Clubs divided over future LOI format?

[pineapple stu]

These were both a long time ago to be fair - and perhaps not relavant to the discussion of the modern game?

The top-half bottom-half split was 15 years ago. How's this not relevant to the modern game?!

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.

[Real ale Madrid]

The top-half bottom-half split was 15 years ago. How's this not relevant to the modern game?!

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?

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.

[pineapple stu]

I will remove the sound bytes if you will consider them further?

Well, if they're gone, I won't need to consider them!

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.

[gormacha]

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.

[Real ale Madrid]

Well, if they're gone, I won't need to consider them!

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.

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.

I'm not aware of the platinum 1 stuff - i'd like to see change driven by people within the game anyway.

[Macy]

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.

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?

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.

[pineapple stu]

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.

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.

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!

[Dodge]

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".

Worst piece of LOI spoofery since the genesis report

[Dalymountrower]

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.

[mypost]

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.

Messy, very messy.

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.

[BonnieShels]

Messy, very messy.

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.

So then you want the status quo?
Cos you like it, you like it, you like it, you like, like, like it?

[A N Mouse]

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 start

nananananah
lookin all over the world..

[marinobohs]

[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.

[peadar1987]

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.

[bluemovie]

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.

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'.

Not as good as teams like Sporting Fingal?

Another example of a team dying in the premier division. As Monaghan, Dublin City, Cork and Derry have shown. (Shut up Derry and Cork fans, we all kow what happened)

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.

[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 structure

[marinobohs]

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.

If not having many fans were an advantage we would have one of the best/strongest Leagues in Europe Clubs overstretch in order to win the League (or cups) and one division or two has no impact on that.

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).

[peadar1987]

If not having many fans were an advantage we would have one of the best/strongest Leagues in Europe Clubs overstretch in order to win the League (or cups) and one division or two has no impact on that.

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.

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).

I know, I was replying to your post about "Traditional Football Areas", not to the opening post.

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.

[Macy]

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).

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.

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.

[gormacha]

Clubs overstretch in order to win the League (or cups) and one division or two has no impact on that.

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.

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).

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).

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?"