Roddy calls for 44 game season

**Student Mullet** · 17/02/2005, 9:32 PM

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

I've been against the ten-team league since it came in.

Only because it leaves UCD in the drop zone!

Seriously though, it's not perfect but it's the best option. Ten is too few and there aren't enough teams to make it 16.

**�anna** · 17/02/2005, 9:58 PM

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

I've been against the ten-team league since it came in.

As have I, but its absolutely insane to have clubs playing each other 3 times. Considering all the fixture congestion some clubs faced last season, I think 30 games would be plenty.

**NY Hoop** · 18/02/2005, 12:50 PM

Absolutely ridiculous suggestion. He seems to have a very short memory. It was only a few seasons ago that we had the 12 team premier and he wasnt moaning then about 16/17 home games.

They had the ideal situation with the 10 team league 18 home and 18 away games and a very competitive league. But despite taking this progressive step forward they inexplicably go back to this stupid 12 team league again

Get back to the 10 team league quick. There is not enough quality for any more than 10 teams in the premier. It is as simple as that.

I'm sure if a poll was held for premier division fans the majority would go back to the 10 team league.

KOH

**pineapple stu** · 20/02/2005, 11:18 PM

Originally Posted by NY Hoop

I'm sure if a poll was held for premier division fans the majority would go back to the 10 team league.

Anyone care to set that up? Could be interesting.

**MariborKev** · 20/02/2005, 11:46 PM

Originally Posted by A face

What are you all giving out about .... we tried the 10 team for less that half the initial trial time and saw that it was working. Now that we change back before time to the 12 team format that suits no one then you all pipe up and start giving out.

.... some people ... i'll never know.

The only answer to this is 10 team or 16 team league ... end of really.

The time trial was for three years, we trialled for three years.

With clubs in the First Division struggling to get a licence do you envisage amalgaming the top four into a Premier and with an expended First Division. No offence but the like of Mullingar, Fanad, Kerry League and others who have mooted as potential new entries are years away from compliance

**A face** · 21/02/2005, 12:20 AM

Originally Posted by Maribor

The time trial was for three years, we trialled for three years.

So you are including the half year aswell !!

With clubs in the First Division struggling to get a licence do you envisage amalgaming the top four into a Premier and with an expended First Division. No offence but the like of Mullingar, Fanad, Kerry League and others who have mooted as potential new entries are years away from compliance

Agreed. But we have to do something, Having seen how even amount of home and away games works .... the two and one lark surely should only be a short term work around. It will never be fair.

**Slash/ED** · 21/02/2005, 5:26 PM

Originally Posted by A face

It will never be fair.

Exactly. No matter how often it's done and how fairly they try to do it, in a close league it will always leave question marks over the champion. How can you have a league table, and award a title to the team that wins it, when the league table is clearly not a proper reflection of the strenghts of the teams over the course of the season? Like I've said, the old "the league never lies" saying goes out the window when you start giving some teams advantages over other. Only one team has won the league playing more away games than home afaik, it's a farce. Vintage bleedin' FAI.

You should go all the way or nothing, not in between. Either 10 team league with 4 games each or (minimum) 16 team league with 2 games each.