deal with an uneven number of games. But it hasn't been used the past couple of seasons in the First Division anyway; we've had Shels away twice this year and last.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dodge
As for number of teams, I'm not gone on a 16-team league at all - Scotland has a much stronger football infrastructure than us and they make do with a 12 team premier division. I'm not convinced it would actually bring up the overall level of clubs or generate more interest; the locals in Tralee or Wexford will get bored quick of watching their side get hockeyed by Shamrock Rovers once the novelty wears off. And as has been said, maintaining a viable First Division (hence promotion/relegation) would be difficult.
Yup, the fixtures last year where supposed to be reversed in the first division but weren't. A lot of clubs based their season tickets last season on the reverse of fixtures but it didn't happen. We should have had Finn Harps and Mons at home twice last season but we didn't.
Thats a valid point. We had a few important games on stupid Tuesdays etc this year and they could have big gates for the home team. In the first where its nearly a cert that all players are part time it proves very difficult. This needs to change.Quote:
Originally Posted by mypost
I wanted to get back to you on this point without getting too into what's been done in other leagues. There is away within 22 and 33 games to bring more fairness different to my original suggestion. After the first two series, the third series should be played out based on the pairing determinations below from where clubs are after 22 games.Quote:
Originally Posted by Macy
http://i201.photobucket.com/albums/a...l/ml241111.jpg
It does give a level playing field. Every club will have played each other home and away one in the first two rounds. The table at that stage will determine the clubs getting the extra home game for the last round of games. If this is not acceptible, I guess the only alternative is as suggested by Dodge i.e. how the premier was when it was 12 before and as how the first division was run with 12 over recent years.
There's 3 less league games this year so thats 3 less midwek games you'd imagine.Quote:
Originally Posted by A face
The pint about european progress is bunkum though
I thought it was an issue towards the end of the 2010 season - we were asking clubs to switch our away games to a saturday (feck all did, so we switched to a Friday too).Quote:
Originally Posted by Longfordian
Legendz - the only way, imo, is how it was done before. However, it was extremely rare for a team with extra away game to win the league (Pats did it once, not sure whether anyone else managed it)
I think it was an issue in that some players were getting a bit of grief at work but as far as I'm aware they didn't get any extra money.
Less midweek games? They only had to play 30 games last year and still had Tuesday games. There will still be midweek games, especially in the first half of the season, with a longer summer break than normal likely.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dodge
Whoever makes European progress is going to be faced with 8-9 games in September and October, if they're still going in the cup competitions as well.
The last time the top league had 33 games, it finished in mid-November. That's how long it should last now.
The first 33-match League was in 1987-88 and there have been 16 such seasons in total.
Teams that won a 33-game league with 16 home matches; 1990-91 Dundalk; 1996-97 Derry ; 1997-98 St Patrick’s Ath; 1999-00 Shelbourne;
2000-01 Bohemians; 2001-02 Shelbourne.
I haven’t got the records for 33-game leagues since then, 2005, 2007 and 2008.
But there's no evidence that winning the 'fixtures raffle' offers any advantage.
So the rich get richer. I think that's an awful idea. Better having it randomised then guaranteeing that Derry and Shams and whoever else will be in the top 6 getting an extra games revenue each seasonQuote:
Originally Posted by legendz
Yeah, and we could get rid of the idea of prize money and just split it 12 ways. No point in rewarding teams who finish higher in the table. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Nah Nah Nah Nah
Update on 16-match League winners.
The first 33-match League was in 1987-88 and there have been 16 such seasons in total.
Teams that won a 33-game league with 16 home matches; 1990-91 Dundalk; 1996-97 Derry ; 1997-98 St Patrick’s Ath; 1999-00 Shelbourne; 2000-01 Bohemians; 2001-02 Shelbourne.; 2005 Cork; 2007 Drogheda; 2008 Bohenians.
That makes 9 Leagues from 16 were won by a team playing 16 home games and 17 aways.
I have lost track of the many reasons offered by managers for their failure to win the league—dodgy referees, blind linesmen, penny-pinching boards, bog pitches, yes all that and more, but never a lob-sided fixture list. And only a Damian Richardson or maybe a Roddy Collins would even try that one on!
Fair enough, although Shels didn't win 02 (on the pitch), no idea which way Pats fixtures fell.Quote:
Originally Posted by orielabu
You can add Pat Dolan to that list, he once accused the FAI of an anti-Cork bias due to away games to our rivals...Quote:
Originally Posted by orielabu