Replying To Temple56:  "I wasn't asking what club you're from to dismiss your view I was asking for context. Contexts are often shaped by experience and that's natural. But I take your point that the discussion should be about the structure itself not who benefits from it. I do believe Westmeath GAA does not benefit from this that's what makes people like myself most annoyed.

I think where we differ is on what "fairness" means in this context. For me fairness isn't just about everyone starting from the exact same line every year it's also about rewarding performance from the previous season. The protection from relegation in Section A isn't random it's earned by reaching the knockout stages the year before. That's not a "makey-uppy" rule it's a merit-based incentive.

You mentioned the Premier League example, but the big difference is that the Premier League is a straight league format. The Westmeath championship isn't it's a hybrid structure with groups and knockouts. Different competitions use different systems to balance competitiveness and quality. The aim here has clearly been to ensure the strongest teams are more likely to reach the latter stages and from 2017 to 2025 that's what happened.

You're absolutely right that strong clubs should have to earn it every year and they still do. They have to perform well enough the previous season to get into Section A and then still win matches to reach a final. There's no guarantee of silverware. What the format does is reduce the chance of a top-two team being knocked out early because of one off-day or an uneven draw which we did see happen under the old system and we will 100% happen in this "makey-uppy" championship that is somehow passed through even though no one seems to think its fair. Even you have said this new format is flawed.

I don't see it as keeping strong clubs strong I see it as making sure the county final consistently features the two best teams. That benefits standards across the county. At the same time, teams in Section B still have a clear pathway upward promotion is there if they're good enough. Having better match ups = more money for county board. Cant see how they don't see this.

We might just value different things slightly you priorities jeopardy and pure reset every year fairness, while I priorities rewarding performance and ensuring quality at the business end. Neither position is unreasonable. Everyone is entitled to an opinion right or wrong. As you said yourself you seem to be the tiny minority which is why myself and the majority of club players, mangers and fans are outraged at how this format passed."

Replying To Upforthegame23:  "To be fair, the argument u put forward is the best ive seen yet. The best teams should have to earn it. I do see merit in that view and will add that some of the teams in group A, let the players off for alot of the summer and only come back for last game of group to get over line, one aspect I dont like and a massive advantage to group A teams,"

Replying To iarmhiabu:  "You mean we are the only County introducing "makey uppy" rules into an existing Championship structure which has been in place for the best part of a decade (obviously proved a success), undermining the integrity of the competition to suit the agenda of a few Clubs, one in particular. This is great "promotion of football" isn't it?"

Replying To Jack_Sparrow:  "Would you please read my posts and stop arguing with me about something I'm not arguing about. I'm not in favour of this years system. Go argue with someone who is."

Replying To iarmhiabu:  "Can players belonging to Clubs in Section B not get the same plane home to play the last game group? If a Club has players missing for the earlier games and are still in a position to qualify when they return home it usually means they have very strong squad depth, it is a privilege the stronger teams have. Perhaps the County Board and Killucan should introduce another "makey uppy" rule to prevent Section A Clubs bringing players back during Championship season?"

Replying To iarmhiabu:  "I have read your posts, and I understand where you are coming from on relegation but we have a tiered Championship structure. All 12 teams can be potentially relegated, the 6 Section A teams can be potentially relegated to Section B and the 6 Section B teams can be potentially relegated to Intermediate A. Relegating 2 teams from Section A and only 1 from Section B is generally not considered fair in a tiered Championship structure."

Replying To CasKD:  "I also agree with the points. There is argument on both sides and it is now balanced towards Group B.
First of all you should not be able to qualify in a 6 team group having lost 3 times.
Secondly if group A is so much stronger there will still be 3 teams from it in the semi finals and 2 in the final.
Reality is the top 2 or 3 in A group were and still will be in the final.
There was far too much jeopardy in group B with only 2 qualifying.
The right call in current format is probably to have a preliminary QF between 3rd in B and 4th in A but there is not time for this.
The point on relegation is very valid. For instance lets say Caulry for example had a good year last year and 4 or 5 lads went to America for the summer. They could be the worst team in the championship that year but exempt from relegation. In group B you have teams who ended up in because they didn't make the quarter finals the year the format changed and all of a sudden they're in a 2 out of 6 situation.
I think 2 or 4 either random or seeded groups in a format designed to keep games meaningful for everyone as long as possible is more fair.

Lets say 2 groups of 6 where 1st placed teams go to semi second placed teams play 3rd in other group in quarter finals and 5th & 6th placed teams play each other in a relegation semi final and then final. This should mean competitive games all through the group and at least 5 games for each team"

Replying To anon:  "Your last sentence is the issue there. Two equal groups of 6 won't ensure competitive group games. It will result in mismatches between the strongest teams and weaker ones. It was tried before and scrapped after a few years in favour of the system introduced in 2017.

I take Jack Sparrow's point about relegation. I think it's fair enough to believe everyone should be at risk of relegation. But for me the positives of the system that was in place far outweigh that as a negative. The A and B groups led to more competitive games throughout the group stages and very few dead rubber games.

I know Jack's not in favour of the new system, I'm not sure anyone here or anyone I've chatted to in real life is, but it really is an awful change that's been made. How anybody thought it was fair and how it got voted through I'll never know."

Replying To Jack_Sparrow:  "There's no intermediate A.
Just Intermediate with Group A and Group B. There's only 1 intermediate champion who goes on to play in Leinster. So it's a kind of relegation but not a real one because you could still win Intermediate next year if you were good enough.
Look I've already said I'm in a minority but it's my opinion. I will say that there seems to be no one on here defending this years system and that tells its own story so I understand your frustration because last years system was better for my club also but my opinion is both structures are flawed but I'm not going repeating the reasons again because it's distracting from the majority discussion."

Replying To jamsie:  "Well it wasn't scrapped after a few years - it was scrapped after a long time. It was in place from 2000 to 2016 , with the exception of 2006 when the county board pushed through a system with fewer games to appease the senior football management.
It's very clear how it got voted through. Teams who are in Group B this year saw the short term advantage to their clubs. And the county board , heavily weighted to Group B teams, had the effective tie breaking votes."

Replying To Upforthegame23:  "No you have completely missed the point again, teams in group a could qualify for knockout stages on maybe 3 or 4 points. Teams in group B needed 7 or 8, the point I made was the argument was good that the best team had to earn the title rather than scrapping by from group A in 1/4 finals and have a group of players return from America then for the knock out stages."