As someone who has never shied away from calling out sectarianism, bigotry or similar within football in the past from within or related to the IFA, I can say with confidence that such is not at play in this instance. To claim such is only an attempt to deflect from the real issues with the proposals imo.
The clubs who initially were weighing in behind the AIL proposals all came from strong unionist backgrounds too.
HiFrom a Catholic Area, you’ve got Cliftonville and Newry City. Lurgan and Donegal Celtic have fallen out of the league.Originally Posted by Martinho II
Oh dont flatter yourself!I have no agenda agaisnt any member here! I give an opinion and react to individual posts and not the poster. I havent called you or anyone else stupid, among other things, or questioned your various abilities when disagreeing with your posts! Can you say the same? You have referred to specifics of the AIL in relation to using the Virgin Media example, you havent referred to the point being made in that regard.
Do you accept that people have an opinion and different viewpoint that is as vaild as your own?
I have agreed that there are possible politically driven motivation for some people in the IFA, I dont agree that an entire organisation or officers or all officers at clubs are driven by bigotry. The vast majority want clarification on various issues in the proposal. I can understand due caution, I'd be as concerned if not more so if clubs and associations were so eager that no clarification on anything being sought.
Last edited by Nesta99; 18/05/2020 at 5:52 PM.
I've no doubt that most of those on the Board of the main clubs will look at this issue seriously. Being involved in running a football club is a sobering business that would over-time shake the daftness out of most people.
The issue I see, however, is with the fans. They don't have to worry about the nuts and bolts and finances of things, and are happy to let their own politics and prejudices influence how they want football to develop.
The problem in the north is that a number of the key clubs are actually run by their fans/members. So whilst the Board of Crusaders may be very supportive of an AIL, for example, they could well find their fans vote otherwise if it was ever put in front of them (which it would have to be at some point). Some other clubs aren't as directly run by supporters, but would probably feel it unwise to go against the strongly asserted wishes of their fans. I would perceive trouble ahead for Linfield on this in particularly.
Is there a single club in the Irish league who's fanbase seems to be generally in support of an AIL? Would Cliftonville be in that boat alone?
If the IFA even attempted to engage in the process I wouldn't think it but they haven't even so much as given each proposal a second read by the sounds of it.
I'll remind you of your entry to the discussion, making assumptions without properly reading posts based on me being a poster, you said it not me.
I answered the virgin media stuff perfectly? Just because the answer didn't suit you doesn't mean there wasn't one.
I have time and time again said I respect people having issues with the proposal, a refusal to even engage on those issue is another matter.
In regards to fan owned clubs, I reckon their Articles would allow their board to make the call without the need to go to ma vote. However their members could call an agm.
As for Cliftonville's fan base, I never got the sense that there was any real enthusiasm for the Lucid plans, other than maybe a good away day booze up. In general terms, I'm sure most hold the aspiration of an AIL, but in the main they are realistic enough that the club comes first.
And you would be wrong on that point.
How exactly have they engaged with the process?
An observation on trends of posts? No personal jibes! It's pointless when a discussion turns in to a punch and judy like show of 'oh no he didnt, oh yes he did'. It is not about the answer fitting, its simply not answering within the boundaries of the question. It's like a politician who doesnt answer a straight forward question but continues on talking through everyone on the question and then claims he's given his answer. It's a case of giving an answer but not answering what was asked.
I will repeat my previous point, I disagree that there is a serious problem of bigotry at the IFA that is sabotaging the Lucid proposals. I firmly believe that there is actually a lot more to it than that, maybe there is greater suspicion on the whole thing at the IFA it being an AIL proposal and the few that have the chip on the shoulder speak out. There are people at the IFA that in the end, whenever that might be, recognise that a lot of problems with both leagues, are fixed by this plan. Most clubs are seeking more info so not killing the proposal. Others, including Dundalk believe that its 2-3 years away in what needs to be done to do it properly - working on easing the concerns of some clubs and officials, Outlining the finances available. as much as is possible eg a TV deal, and show the minimum amount available to clubs - with the liklihood of that money increasing as the project starts to bed in. If the money is significant and could even increase, clubs would look to be involved and if the NIFL decides the project has merit then the IFA are superceeded - a useful power to have if the IFA are not interested. The figures need to bring prizemoney in to allignment maybe but it certainly needs to match the money of whichever league currently pays most and match it if its a super-setanta structure that is chosen. A full season AIL will require a doubling of what is paid by the league that pays out most at minimum. Club officials could sell that and convince supporers and even the naysayers in the IFA.
Last edited by Nesta99; 18/05/2020 at 8:58 PM.
There have been several meetings and calls held with relevant documents forwarded. The IFA also took soundings from their clubs into consideration too. This process did not just start o the night of the Dundalk meeting back in October. It has been running for a long time before that too.
So either way, the fans would decide for those clubs. And have the power to do so.
There is nothing to stop any company from committing to finance a deal like this in principle, subject to it getting authorisation from the relevant authorities.
It wouldn't cost them anything, whilst if the deal is as good as Lucid promises, it would get them first in line ahead of the competition.
Sure what would you know about it, Mr. P?
I mean, compared with foot.ie's correspondents on the ground, like EatYerGreens and Rathfarnham?
Don't be bringing facts into it.
Or pointing out that the most vocal supporters are a "Prod" club from North Belfast, whilst the most vocal opponents are their "RC" club rivals in North Belfast. (I assume you know which ones I mean!)
Actually, I think you'll find that it was Lucid who was declaring deadlines.
Here is what he had to say as recently as last June:
"The jolt comes from the timeframe. For this to happen, the clubs will have to vote in its favour within a matter of two or three months. This is because an abridged 2020 campaign would precede the purported utopia of 2021 thereafter.
“We are working towards an autumn go or no-go decision by the clubs. I would ask: why wait another year? They would have to justify the why,” [Lucid] went on, giving the impression he is not going to be around forever.
https://www.the42.ie/kieran-lucid-al...97749-Jun2019/
Last edited by EalingGreen; 18/05/2020 at 11:46 PM.
It does cost them if it falls through because this money is basically investment money so if nothings done with it there's no return so as far as they're concerned money is lost because it could have been used elsewhere to generate revenue.
Companies will have targets. They'll say that y in sponsorship should generate x in extra revenue. So by committing money to a project that doesn't have half the backing it needs therefore unlikely to get off the ground whoever signs that off runs the risk on being x short on their targets, putting their job at risk
Coming out saying "we said no in October and we still say no" doesn't exactly scream actually giving any problems any more than lip service.
Are you drunk? You seem to be implying that I said setting deadlines was a bad thing when I said the exact opposite.
Not just my view. Here is what Lucid said in today's Irish Times.
"The IFA, I think to their credit, have kept the door open to us. After that initial reception in October when they came out against it, they agreed to meet us so that they could keep the discussion going and they met us three more times. We have met them with Hypercube and we have had multiple informal chats as well so I am grateful to them for keeping the discussion going at least.
“They have expressed their concerns. I think their concerns around the European spots were valid and we have revisited everything on that basis. Scenario four takes everything on board really."
Well at least thats a change in the angle of argument but it is also clutching at straws. It would be a commitment in principle and everyone would know that it isnt signed and sealed and with the eccentricities of all parties involved that until a ball is kicked there is a significant chance of not happening as hoped. But talk of losing jobs at companies who are interested in sponsoring because a radical reform doesnt happen is hghly unlikely. In Irish football most sponsorship is benefaction in nature with limited impact in a small underseveloped market - there isnt an expectation of extra revenue bar maybe at the top clubs (who is Athlones shirt sponsor?).
You do realise the whole aim of the AIL is to change that yeah?
But, but, but...
Rathfarnham assures us that that isn't so, indeed cannot be so, since they're all DUP bigots at the IFA.
Especially their Chairman, their CEO, their Chief Operating Officer and (until last month) their Manager:
https://www.irishfa.com/irish-footba...irish-fa-staff
Posting Permissions
Quote
Bookmarks