Next Season - Promotion / Relegation

**higgins** · 12/12/2006, 1:51 PM

Originally Posted by Poor Student

Higgins, they did something similar in Scotland and had to go back on it as it created stagnation.

Ok I agree the bar can't go that high but there's no point having clubs in the first division paying out large sums of money trying to make the grade and ending up in the premier with not a clue how to run a football club.

The Premier divison is our main concern and the 1st division is just there to feed into it. Maybe a day will come where we worry about lower divisions but this time round we have to focus 100% on the premier.

we need all the top team playing in decent grounds for a start. The guys in the premier although safe at the start should be told that in 3 to 5 years time they face the chop if they don't meet the grade.

This grade doesn't have to be very high, not like 5,000 seats or anything but very simple basic measures to start with and set it as a moving target whereby each year the target for another 3 to 5 years down the line is something they MUST aim for.

Or else we will have more of the Shels attitude where players get the lot and what happens with grants for grounds happens and where marketing is seen as handing out a few leaflets to those who are in the ground.

Set the bar so as there will be 3 or 4 premier clubs who have to work hard then do this over and over, when one drops below the bar they are punished. this will have to happen for any club to take things seriously enough.

**Poor Student** · 12/12/2006, 2:01 PM

Higgins, when it comes to grounds the emphasis need to be on facilities (toilets, turnstyles, handicap access, type of seats etc.) and not much on capacity. A minimum capacity of 1,500 or even 1,000 covered seats is enough. You can have a pleasant small stadium and a rotten large one.

**dcfcsteve** · 12/12/2006, 2:02 PM

Originally Posted by Poor Student

Higgins, they did something similar in Scotland and had to go back on it as it created stagnation. Clubs could not meet the necessary Premier Division requirements on non-Premier budgets and couldn't afford to spend on bringing up the criteria without knowing where they would be next season.

The year after Falkirk failed to win Promotion (2003) due to not meeting the 10,000 seat mimumim stadium standard, the SPL changed its stadium entry criteria to 6,000 seats. At that time Inverness were being forced to play 150+ miles away in Aberdeen.

Gretna are currently adding 6,000 seats to their ground, in anticipation of making the SPL sometime soon.

**Mr A** · 12/12/2006, 2:10 PM

The Premier divison is our main concern and the 1st division is just there to feed into it. Maybe a day will come where we worry about lower divisions but this time round we have to focus 100% on the premier.

I don't agree with this at all. The aim of the FAI/EL should be to improve the league from top to bottom, from the top of the premier to the bottom of the A league or U20 league when they're brought in. Football is a pyramid and I don't think you will have 10 teams existing in a bubble translating as a healthy league.

The original Genisis report on the league made some very good points on the football pyramid and in particular on the issue of dual registration etc but unfortunately the FAI has ignored the one bit of the report that showed imagination and merit in my opinion.

**higgins** · 12/12/2006, 2:12 PM

Originally Posted by Poor Student

Higgins, when it comes to grounds the emphasis need to be on facilities (toilets, turnstyles, handicap access, type of seats etc.) and not much on capacity. A minimum capacity of 1,500 or even 1,000 covered seats is enough. You can have a pleasant small stadium and a rotten large one.

Sorry I was getting at that when I said it didnt have to be as in a high number of seats. When I mentioned the words basic I meant having a nice neat and tidy stadium that people could sit and relax. Our crowds are tiny, having massive stadiums is not the way to go.

All I am really asking for here is that they follow through on the promise of the licence really. By now I would have expected a premier club to have falling along the way. To see that nobody hasnt and not to see a difference in the grounds around the country is a massive failure on their behalf.

**Poor Student** · 12/12/2006, 2:24 PM

Higgins, I agree with you, but as you said standards need to be aimed at what most clubs have already achieved and a few are close to. When the standards are set at something that most clubs aren't at they all sit back and say: Sure no one else will do it, they can't make a league with one or two teams.

**OneRedArmy** · 12/12/2006, 3:58 PM

Originally Posted by Poor Student

A minimum capacity of 1,500 or even 1,000 covered seats is enough. You can have a pleasant small stadium and a rotten large one.

It wasn't enough for last years League Cup final at Belfied which was a shambles for spectators as a result.

You've neatly focused on the one piece of criteria your own club cannot achieve in either its current home or in the Bowl (as per the current plans).

Why should only the bits of Licensing that your club can comply with apply?

Talk about self-serving!!
(Bear in mind that I'm happy to advocate something that may be detrimental to my own clubs position, ie that given Derry's uncertain situation re the Brandywell we could well be losing our Premier License in the future if things don't move quickly regards a lease).

**Student Mullet** · 12/12/2006, 6:13 PM

Originally Posted by OneRedArmy

Originally Posted by Poor Student
A minimum capacity of 1,500 or even 1,000 covered seats is enough. You can have a pleasant small stadium and a rotten large one.

It wasn't enough for last years League Cup final at Belfied which was a shambles for spectators as a result.

There were 900 seats at the League cup final. 1,500 would have been perfect for a game with an attendance of 2,000 odd.

**Student Mullet** · 12/12/2006, 6:17 PM

Originally Posted by higgins

Sorry I was getting at that when I said it didnt have to be as in a high number of seats. When I mentioned the words basic I meant having a nice neat and tidy stadium that people could sit and relax. Our crowds are tiny, having massive stadiums is not the way to go.

All I am really asking for here is that they follow through on the promise of the licence really. By now I would have expected a premier club to have falling along the way. To see that nobody hasnt and not to see a difference in the grounds around the country is a massive failure on their behalf.

I agree with you. 2008 is the next big deadline. It's supposed to be the cut off point where all the criteria in the current license have to be met. As time passes it looks more likely that some of the stadia planned won't be built by then so it'll be interesting to se (if?) the FAI fudge this issue.

**higgins** · 12/12/2006, 6:23 PM

Originally Posted by Poor Student

Higgins, I agree with you, but as you said standards need to be aimed at what most clubs have already achieved and a few are close to. When the standards are set at something that most clubs aren't at they all sit back and say: Sure no one else will do it, they can't make a league with one or two teams.

Those first five words ????

There are realistic improvments that the FAI could come up with that would only mean a few clubs had to jump. Your right about the fact if all clubs need to do something they will all sit there and do nothing knowing full well there would be no league.

Everyone gets caught up on the seat issue here but there is plenty of areas where grounds could be improved without going back to seats!! The walkways around the pitch are a disgrace in most grounds, slanted, stones!! muck!!! kegs??? scaffolding! anything you can think of I've probably seen it lying around Tolka and other grounds. Its fairly clear when you inspect a ground that a club has an unlevel walkway, they should all be level and not full of muck at least...

The minimum distance to the pitch is something that annoys me. The walkway around Tolka is jammed when the main stand is full. For a ground with 10,000 seats and 2,000 people it makes no sense.

I can think of plenty of things that would improve the night out at a game that doesnt involve building 5,000 seated stands.

The FAI should raise the bar little by little.

**Poor Student** · 12/12/2006, 6:31 PM

Originally Posted by OneRedArmy

It wasn't enough for last years League Cup final at Belfied which was a shambles for spectators as a result.

You've neatly focused on the one piece of criteria your own club cannot achieve in either its current home or in the Bowl (as per the current plans).

Why should only the bits of Licensing that your club can comply with apply?

Talk about self-serving!!
(Bear in mind that I'm happy to advocate something that may be detrimental to my own clubs position, ie that given Derry's uncertain situation re the Brandywell we could well be losing our Premier License in the future if things don't move quickly regards a lease).

Can you name another occasion in last 5 years that UCD needed that kind of capacity aside from the League Cup final? It's not self-serving. As someone who supports a club with a small fanbase I know the irrelevance of talking about large minimum seated capacities. We could spend money building extra seats and see them remain empty to satisfy arbitrary criteria if you liked. The plans for the Bowl do include 1,500 seats.