8. Do you honestly believe names found in Genesis Report page 18 (see below) would be taken seriously by the Irish public?
- eircom Professional Super league
- eircom Elite Irish League
- eircom Ireland Super League
- eircom Irish Premiership
- eircom FAI Premiership.
If you are to re-launch the league then I think it requires support in developing it is a brand. One aspect of developing the brand will be the name. There are numerous examples of leagues that have done this. Look at the success of football, rugby union, rugby league, cricket, even ice hockey in the UK at doing this. The re-branding will only be taken seriously if it is backed up by a fundamentally different proposition.
That means all aspects need to be re-vamped including structure of the league, facilities, marketing, administration etc. However, in looking at options around names then the attributes that you want emphasised are the fact that it is an Irish league, is professional in attitude and delivery, it is new, it is different to what went before, it is high quality, and the best of what Irish football can offer.
9. The Report recommends that a second consultation period be held (page 21). This was never held. Why not?
A meeting was held as part of the launch of the report to obtain feedback and further input from those in attendance. The format of this ensured that everybody had an opportunity to give their views. That meeting was an open public meeting to which anybody was entitled to attend. An implementation group is now established to take the process forward. I don’t know if there are any further consultation sessions planned as part of that.
10. What are your opinions on a league with clubs being cherry-picked based on geography, history, attendances, facilities, league position, etc.? In you opinion, is this consistent with the findings of the Genesis Report?
For the league to be strong all aspects of the league need to be right. In my view these should be considerations for the league going forward. For example, if a club’s facilities are not up to scratch then this must be addressed before the gain entry into the league. If you don’t set standards then the league will never progress.
This has happened elsewhere where clubs have won promotion on the field but have not been able to go up because they have not got the off-the-field set-up in place to support their participation in the league. I don’t call this cheery-picking I call it setting standards and raising the bar on performance across the board for all league clubs. And it is absolutely what is needed.
11. From reading this forum and discussing the Report with various supporters, it would appear that a majority dismiss the Genesis Report as amateurish, poorly researched and irrelevant based on the above weaknesses. How do you counter these claims?
See 2 above – the only criticism I have seen relates to the figures for attendances which were validated through a number of mechanisms.
12. Why were anecdotal attendance figures used from the Internet but stated as fact.
Again see 2 above - the figures were verified with league staff as being accurate estimates of attendances.
13. The report seems to do reasonable job at stating what the current situation is but is very short on proposed changes. Why did Genesis not recommend a set of required changes? Surely some proposals were more worthy than others?
The purpose of the report was to outline a strategic direction for the future of the eircom league. That is what it does. Within that there are 10 key recommendations. It is up to the FAI and the league to look at these and decide what will be implemented and how. Question 39 below seems to infer that in one persons view our recommendations are too radical.
14. The report mentions how other sports are well marketed by their sponsors (Guinness, Heineken etc...) but never mentions how eircom fail to associate their products with the league
I think that Guinness and Heineken are two good examples of sponsors that invest heavily in the products they sponsor. They put in as much, if not more, resource (both financial and physical) into supporting the sponsorship as they do in buying it in the first place. That is why they work so well and help build the profile of the events they are supporting. I believe that there is more that the league sponsor can do to help develop and support the product.
15. 1 sponsor was contacted and although from the NLSA it's curious why no wider communication with fans
I assume that should read supporter not sponsor. See above answers on this.
16. Why did so few officials from the clubs participate?
All clubs were invited to participate and give their views. We cannot force anybody to talk to us.
17. You mention how extra funding is required but do not mention where this will come from or how much is required. How can the there be a plan without a budget?
The report was a white paper outlining the strategic direction for the future of the league. I agree that this requires a detailed budget and plan to implement and that is exactly what is being developed now by the implementation group.
18. Dublin ground sharing is mentioned an inevitable without explaining why this is the case...
The government have made it very clear that they will not support multiple facilities in Dublin. The clubs themselves are not in a position to fund major improvements that would be required as a result of their precarious financial position. The government are prepared to support two stadia provided they are operated on a ground-sharing basis.
Therefore, if you want to have modern, fit for purpose facilities on a par with what is being offered elsewhere then the only way this will happen in Dublin is if the clubs agree to ground share. As such therefore we are simply reflecting the stated government policy as communicated to us by the department officials.
19. Did you investigate possibilities for municipal stadium sharing between other sports?
No – we did not go into detail on options for stadia outside of the statement of fact about ground-sharing in Dublin.
20. What yearly budget do Elite level clubs need to progress to the next level?
I believe that the clubs annual budget should be tied to their ability to be able to generate turnover to service their costs. That is why we suggest setting a cap on the level of salaries which is linked to the level of turnover. The current scenario of some clubs operating with costs in excess of income is untenable.
21. It is advocated that there should be two stadia in Dublin shared between the four 'big Dublin clubs'. The FAI have seemingly deemed that Pat's should move in with Rovers and that Shels should move in with Bohs. As an author of the Genesis report, what would your view be that the FAI are now trying to push Bohs into a corner by taking Shels in as co-owners of Dalymount Park for what amounts to a fraction of the value of the land? Have the FAI misinterpreted the Genesis Report?
See 18 for my responses on ground sharing. I am not familiar with the specifics of the Bohs/Shels or Pats/Rovers situations to comment specifically on them.
22. The first most fans heard about this Genesis report was when it was issued. How hard would it have been to set up an Internet questionnaire or have questions in all clubs programmes to gauge opinion? After all, as has been mentioned, we are the customers.
See response to question 1 above.
23. There should be a camera at EVERY premier game. Why was this not mentioned?
I would like to see the grounds full first and then the cameras will have to follow!
24. Those arguing in favour of groundsharing frequently cite the Genesis Report, and media who seek to frame groundsharing as a positive and even inevitable development repeatedly and uncritically refers it to. Did the report authors conduct any primary (original) research in the target market or audience?
No. To understand the reasoning behind the ground sharing concept see 18 above.
25. On what basis should Dublin clubs be required to ground share, when provincial clubs with much smaller followings and catchment areas are to be encouraged to develop their own stadia?
I believe that there should be a discreet number of stadia targeted for significant improvements across the country. It is impossible to invest in every ground. The Dublin ground share issue is covered adequately above (question 18).
26. Football is the biggest participation sport in the country, according to the FAI. Yet, for political, cultural and historical reasons, it is one of the worst resourced. Should the Government consider current national participation rates in major sports when it determines relative allocations of funding in grants, subsidies and tax breaks?
Yes I believe they should. Football is the biggest participation sport and its contribution to Irish society is enormous. That said, I believe sport is significantly under-invested across the board and this should be addressed urgently. For example, the level of investment by the Government in the UK in sport is increasing significantly and this will be further emphasised with the awarding of the Olympics to London in 2012.
Bookmarks