It happened in 2008 when the league went down to the last kick of the season. But carry on...
It's happened before and it was **** with the league decided well in advance and everyone just playing for nothing.
Whatever happened to learn from our mistakes or is that only when it's convenient?
Any Premier Division team that doesn't fancy their chances in a playoff against a First Division team doesnt deserve to be in the Premier Division anyway.
The system everyone agreed to is still perfectly fine clubs are taking the **** trying to change it now for absolutely no good reason.
I would love to know what they deem to be "unfair" about a play off....
Last edited by RathfarnhamHoop; 29/06/2020 at 5:20 PM.
It happened in 2008 when the league went down to the last kick of the season. But carry on...
What happened in 2008?
Promotion was changed mid-season? Don't think so.
So the question remains - why should it change now?
Because the whole season's schedule has changed. That was based on a normal length season.
The original playoff setup was a joke anyway where the 6th placed team in the first division could end up getting promoted ffs.
That's still not a reason to change promotion
At the end of the day, you'll have a team in 9th in the Premier and 2nd in the First, just like every other year.
No reason whatsoever to change promotion.
The whole terms of the season has changed, so I don't see a problem with everything being up for discussion tbh.
But you still haven't given a reason why promotion/relegation should change?
The play-offs are nonsense of course, but if the First Division clubs want to shorten that, it's up to them to agree something.
If they're playing a shortened season, then the odds of being relegated because of luck rather than ability rise (fewer games (measurements) means random events are more impactful). That's an argument for fewer teams relegated. Likewise, a team is more likely to miss out on promotion based on bad luck if you play fewer rounds; that's grounds to be more generous to teams seeking promotion. How you weigh those factors is another argument, as is how best to compensate those clubs.
Let's try an analogy. Imagine you'd been put on notice at work back in March: pull up your socks by July, or you're gone. Fair enough, you say, I like this job and I can turn this around. Then lockdown meant you were on furlough until today. Would you feel hard done by if you boss decided to fire you based on the work you did between today and Wednesday, under anything but normal circumstances?
You can't spell failure without FAI
Eh, because the length of the season and everything else is out the window, so everything is up for discussion / change.
The First Division clubs shouldn't be deciding anything, or PD clubs for that matter. The FAI should just make the decision. It's gone on long enough now. It's ridiculous how long it has gone on.
Tbh, I couldn't care less if there are playoffs or no playoffs, but I can see why it's possibly being changed now given how the year has gone.
It can happen either way, that's the point. Don't know why there's such a hullabaloo over a joke of a playoff series anyway. It's an extraordinary year and everyone should be happy to get back playing and get the season played out. It's certainly better than no relegation/promotion at all.
Do we really want 2 first division clubs up anyway? With the exception of Galway (in place of Harps) we probably have the 9 clubs we want in the PD at the moment. The rest bring very little or nothing to the table, as much as it might annoy them hearing that!
The odds of staying up by luck rather than ability also rises by the exact same amount.
Everything is cancelled out because a league is proportional and that's the whole point of them, no matter how long or short a league is, once the rounds are full rounds the results from those rounds are proportional which in turn makes them fair. If you have some bad luck along the way, tough **** that's football every club has some bad or good luck at some point get over it.
We're talking about a league here where even if a red card is adjudged to have been wrongly given you probably will still miss a game, playing less rounds is not reason to make the majority of games in the first division dead rubbers
That's season had relegation from the league too which keeps teams competitive and has a knock on effect through the whole league.
If a first division team is good enough to win the playoffs then yes I'd absolutely have them in the Premier division ahead of whoever they beat because they've earned it and that's how a league system works.
There's a hullabaloo about it because it's ****ing over probably 6/9 clubs in the first division by making their whole season have nothing to play for which is just not on.
People were on here complaining about dead rubbers in the Premier division at the end of last season, times that by 3 for the first division with no playoffs and that's why its a problem.
Dundalk fans have some ****in cheak to judge clubs by what they might bring to the league, by that exact same logic Waterford would have been a better addition to the league in those playoffs not too long ago, or do we just conveniently forget that too?
Last edited by RathfarnhamHoop; 29/06/2020 at 9:55 PM.
As an aside we're also seeing in other countries that did decide to change the rules of their competitions midway through with regards to how promotion and relegation and European spots are decided that lawsuits are a very real possibility and to be honest are the FAI in a position to be able to afford to pay out compensation? At least with cutting rounds they can still claim its an even round of games if they cut promotion spots that's a whole different ball park.
https://kesslereffect.bandcamp.com/album/kepler - New music. It's not that bad.
No need for all the language, it doesn't really help your argument tbh.
And the bit I quoted is just complete nonsense. People zone in way too much on the 2012 season when we went with a team of kids. 2009 we qualified for Europe, 2010 we were around the top of the league for the first half of the season until injuries ravaged us and 2011 we were doing ok (Setanta Cup final), very good squad, until money started to run dry midseason. And look what we've done for the league since 2012...
All clubs have had meaningless games over the years. If there are no playoffs then some clubs will have little to play for maybe, but given it's a very short season and the first division looks extremely competitive, I doubt very much anyone is going to run away with it. You could have 3-4 clubs in the running to win it with a couple of games left.
That would be more exciting than having a drawn out playoff series where the 6th team could possibly have a shout of going up. More nonsense that. If a club is finishing below 2nd in the FD, in the state it is now, they should be nowhere near the PD.
Sure the whole 2006 season and playoffs were completely meaningless, but sure you'd already know that as even if Rovers had finished bottom of the First Division they still would have been handpicked for the 2007 PD.
It's just the way things fall sometimes. Dundalk have been on the wrong end of league restructures before, in 2002 and 2006, and almost in 2008.
This would be a midseason restructure but given what we're living through, who really cares. The FD clubs should suck it up or the FAI should give them the option of not bothering playing. At this stage they're holding everything up.
What i don't get is why rovers are standing alone to protect the first division by keeping the 2 up scenerio.
The minions running st joesephs boys and cabinteely have screwed rovers B at every opportunity, why try to protect the first division ?
Jaysus, you're some ****wit, you know that?
You haven't even given a reason why the FD clubs should accept a change to what they signed up for other than "Toddle along there now, there's a good lad"
Here's an idea - there should be only two European spots this year. The season is changing, so really the PD clubs should suck it up or the FAI should give them the option of not bothering playing.
I'm sure you don't agree with that - yet what's the difference to what you're arguing for?
Last edited by pineapple stu; 30/06/2020 at 7:48 AM.
Bookmarks