It's no wonder money talks

One of the things to become abundantly clear over the months that the Dublin Dons saga has dragged on is the fact that the people who run National League clubs around the country currently have next to no real faith in the people who run the game at national level.

Time and again over the course of the past year, the FAI has stated that the arrival of Wimbledon on these shores would scupper all of association's grand plans for the game. But, as we move closer to a stage where each of the league's clubs has actually had an opportunity to discuss the package which Sam Hammam and co are offering them, rather than simply marvel at the constant stream of claim and counter claim, there has a notable absence of a constructive alternative for the development of the senior game coming out of Merrion Square.

There is, of course, a committee of nine people currently reviewing several major areas of the league's activities, but there is considerable suspicion about what recommendations it will make on issues such as the size and structure of the league itself. Neither is there a great deal of confidence that what recommendations it makes will ever be passed by bodies in which each of the clubs has an equal say.

The current situation, and the attempt by the FAI to hold the line in the face of a sustained propaganda onslaught by Wimbledon, has scarcely been helped by the fact that it is known that some clubs, Shelbourne have made it clear they are one, desire an elite grouping of around 10 clubs to form the basis of a new structure. Others, like St Patrick's, play down the issue of a precise number in favour of minimum facility requirements. Either way, Bernard O'Byrne made it clear at a meeting of the support group National League United that he sees it as being distinctly possible that the association will attempt to impose a dramatic cut in numbers if some sort of agreement is not reached by the clubs themselves.

It's all very well for O'Byrne to then say, as he has, that he is declining to meet Sam Hammam because it would be like a man sitting down to talk with somebody who has proposed shooting him in the head. But to some of the league's poorer clubs, many of the people leading the opposition to the Dublin Dons seem to have a similar fate in mind for them. In the circumstances, it is somewhat unreasonable to tell clubs some of which appear to be involved in never-ending struggles to pay a variety of creditors that they should not even hear the details of what might be on offer. Can directors of the next club which goes bust here seriously be expected to stand up at a creditors' meeting and tell people whose bills are not being paid that they could have had their money if the Dublin Dons scheme had gone ahead? The offers should, having said that, be taken with a liberal dose of salt for Wimbledon's approach throughout has been to explore a number of avenues and see which offers the best way forward. If somebody in England comes up with a better offer, then the Clondalkin scheme will go up in a puff of smoke, while if the European courts come down heavily on their side, Hammam's chequebook seems certain to disappear back into his pocket, leaving clubs here to get used to life in his club's shadow without any of the funds for redevelopment which have so far been talked about.

Overall, though, and whatever Hammam's true intentions, what is needed, and excuse me if this happens to seem just a little obvious, is a plan. A viable alternative that offers clubs a brighter future. This has been noticeably absent from the FAI's armoury over the course of the debate.

It is difficult to counter the promise of around £250,000 for each club in the country with vague talk of what the association itself is hoping to achieve. If clubs were impressed by what was being achieved at the moment, then the task might be considerably more straightforward, but most are clearly not. They have made it known in one way or another that they think the marketing of the league is poor, the support they receive from the central office is inadequate, and that there is an absence of a plausible strategy aimed at transforming their fortunes.

Wimbledon's cash would, of course, have to be spent much more wisely than much of the funding which has gone before if it is to have any long-term impact, but then every club will reckon that they will do that. Wimbledon's strategy in this whole story may involve a good deal of duplicity, but at least they have had a strategy. The FAI's blushes may (or may not) be spared by the courts of the European Union, but it would be a humiliating blow if O'Byrne had to beat a majority of National League clubs in a vote on the matter within the FAI by calling on the help of non-league delegates.

The reality is that, whatever else this whole proposal has done, it has highlighted the fact that, as the ruling bodies of football here, both the League and the FAI are felt by many to lack a vision for the future of the senior game.