What was the reason for Rovers being the only one from the 10 PD clubs to vote against the 1 up 1 down proposal?
Surely not to have more competitive games for their b team in a league that they can't get promoted from?
I think 13 games, 14 for some is far too short, would have much preferred making it up to 27 and play a few mid week games or extend season into mid nov, but it is what it is, and great to have football back to look forward to. I have little interest in english football so all that stuff on last few weeks wasn't for me.
#DundalkFC - First Irish club to win an away game in Europe (1963), first Irish club to win points in a group stage in Europe (2016).
TL, leave it out for christ sake, Finn Harps are one of the most least offensive clubs out there, only been up there twice myself, but a very friendly club and a welcome addition to the league for representing such a large county, and a real community club.Originally Posted by The Lilywhites
#DundalkFC - First Irish club to win an away game in Europe (1963), first Irish club to win points in a group stage in Europe (2016).
Just heard the Sligo treasurers radio interview. Only one word describes it.
Pathetic.
Basically just said that the first division clubs were less worthy than them and that they should be punished instead of the Premier division clubs (even though that "punishment" for Premier division clubs is just the rules they signed up for) absolutely pathetic
What Sligo Rovers' treasurer David Rowe appears to be suggesting is that the relevant voting took place in the Executive Committee where it was passed 3-2 because Shamrock Rovers followed their own agenda rather than representing the views of the Premier Division clubs.
https://www.otbsports.com/sport/ther...d-rowe-1038751"There was an expectation that all ten clubs would back that, Shamrock Rovers took their position, and then somewhat disappointedly when it went forward to the Executive Committee where there are three representatives from the Premier Division and two from the First Division, the Shamrock Rovers official adopted a club position rather than carrying a 9/1 mandate.
He's also talking out his hole because there's at least an independent member and a rep for the refs on that board too so couldn't have had a 3-2 vote because that's at least 2 members short
Best part of the interview was when he was asked why he thought Rovers voted different and he said that they wanted to keep the league more competitive... First off How's that supposed to be a bad thing? Second how would that benefit Rovers any more than Dundalk? If anything it's the other way round.
It's amazing how some corners are trying to spin this as Rovers acting in their own self interest when it's something that just isn't going to affect us in the slightest. It's almost as if its just the right thing to do...
Id say any club that refuse to play just kick them out and that solves that issue.
Or are Sligo and Waterford just preparing for next season already when they're in the FDA refusing to play Rovers 2?
Rovers did it to get the FD clubs back onside, in the hope that Rovers B will be allowed to participate in the league into the future without any hassle like this year. Simple enough really.
Or it was the best possible path forward and they knew it was the only one with any real hope of getting the PD and FD back playing football in a format that encourages competition - Or both, in which case, it's not a bad bit of club mgmt is it?
Sure look, we could just head out to the local council and demand they build one for us?
https://kesslereffect.bandcamp.com/album/kepler - New music. It's not that bad.
Or because they've got a lead on Dundalk, and fancy their chances at the title better over a short season than a long one?
I'd doubt whether 'encouraging competition' is high up on any club's agenda in getting the league back. They'll all be looking out for themselves. Are any club acting altruistically in all of this? Doubt it.
I see Waterford aren't committing to coming back playing yet and are considering options.
Sligo have launched a fundraising campaign. I'd wonder that if, say after four more games, they're still without a win, would they just give up on the season, play the U19s, and save themselves some cash?
Did anything come out of that PCA meeting last night?
Personally, I don't mind restarting under the current system, but I think it's silly to go with a format that half the league are unhappy about.
Looking at the IL, things are getting a bit messy there. Both Institute and PSNI have launched appeals against their relegation. We could see something similar in the LoI, or maybe it could end up in the courts (it's been a while!).
Now, all this might be solved if the government fire a wheelbarrow of cash at the league, but there's no sign of that yet.
Have you ever won the treble?
Short season or long season wasn't a Rovers decision. That decision was dictated to everyone by the smaller clubs refusing to extend contracts. Understandably. So unless clubs wanted to play two games a week every week it was 2 rounds or nothing.
The half the season half the punishment is nonsense, there's half the games yes but your points are still proportional and even if you look at it as you've half the chance to claw back points you've also half the chance to be clawed back. In other words it's fair. Sheer small mindedness of some Premier division clubs to think they should be given preferential treatment over first division club. I bet you any amount of money that next year those same clubs whether in public or in private will be moaning about the first division being neglected when they're inevitably relegated
This won't be a popular opinion, but I don't think it's fair to give First Division clubs the same say as Premier Division clubs when it comes to this. You have amateur organisations having an equal say on decisions that will impact professional outfits that are facing far greater financial demands and risks.
Re the three premier clubs who are on the executive committee, are they not on that committee to represent the interests of the premier division and in this case mandated to represent the premier division club's 9 -1 decision?
Exactly, but according to the Irish Times, Noel Byrne Shamrock Rovers went on a solo run and used his vote to look after Rovers and side with the FD clubs rather than doing what he was elected to do.
While there's some logic to that in general, it goes out the window when it comes to completely changing what was agreed at the start of the season regarding promotion/relegation.
All the current delay means is that we have to come to a different way of deciding who the 2 up 2 down are. There has been no reasonable argument as yet put forward as to why that should change. First Division clubs have outgoings and commitments just like Premier Division clubs.
#FirstDivisionLivesMatter
Clubs that are moaning 13 games are too short to save their season, were those clubs not trying the first 5 games so? How would any club have approached those games differently if they had known it was an 18 game season?
Everyone gets to play the teams in their Division home & away, same as the world over so I don't see why you would change promotion & relegation. If it was left up to clubs in the Premier then there would never be relegation!!
It's down to interpretation. There's no obligation for them to represent the league as a whole above their own views. It's like the Dail, the TDs are elected to represent their areas but they have free reign to do as they wish and sometimes what they deem to be best for the country as a whole may not be what the people that elected them want. Others may go and do what's best for their area to the detriment of the country as a whole. There's pros and cons to both approaches but the Healy Raes get blasted on here a bit and they'd be in the second group just for reference.
The bottom line is worst case scenario with one relegation spot you could render about a third of first division games pointless and many premier division games in the last few rounds the same. With the added playoff though the number of pointless games reduces dramatically and the worst case scenario is a team has an unlucky run of form and has to playoff against a first division side to stay up. And if they lose that first division side you really have to question was it an unlucky run of form or was it what they deserved? If they win then there's no harm done.
Not much solidarity on here, CV19 be dammed. I doubt very much the league will finish as envisaged at present and if it does what are the chances of there being enough clubs for. a two division league next year
After their debate, a resounding 9-1 vote among premier clubs in favour of change to 1 up 1 down, is more than a reasonable statement of decision reached on the matter.
Posting Permissions
Quote
Bookmarks