Portadown Out

[Spoons]

It is sad that Portadown are not in the new League but maybe they will get a professional administrative side to the club and move forward from this embarassment.....I'm sure the men instigating the All-Ireland League will be the first men to be spoken to today by The Ports............

Aside from that, how the hell can Newry have scored so low??...they just scraped in ffs .....

[Blanchflower]

But they signed off on their score, on the very process they agreed to.

When did they "sign off" on their score? The scores were only announced last night.

Whether they agreed to the process or not - the process was still ridiculous.

[Blanchflower]

Let's look at this way. Would DC have finished as high had they spent Rory's wages on ground developments? The ironic answer is that they may have made the grade.

They were deemed good enough to have a domestic licence - that's all that should matter.

I agree. But "rules is rules", Mr Jameson.

It's the rules that I'm saying were ridiculous.

[Morrissey]

They were deemed good enough to have a domestic licence - that's all that should matter.


It's the rules that I'm saying were ridiculous.

Very little difference betweem the FAI and IFA Premiership.

And all clubs signed off on their scores at the start of the month. They didn't know the other clubs' scores at that point. but they agreed the distribution of points was accurate.

[Schumi]

Very little difference betweem the FAI and IFA Premiership.

Exactly, ridiculous.

It seems to be part of the rules for this sort of thing that third place in the lower division means promotion.

[Blanchflower]

Very little difference betweem the FAI and IFA Premiership.

And the FAI process was ridiculous, too.

[Morrissey]

I never said it was ideal, but it's an improvement.

[Schumi]

I never said it was ideal, but it's an improvement.

On what?

[Blanchflower]

I never said it was ideal, but it's an improvement.

How is it an improvement on requiring the top teams to have a licence and relegating the bottom 4 to create a 12-team league?

How is promoting Bangor - leapfrogging them ahead of 7 superior teams - an improvement on having the 12 best teams in the country in the league?

[Morrissey]

How is it an improvement on requiring the top teams to have a licence and relegating the bottom 4 to create a 12-team league?

How is promoting Bangor - leapfrogging them ahead of 7 superior teams - an improvement on having the 12 best teams in the country in the league?

Licence FORCES clubs to raise their game. Next season will see them become more stringent again, due to the facilities coming more into play. Clubs would stagnant, sit on their arse while playing out wages, if they could. This forces clubs to be pro-active is a UEFA requirement if nothing else.

The standard will increase. Maybe not dramatically, but simply, more competent players for less teams.

Again, they only leapfrogged one team, DC. The rest didn't get a domestic license - UEFA requirement remember - and Portadown failed to adhere to the stipulated rules. They beat DC, comprehensively in the end, due to superior facilities, I'd imagine.

Apart from Portadown's debatable non-invitation and Larne's ineptitude, that's the best 12 teams (bearing in mind that football these days, globally, is more than just on field performances as various Football League clubs have shown) I could pick. So barring Portadown's self inflicted f*ck up, it's given us what we've been craving for years. The elimination of pub teams.

[pól-dcfc]

Licence FORCES clubs to raise their game.

That only backs up what Blanchflower is saying. Top 12 teams with a DL.


This process wasn't about the license.

[Morrissey]

This process wasn't about the license.

Correct. It was a blue-print set out by the FAI. The IFA followed suit. It's about raising the relative standard of clubs, mainly to attract public interest, not about internal competition IMO. It was to rid the deadwood. Clubs that contribute nothing and are where they are due to gerrymandered IFA entry criteria.

I could debate the merits of this system ad-infinitum - trust me, there are aspects I'm sceptical on - but I'll keep my powder dry until the end of the first season. Then it's time for objective re-evaluation.

[holidaysong]

Is there promotion and relegation next year as long as the team coming up gets a licence?

[Morrissey]

Yet to be released to press, but I believe that's correct.

If the winners of the PIL - First Division - fail in their domestic license application, then second place - providing they have one - will be promoted.

Failing both those, there will be no P&R.

[Blanchflower]

Licence FORCES clubs to raise their game.

Both Portadown and DC got licences!

Next season will see them become more stringent again, due to the facilities coming more into play. Clubs would stagnant, sit on their arse while playing out wages, if they could. This forces clubs to be pro-active is a UEFA requirement if nothing else.

And?

The standard will increase. Maybe not dramatically, but simply, more competent players for less teams.

How will the standard increase with a 12-team league predicated on the licence, but excluding 2 of the top 12 teams, compared to a 12-team league predicated on the licence, but including all 12 top teams?

Again, they only leapfrogged one team, DC. The rest didn't get a domestic license - UEFA requirement remember - and Portadown failed to adhere to the stipulated rules.

Portadown got a licence.

They beat DC, comprehensively in the end, due to superior facilities, I'd imagine.

Both DC's and Bangor's facilities met the grade for a licence. DC is the better team so should be in the league ahead of Bangor.

Apart from Portadown's debatable non-invitation and Larne's ineptitude, that's the best 12 teams (bearing in mind that football these days, globally, is more than just on field performances as various Football League clubs have shown) I could pick. So barring Portadown's self inflicted f*ck up, it's given us what we've been craving for years. The elimination of pub teams.

The best 12 teams are: Linfield, Glens, Cliftonville, Distillery, Portadown, Ballymena, Crusaders, Newry, Coleraine, Dungannon, DC and Glenavon - all of whom have licences and all of whom should therefore be in the league. We didn't get the best 12 teams.

[Blanchflower]

Correct. It was a blue-print set out by the FAI. The IFA followed suit. It's about raising the relative standard of clubs, mainly to attract public interest, not about internal competition IMO. It was to rid the deadwood.

Er, the licence does that!

Why is a licence sufficient to gain promotion as of next year and every subsequent year, but this year - for one year only - there were additional criteria (many of which involve double-counting because they are also included in the licence)?

Clubs that contribute nothing and are where they are due to gerrymandered IFA entry criteria.

So winning the First Division, or a play-off is "gerrymandered criteria"?

[Morrissey]

Both Portadown and DC got licences!

Indeed they did. What you fail to realise, that as it stands, DC will not meet domestic license criteria next year. Criteria for spectator facilties was postponed. Had it not been, Cliftonville amongst others would not have made it. If they wanted to use your idealogy for a new league's basis, they should have waited until next until the funds were released, and then take the top 12. But due to a f*ck with the Ex. Comm reduction, clubs received domestic licenses without being assessed on their ground. The 'double counting' - loose term - in the IFAP apllication then aided this perfectly

And?

And?

How will the standard increase with a 12-team league predicated on the licence, but excluding 2 of the top 12 teams, compared to a 12-team league predicated on the licence, but including all 12 top teams?

It's a simple demand versus supply economic. And you KNOW I'm talking using this season to next season as a comparison, rather than a league predicated on a ranking system, over and above the DL

Portadown got a licence.

Yes, well done to them on that. What they didn't do was follow the rules they agreed to. Whether or not, you or I, think it's a matter worthy of exclusion is irrelevant

Both DC's and Bangor's facilities met the grade for a licence. DC is the better team so should be in the league ahead of Bangor.

Again, you're forgetting facilities were effectively ignored for this year's DL. Where Bangor did DC over, was in the scoring matrix of the IFAP

The best 12 teams are: Linfield, Glens, Cliftonville, Distillery, Portadown, Ballymena, Crusaders, Newry, Coleraine, Dungannon, DC and Glenavon - all of whom have licences and all of whom should therefore be in the league. We didn't get the best 12 teams.

I'm not debating whether the league should be decided upon a ranking system. I'm merely using the rules laid out and agree to by all clubs as a means for justifying Portadown's and DC's non-invitation.

[Morrissey]

Er, the licence does that!

Why is a licence sufficient to gain promotion as of next year and every subsequent year, but this year - for one year only - there were additional criteria (many of which involve double-counting because they are also included in the licence)?

I am by no means an expert on the DL/IFAP applications, but please do some research. I haven't the time nor inclination to repeat myself or explain the most elementary aspects of each process to you. Mr Paker may indluge you though.

Framework.

So winning the First Division, or a play-off is "gerrymandered criteria"?

Falkrik, Stanley, Barnet.

Three sides who have been prevented from gaining access to an above league due to inadeqaute ground facilties.

See DC, Limavady, Loughgall, Armagh. All of whom have gained access to the IPL by the IFA's leniency and loosening criteria. We have had to endure Limavady Showgrounds for years, due to the IFA's lack of strength. Those criteria have been gerrymandered.

In future, all that will be required is DL and the finish in the top two. That should keep you happy.

[Blanchflower]

Indeed they did.

Therefore both clubs are good enough off-the-field to have a place in the premier league. AnNd on-the-field, both clubs are superior to Institute and Bangor.

Indeed they did.

What you fail to realise, that as it stands, DC will not meet domestic license criteria next year. [/quote]
Next year doesn't matter ... this is about this year! If DC, or any other club, failed to get a licence next year then it would be reasonable to relegate them.

If they wanted to use your idealogy [sic] for a new league's basis, they should have waited until next until the funds were released, and then take the top 12.

I can see nothing wrong with doing that. But they still could have done it this year using the criteria for his year's licence.

But due to a f*ck with the Ex. Comm reduction, clubs received domestic licenses without being assessed on their ground. The 'double counting' - loose term - in the IFAP apllication then aided this perfectly

The double-counting included more than facilities.

And?

And what was the relevance of your comment about criteria becoming more stringent next season?

It's a simple demand versus supply economic. And you KNOW I'm talking using this season to next season as a comparison, rather than a league predicated on a ranking system, over and above the DL

Well then you're talking outside the terms of reference of this discussion because I'm in favour of the DL and talking about a league using the DL!

Yes, well done to them on that. What they didn't do was follow the rules they agreed to.

As I said, the rules were stupid and unnecessary - it should have been top 12 teams with a DL - Portadown were in the top 12 and have a DL.

Whether or not, you or I, think it's a matter worthy of exclusion is irrelevant

Our opinions on the process for establishing the new 12-team league are not irrelevant to a discussion about the process for establishing the new 12-team league!

[Morrissey]

Well then you're talking outside the terms of reference of this discussion because I'm in favour of the DL and talking about a league using the DL!



Our opinions on the process for establishing the new 12-team league are not irrelevant to a discussion about the process for establishing the new 12-team league!

My posts are purely based on the criteria laid out, and the ability of clubs to adhere to them.

I have no steadfast preference over a league using a ranking system or not. However, the deferring of the facilties crtieria has added another dimension, and IMO - since we're talking the present as you were quick to point out - the ranking system does have merits.

For the record. I'd like Portadown in, DC out, and a toss up with Bangor, Stute and Larne for the final spot.