Clubs divided over future LOI format?

**pineapple stu** · 04/09/2012, 11:58 AM

"New company formed", I said.

Let's not start all this again though...

**ArdeeBhoy** · 04/09/2012, 12:07 PM

Except some of the people involved in the 'new' club were involved in the old one...

And Rangers fans will tell you they're the 'same' club...

**Charlie Darwin** · 04/09/2012, 12:33 PM

Originally Posted by Hibs4Ever

Still same club

http://www.scottishfootballleague.com/club/rangers/

It's the same club because Sevco bought the intellectual property rights and the league ratified it. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Derry and Cork (after a year as Cork City Foras Co-op) are in the same boat.

**Mr A** · 04/09/2012, 1:02 PM

Which all goes to prove that even the average LOI fan gives more of a %&^* about the Scottish 3rd division than they do about the 1st division of their own league.

**BonnieShels** · 04/09/2012, 3:42 PM

No no... You have that all wrong. They don't give a %&^* they give a %&^*&#

**Schumi** · 04/09/2012, 7:49 PM

Originally Posted by peadar1987

If Rangers get back-to-back promotions all the way to the SPL in three years, they'll still have lost out on roughly �2m, which is a lot in SPL terms.

Wouldn't the gate receipts from two full houses cover that?

**peadar1987** · 04/09/2012, 8:42 PM

Okay, having crunched the numbers, it looks like Rangers are probably not going to suffer financially as much as I'd assumed. It'll still be interesting to see how they get on if and when they return to the top flight.

**Sean South** · 04/09/2012, 9:05 PM

Originally Posted by Mr A

Which all goes to prove that even the average LOI fan gives more of a %&^* about the Scottish 3rd division than they do about the 1st division of their own league.

It proves nothing. If the good people of Donegal and the surrounding region don't give a %&^* about Finn Harps why should anyone else care about them or the first division? Sort your own clubs problems out and the "league" will fix itself

**gormacha** · 04/09/2012, 10:13 PM

Originally Posted by Sean South

Sort your own clubs problems out and the "league" will fix itself

No it won't. You could have the best run club in the country, and it could still die in a sh1tty seven or eight team league.

**Dodge** · 05/09/2012, 9:40 AM

Originally Posted by gormacha

No it won't. You could have the best run club in the country, and it could still die in a sh1tty seven or eight team league.

I presume he meant if EVERY club sorts themselves out, the league will look after itself. if he's implying that some clubs look to lay blame off on FAI (and others), then he's 100% right

**ArdeeBhoy** · 05/09/2012, 9:42 AM

http://www.wsc.co.uk/forum-index/27-...ic-league-then

**Macy** · 05/09/2012, 10:24 AM

Originally Posted by Dodge

I presume he meant if EVERY club sorts themselves out, the league will look after itself. if he's implying that some clubs look to lay blame off on FAI (and others), then he's 100% right

Isn't licencing supposed to ensure that clubs sort themselves out/ don't get into crap? Who's responsible for that continuing debacle?

A club takes responsibility for themselves, it is the FAI's job to take responsibility for the league in general, and to protect well run clubs from poorly run clubs.

**Dodge** · 05/09/2012, 10:38 AM

Originally Posted by Macy

Isn't licencing supposed to ensure that clubs sort themselves out/ don't get into crap? Who's responsible for that continuing debacle?

No, licensing just gives minimum standards for entry into the league. It doesn't make clubs have to budget long term, make them efficient marketeers or give them any sort of impetus to get to a stage when licensing is a foregone conclusion

A club takes responsibility for themselves, it is the FAI's job to take responsibility for the league in general, and to protect well run clubs from poorly run clubs.

Right. So if there was no poorly run clubs, that'd be easier

**peadar1987** · 05/09/2012, 10:59 AM

Originally Posted by Dodge

No, licensing just gives minimum standards for entry into the league. It doesn't make clubs have to budget long term, make them efficient marketeers or give them any sort of impetus to get to a stage when licensing is a foregone conclusion

However, there's nothing that says that submitting a long term budget and sticking to it, or investing a certain amount in marketing couldn't be a licensing condition.

**A N Mouse** · 05/09/2012, 11:59 AM

Originally Posted by peadar1987

However, there's nothing that says that submitting a long term budget and sticking to it, or investing a certain amount in marketing couldn't be a licensing condition.

Nothing except commonsense - given the current financial climate and hand to mouth existance of some/most clubs. (Of course commonsense would also dictate that this should be being done by forward thinking clubs irregardless - sadly there's nothing more uncommon)

Its easy to knock licensing, and the annual fudge fest, but despite its shortcomings its dragged us to a situation where most clubs are being pragmatic.

I applaud Monaghan for what they did, in looking after themselves, but feel that without licensing it would actually have been harder for them give a one finger salute to frank and irene.

**Macy** · 05/09/2012, 12:52 PM

Originally Posted by A N Mouse

Its easy to knock licensing, and the annual fudge fest, but despite its shortcomings its dragged us to a situation where most clubs are being pragmatic.

I applaud Monaghan for what they did, in looking after themselves, but feel that without licensing it would actually have been harder for them give a one finger salute to frank and irene.

Licencing approved Monaghans budget. So yes, it is very easy to knock licencing when it approves budgets that result in a club pulling mid season because they don't meet (the apparently ridiculous) assumptions in the budget. Licencing made no difference whatsoever to what Monaghan chose to do.

**culloty82** · 05/09/2012, 8:07 PM

Originally Posted by ArdeeBhoy

http://www.wsc.co.uk/forum-index/27-...ic-league-then

Well, after the original article was mentioned, thought I'd get the Scottish and Welsh views on the idea.

**A N Mouse** · 05/09/2012, 10:38 PM

Originally Posted by Macy

Licencing approved Monaghans budget. So yes, it is very easy to knock licencing when it approves budgets that result in a club pulling mid season because they don't meet (the apparently ridiculous) assumptions in the budget. Licencing made no difference whatsoever to what Monaghan chose to do.

But you have to distinguish between a flawed system, and a system with flaws.

Licensing could be better implemented, but collectively we're slightly better off for it - even if the reality is we're all doomed!

**Macy** · 06/09/2012, 7:58 AM

Originally Posted by A N Mouse

But you have to distinguish between a flawed system, and a system with flaws.

Licensing could be better implemented, but collectively we're slightly better off for it - even if the reality is we're all doomed!

I think the evidence stacks towards it being a flawed system. Mons getting a licence, and not being able to see out the season because of a budget licencing passed, is just the latest evidence.

**A N Mouse** · 06/09/2012, 10:03 AM

Originally Posted by Macy

I think the evidence stacks towards it being a flawed system. Mons getting a licence, and not being able to see out the season because of a budget licencing passed, is just the latest evidence.

You seem to be claiming licensing is without merit.

Would you advocate scrapping licensing, as opposed to improving it? (baby/bathwater?)

A flawed system was ill-conceived, and unnecessary, in the first place.

On the other hand every system has flaws, and these should be eliminated/minimised.