The Conroy Report

Paz-CCFC

http://www.fai.ie/sites/default/files/atoms/files/SSE%20AL%20Consultation%20Process%20-%20FINAL%20REPORT%20-%2014%20Sep%202015%20%282%29_0.pdf

This was posted in the League of Ireland superthread, but I think a comprehensive report like this is deserving of a separate thread rather than getting lost in a 130 pager.

I like a few things about it. League sponsorship and TV rights being separate to international. I think it's good enough to stand on its own two feet and it would give us a better idea of the revenue the league as a whole generates. The Europa League playoff, though I'd make it one-legged, with 3rd place having home advantage. I agree expanding the First Division, but not with reducing the Premier. A ten team league with a 6-4 split is awkward and with the competiveness at the bottom, it wouldn't be fair to have 5th last, who could only be just above the relegation zone, safe with a few games to go. Looking at the incremental fines. The potential of rising to €800+ for flares is crazy stuff. The FAI releasing the total income and outgoings of the league (as a whole, rather than individual sponsorship deals etc.)

I'd like know how accurate his estimations were in drawing the conclusion that the League of Ireland incurs more expenses than income. Given the substantial amount of money the clubs put into it via affiliation fees, the sponsorship money from and the UEFA grants, I'd be sceptical. I also think not enough attention was drawn to the high level fines for cards. A yellow card leads to a €25 fine. In the English Premier League, it's £10 (although, six booked players in one match does give a substantial five figure fine). It's ludicrous that we give higher fines for individual cards than one of the riches leagues in the world. When you look at it relative to player wages/club finances, you're talking a factor of about 300 times. While the EPL's fines are extremely low relative to their income, ours is too high and should probably be reduced by about half. It could also be based on a proportion of the player's wages, so as not to be overly burdensome on lower earners (a small fee up front to cover amateurs and an extra fee based on % of their wage). On the flip side, you could say that teams could simply avoid paying higher fees by playing a cleaner game.

It only mentions it in a single line, but I think online streaming is key to the league. With Youtube and other free services, it's quite affordable and accessible to stream high quality footage. Unfortunately, due to the current TV deal, clubs have no say over their own matches (and get no compensation for this). Even if no TV station is showing the match, they can't televise it. Shamrock Rovers got in trouble a few years ago for streaming theirs. It could be a good earner by having adverts or a subscription service, with fans living in other cities or abroad. For the away club, it could also be lucrative by being able to televise away matches in their club house.

BOHtox

I dislike the idea of making more "occasions". What happens when you create more occassions is also create more dud games. Playing Rovers 4 times a year would be great if you could maintain the level of support for each game but you tend not to. Playing Dundalk 7 times a season (4 in the league, 2 cups + 1 replay), UCD 6 (something similar the following year) and Sligo 7 (You get the picture) is not very motivating or appealing to fans. 12 teams is the way to go, if not more eventually.

Ferris_Bueller

BOHtox wrote: »

I dislike the idea of making more "occasions". What happens when you create more occassions is also create more dud games. Playing Rovers 4 times a year would be great if you could maintain the level of support for each game but you tend not to. Playing Dundalk 7 times a season (4 in the league, 2 cups + 1 replay), UCD 6 (something similar the following year) and Sligo 7 (You get the picture) is not very motivating or appealing to fans. 12 teams is the way to go, if not more eventually.

I'm the opposite and like the idea of more occasions. I like the ideas of the Europa League and relegation play-offs as it would mean 7/10 league places would mean something on the final day so presumably every club in the league has something to play for all season, be it the title, Europe or to avoid relegation. That can only be a good thing in my opinion.

I have preferred 12 teams in the Premier alright, but the First division really is unsustainable with just 8 teams. In an ideal world we would have two extra teams join the first division but that hasn't worked out too well in the past and I think it would just dilute the quality of that division even more.

Interesting report though, nothing too drastic but everything is a realistic step in the right direction. Whether Delaney and co. listen now is a different story.

BOHtox

Ferris_Bueller wrote: »

I'm the opposite and like the idea of more occasions. I like the ideas of the Europa League and relegation play-offs as it would mean 7/10 league places would mean something on the final day so presumably every club in the league has something to play for all season, be it the title, Europe or to avoid relegation. That can only be a good thing in my opinion.

I have preferred 12 teams in the Premier alright, but the First division really is unsustainable with just 8 teams. In an ideal world we would have two extra teams join the first division but that hasn't worked out too well in the past and I think it would just dilute the quality of that division even more.

Interesting report though, nothing too drastic but everything is a realistic step in the right direction. Whether Delaney and co. listen now is a different story.

Why not just abolish the league and only play cup games so?

If second finishes 10 points ahead of third, what right does third have of a Europa spot over second? Similarly with relegation. I don't see why 3rd play 2 for a chance of promotion. 2nd deserve the promotion/relegation play-off outright

Zebra3

A yellow card leads to a €25 fine for the club?

Please tell me this isn't real....

Ferris_Bueller

BOHtox wrote: »

Why not just abolish the league and only play cup games so?

If second finishes 10 points ahead of third, what right does third have of a Europa spot over second? Similarly with relegation. I don't see why 3rd play 2 for a chance of promotion. 2nd deserve the promotion/relegation play-off outright

I can see your point but in that case why do play-offs exist in any league or sport? It definitely adds excitement and gives more teams something to play for, despite being a bit unfair. From a neutrals point of view I think it's a good idea and I think that's who we have to try to appeal to here, ultimately we have to look at getting more people interested in the league and going to matches.

dfx-

I've read 34 pages so far and 90% reads like an internal back slapping exercise for the FAI. Some collation of club opinions but not coming down on either side, especially if doing so would require change at FAI level.

Paz-CCFC

BOHtox wrote: »

Why not just abolish the league and only play cup games so?

If second finishes 10 points ahead of third, what right does third have of a Europa spot over second? Similarly with relegation. I don't see why 3rd play 2 for a chance of promotion. 2nd deserve the promotion/relegation play-off outright

I can see where you're coming from. But they are done all over the world, to give more teams something to play for. Say if the English 2nd Division didn't have it - it'd be a dead rubber affair for about half the league with a couple of months to spare. And the 2nd Division play-off is probably now seen as the single biggest match on the English calendar, ahead of the FA Cup Final ("the most lucrative match in the world" and all that hype). It's a fair earner for Irish clubs, where they get 2 or 3 times their average crowd.

I do think, though, that if the higher team are a certain number of points ahead, they shouldn't get dragged back into the playoff. They have that in the Serie B, where they have the potential of 6 teams in the playoffs or none at all. If 3rd place finish 9 points ahead of 4th, they just go up automatically. If they don't, then all teams down to 8th place have a chance of qualifying if they finish within 14 points of 3rd. The lower clubs face an extra round and the matches are in quick succession, so the higher clubs have the advantage of a bit of a rest. I think it strikes a fair balance to giving 3rd place the advantage, while still giving the other teams something to play for.

Zebra3 wrote: »

A yellow card leads to a €25 fine for the club?

Please tell me this isn't real....

The average First Division player gets a little over €100 a week. A single yellow card equates to a quarter of their wages. For comparison, look at Carlos Tevez' payslip and the deduction for FA fines (he was given two yellow cards in that month).

kksaints

Dislike the idea of a Europa League playoff and while I understand the idea by creating events to boost interest such as the Aviva double headers and league splits I dislike the idea for League matches. If they plan on creating events like this an EA Sports cup semi final double header in the Aviva would be the one I would experiment with first.

A 10 team premier division is common enough in a lot of other European countries of a similar size so I wouldnt be as down on the idea as others seem to be. An eight team first division isnt sustainable tjough so I can see the reasoning behind the idea. However I would rather keep the 12 team premier and get a 10 or 12 team first divison with new teams such as Tralee, Carlow and Castlebar or the return of some former teams like Monaghan Utd, Kilkenny City and Kildare County. Maybe wavering the affiliation fees for the first three seasons and help from the FAI (unlikely I know) in setting up structure regarding connecting with local leagues and under-age teams.

The marketing and administration ideas are interesting but without the FAI and the Clubs driving the ideas, nothing will really change.

osarusan

The split is just a disaster waiting to happen, again.

Pedro K

Prize money still needs to be substantially increased before anything happens, in my opinion.

Scandalous that Delaney is on €360k a year and the league winners only get €100k.

I can't remember the exact figures, but I remember seeing that only the teams in the top three get back more in prize money than the registration fee.

Gavin "shels"

Scandalous that leagues have to pay 19k to play in the League! That needs to be scrapped first and foremost!

Gavin "shels"

12 comments in 11 hours........... awh Ireland.

Winston Payne

Gavin shels wrote: »

12 comments in 11 hours........... awh Ireland.

Here's another one. What?

Gavin "shels"

Winston Payne wrote: »

Here's another one. What?

The lack of interest, debate, suggestions, etc...

Lovely Bloke

Gavin shels wrote: »

The lack of interest, debate, suggestions, etc...

Suggestions come from 2 types of people on this forum.

1. Interested LOI supporters; but we've all posted them over the years so absolutely no point in re-hashing them for a Nth time. We all know what we think, we've been over it a million times.

2. The woodwork crawlers who pop up around July every year to tell us all how they have this great new idea to help the Irish League (sic), because they've heard the Shamrock Rockers are playing in the CL1QR. That amazing idea usually involves scrapping the league and inventing franchises for everyone to follow, it will be totes amazeballs, just like the gah, everyone with a local team, utopia! also, the current LOI fans who post on message boards need to stop being so mean, it makes them not want to go to games. And there was this one time they went to one Irish League match and it was raining, so they are never going again. The tea was too cold.

The_Kew_Tour

Too much politics in Irish football.

Few clubs trying to make a difference, hope their the ones who benefit, no matter what year they were invented

billymitchell

Until somebody comes up with the magic formula of making the LOI clubs a few quid, the thing is going to stay as it is for the foreseeable future. Surely it would be in the FAI's best interest for a thriving LOI

Paz-CCFC

To be fair, there's been a bit of discussion on the main LoI thread, where it was posted first.

There's a lot of criticism about this report not really advocating huge change and focusing and more minor issues. There is a lack of critical analysis of the FAI and there are some assertions that aren't backed up with much and hard to believe - eg, that the FAI are running the league at a loss. But I think some of the criticism is because the report doesn't really recommend radical overhauls. People want huge change, because they want to see some of the effects immediately. It's all about instant reward, we want the league to be better and we want it now, not later. And if it doesn't get better now, it's very easy to lose interest in what might start off as an exciting project.

The problem is that there's no silver bullet. The best thing to happen since the FAI took over is probably the introduction of the national U19s and U17s league. We're only really now, 3 or 4 years later, seeing the beginnings of tangible benefits of the U19s league and we're probably another 4 or 5 years off seeing real big benefits, when a substantial number of LoI players will be graduates of that system. For the U17s, we're talking about 5 or 6 years before we see the start of it benefitting senior football and probably 10+ before it really kicks in. People don't want to wait a decade to reap the rewards, but I think that's really the best way to do things. Implement small changes here and there, give them a chance to take effect and most of all, be patient.

White Horse

The U17 and U19 leagues are a huge investment for the clubs.

In my opinion, it is a worthwhile investment and will hopefully benefit clubs in the long-run.

Criticism of the report is because it proposed changes to the league format that are pure gimmickry. The report hides all details of sponsorship deals and offers no details as to where clubs will get the money to invest in additional marketing and community work.

dfx-

The problem for the report is that it is saying blatently obvious things. Is the communication so poor at the FAI that they don't know the prize money should go up?

Why do they need this report to spell out that midweek games should be taken out and give them a template for a league fixture list?

Why does it need this report to tell them about the TV contracts should be headed towards the clubs? This is really obvious stuff that LOI fans have been over and over. Did the FAI not know about this before this report?

You see in the report responses 63% interest in the league due to the atmosphere, but the fines for flares should remain the same according to the report. Also that clubs should put up with the FAI if they enter FAI competitions. That isn't an encouraging environment for change.

Ferris_Bueller

Paz-CCFC wrote: »

To be fair, there's been a bit of discussion on the main LoI thread, where it was posted first.

There's a lot of criticism about this report not really advocating huge change and focusing and more minor issues. There is a lack of critical analysis of the FAI and there are some assertions that aren't backed up with much and hard to believe - eg, that the FAI are running the league at a loss. But I think some of the criticism is because the report doesn't really recommend radical overhauls. People want huge change, because they want to see some of the effects immediately. It's all about instant reward, we want the league to be better and we want it now, not later. And if it doesn't get better now, it's very easy to lose interest in what might start off as an exciting project.

The problem is that there's no silver bullet. The best thing to happen since the FAI took over is probably the introduction of the national U19s and U17s league. We're only really now, 3 or 4 years later, seeing the beginnings of tangible benefits of the U19s league and we're probably another 4 or 5 years off seeing real big benefits, when a substantial number of LoI players will be graduates of that system. For the U17s, we're talking about 5 or 6 years before we see the start of it benefitting senior football and probably 10+ before it really kicks in. People don't want to wait a decade to reap the rewards, but I think that's really the best way to do things. Implement small changes here and there, give them a chance to take effect and most of all, be patient.

Good post. It's the same with the state of football in this country generally, people love having a whinge about how badly it's run and how poor we are at developing players but they don't realise it will take a long time to see the results of any changes that are implemented at the moment.

Huge change is unrealistic unless there is a lot of money invested into the league and that was never going to happen unfortunately. These recommendations are relatively small and simple but they're realistic and hopefully in 5 years time we will see that they've been effective.

Ferris_Bueller

White Horse wrote: »

The U17 and U19 leagues are a huge investment for the clubs.

In my opinion, it is a worthwhile investment and will hopefully benefit clubs in the long-run.

Criticism of the report is because it proposed changes to the league format that are pure gimmickry. The report hides all details of sponsorship deals and offers no details as to where clubs will get the money to invest in additional marketing and community work.

Did he not comment in the report about getting a proper network of volunteers at every club who are qualified and properly capable of carrying out things such as marketing? Also he mentioned hopefully running courses to train administrators/volunteers in these areas. And community schemes such as getting players involved, more kids involved etc.

He didn't go into great depth but if we were expecting one man to come out with all the answers then we were being foolish, it is up to the FAI and the clubs to work to get these things done.

dfx- wrote: »

The problem for the report is that it is saying blatently obvious things. Is the communication so poor at the FAI that they don't know the prize money should go up?

Why do they need this report to spell out that midweek games should be taken out and give them a template for a league fixture list?

Why does it need this report to tell them about the TV contracts should be headed towards the clubs? This is really obvious stuff that LOI fans have been over and over. Did the FAI not know about this before this report?

Surely they are problems with the FAI rather than the report, no? The prize money hasn't been raised, the midweek matches are still being played, this might be obvious stuff that fans have been talking about for years but now it is documented in an official report to the FAI. They should have no excuse to ignore it now.

I will be as annoyed as anyone if the FAI don't follow up on these things but IMO the report has gathered what fans have been saying for a long time and presented it to the FAI. Now it is their time to follow these recommendations.

White Horse

Ferris_Bueller wrote: »

Did he not comment in the report about getting a proper network of volunteers at every club who are qualified and properly capable of carrying out things such as marketing? Also he mentioned hopefully running courses to train administrators/volunteers in these areas. And community schemes such as getting players involved, more kids involved etc.

He didn't go into great depth but if we were expecting one man to come out with all the answers then we were being foolish, it is up to the FAI and the clubs to work to get these things done.



Surely they are problems with the FAI rather than the report, no? The prize money hasn't been raised, the midweek matches are still being played, this might be obvious stuff that fans have been talking about for years but now it is documented in an official report to the FAI. They should have no excuse to ignore it now.

I will be as annoyed as anyone if the FAI don't follow up on these things but IMO the report has gathered what fans have been saying for a long time and presented it to the FAI. Now it is their time to follow these recommendations.

What recommendation do you want to follow?

Introducing gimmickry into the premier division. 3rd paying fourth for a Europa league place even if there is a 10 point gap.

As one journalist said; the league table doesn't lie, but it will if these proposals are implemented.

We should not rush to implement measures that may do further damage to the league.

dfx-

Ferris_Bueller wrote: »

Surely they are problems with the FAI rather than the report, no? The prize money hasn't been raised, the midweek matches are still being played, this might be obvious stuff that fans have been talking about for years but now it is documented in an official report to the FAI. They should have no excuse to ignore it now.

I will be as annoyed as anyone if the FAI don't follow up on these things but IMO the report has gathered what fans have been saying for a long time and presented it to the FAI. Now it is their time to follow these recommendations.

They had no excuse to ignore it before now either. For these years of clubs struggling and entering the league at a loss, all it took was a formal report? Will there have to be a formal report to get any change in the future?

What really LOI fans need to look for is action, whether it by this report or the association copping on by themselves. Before we get to subtle changes or long term changes or 5 year plans or the very vague outlining of a Q mark system. Just change the obvious things.

Ferris_Bueller

White Horse wrote: »

What recommendation do you want to follow?

Introducing gimmickry into the premier division. 3rd paying fourth for a Europa league place even if there is a 10 point gap.

As one journalist said; the league table doesn't lie, but it will if these proposals are implemented.

We should not rush to implement measures that may do further damage to the league.

Conroy said himself they do not need to follow one specific recommendation, if they want to take bits from each they can. I'd think that increasing prize money, lowering the entry fees, improving marketing, social media, community links are all fairly important things that could be done in his recommendations.

Personally I would not be against the playoff at all, take a look at the playoff system in the championship in England, if it wasn't for them the majority of that division would have nothing to play for all year. I think that works very well and adds interest to the league, yes it is a bit unfair but if it generates more interest in the league it's a good thing.

dfx- wrote: »

They had no excuse to ignore it before now either.

What really LOI fans need to look for is action, whether it by this report and the association copping on by themselves. Before we get to subtle changes or long term changes or 5 year plans or the very vague outlining of a Q mark system. Just change the obvious things.

Well yes I'd agree with you, we need the FAI to start taking action and responsibility. I guess I'm just hoping this will lead to them starting to do something.

The_Kew_Tour

Paz-CCFC wrote: »

To be fair, there's been a bit of discussion on the main LoI thread, where it was posted first.

There's a lot of criticism about this report not really advocating huge change and focusing and more minor issues. There is a lack of critical analysis of the FAI and there are some assertions that aren't backed up with much and hard to believe - eg, that the FAI are running the league at a loss. But I think some of the criticism is because the report doesn't really recommend radical overhauls. People want huge change, because they want to see some of the effects immediately. It's all about instant reward, we want the league to be better and we want it now, not later. And if it doesn't get better now, it's very easy to lose interest in what might start off as an exciting project.

The problem is that there's no silver bullet. The best thing to happen since the FAI took over is probably the introduction of the national U19s and U17s league. We're only really now, 3 or 4 years later, seeing the beginnings of tangible benefits of the U19s league and we're probably another 4 or 5 years off seeing real big benefits, when a substantial number of LoI players will be graduates of that system. For the U17s, we're talking about 5 or 6 years before we see the start of it benefitting senior football and probably 10+ before it really kicks in. People don't want to wait a decade to reap the rewards, but I think that's really the best way to do things. Implement small changes here and there, give them a chance to take effect and most of all, be patient.

This is not a Good post, it's a Super One and could not agree more

Zebra3

dfx- wrote: »

The problem for the report is that it is saying blatently obvious things. Is the communication so poor at the FAI that they don't know the prize money should go up?

The FAI are fully aware of how poor the prize money is, but it's easier to ignore those complaints, pay yourself a massive salary and spend it getting drunk.

Lovely Bloke

inforfun

Can only compare to Holland but the introduction of play offs for EL and CL (which has been abolished again) did make it that the league remained interesting until the last ball was kicked.

As a Feyenoord fan i ****ing hate the play off because it has costed Feyenoord 4x European football now. 1x CL and 3x EL.

But in an 18 team league in the last 2 rounds there are maybe 3 or 4 teams who have absolutely nothing to play for anymore, 1 usually the team in 18th spot and 1 the champions.
All other teams still have something to fight for.

So for the league it has been good, the introduction of play offs, for some clubs it has been a disaster.

I dont think a 3rd/4th place play off will be fair though. Needs to be similar to Holland where the play off places usually are the ones finishing in 5th till 8th position (or 4th/7th depending on who wins the cup)

But a play off with 4 teams for EL in a 12 team league......

Edit:
There is also this weird phenomena in Holland that the play off matches are actually attracting poor enough crowds compared to the league matches.

Paz-CCFC

White Horse wrote: »

The U17 and U19 leagues are a huge investment for the clubs.

They're a fraction of running the senior teams.

One good point I read earlier was to push fundraising as for a club's underage setup, instead of generally. It doesn't really change much for the club, as they just have to re-allocate funding, but it gives a much more positive image. It's an easier sell when it's for something more grassroots and it opens up more options. It'd be perfectly acceptable to have an U17s team bagpacking or bucket collecting - doing that for a professional senior team, not as much.

dfx- wrote: »

The problem for the report is that it is saying blatently obvious things.

Did you know that the league's sponsorship was bundled in as part of the national team? I didn't. I think it'd create more money to have a separately-negotiated deal. That'd give us a better idea of what the league actually brings in and it'd help increase prize money. Likewise dedicated sponsors for the underage leagues.

I knew the overall current prize money and the winner's, but never a breakdown of the league. I didn't know exact figures for fines, either.

These are a few things, maybe they were obvious to you, but they weren't to me.

inforfun wrote: »

I dont think a 3rd/4th place play off will be fair though. Needs to be similar to Holland where the play off places usually are the ones finishing in 5th till 8th position (or 4th/7th depending on who wins the cup)

But a play off with 4 teams for EL in a 12 team league......

Edit:
There is also this weird phenomena in Holland that the play off matches are actually attracting poor enough crowds compared to the league matches.

Why does it have to be a 4 team play-off? What's so unfair with 3rd v 4th? The farthest I'd go would be 3 teams. 4th v 5th the Monday/Tuesday after the last league game and then the winners against 3rd the following Friday. One-off matches and give the higher placed team home advantage.

For the play-off finals in Holland, they've generally been on par or slightly higher than the team's average, although a couple of smaller crowds. This year, Heerenveen had about two-thirds their average, but Vitesse had about the same as theirs. Last year, AZ had 10% below average, but Groningen had 10% more. Two years ago, Twente had 30% less, while Utreacht had an increase of a third. It seems like the bigger clubs aren't as interest, but it gets the attention of the smaller ones.

If you had similar trends in Ireland, you'd probably be looking at 2,500 for the likes of City, Dundalk, Rovers (which would be a decent crowd, below average in recent seasons, but you're still talking a tidy 5 figure sum from gates). Maybe, since match-ups between these teams would be more likely, you might even get 3,000-3,500. Say if a team like Galway managed to push for that, you'd probably be talking around the same lines, 2,500-3,000. A one-off match would probably your best bet of getting a big crowd, both from home and away fans. Fans in particular would probably be more likely to give the first leg a miss if they were away (and then if their team were hammered, they'd skip the home match, too).

inforfun

Paz-CCFC wrote: »

Why does it have to be a 4 team play-off? What's so unfair with 3rd v 4th? The farthest I'd go would be 3 teams. 4th v 5th the Monday/Tuesday after the last league game and then the winners against 3rd the following Friday. One-off matches and give the higher placed team home advantage.

For the play-off finals in Holland, they've generally been on par or slightly higher than the team's average, although a couple of smaller crowds. This year, Heerenveen had about two-thirds their average, but Vitesse had about the same as theirs. Last year, AZ had 10% below average, but Groningen had 10% more. Two years ago, Twente had 30% less, while Utreacht had an increase of a third. It seems like the bigger clubs aren't as interest, but it gets the attention of the smaller ones.

If you had similar trends in Ireland, you'd probably be looking at 2,500 for the likes of City, Dundalk, Rovers (which would be a decent crowd, below average in recent seasons, but you're still talking a tidy 5 figure sum from gates). Maybe, since match-ups between these teams would be more likely, you might even get 3,000-3,500. Say if a team like Galway managed to push for that, you'd probably be talking around the same lines, 2,500-3,000. A one-off match would probably your best bet of getting a big crowd, both from home and away fans. Fans in particular would probably be more likely to give the first leg a miss if they were away (and then if their team were hammered, they'd skip the home match, too).

I based the lesser crowds on a bigger sample than just the last 2 seasons.
There have been play offs for over 10 years in Holland and there really is a significant drop in attendance in the play offs, certainly in the earlier years.

Now it used to be that separate tickets had to be bought for the play offs, season tickets were not valid.
It might have well been that the last few seasons clubs have changed that and gave season ticket holders free tickets. I am not sure.
Could have a look about that but it will for sure be Dutch links if i can find anything at all about that.

As why i think it should be 4 teams fighting for that EL ticket.
Just a feeling i have with "play offs". Should be more than just a final round and it definitely should be home and away.
But there is no science to that, just a personal preference.

As an outsider from abroad, i do think however there are bigger issues that should be taken care off first before considering play offs.
First thing would be to try and put a stop to young players (u18 and younger) leave for the UK.
Young players left and are leaving Holland as well (Ake, Bruma, Ebicilio, Rekik to name just a few went when they were 14/15) but they leave for the top English teams. You cant stop that.
But young players leaving for English lower division teams because that is better than staying at top league Irish league teams, there should be something that can be done to stop that.
And as soon as those better Irish players stay in Ireland, i guess the league will improve accordingly

What i want to say with it, is that if you want to improve football in Ireland, start with the youth. Dont fiddle with a league that is been pretty bad for as long as i have been here (over 10 years)

And stop paying Delaney €350000 a year. Oosterveen, the Dutch FA president is on 200000 but he is leading an FA with 1 million members.

Paz-CCFC

inforfun wrote: »

I based the lesser crowds on a bigger sample than just the last 2 seasons.
There have been play offs for over 10 years in Holland and there really is a significant drop in attendance in the play offs, certainly in the earlier years.

You could've posted some figures yourself, to be fair.

Just some more finals (averages in brackets). 2012 - Waalwijk 6,000 (6,300); Vitesse 24,500 (17,600). 2011 - ADO 12,600 (12,800); Groningen 19,600 (21,600). 2010 - Roda 13,500 (14,700); 18,600 (20,900). Those figures from Soccerway.com. They don't go before 2009, so feel free to add to it.

That's six years altogether I've posted, that show finals around the same as league averages, albeit mostly a touch below. A couple of significant decreases, but a couple of significant increase, too. Maybe some of the previous years were much worse?

Now it used to be that separate tickets had to be bought for the play offs, season tickets were not valid.
It might have well been that the last few seasons clubs have changed that and gave season ticket holders free tickets. I am not sure.
Could have a look about that but it will for sure be Dutch links if i can find anything at all about that.

I'll take your word that you're giving accurate translations!

As why i think it should be 4 teams fighting for that EL ticket.
Just a feeling i have with "play offs". Should be more than just a final round and it definitely should be home and away.
But there is no science to that, just a personal preference.

That's fair enough, but isn't the case everywhere. The promotion/relegation play-off in Germany has just one round, between 3rd in 2 Bundesliga and 3rd last in Bundesliga.

As an outsider from abroad, i do think however there are bigger issues that should be taken care off first before considering play offs.
First thing would be to try and put a stop to young players (u18 and younger) leave for the UK.

What i want to say with it, is that if you want to improve football in Ireland, start with the youth. Dont fiddle with a league that is been pretty bad for as long as i have been here (over 10 years)

I agree with you, play-offs are far from the biggest issue. For one reason or another, we've just been discussing them on this thread.

Re young players, we'll never keep the very best youngest players, given some of the competition we're up against so close. But what we can do is keep them for longer and maximise the money that we do get for them. With the U17s and the future U15s leagues, it means we can get players as young as 13. Before this year, when we had just the U19s, we were getting them only as young as 17. That means that we would've missed the boat on some players spotted by English clubs and less training compensation and solidarity payments for players that later move on. The extra four years could give a substantial increase in solidarity payments in particular if the player is a success when he leaves the club and gets a big money transfer.

You also have the younger players developing better by playing against the other top players in the country. That increases the baseline of players, so we have a better quality of those that either aren't good enough to play for big clubs abroad. They might get attached to the club more when they're joining younger, too, which might allow us to hang onto them for another year or two (which means more compensation and solidarity money, as above) and if they're tied down to contracts, transfer fees.

So, The underage system is and will be bringing a number of benefits. As I've said myself, it's probably been the biggest thing that the LoI has done in years.

As for dear leader...well, the man basically pays himself.

inforfun

This is from www.ad.nl one the countires biggest newspapers. I google translated that. it is not perfect but the statements there dont get lost in translation.
That is from 2008 and it comes down to: never have there been more people in the Dutch stadiums as that particular season, but the play offs were not that popular (lost 50000 compared to the year before).

Lets not fight about that further. It is a non issue i have to admit because more people during the regular league can well have been because of the play offs.

Your best youth players, you will always lose. Same goes for Holland. At the moment Utd and Chelsea are trying to get (again) a 15 year old from Feyenoord to sign for them.
It is annoying as ****, it makes me hate those teams and seeing them fail time and again in Europe only makes that a little better.

But i am sure there are now young Irish players going to clubs that shouldnt be better for them than what is on offer here. If they then leave age 22/23 or whatever, so be it. But they shouldnt leave for Doncaster at age 14.

civis_liberalis

Gavin shels wrote: »

12 comments in 11 hours........... awh Ireland.

Because the report is nonsense from the FAI dressed up to look independent.

The league merger is up for renewal. They want to distract people.

TheDoc

inforfun wrote: »

This is from www.ad.nl one the countires biggest newspapers. I google translated that. it is not perfect but the statements there dont get lost in translation.
That is from 2008 and it comes down to: never have there been more people in the Dutch stadiums as that particular season, but the play offs were not that popular (lost 50000 compared to the year before).

Lets not fight about that further. It is a non issue i have to admit because more people during the regular league can well have been because of the play offs.

Your best youth players, you will always lose. Same goes for Holland. At the moment Utd and Chelsea are trying to get (again) a 15 year old from Feyenoord to sign for them.
It is annoying as ****, it makes me hate those teams and seeing them fail time and again in Europe only makes that a little better.

But i am sure there are now young Irish players going to clubs that shouldnt be better for them than what is on offer here. If they then leave age 22/23 or whatever, so be it. But they shouldnt leave for Doncaster at age 14.

It's not just now, that's happened for a fairly long while. 12/13 years ago League 1 clubs were much better prospects that LOI clubs.

I know first hand with family who didn't work out at PL clubs, it was critical to stay in England as long as possible, as once you stepped foot back to LOI that was it finished. Cousin ditched LOI to go fulltime at his trade, so much was the financial disparity.

I've seen nothing to change that in ten years, zilch.

Paz-CCFC

inforfun wrote: »

Your best youth players, you will always lose. Same goes for Holland. At the moment Utd and Chelsea are trying to get (again) a 15 year old from Feyenoord to sign for them.
It is annoying as ****, it makes me hate those teams and seeing them fail time and again in Europe only makes that a little better.

But i am sure there are now young Irish players going to clubs that shouldnt be better for them than what is on offer here. If they then leave age 22/23 or whatever, so be it. But they shouldnt leave for Doncaster at age 14.

To be fair, you might have 17/18 year olds leaving for League 1/2 clubs, but I don't think it's that common for 13/14 year olds. They'd probably have their eyes on the EPL and when they realise that they're probably not good enough, as most won't be, I think some concentrate on trying to get a move three or four years down the line, when they might have some senior football in Ireland under their belt. They might then get a move to a Championship club or maybe League 1/2 if they feel they'll have a good chance of being in the first team and work their way up the ladder that way.

I agree with you, though, that there are players leaving too young. But we're getting better in this regard, largely thanks to the developing underage system. At the end of the day, if a young fella wants to move on even to a level or two below his standard, you can't do much other than insist the new club may you what you're due in compensation. But we are making it more attractive for younger lads to stay on a bit and I think the number of lads waiting 'til their early 20s to move and making it in the EPL/Championship and breaking into the Irish team.

TheDoc wrote: »

It's not just now, that's happened for a fairly long while. 12/13 years ago League 1 clubs were much better prospects that LOI clubs.

I know first hand with family who didn't work out at PL clubs, it was critical to stay in England as long as possible, as once you stepped foot back to LOI that was it finished. Cousin ditched LOI to go fulltime at his trade, so much was the financial disparity.

I've seen nothing to change that in ten years, zilch.

Sounds like the tired old cliché of many a failed footballer. "Oh, well I could've walked into any LoI team, but I didn't bother, I was too good for it". The thing is, most young players who go on trial with English clubs aren't good enough for the League of Ireland either. They're taken on trials/signed for the youth team, because if you look at enough players, you'll find the odd diamond. Many many of them come back and fail to break into the LoI because they're not at that level, either.

You're talking about going back to the early noughties. That was the time when Irish teams started spending relatively big money, pushing the boat out for European success. Quite a few players would've been on €1,000 - €2,000 and you'd have the odd few on €3,000+. (Yes, it was unsustainable, but with the massive number of English clubs to have gone through examinership, it doesn't seem to sustainable over their either). Your cousin ditched the chance of a six figure salary, did he?

Re your comment that once you go into the League of Ireland, you're finished and never able to move onto bigger things. You mean like Doyle, Fahey, Hoolohan, McClean, Coleman, Ward, Daryl Murphy etc? Not to mention the lads that weren't good enough to break into the top English leagues/play much for Ireland, but went to places like Asia and got paid very handsomely (Zayed, Roy O'Donovan, Joe Gamble etc.).

Omackeral

Have only seen this thread now but my views are that;

Any talk of a split in the league after a series of games is nonsense and contrived. It's just messy in my opinion and not exactly needed.

Holding playoffs for the Europa League, similarly, is a bit much. You earn your spot there on merit. The only place where this could be an exception would be if the FAI Cup losing finalist plays off with the 4th place team, assuming that they themselves have finished lower than that. Obviously Cup winners still claims the berth automatically regardless of finishing place.

I think relegation/promotion, for the most part, is grand as it is. First Division winners up, Premier Division basement boys down. I'd probably go 2nd place FD vs 2nd last PD in a 2 legged affair in the relegation/promotion playoff, without including 3rd place in the First Division but it's not a major bone of contention to me.

Read a decent idea about having a centrally contracted kit supplier for all LOI teams. Not a bad idea really. Wouldn't be against it. Although it would have to be an open competition on a rolling basis for fairness I guess.

Registration fees for new additions to the 1st Division should be subsidised or comped for the first couple of seasons. Let them find their feet without too much worry and grant them temporary FD Licenses.

I'm against franchise football in theory but if someone wants to set up a team in Navan to have a crack at First Division football and their manifesto checks out, why not? As long as everything is on an even keel.

Advertising through social media is effectively free if you do it the right way. All clubs should have a dedicated Social Media Ambassador to take care of the clubs Facebook, Twitter, even Wikipedia pages. The work done in Cork City has been phenomenal but that's costly and not possible for everyone.