LOI to be expanded

dreamers75

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/sport/2010/1110/1224283029198.html

http://www.rte.ie/sport/soccer/2010/1110/gavinf_airtricity.html

Nothing concrete but most likely happening. Dunno if it this will help or hinder. Playing the same teams over and over again (sligo x 7, Rovers x6, fingal x 5 for us this season) does suck but if whipping boys come up the middle of the league will have nothing to play for most of the season.

Its possible we could be safe in around june with no hope of Europe so practically nothing to play for the rest of the season. This is why it went to 12/10 so will come up again. Unless use some sort Dutch style play off system.

Bray to finish bottom in 2011 is a no brainer bet. They are unrelegatable.

Cool Running

Good point Dreamers75 that some teams will have nothing to play for come the summer mid season months. Thier will be a huge gulp in class from the top of the table professional or semi pro teams to the very part time teams at the bottom.

I seen on RTEs link that winter soccer was menitoned. That will be interesting to see what happens with that.

OhNoYouDidn't

Its an interesting one. The 10 team league has its pro's and cons, but I would prefer a more spread league across the two divisions.

If the league was to be formed on last season, this would be the teams.

PD

Rovers
Bohs
Sligo
Fingal
Pats
Dundalk
UCD
Galway
Bray
Drogs
Derry
Monaghan
Shels
Waterford
Limerick
Cork

With a first of:
Harps
Wexford
Longford
Athlone
Mervue
Salthill
Cobh
Tullamore
Castlebar
Carlow
Tralee

In terms of progression of the professional game, that is a good pair of divisions.

From a narrow Rovers point of view, having 2 home gates v Bohs beats one and Monaghan.

dreamers75

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

From a narrow Rovers point of view, having 2 home gates v Bohs beats one and Monaghan.

From same point of view, would it be easier or harder to win the league?

16 team league = 30 games which is 6 less than this season. Would mean the FAI shortening the season (on the clubs request of course to shorten playing contracts).

OhNoYouDidn't

dreamers75 wrote: »

From same point of view, would it be easier or harder to win the league?

Both. Easier to beat Monahgan, harder to catch up ground if we lost to B*hs.

dreamers75 wrote: »

16 team league = 30 games which is 6 less than this season. Would mean the FAI shortening the season (on the clubs request of course to shorten playing contracts).

Its my understanding that the league cup would be done in a small league format pre-season. Thats the handful of games.

The 10 team league was brought in to increase crowds as every game meant something. It did to an extent, and was successfull in that sense. But the A league was brought in for a reason, and the 16 team league was always in the background.

Beefy78

Wouldn't two short seasons per year be preferable to one long one with a lot of nothing, or low quality, games? T

OhNoYouDidn't

Beefy78 wrote: »

Wouldn't two short seasons per year be preferable to one long one with a lot of nothing, or low quality, games? T

Who gets Europe from two competitions?

That could be said for all leagues though, the English Premier division would be much 'stronger' if you ditched the bottom half.

pablomakaveli

I think the 16 team league is a positive step. Playing the same team 4 times a year (maybe more with cup games) is going to be repetitive. It'll help the smaller clubs with maybe higher attendances, higher sponsorship etc.

Obviously i'm a bit biased because it offers an easy way up for my club, but overall the positives outweigh the negatives.

Lets hope winter football does'nt creep back in though.

OhNoYouDidn't

pablomakaveli wrote: »

Lets hope winter football does'nt creep back in though.

The clubs voted for this, with the charge being led by the rural ones, but there is zero chance Delaney will allow the switch.

dfx-

Bets on Shels to finish seventh?

Anyone who wants Winter Football after the bitterly cold and wet finish to the season needs to be committed.

Beefy78

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Who gets Europe from two competitions?

That could be said for all leagues though, the English Premier division would be much 'stronger' if you ditched the bottom half.

Europe would obviously be the main drawback, but Europe has destroyed the competitiveness of top-flight football in a lot of leagues, including England, and I don't think it should be pandered to. If something is right for the LOI then it should be done regardless of what it means in terms of who gets the honour of getting outclassed by some random European side.

I don't think your second point holds true. England has 110+ Professional Clubs, all of a decent standard. It can justify having large leagues, almost all of which are extremely competative. I'm no expert on Irish football but from what I've seen I doubt that a larger Irish league would be competative. It's the same story for the Scottish leagues.

herbieflowers

I read on RTE text that there won't be anyone relegated from the PD in 2011/12 if the expansion goes ahead. What's the reasoning behind this?

And the slight majority in favour of a return to winter football? Tbh the pitches won't be able to take it. Bray - Mons was polayed in awful conditions. Plus I reckon the summer football is more beneficial to the league as a whole in terms of European involvement. At least the players are fitter than they would be playing a Euro tie off the back off pre-season.

OhNoYouDidn't

herbieflowers wrote: »

I read on RTE text that there won't be anyone relegated from the PD in 2011/12 if the expansion goes ahead. What's the reasoning behind this?
.

Because they would just be coming straight back up as two of the six.

Its hair splitting. Dont relagate and promote 6, relegate and promote 8 including the relegated two.

OhNoYouDidn't

Beefy78 wrote: »

Europe would obviously be the main drawback, but Europe has destroyed the competitiveness of top-flight football in a lot of leagues, including England, and I don't think it should be pandered to. If something is right for the LOI then it should be done regardless of what it means in terms of who gets the honour of getting outclassed by some random European side.

In Rovers case that would have been Juventus and we were far from outclassed.

Beefy78 wrote: »

I don't think your second point holds true. England has 110+ Professional Clubs, all of a decent standard. It can justify having large leagues, almost all of which are extremely competative. I'm no expert on Irish football but from what I've seen I doubt that a larger Irish league would be competative. It's the same story for the Scottish leagues.

No expert is right. Both professional divisions were fantastically competitive this year, with everything at the top of both leagues sorted out on the last day.

The issue with the LoI is not standards, not competitiveness, its lack of punters. The 10 team league was to increase the attendencens at the top and it worked. Now they want to increase them for the middle tier clubs

Beefy78

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

In Rovers case that would have been Juventus and we were far from outclassed.

In Rovers case this time round, yeah. But what about Bohs? And Rovers performance against Juventus was hardly the norm. Do you really want to structure the entire league around a couple of games a season?

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

No expert is right. Both professional divisions were fantastically competitive this year, with everything at the top of both leagues sorted out on the last day.

The issue with the LoI is not standards, not competitiveness, its lack of punters. The 10 team league was to increase the attendencens at the top and it worked. Now they want to increase them for the middle tier clubs

Where did I say that they weren't competitive? They are competitive because of the size of the division. Add another half a dozen teams and you get a packed midtable with lots of clubs having nothing to play for. You say that the problem is getting fans in but this isn't the way to get more people interested.

OhNoYouDidn't

Beefy78 wrote: »

In Rovers case this time round, yeah. But what about Bohs? And Rovers performance against Juventus was hardly the norm. Do you really want to structure the entire league around a couple of games a season?

Of course not, but its a good money spinner, a benchmark of progression and the fans love it.

Beefy78 wrote: »

Where did I say that they weren't competitive? They are competitive because of the size of the division. Add another half a dozen teams and you get a packed midtable with lots of clubs having nothing to play for. You say that the problem is getting fans in but this isn't the way to get more people interested.

Depends what fans. Are Limerick more likely to pack them in against Rovers or Longford?

Put another way, we have had 10 odd years of the 10 team league. There was an increase in support in the PD and a decrease in the first. In effect, its time for the top clubs to consolodate their fans and allow the middle tier clubs into the PD and give them a chance to raise their profile.

I agree with you that the 10 team league meant that all but two clubs could have moved up or down the table on the last day, and the risk of the 16 team league is clutter in the middle, but I still think that the geographical spread of professional football in my post above is the way to go.

stovelid

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

PD

Rovers
Bohs
Sligo
Fingal
Pats
Dundalk
UCD
Galway
Bray
Drogs
Derry
Monaghan
Shels
Waterford
Limerick
Cork

With a first of:
Harps
Wexford
Longford
Athlone
Mervue
Salthill
Cobh
Tullamore
Castlebar
Carlow
Tralee

On a purely selfish level, it's a decent geographically dispersed PD for away trips and it gets clubs like Shels and Cork back up.

djpbarry

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

With a first of:
Harps
Wexford
Longford
Athlone
Mervue
Salthill
Cobh
Tullamore
Castlebar
Carlow
Tralee

In terms of progression of the professional game, that is a good pair of divisions.

Why? That is an extremely weak first division, which would in all likelihood have very low attendances.

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

In Rovers case that would have been Juventus and we were far from outclassed.

Rovers were fortunate not to concede more than 2 at home and were beaten 3-0 on aggregate – how is that not outclassed? Juve were by far the better side.

iregk

To be fair Juve outclassed us all over the pitch. I don't think anyone can deny that. However we certainly did not embarras ourselves and we gave them a good go. Rovers had chances as well in particular Dan Murray in tallaght and Tommy Stewart in Italy.

Juve were by far the better side but we gave them a good go. Many I know said they were surprised how well Rovers did against them especially when they saw the TNS result!

stovelid

djpbarry wrote: »

Rovers were fortunate not to concede more than 2 at home and were beaten 3-0 on aggregate – how is that not outclassed? Juve were by far the better side.

He means that we did more than OK against a club whose wage bill is 80 times our entire turnover. Nobody is saying Juve were passed off the field.

djpbarry

stovelid wrote: »

He means that we did more than OK against a club whose wage bill is 80 times our entire turnover. Nobody is saying Juve were passed off the field.

Fair enough - they gave a good account of themselves.

Paparazzo

pablomakaveli wrote: »

I think the 16 team league is a positive step. Playing the same team 4 times a year (maybe more with cup games) is going to be repetitive. It'll help the smaller clubs with maybe higher attendances, higher sponsorship etc.

Obviously i'm a bit biased because it offers an easy way up for my club, but overall the positives outweigh the negatives.

Lets hope winter football does'nt creep back in though.

Agree with everything here.

Why in gods name is there even talk of winter football?

gimmick

Why talk about the league expanding when it now looks as if Galway are the latest club hovering over the abyss. Rumoured to be about €1m in the hole.

Add the fact that Harps are supposedly only scraping by as well, it does not look good especially given Bohs and Spingals predicaments.

dreamers75

Paparazzo wrote: »

Why in gods name is there even talk of winter football?

Stood wathcing training in peamount last night for 2 hours, was a bit cold :pac: Miss not knowing if my toes are moving or not.

tribesman78

Personally i think we should have one league. Relegation of the bottom two teams / playoff into the junior leagues if they lose. If teams are stuck in mid table during the season with nothing to play for then it might mean that they start to blood some younger players that would not get a chance normally in a competitive match that means something.

djpbarry

I'm pretty sceptical myself as to whether the league can support more than the current 22 teams. The geographical spread might look good on paper, but will this result in increased interest among the general public? I doubt it.

stovelid

Might want to scratch Bohs off the potential list of PD entries for next year.

Just got a text saying Revenue have served notice on them? Any truth in this or just a Chinese whisper?

Lollymcd

stovelid wrote: »

Might want to scratch Bohs off the potential list of PD entries for next year.

Just got a text saying Revenue have served notice on them? Any truth in this or just a Chinese whisper?

Not necessarily the end of PD football, look at the Drogs in 2008

stovelid

Lollymcd wrote: »

Not necessarily the end of PD football, look at the Drogs in 2008

But look at Cork.

dreamers75

stovelid wrote: »

Might want to scratch Bohs off the potential list of PD entries for next year.

Just got a text saying Revenue have served notice on them? Any truth in this or just a Chinese whisper?

Owe 75k to FAI from tickets, FAI keeping prize money owed.

50K to revenue

Few players refusing to leave.

need 600k to operate next year according to recent meeting.

OhNoYouDidn't

tribesman78 wrote: »

Personally i think we should have one league. Relegation of the bottom two teams / playoff into the junior leagues if they lose. If teams are stuck in mid table during the season with nothing to play for then it might mean that they start to blood some younger players that would not get a chance normally in a competitive match that means something.

Junior clubs won't play ball.

And imagine the beatings junior clubs would get moving directly from the LSL into playing Rovers, Bohs, Sligo....

OhNoYouDidn't

djpbarry wrote: »

Why? That is an extremely weak first division, which would in all likelihood have very low attendances.

So what? How else are clubs to progress in the absence of a pyramid system. The A League clubs are there to join the LoI over time, here is their chance. The cost of running a 1st division club is the same as an A league side, so what harm?

Most 1st Division clubs survive just fine on crowds sometimes into the hundreds. The participation agreement will ensure that.

djpbarry wrote: »

Rovers were fortunate not to concede more than 2 at home and were beaten 3-0 on aggregate – how is that not outclassed? Juve were by far the better side.

Read Stovie's response. The point I was making was in response to the idea that Irish clubs should forego Europe. Think of the money and experience Rovers got from that tie, never mind the craic the 1,500 hoops had in Modena.

BOHtox

dreamers75 wrote: »

Owe 75k to FAI from tickets, FAI keeping prize money owed.

50K to revenue

Few players refusing to leave.

need 600k to operate next year according to recent meeting.

I wish we were that well off.

dreamers75

BOHtox wrote: »

I wish we were that well off.

Just posting the main points.


http://www.bohemians.ie/news/4-club-news/972-calling-all-fans-help-save-our-club.html

djpbarry

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

So what? How else are clubs to progress in the absence of a pyramid system. The A League clubs are there to join the LoI over time, here is their chance.

I’m not saying I disagree with the idea of a pyramid system – I actually think it’s one of the best initiatives implemented by the FAI since they took over the league. But what you’re proposing is that 5 A-league sides be elevated to the first division without “proving themselves” capable of competing at such a level. Consider that Salthill and Mervue were by some distance the worst sides in this year’s first division, but Salthill were still too good for Cobh, the best of the A-league sides. Put simply, there would be a colossal difference in standard between the top and bottom of the first division that you are proposing.

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

The point I was making was in response to the idea that Irish clubs should forego Europe. Think of the money and experience Rovers got from that tie, never mind the craic the 1,500 hoops had in Modena.

Fair enough.

OhNoYouDidn't

djpbarry wrote: »

I’m not saying I disagree with the idea of a pyramid system – I actually think it’s one of the best initiatives implemented by the FAI since they took over the league. But what you’re proposing is that 5 A-league sides be elevated to the first division without “proving themselves” capable of competing at such a level. Consider that Salthill and Mervue were by some distance the worst sides in this year’s first division, but Salthill were still too good for Cobh, the best of the A-league sides. Put simply, there would be a colossal difference in standard between the top and bottom of the first division that you are proposing.

That gap will be there regardless. If we had a pyramid, it would be wider.

The A clubs will be coming up at some point, why not now?

The only way to close the gap is to get 5 clubs up there and over time they would gain experience and compete. Look at Monaghan. They were whipping boys for a long time. They are a sensibly run club and were a catch of a ball away from PD football.

Lamper.sffc

djpbarry wrote: »

I’m not saying I disagree with the idea of a pyramid system – I actually think it’s one of the best initiatives implemented by the FAI since they took over the league. But what you’re proposing is that 5 A-league sides be elevated to the first division without “proving themselves” capable of competing at such a level. Consider that Salthill and Mervue were by some distance the worst sides in this year’s first division, but Salthill were still too good for Cobh, the best of the A-league sides. Put simply, there would be a colossal difference in standard between the top and bottom of the first division that you are proposing.
Fair enough.

So what are you saying? That the difference between the top teams in the Prem Div compared to the lower teams in Div 1 would be massive. Would this not be the case in most leagues. I think Chelsea would do some serious damage to Palace at the moment. Plus you cant really compare one off games (ok two legs) between clubs to make a point about the gulf in class. How did Mervue and Salthill get into the league? By beating a Div 1 team.

djpbarry

Lamper.sffc wrote: »

So what are you saying? That the difference between the top teams in the Prem Div compared to the lower teams in Div 1 would be massive.

No, I'm saying the top 3 or 4 in the first division would be dishing out hidings to the other 6 or 7 sides on a weekly basis.

djpbarry

Lamper.sffc wrote: »

How did Mervue and Salthill get into the league? By beating a Div 1 team.

No, Salthill were promoted because Kildare folded.

Lamper.sffc

djpbarry wrote: »

No, I'm saying the top 3 or 4 in the first division would be dishing out hidings to the other 6 or 7 sides on a weekly basis.

I have nt been keeping a close eye on div 1 results but has that been the case from harps down? also with another 5 or whatever it was coming up wouldnt they be competitve with each other.

djpbarry

Lamper.sffc wrote: »

I have nt been keeping a close eye on div 1 results but has that been the case from harps down?

It was particularly evident from Mervue down. Mervue and Salthill conceded 170 goals between them last year. Would the league really benefit from having five more sides of an even lower standard in the first division?

Lamper.sffc

djpbarry wrote: »

No, Salthill were promoted because Kildare folded.

Change that a bit:)

Yeah forgot about that. point still stands though

Lamper.sffc

djpbarry wrote: »

It was particularly evident from Mervue down. Mervue and Salthill conceded 170 goals between them last year. Would the league really benefit from having five more sides of an even lower standard in the first division?

That wouldnt happen though as the teams arounds them would be of similar quality and the better teams would not be as far ahead as the likes of Derry Waterford and the likes.

OhNoYouDidn't

djpbarry wrote: »

It was particularly evident from Mervue down. Mervue and Salthill conceded 170 goals between them last year. Would the league really benefit from having five more sides of an even lower standard in the first division?

EVERY new club got whacked in their first season in LoI football. I remember Kilkenny getting 2 points one season.

Its how you build on it is the question.

With the SCP protocal being enforced, clubs like Mervue will grow over time and find their level.

DH2K9

To be honest this should have been sorted out years ago. All this chopping and changing is doing no favours to any clubs and without stability in the domestic game we won't be pushing for the group stages in European competitions for a long long time.

dreamers75

DH2K9 wrote: »

To be honest this should have been sorted out years ago. All this chopping and changing is doing no favours to any clubs and without stability in the domestic game we won't be pushing for the group stages in European competitions for a long long time.

You assume people on control of the league and people in control of the clubs are sane.


WELCOME TO THE LOI!

djpbarry

Lamper.sffc wrote: »

That wouldnt happen though as the teams arounds them would be of similar quality and the better teams would not be as far ahead as the likes of Derry Waterford and the likes.

Sure, but wouldn’t that mean that the first division as a whole will be of a much lower standard?

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

With the SCP protocal being enforced, clubs like Mervue will grow over time and find their level.

I don’t disagree with that – like I said, providing junior clubs with a means of entering the LOI is not at all a bad idea. However, instantly elevating a relatively large number of junior clubs to LOI status is not a good move in my opinion, as it would result in a drastic drop in standard in the first division. A more natural progression is the way to go.

To put it in more simple terms, the league is currently struggling to support 22 teams – is the addition of another 4 – 6 sides, of a far lower standard, really a good idea?

OhNoYouDidn't

djpbarry wrote: »

I don’t disagree with that – like I said, providing junior clubs with a means of entering the LOI is not at all a bad idea. However, instantly elevating a relatively large number of junior clubs to LOI status is not a good move in my opinion, as it would result in a drastic drop in standard in the first division. A more natural progression is the way to go.

To put it in more simple terms, the league is currently struggling to support 22 teams – is the addition of another 4 – 6 sides, of a far lower standard, really a good idea?

Standards drop in the first for a few years. So what?

In terms of 'supporting 22 teams', there is no difference in resources to the A League than the 1st, so I can't see them struggling any more or less off the field than they do now. You mentioned Mervue and Salthill - decent clubs run on budget with local lads. The financial issues surrounding clubs aren't down there, its the B*hs of the world living in la la land. I think well run smaller clubs are a better addition than clubs who in effect cheat.

herbieflowers

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Standards drop in the first for a few years. So what?

In terms of 'supporting 22 teams', there is no difference in resources to the A League than the 1st, so I can't see them struggling any more or less off the field than they do now. You mentioned Mervue and Salthill - decent clubs run on budget with local lads. The financial issues surrounding clubs aren't down there, its the B*hs of the world living in la la land. I think well run smaller clubs are a better addition than clubs who in effect cheat.

Good post. Mervue and Salthill have great facilities and both have fantastic underage setups (neither of which GUFC have). The league does need clubs like these for the sustainability of the league. Hopefully in time clubs like Mervue and Salthill can began to attract talent from outside Galway.

Ferris_Bueller

I think this is a good idea anyway, the 6 first division clubs that go up will have an increase in attendance and there wont be as much repedetiveness as the past few seasons, 4 times a season was way too much. Also the new first division should be a good step from LSL or wherever but it shouldn't prove to be too big, a nice stepping stone for clubs looking to progress into the LoI.

Seaneh

I reckon a 16 team prem will help with potentially massive support bases gain bigger crowds. It's been proven that when Athlone are playing in big games or going well in the league they can draw crowds well into the thousands (cup game against rovers, Liam Brady's last season at the club when Myler broke our top scorers record etc). If Athlone got back into the premier league, with our lovely new stadium and so on, we'd have great crowds again.