Printable View
- Edit - I have seen how this type of system has been done here in Belgium, and it seems to have transformed interest in an otherwise dying league system, something similar was tried in Holland with varying degrees of sucess - I think its something the FAI should take a close look at.
What's the problem?Quote:
Originally Posted by peadar1987
Would we be the only country in Europe not to send its cup winner into Europe? In fact, I have a hunch it's a UEFA requirement.Quote:
Originally Posted by Real ale Madrid
Presumably other countries get around teams intentionaally tanking to get a better shot of Europe by paying decent prize money based on league finishing positions?
So 4th gets you a fair bit more than 5th, with Europa League money not being that big a carrot for them?
In our case, the financial rewards of Europe way, way outstrip the difference in prize money for 1/2 league positions, so that could be a stumbling block
Its a UEFA requirement that the Cup is a european qualifier. And even if it wasn't I'd hate to see that removed
Well I think something along those lines would be more beneficial.Quote:
Originally Posted by Real ale Madrid
The model I prefer is a two conference system - north/ south, with Dublin carved up as necessary, which would reduce travel and maintain most derbies, and hopefully make it more attractive for clubs to want to join the league. It would also remove some of the financial temptations off clubs trying earn promotion/ avoid relegation.
Home and Away within the conference, and then an interconference series of games which would be home or away on a seasonal rotation (like the 3rd series in a 12 team league). That'd give 13 or 14 regular season games. And then play off's for Championship (Top 2 from each Conference) and then whole way down for the "trophy" (3rd and 4th from each), "Shield" (5th and 6th from each), "Plate" (7th and 8th from each). One massive finals day in Lansdowne for all the cups. 9th and 10th could play off for relegation if that was an option, which it might be with a regionalised structure but more realistically missing out on the play offs, and having play offs down as far as 8th place would maintain the incentive.
Play the FAI Cup off early season with a view to June Bank Holiday weekend Final.
Cup Winners Cup always rated higher than the UEFA Cup (if a team qualified for both they went into the CWC), so only right too!Quote:
Originally Posted by Dodge
Interesting model Macy, somewhat similar to American football/ baseball idea except conferences based on geography. Possibly worth consideration but I would like the FAI Cup to be an all Ireland cup (FAI context) to allow trips to opposite/different juristictionQuote:
Originally Posted by Macy
Would cut down on travel costs and while I think longer term a single geographical entity preferable it might do on a temporary basis.
I like that idea tooQuote:
Originally Posted by Macy
- its great that the debate is becoming more radical in terms of thinking - rather than weighing up a 10 or 12 team premier. I can't think of anything worse than all 19/20 teams in the 1 league with no relegation - I can't for the life of me see how that would be benefical in the long run.
It's just that's a lot of cups to introduce! People might see it as a bit of a gimmick, which I suppose it is!Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlie Darwin
I think it would add to the sense of occasion if games in the second half of the season had something riding on them other than the difference between 14th and 13th, the chance of Wexford wrestling back the Diagonal Classic Trophy from Finn Harps for the first time in five seasons or something, but would simply trying to attach meaning to something that's already sort of a thing really work? Maybe it could also be a way of getting some more minor sponsorship from local businesses, "The North-West Derby Shield, sponsored by Donegal Creameries".
Okay, so the bigger clubs wouldn't particularly care about winning their tie against Mervue, but they're not really who the idea is aimed at, because usually, by the end of the season, they'd be competing for titles and European places.
Well, yeah, maybe the First alright. Thought you meant the LoI overall.Quote:
Originally Posted by Real ale Madrid
This is not true, though. There's been 10-team and 12-team leagues. There's been a big division of 16 teams. Format-wise, there's been a top-half bottom-half split (not too far removed from the idea of play-offs). There's been a 4-3-2-1 points system, with bonuses for away results. The League Cup and First Division Shield have been used as season openers. There's been lots of tinkering. I don't see any reason to suggest your proposals would have any effect either. It's all along the same lines.Quote:
Originally Posted by Real ale Madrid
Obvious solution is to have each club competing for one trophy. So split the games -Quote:
Originally Posted by peadar1987
Derry v Harps
Galway v Sligo
Cork v Limerick
Waterford v Wexford
Rovers v Bohs
UCD v Bray
Longford v Athlone
Dundalk v Drogheda
etc, etc.
You won't keep everyone happy of course, and yes, it is completely gimmicky.
Does anyone know whether the FAI has ever commissioned a serious, heavyweight piece of research into the various league models that are operating in other countries? Contextualising those models in the specific cultural, demographic, economic, social etc environments in which they play?
The Genesis Report.
Oh wait; you said "serious". Sorry.
Yeah, Genesis. Not that.
I'd love to see de Montfort in Leicester or some organisation of that standing be commissioned.
It might be easier to finish 3rd in the top 4 than win the second 4, but the top four would still only get one Europa League spot, unless you take a spot from the Cup which is insanity. You can't devalue the Cup like that. We already have one League cup. We don't need two.Quote:
Originally Posted by Real ale Madrid
What if theres a gap between second and third and its tight from 3rd to 5th for example? Especially if the points carry over. Second might have all but wrapped up a European spot and 3rd and 4th have almost nothing to play for while 5th -8th have a euro spot to play for.
I'm not entirely against the play off suggestion, I just think you need to take these things into consideration or you end up with a system that is wildly unfair in certain situations.
I don't think it would be for the long run, it would be until such time as Irish football had its house in order enough to host a second tier, without it being a graveyard with less than ten teams (In my opinion, ten teams is pretty much the critical mass for a decent competitive league). It's not ideal, but for me it's better than leaving clubs in that horrible basement.Quote:
Originally Posted by Real ale Madrid
I like the two-conference system as well, I think it tries to combine the best of both worlds, while still maintaining sporting integrity. A team that finishes second in their conference can still win the league overall, but the fact that they're playing in a group with teams from the other conference will have softened this somewhat.
However, I can't see the big clubs going along with the idea. Shams won't want to give up their games against Derry and Sligo and replace them with Waterford and Athlone, and I don't think the prospect of a big attendance at the end of the season for the potential playoffs will swing them back.
Another criticism (although it's one that could equally be levelled at the single-tier model) is that it makes it difficult for new teams to break into the league. You'd go straight from playing junior football to playing Sligo Rovers, with no intermediate divisions.
Just to play fantasy football for a moment, the two conferences would look like:
North:
Finn Harps
Derry
Sligo
Dundalk
Drogheda
Longford
Bohs
Shels
SD Galway
Mervue
South:
Cork
Waterford
Wexford
Shams
Limerick
UCD
Bray
St. Pat's
Athlone
Perhaps with a few additions in the future if clubs could be enticed by the lower cost.
This is just tinkering - rearranging the desk chairs on the titanic.Quote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
These were both a long time ago to be fair - and perhaps not relavant to the discussion of the modern game? I do conceed that there have been changes in the past but this is something completly new imo.Quote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
I think the proposal has to be looked at in conjuntion with the significant reduction in the number of games, which, in my opinion completely changes the dynamic of the league. Right from the get go teams have to hit the groud running, that is an essential difference from tinkering with games and formats to specifically changing the importance of each and every one of the matches played. Its a fundamental change - maybe for better, but maybe for worse - we change the competition from a marathon to a series of 100m sprints.
Sports change and evolve as time goes on - much to dismay and chargin of traditionalists - the last ten years have seen fundamental changes to lots of sports for a variety of reasons - backdoor's in GAA, 20Twenty cricket, 6 red snooker, the emergence of playoff's and bonus points in rugby.
Football is such a global sport, so what works in one place won't work in another - we don't have the big money of the Premiership - but other leagues adapt and look for ways to maximise and captivate the audience. We in the Loi will become irrelevant if we don't make ourselves and our games more relevant - its not a question of are we willing to change?, but surely when will we change and what will be become of the league and its people when we do change.
It is the obvious solution, and is a nice idea, but would only increase the attendances for that particular game. Which is still much better than nothing, but doesn't solve the problem of Bray v Waterford for 11th place being essentially meaningless to most supporters and players.Quote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
I'd agree up to a point. But I think at this stage in division one that boards can get most things right and still find the club in trouble. Expenditure can only be cut so far via wage cuts- the fixed costs of being in the league are very high.Quote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
In fairness things are probably going in the same direction in the premier.
Why Shels in the north and Athlone in the south?Quote:
Originally Posted by peadar1987
Because I've only been in England a year and already my memories of Ireland are already turning to mush. Shels should probably stay in the north, but the two Galway clubs would switch to the south.Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlie Darwin
To be honest, the best way of doing it would be a mathematical analysis of travel times, rather than a simple north-south split. I'd also be concerned over breaking up too many derbies. As it is, the proposal splits up Bohs and Shams, which the Gardaí would love, but the fans mightn't be too happy about.
How about South America for inspiration; some kind of Apertura - Clausura based system.
Play each other once (home and away), but for opening, closing and overall championships. Overall champion qualifies for cl.
Some combination of 6-8 teams play off for 2 el slots (going further down for setanta spots)
2nd and 3rd overall, and next 2 highest from opening and closing championships.
With similarly styled system for relegation, if there somewhere to be relegated to.
The top-half bottom-half split was 15 years ago. How's this not relevant to the modern game?!Quote:
Originally Posted by Real ale Madrid
Your points about how sport changes and how things 15 years ago aren't relevant to the modern game or how we change from a marathon to a sprint are all soundbytes - they don't contain an iota of solid evidence to back them up. That's not a reason to dismiss them, but generally, the worst ideas are the ones which are shouted about loudest, with nice but ultimately meaningless soundbytes about how change is needed. So that's why I'm cynical about your proposals, unfortunately. :)
I will remove the sound bytes if you will consider them further? :)Quote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
I didn’t mean to be shouting the loudest – and I have no concrete evidence that any of it would work, just a hunch that the playoffs have added a lot to the league system in Belgium.
I was just trying to add context to the discussion by mentioning other sports – I am of the belief that we need radical change in the league and I have thought that for the last 10 years actually. The reduction in the number of games is my key point in all this – regardless of the format.
Well, if they're gone, I won't need to consider them!Quote:
Originally Posted by Real ale Madrid
I'm not accusing you of shouting loudest; sorry. Just that your comments are phrased similar to the likes of Platinum 1, who came out with what was demonstrably nonsense but kind of used similar vague back-up to what you've used.
This is why I'd love to see some serious research done: there's loads of good ideas here that people have seen, or know of, operating elsewhere. If these could be contextualised within their historical setting, we'd be in a strong position to know what might work in the unique situation the LOI finds itself in here.
What I meant was if the soundbyes are gone will you consider the proposals. So Ignore the (what you percieve as ) hyperbole and go again.Quote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
I'm not aware of the platinum 1 stuff - i'd like to see change driven by people within the game anyway.
Well that's why you'd have the interconference series. Think how big the Bohs Rovers games would be if it was split as you posted, or Pats Shels, or even el clasico, with the regular season game being potentially the only meeting of the season?Quote:
Originally Posted by peadar1987
As for new teams, those games against the big clubs would give them guaranteed revenue, and because of the regionalisation they'd have lower costs too. Also, with the lack of relegation pressure, they wouldn't feel the same need to spend to compete. They'd be initially targeting 8th, with the chance to play off to play at (hopefully packed) Lansdowne.
As regards Europe from the league - Play off winner into the Champions League, Runner up the Europa League, and final league place to the best placed non finalists. Plus FAI Cup place. If we went play off model, you go play off model as far as possible. No point trying to work out a way to maintain european places as they were. Most times a conference winner would get europe that way - it'd need both to lose the playoff semi for that not to happen.
I'm not sure it'd necessarily bring in loads more fans, although I think it could with the fewer big games even in the regular season never mind the play offs. However, it would bring a degree of stability to the league. It's remove financial pressures and temptations from clubs, so they could build slowly and dare I say it try and invest off the field, as they'd have a reasonably secure income stream. I'm not really comfortable with the "sure lets have a go, what harm can it do" approach, but given the FAI's previous research, I think it's probably the best we can hope for.
Oh, ok. I've tried to do that anyway in my posts - I don't think tinkering or format changes will do much good. We simply don't have a culture of going to games in Ireland. 30 or 40 years ago, this could maybe have been changed (as it was in countries like Norway and Denmark), but now, it's arguably too late with the omnipresence of the Premiership and El Clasico.Quote:
Originally Posted by Real ale Madrid
To an extent, my view is that - by and large - the league is what it is, and acceptance of that fact will help people focus on more important issues - community interaction, proper media usage, that sort of stuff. A fundamental problem with the league is that the country as a whole is screwed; hard enough to do anything about that to be honest.
Platinum 1's proposals was to give them control of the league and all the clubs would double their budgets overnight, just because. If you missed it, be thankful!
To be fair they would also raise the participations fees to about €100k per club, "ensure a TV contract" was in place to provide "valuable income" for clubs and work with major "international sponsors".Quote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
Worst piece of LOI spoofery since the genesis report
Some interesting models suggested in the thread.
I think that it is accepted by everyone interested in LO1 football even the FAI that the current model is unsustainable. I do share the view that there needs to be a more realistic opportunity for traditional football areas like Athlone, Waterford, Harps Cobh etc to aspire to top flite status without having to spend big and bust and that the model should be sufficiently attractive to tempt new or established junior clubs like Tralee , Westport, Newbridge, Mullingar into the structure .
So if we had in year one 20 participating clubs , each play each other once (19 games). The league would then split into an 8 team premier , who play each other once and two six team North and South Divisions who again play each other once.
The premier league is won after 26 games. The bottom four of the premier play off, the losing two go into a relegation play off against qualifiers from the two Regional leagues.
The top two in the regional leagues get automatic promotion in year one, 2nd and 3rd in the regionals play off to produce two relegation finals against the the two losing premier teams from the bottom four premier competition.
Year two; 12 team premier and one eight team 1st division. one round of games and the premier splits 8/4, those 4 and the First division then split into North and south with their accumulated points which would need to be weighted to reflect games played etc. Its than a case of repeating the year one formula.
The two bottom clubs of the regional divisions to play off for a re-election place.
I`ll get my anorak.
Messy, very messy.Quote:
Originally Posted by A N Mouse
When you have clubs complaining they can't/couldn't win the league/stay up because they had the extra away game in x series/were away to their rivals in the run-in, it would be swiftly binned. On a personal level, I detest playoffs at club and national level, and think your fate should be decided by whatever amount of games there are in the regular campaign, not on play off penalties/away goals or mad refs like in Paris.
The Argentinian format is a nice idea granted, but is too radical for a small, stubborn, set in it's ways operated league like the LOI.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mypost
So then you want the status quo?
Cos you like it, you like it, you like it, you like, like, like it?
But as some one else said we need to startQuote:
Originally Posted by BonnieShels
nananananah
lookin all over the world..
[QUOTE=Dalymountrower;1622538]Some interesting models suggested in the thread.
I think that it is accepted by everyone interested in LO1 football even the FAI that the current model is unsustainable. I do share the view that there needs to be a more realistic opportunity for traditional football areas like Athlone, Waterford, Harps Cobh etc to aspire to top flite status without having to spend big and bust and that the model should be sufficiently attractive to tempt new or established junior clubs like Tralee , Westport, Newbridge, Mullingar into the structure .
if the "traditional football areas" want a place in the Premier division they should earn it - just as the clubs currently there have. people on here slag off UCD but they are proof that a so called non traditional football area can not alone reach the premier but stay there without in any way jepordising the future of the club.
The ONLY reason for considering a structural change to the League should be as an enhancement to the League overall, both Premier and First Division clubs and while there are interesting proposals on here I do not believe any restructure in isolation will dramtically improve the League overall.
as I said before, as part of a rebranding of the League I would support restructuring, as a stand alone it is simply rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic.
This might read like a dig at UCD, but because they are from a non-traditional football area, and don't have a great history of success, or that many fans, I think in a way it's easier for them to be sustainable. They don't have a rabid fan base or the weight of history pressuring them to overstretch themselves to achieve the positions they think are rightfully theirs. I think that's a large part of what ultimately did for clubs like Cork, Derry, Shams, Shels, and Bohs in the past.
It's clubs like these who really need licensing to be rigorously enforced for their own good, because it's easy to get carried away when you have all that history and passion behind you.
And the point has been made a thousand times that it's unfair on the sustainable clubs when others overspend, win a title on borrowed money, default on debts and go bust. It doesn't matter that the clubs ahead of UCD are different every year as they implode one after another, the table still shows the Students in lower mid table most seasons.
Get licensing sorted first (and the suggestion of getting someone like De Montfort Uni in to work out something intelligent and enforceable mightn't be a bad one. God knows the FAI and the clubs seem incapable of doing it themselves), and the solid foundation will be there to start building up the type of sustainable league we want.
Quote:
Originally Posted by marinobohs
I doubt anyone thinks it would be a magic bullet solution. I presume everybody agrees with you that there are loads of other things need fixing too and I'd obviously much rather us actually earn promotion on the field, but if we did, I still wouldn't want to see Harps, Longford, Athlone and let's say Dundalk rotting in a seven team Graveyard. I genuinely think it would enhance the league as a whole. It would be the boost that could save certain clubs and it could make the league a more attractive proposition overall. One of the main reasons the league is seen as a joke is because so many clubs go bust/drop out and that's only accelerating. It'd be fair enough to keep two divisions if there were 24 decent clubs with strong teams entering the First Division, but that's just not happening. As it stands, it's been a case of 'Premier Division club goes bust, First Division clubs bear the brunt'.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluemovie
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dodge
My point was that they were already overspending crazily in their promotion (and cup-winning) season with the likes of Zayed and Gary O'Neill in the First Division. All water under the bridge now, but just making the point that it's difficult to win promotion while keeping a steady ship if you're up against a pipe dream with inflated spending power.
its a fair point, but Fingal not the worst example as they ultimately left with no debts. Unlike many others in the premier league. Of course it was unsustainable, but I think there'll always be clubs who think they can overspend their way to success, regardless of the structureQuote:
Originally Posted by bluemovie
If not having many fans were an advantage we would have one of the best/strongest Leagues in Europe :cool: Clubs overstretch in order to win the League (or cups) and one division or two has no impact on that.Quote:
Originally Posted by peadar1987
Licencing etc does need to be tightened but that is a completely seperate issue to league restructuring. So far we still have no rational for change except to provide a few bigger gates for some First Division clubs (probobly at a loss for some Premier clubs). That is no basis for change and simply papers over the cracks in the First Division (until of course they become the problems of the Premier Division).
It's not necessarily an advantage on the field of play, but as I said, it does remove some of the pressure to overspend. If Bohs were finishing in UCD's position every season, there would be a large proportion of Bohs fans who would be demanding better. It's hard for a board and a manager to ignore that and do the right thing. That is not to say that smaller clubs still can't be managed badly, of course.Quote:
Originally Posted by marinobohs
I know, I was replying to your post about "Traditional Football Areas", not to the opening post.Quote:
Licencing etc does need to be tightened but that is a completely seperate issue to league restructuring. So far we still have no rational for change except to provide a few bigger gates for some First Division clubs (probobly at a loss for some Premier clubs). That is no basis for change and simply papers over the cracks in the First Division (until of course they become the problems of the Premier Division).
Even as a supporter of the original unrelegatable club, I don't want a seven-team graveyard of a first division. In my opinion, if domestic football in this country ever to expand and develop, it needs to improve its image. Seven teams playing each other 4+ times a season in a joke of a second flight isn't going to do that any good. We either need more clubs, or to return to a single division for a couple of seasons, until the league can get its house in order. No, it's not a panacea, but for me, it's the best option in the short term.
Licencing isn't a completely seperate issue - would be where we are if it had ever been done properly? Monaghan going bust mid season, on top of others in recent seasons is what's left the first unsustainable. Sporting Fingal being able to get around licencing to earn promotion, kept other sustainable clubs down. It's part of the context which has left us where we are.Quote:
Originally Posted by marinobohs
Ideally any changes would be properly researched and would be accompanied with a PR blitz. Unfortunately the FAI doesn't seem to have the capabilities to do either. Even if the latter can be as little as just keep on putting up people for TV and Radio stations, which are desperate for easy content.
That's true, but the impact of overspending has a disproportionate impact on FD clubs. The clubs that go belly up are pretty much always PD clubs at the time, and the trend in recent years has been to then leave the PD untouched, whilst reducing the numbers of FD clubs to accomodate the loss of the PD outfit, until we find ourselves in this current mess.Quote:
Originally Posted by marinobohs
I think this view is very problematic. These aren't the "problems of the FD" - the lack of FD numbers is, in part at least, a problem caused by PD clubs that go bust. In that sense it is a LOI problem. The divisions must be seen as a functioning whole (or non-functioning, as the case may be at the moment).Quote:
Originally Posted by marinobohs
In posts from earlier in the year, I vehemently argued against playoffs or indeed any expression of competition that doesn't recognise the integrity of a league system. To me, that's one of the defining characteristics of football. As an extension of that, I don't agree - or want - unearned promotion, even and especially for my own club. But what a single division, guaranteed for, say, three seasons gives all clubs is some sort of stability, and an ability to do some planning, or pause for breath whilst long term planning takes place. FD clubs cannot plan on this level of uncertainty, even the well run ones, and they are reasonably well run or else they'd have folded by now.
Done in conjunction with, as I've argued earlier, a serious, heavyweight piece of genuinely independent research that looks at the possible league models socially contextualised, with an undertaking to put a long term development plan in place during that three year moratorium, would be the radical shift people are looking for. You can't expect th eradical shift to occur in a vacuum. It needs a medium term shoring up of stability, so that we don't lose clubs while in the act of proper planning, which does take time.
The reason I suggested an organisation like De Montford doing it is that they probably don't align themselves with the managerialist nonsense that a Deloittes or whoever would bring to such research. They specialise in the historical contextualisation of sport, and therefore could comment not on just the various league models themselves, but on why they work in that particular context, and how that context differs or not from Ireland. Such a research group would also report openly and honestly, as the research is likely to be a one-off and they don't have to deal with any of the stakeholders thereafter, nor would they have to play politics with whoever would want to interfere. We desperately need an extrenal voice to say, "here's how it could be done. Here's how it has been done elsewhere" rather than the interminal half-baked discussions about "I think Norway [or whoever, delete according to taste] did it this way. Would it work here though? I don't know. Interesting though, isn't it?"