Where might new clubs come from?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EatYerGreens

In brief response - ANYWHERE could host a new LOI side. But nowhere wants to. That's why we're 2-3 clubs down at the moment.

35 years ago the LOI expanded by taking in 6 new clubs. 18 years ago we had 2 clubs in just Mullingar alone fighting to join the LOI, and both lost out to Kildare, 9 years ago we had the early stage of a pyramid system, with clubs able to enter the LOI form the level below. Fast forward to now, and we can't get a single team anywhere genuinely interested in joining. Not one. Hence we've been running 2 teams short for the last few years, and 3 short effectively this season.

You can play fantasy club-creation all day long if you want. But it is utterly pointless, as no club anywhere wants to join our league currently. That's the start and end of it I'm afraid. Until the underlying issues which make taking the step up to LOI unattractive are tackled, this is all just moot and a bit silly IMO.

P.S. You know you've really lost the plot when you're proposing an LOI team for 'East Leitrim'. Firstly - There isn't really any East Leitrim though. It's more of a north and south kind of county. And secondly - I think there's almost as many people living in my street as there are in East Leitrim :D
P.P.S. If you think foot.ie/the LOI is tribal, wait until you meet the nordy supporters !

---

I think I pretty much covered what you say though. It's a 'throw it out there' list of possibilities, not exhaustive. I referred to the well worn list of issues that need sorting before any clubs, new or old, can be approached and specifically mentioned financial gain rather than pushing costs/debt. Fantasy club creation, ideal world, whatever but if you cant speculate, discuss thoughts or ideas, and importantly dream as a football fan there there is a part of being a football fan thats missing. Isnt football about trying to live the dream and not everyone gets that chance but when it does happen or something close then the years of anguish and disappointment disappear for a short while but makes it all worth it. I questioned Leitrim's very exitance ;p But I was thinking *east *west i meant of Cavan or having closer ties to Cavan than there is between north and south parts of the county. There are *cough* a good few North Leitrim that would be Sligo Rovers fans if in to LoI, all 7 of them.

You are spot on on the expansion of the league when the 1st Division was introduced, that Derry were joining created an exceptional buzz that time as you probably know well and Derry fans often outnumbering home fans on their travels. There was a definite decline but I'd be reasonably sure that the trajectory of decline follows the increasingly questionable behaviour and LoI maligning policies of the then CEO. Again we know what the issues were then and now and its about turning that around, building trust across all of Irsh football, making the lackys see that post JD league football is a differeent place to be so change or ship out, hopefully people being properly held accountable for the state of the organisation (there I am dreaming again but call me out on this one and I might agree). But ultimately making sure the step up to senior level is a benefit to a club and not a burden. I dont think any of this is impossible, for now we can hope. Signs are encouraging and improving all the time already under new direction. LoI has been shown to be sitting in the positive psyche of the public and the FAI are in the dirt. There is a very obvious mutual need for these 2 pillars of the game to work together and this symbiotic need has been acknowledged within the FAI now but its still early and the new participation agreement will say a lot more than jusgt what is written in it!

As for being tribal on here, well it was tongue in cheek as there was a lot of good discussion and interesting points and counter points made. I am from Dundalk which is juuussstt close enough to have some insight in to the different tribes in the North and I.L. If there was a AIL tomorrow it wouldnt be my first visit to I.L. grounds, from college in Coleraine to curious visits to Shamrock Park via games in Belfast and on one occasion a tour in to the inner sanctum (excuse the religious terminology considering) of Windsor Park and Linfield FC thanks to the joint schoolboys football initiative between the two clubs back then. Long before Setanta Cups or UtU Cup, Dundalk played friendlies a number of times against Linfield preseason among others. To add to that, during some pretty rough years in the North, Dundalk fans travelled up to se the Dundalk Hawk in action - as he was playing for Linfield there wasnt any fuss made either way.

I lost the plot at least 6 or 7 weeks ago and maybe years before that ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nigel-harps1954

This. A million times this.

A properly functioning FAI would grab football by the balls in this country and run Leinster, Ulster, Connacht and Munster senior leagues as regional first divisions. Or at least First Division North/West, First Division South, and First Division East.

But there's too many people in the FAI with a vested interest and prefer their own clubs to be big fish in small ponds.

---

That's exactly it. If the new FAI is to be effective the executive should have to power to make these sweeping changes, they hold all the power in terms of the finances and they can refuse to affiliate leagues that don't comply. If the structure still gives the blazers from the individual local leagues the power to veto change and development, it will never really matter who the figure head is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

Think that's a bit simplistic though.

The number of players the league can afford to adequately pay has reduced a lot. That's an issue in terms of its strength - to be losing players for whom it's just not worthwhile.

Take the UCD team in Europe five years ago (for no other reason than that I know the numbers; not pretending to speak for the players' circumstances here). 18 played in those games. 4 are still playing LoI now - Watts, Benson, O'Neill and Jack Watson with Bray. Every other player has left the league afaik. Some weren't good enough of course - that'll always happen - but I think that's a huge drain in just five years from a half-decent squad. But that's still a lot of players for the league to lose. Would none of them strengthen a squad now? Would none of them be interested if pay were increased? Unlikely I think. I don't think that's an anomaly either.

(BTW, top clubs wouldn't have been getting €100k extra - probably twice that. You're right that it wouldn't make as much of a difference to them as €100k would to the smaller clubs, but that's kind of the point in terms of making the lower section more competitive. However, if an overall improved setup pushes the top clubs to go through a round more in Europe, then that's their payback. All in theory, of course)

---

It has yeah but it'd take a lot more money to change that.

Players that leave for work tend to leave because of time constraints so any pay rise would have to either be enough for them to drop the other job or downgrade it significantly or make them put up with the hassle and I cant see roughly 4k per player doing any of those things (100k / 25 players).

Corbet and Doyle too so 6/18 with Swan and Kounagun having just left , money wasn't the issue with Swan I dont think, maybe Kounagun but its debatable for him. 6/18 for what was a midtable first division team isn't bad going at all. In all fairness to first division players too we're not targeting them for retention, they'll make the player pool bigger but not better, it's players leaving premier division teams we want to target and for most of them the wages wouldn't rise to significantly under this document so they probably would move on anyway.

The document mentioned 200k prize money for league winners I believe which is less than a 100k increase.

Simply giving the lower clubs more money doesn't equal an improvement in standard, to do that you have to retain more of the quality players at the top clubs so that the lower clubs can retain their quality players while also giving them the ability to do so.

What happens in the LOI though when you throw money at clubs though is they get players in on inflated wages on 1 year deals which achieves nothing with regards to improving the leagues standard. So the document would of had to address how to combat that which it didn't really and instantly promoting 4 teams and straight into a system with relegation back down to amateur leagues is a recipe for disaster with regards to that imo

Corbet is gone; playing GAA now. Doyle I think left Longford last year? Not 100% sure; could be wrong. Certainly hasn't played LoI since June last year anyway.

UCD weren't a mid-table First Division team that year either; probably would have won it had we not been in Europe. Injures and fatigue killed the team on the run-in, when we had been on a 17-match unbeaten run.

Overall, I don't think there's any reasons for considering that 4/5 out of 18 is remotely encouraging a retention rate. We know there's a problem with player retention in the LoI because the average age is so young. And would players like Langtry, Leahy, Swan, etc, strengthen UCD now? Of course they would.

And of course there's other reasons why players would drop out of the league - but are you telling me that pay isn't one? Or that it isn't a major one? And that's before you look at bringing in players back from England, or even foreign imports (who in fairness are generally ****e I think)

Of course you want to retain the top players too - but giving Rovers extra money is hardly likely to hinder that. (The document mentioned other cost savings such as getting rid of affiliation fees and FAI share of cup gate receipts btw - so not just prize money)

I'm not saying this is all a panacea btw. But it would help improve things. That's all you can really do.

If extra money were pumped into each club, there would have to be guarantees as to where that money is spent.


At Harps, for instance, if our stadium limbo continues even further with this inevitable recession, €100k-€200k could do an awful lot to Finn Park. A decent terrace concreted into the closed river end, a second half-decent toilet block, finally finish the town end terrace which was supposed to have a roof and seats initially, or maybe a chance to do some repair work to the (already ready to fall) shed.

If each club were given money to improve infrastructure, that'd go a long way to solving some of the issues around the league.

Players wages aren't the be all and end all of improving the league.

In saying that, I agree with Pineapple Stu on his point in regards player retention. Many lads leave our league for Conference in England, random continental leagues, America, Australia, New Zealand, and many other countless opportunities. If they were getting a decent full time wage here, and a 52 week contract for the year, I have no doubt many of these would stay home. You'll still get lads who want to step up to Championship or Scottish Premier or whatever they want, we'll not compete with that, but in the long term, a move to League One or League Two should be seen as a poor career choice rather than a big step up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

Corbet is gone; playing GAA now. Doyle I think left Longford last year? Not 100% sure; could be wrong. Certainly hasn't played LoI since June last year anyway.

UCD weren't a mid-table First Division team that year either; probably would have won it had we not been in Europe. Injures and fatigue killed the team on the run-in, when we had been on a 17-match unbeaten run.

Overall, I don't think there's any reasons for considering that 4/5 out of 18 is remotely encouraging a retention rate. We know there's a problem with player retention in the LoI because the average age is so young. And would players like Langtry, Leahy, Swan, etc, strengthen UCD now? Of course they would.

And of course there's other reasons why players would drop out of the league - but are you telling me that pay isn't one? Or that it isn't a major one? And that's before you look at bringing in players back from England, or even foreign imports (who in fairness are generally ****e I think)

Of course you want to retain the top players too - but giving Rovers extra money is hardly likely to hinder that. (The document mentioned other cost savings such as getting rid of affiliation fees and FAI share of cup gate receipts btw - so not just prize money)

I'm not saying this is all a panacea btw. But it would help improve things. That's all you can really do.

---

Didn't realise Corbet had left. But there's a lot of good quality keepers around the league right now that would explain that more so than wages.

3rd in an 8 team division is mid table imo. Think collie o'neill said as much on a podcast recently.

4/5 out of 18 isn't bad because it's a university team so there are to one's of other factors at play.

Im not saying pay isn't one but the bump in pay that we'd see wouldn't be sufficient I don't think.

You're giving Rovers extra money which won't hurt no, but you're also taking money from the big clubs so the net gain they'd see from the documents proposals would be minimal if at all.

It would help in some ways but if you just suddenly told the 4 (as it was then) clubs to make the jump and threw 100k at them I can't see their standard rising enough to avoid serious hidings from the bigger clubs very quickly if at all and the damage that would do to the leagues rep wouldn't be ideal at all.

Making the league bigger isn't a bad idea is my point but it would need to be managed properly, which is the issue I don't think the document addressed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nigel-harps1954

If extra money were pumped into each club, there would have to be guarantees as to where that money is spent.


At Harps, for instance, if our stadium limbo continues even further with this inevitable recession, €100k-€200k could do an awful lot to Finn Park. A decent terrace concreted into the closed river end, a second half-decent toilet block, finally finish the town end terrace which was supposed to have a roof and seats initially, or maybe a chance to do some repair work to the (already ready to fall) shed.

If each club were given money to improve infrastructure, that'd go a long way to solving some of the issues around the league.

Players wages aren't the be all and end all of improving the league.

In saying that, I agree with Pineapple Stu on his point in regards player retention. Many lads leave our league for Conference in England, random continental leagues, America, Australia, New Zealand, and many other countless opportunities. If they were getting a decent full time wage here, and a 52 week contract for the year, I have no doubt many of these would stay home. You'll still get lads who want to step up to Championship or Scottish Premier or whatever they want, we'll not compete with that, but in the long term, a move to League One or League Two should be seen as a poor career choice rather than a big step up.

---

I agree with this in what it could be trying to achieve with infrastructure. But I'm not sure you could give 'prizemoney' and then have a club be told what they can spend it on. Licencing is the way to achieve ground improvements, as it would compel a club to invest in a ground, meet some minimum requirement and could enforce a player wage % of income type limit also if need be (ye dont want to drive away investors either though - in the spirit of not being mé féiners). I dont think a situation where 'additional' prizemoney is awarded but with strings attached on what it can be spent on. I'm not saying this as a Dundalk fan knowing what the priority of the owners is as I want to see investment in Oriel as much as any club's fan that has to tolerate the likes of the away section. Calling any additional funds that could go to clubs (spectator facility) grants would also be better. It's semantics I know but I think how these things are presented is important especially when trying to get around the tendency to focus investment on a playing squad.

If some sort of redistribution of European earnings were to occur for example, and there was some requirement for that additional money to only be spent on ground improveent, there'd be some irony if Dundalk had contributed to the redistribution pot as things are with Oriel!

Well yeah, I should probably have been a bit more clear in that regard. Rather than simply adding 100k in prize money, a club infrastructure fund should be distributed.

Now obviously not all clubs own their stadia, so such funds could be used to develop their training grounds or academy structures.

Maybe a club could then progress to administrative funding instead of infrastructural, where after a year or two have already done ground improvements and built a training base. This 100k can be used to fund two or three administrative staff for a year or two to further improve the qualities within the club structures.

Ok I may sound like Im just being awkward here, but if you consider Rovers, Cork Derry as examples of where grounds are already up to standard and have in the main been funded by the taxpayer (whether owned or not), to jump to providing admin staff or other things with funding is a win win for those clubs and arguably and inadvertant financial advantage to clubs with existing infrastructure already, allocated by a governing body. Maybe available money should allocated on need, to get all to a certain minimum before advancing to admin, academies and the like, together. If the 'admin' money was being used to fund Bohs like community based initiatives, i'd see that as different even if this has an indirect financial benefit to clubs via increased goodwill and hence attendances.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nesta99

Ok I may sound like Im just being awkward here, but if you consider Rovers, Cork Derry as examples of where grounds are already up to standard and have in the main been funded by the taxpayer (whether owned or not), to jump to providing admin staff or other things with funding is a win win for those clubs and arguably and inadvertant financial advantage to clubs with existing infrastructure already, allocated by a governing body. Maybe available money should allocated on need, to get all to a certain minimum before advancing to admin, academies and the like, together. If the 'admin' money was being used to fund Bohs like community based initiatives, i'd see that as different even if this has an indirect financial benefit to clubs via increased goodwill and hence attendances.

---

I can see where you're coming from but if you do that you're essentially punishing clubs for putting themselves in a good position. These clubs do also have facilities costs still and some will have academy/training facilities too.

You've to remember too if you say only people that own their ground can get the money then not only do you get into technicalities you've cases where the likes of bohs still have costs for the ground. And if you say you can't have it if you're at a certain standard then clubs like Sligo are seriously hard done by.

I get what you're saying but it's really hard to implement that fairly

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nesta99

Ok I may sound like Im just being awkward here, but if you consider Rovers, Cork Derry as examples of where grounds are already up to standard and have in the main been funded by the taxpayer (whether owned or not), to jump to providing admin staff or other things with funding is a win win for those clubs and arguably and inadvertant financial advantage to clubs with existing infrastructure already, allocated by a governing body. Maybe available money should allocated on need, to get all to a certain minimum before advancing to admin, academies and the like, together. If the 'admin' money was being used to fund Bohs like community based initiatives, i'd see that as different even if this has an indirect financial benefit to clubs via increased goodwill and hence attendances.

---

Have any of those clubs sufficient training facilities though? Derry and Dundalk obviously have their astro to train on, as well as Athlone. Dundalk obviously spent a lot of money getting the YDC up to standard too, but which of those clubs OWN a training complex? Rovers have Roadstone, but what facilities are there beyond a pitch and some basic dressing rooms?

Building proper, professional, training facilities would be a huge step forward to keeping players in Ireland. Some clubs jumping from town to town to train, facility to facility, not being fed, not being kept properly. Giving a solid base in which to work from has to be priority number one after stadiums are eventually all up to scratch.

If a club already has this, then yes, give them admin money. Do with as they please. It'll be the kick up the hole other clubs need to get themselves up to scratch.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nigel-harps1954

Have any of those clubs sufficient training facilities though? Derry and Dundalk obviously have their astro to train on, as well as Athlone. Dundalk obviously spent a lot of money getting the YDC up to standard too, but which of those clubs OWN a training complex? Rovers have Roadstone, but what facilities are there beyond a pitch and some basic dressing rooms?

Building proper, professional, training facilities would be a huge step forward to keeping players in Ireland. Some clubs jumping from town to town to train, facility to facility, not being fed, not being kept properly. Giving a solid base in which to work from has to be priority number one after stadiums are eventually all up to scratch.

If a club already has this, then yes, give them admin money. Do with as they please. It'll be the kick up the hole other clubs need to get themselves up to scratch.

---

For home games only Nigel, Dundalk have that grass pitch behind the away end goal to train for away games apart from Derry. That actually was once owned by the club but sold to local grammar school 20 years ago or so, they have an arrangement to use it freely for training.

Oriel is a dump for fans, home and away, no argument, but the facilities inside the YDC are top class, I remember reading John Caulfield asked if he could go in for a look around one game, they had no problems, he was well impressed.

I bore myself even talking about it at times, but if the owners are not going to spend any bog money for spectator improvements, it really wouldn't cost that much to patch things up, L shape roof both sides of the stand, build a modest terrace and cover it behind town goal, option for seats at later point, this would take the bad look out of these 3 areas immediately.

There is the argument whats the point just patching it up as will not get long term use and may have to be demolished if proper structures went it, but is that really likely ?

There are a couple ways the league could force an increase in standard of infrastructure but they'd all require pretty radical changes to the league in order to push clubs to do it

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Martinho II

Didnt realise that Cork City had extended their boundary. How far out has it extended to now?

---

https://www.corkcity.ie/en/council-s...-the-new-city/

I can't find a good article with the original proposal and an readable image. The wiki page gives a description and links to news articles from the 2017. Little Island and Carrigtwohill were the main exclusions I beleieve from the final change.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Cork_boundary_change

I've been reading the above posts - too many, too long to addresss individually - and I keep coming back to something which I've long felt about football in Ireland (both parts).

If the plan is to invest in LOI football to expand the professional game, you need a number of factors i.e. solid, sustained financial investment; organisation and administration; infrastructure; state support; marketing and promotion; TV and commercial, sponsorship; a proper pyramid below the top flight to maintain competition and keep everyone on their toes; and (ideally) a wide geographical spread.

If all those could be developed over a period, then it should be possible for domestic football to start attracting many more of the people who are generally interested in football in ROI, but not in the LOI.

But as the thread title implies, this all has to be done through a professional club network which is bigger and more widespread than the present 12 or 14 who may properly be called "senior" or "professional". Where to get additional clubs from?

If you accept that there are few (very few?) immediately ready to step up from the FD etc, then you have to look to developing clubs to get there, but everyone knows how difficult that is: I mean, look at the state of the clubs in the FD, never mind the "pyramid" below - uninspiring to say the least. Why should this be so?

I am a great believer in history, tradition and the merits of being in a "proper football town". To explain, look eg to Burnley FC, a not very prosperous working class town of just 80k-odd in a part of England coming down with big clubs, where Rugby League is also strong. Yet as we know, they're regularly able to duke it out with the Big Boys, because they're a "PFT".

Compare them eg with Milton Keynes. MK is a fairly prosperous, middle class town of 250k people, centrally placed. They were gifted a professional football club, with a bit of investment behind them and a shiny big, new stadium. Yet with all these supposed advantages, they're struggling two divisions (soon to be three?) below Burnley. Why? Because MK is not and never has been, a PFT. (Before the Dons moved in, MK City were bumping along in the 7th or 8th tier, I think. They've since gone bust).

Now translate this to ROI. From what I can see, places like Dundalk, Sligo and Ballybofey can rightly call themselves PFT's, supporting stable, long established clubs with history and tradition, town centre stadia and a dependable fanbase which will stick with them even through the bad times. Not only that, but the town and surrounding regions "get" what their clubs are about, and so support them in other ways (corporate, sponsorship, local politicians etc).

There are others, of course, but ROI's problem is that there aren't enough of these, even in a country with a growing population which is affluent and has money for discretionary leisure spending. I may not be choosing good examples, but people look at eg Galway or Limerick and imagine that they should be able to be right up there with the big clubs in the LOI. Yet whether it is because they're a GAA town (Galway) or a rugby one (Limerick), or for other reasons, their seemingly perennial struggles to keep going somehow suggests to me that deep down, they're not really PFT's, i.e. closer to Milton Keynes than Burnley, notwithstanding that they've had clubs for much longer than MK. (No offence to loyal fans in those cities, by the way)

All of which suggests that if professional football clubs are ever going to exploit properly their (supposed) potential in places like that, it's likely to take 10? 20? 30? years of consistent application of the necessary qualities I listed earlier - and club football in Ireland (ROI and NI) simply doesn't work to those time scales.

All of which means that when you discount the alternative of creating "pop-up" clubs like eg Sporting Fingal, Kildare Co, or Monaghan U (have never worked and never will, imo), then that leaves combining with established NI clubs as your only realistic hope of expanding professional football significantly on the island any time soon.

"Here endeth the sermon for tonight..." :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El-Pietro

https://www.corkcity.ie/en/council-s...-the-new-city/

I can't find a good article with the original proposal and an readable image. The wiki page gives a description and links to news articles from the 2017. Little Island and Carrigtwohill were the main exclusions I beleieve from the final change.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Cork_boundary_change

---

Ah dont worry about it El Pietro I am always interested in stuff like this as I was intrigued by the extension of Cork City as bit of a nerd!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RathfarnhamHoop

There are a couple ways the league could force an increase in standard of infrastructure but they'd all require pretty radical changes to the league in order to push clubs to do it

---

I think min standards of say 4k covered seats for PD wouldn't be outside unreasonable demands, then for any club being promoted who don't have this, a period of 2 years to have it installed.

Dundalk currently have 3.2k seats, with probably around 2k covered. This rule change would then force the club to increase seating by 800 (town end goal) and cover for 2k more than current (both sides of stand and behind town goal).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oriel

I think min standards of say 4k covered seats for PD wouldn't be outside unreasonable demands, then for any club being promoted who don't have this, a period of 2 years to have it installed.

Dundalk currently have 3.2k seats, with probably around 2k covered. This rule change would then force the club to increase seating by 800 (town end goal) and cover for 2k more than current (both sides of stand and behind town goal).

---

That would work for some clubs but others would just basically go okay but what ya gonna do if we don't get to those standards? Relegate us for someone else that also doesn't meet the standards? Yeah right! The likes of Longford, Cobh, UCD, Cabinteely, Finn Harps do they really need 4k covered seats? Probably not and they know that so will they just decide to take the two years then go back down, they just might.

Could do a scaling requirements like after the first season you need 2k covered, after 3rd you need 3k, after 6th you need 5k. So that clubs don't have to go all in straight away, they can build to it.

The league has to properly incentivise clubs to want to meet the standards and to be honest that might involve cracking a few eggs.

Also the simple standards should be enforced like dugouts either side of halfway, I understand in some grounds there's reasons they might be slightly off but at places like Dalymount it's just ridiculous, both teams having access to tunnel, keep pitch clear and photographers far enough back, a TV studio, enough gantrys, enough permanent toilets. Basics like that especially in the Premier Division should just actually start to get enforced but I suspect the FAI have been afraid to crack those eggs so an incentive is needed.

Some very good points made by several people on this thread. Unfortunately, because of the FAIs financial position, I think major investment by them in LOI is a few years away at a minimum.
In the meantime, the affiliation fees should be reduced to €1k each and abolish some of the ridiculous fines. This probably wouldn't make much of a difference to most of the Premier teams but it would stabilise the clubs that are struggling in the FD.
The FAI Cup needs to be expanded. All Intermediate teams plus each Junior league winner should take part. If a non-league club got a few home matches against a Premier team, generating big interest locally, they might be encouraged to apply to the LOI. This, along with the reduced affiliation fees and a guarantee that if it didn't work out that club could return to their Junior Premier Division rather than have to start over in the very bottom Junior division.
Longer term though, do we need three grades of adult football? Could all adult clubs not just be called senior. Align the seasons so that they run concurrently and introduce promotion from and relegation to provincial leagues.
First things first, the Competitions Director at the FAI's services are no longer required.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RathfarnhamHoop

That would work for some clubs but others would just basically go okay but what ya gonna do if we don't get to those standards? Relegate us for someone else that also doesn't meet the standards? Yeah right! The likes of Longford, Cobh, UCD, Cabinteely, Finn Harps do they really need 4k covered seats? Probably not and they know that so will they just decide to take the two years then go back down, they just might.

Could do a scaling requirements like after the first season you need 2k covered, after 3rd you need 3k, after 6th you need 5k. So that clubs don't have to go all in straight away, they can build to it.

The league has to properly incentivise clubs to want to meet the standards and to be honest that might involve cracking a few eggs.

Also the simple standards should be enforced like dugouts either side of halfway, I understand in some grounds there's reasons they might be slightly off but at places like Dalymount it's just ridiculous, both teams having access to tunnel, keep pitch clear and photographers far enough back, a TV studio, enough gantrys, enough permanent toilets. Basics like that especially in the Premier Division should just actually start to get enforced but I suspect the FAI have been afraid to crack those eggs so an incentive is needed.

---

Thats not a bad idea, then the league just has to work out a directive to force Dundalk to improve Oriel Park spectator wise, how about for clubs particpating in europe, 4k covered seats, I know there are limits already from UEFA, for eg DFC can only hold up to 2 rounds in CL/EL.