Dundalk IAG conspiracy theories

[OneRedArmy]

Valid point - if it is felt necessary to hive posts off to a new thread, it is reasonable to expect a Mod to assign a non-contentious title thread.

The fact that "Dundalk Paranoia" an "LoI fake moon landing" were added as tags speaks for itself.

Could it possibly be that the Moderator who imposed this thread title and tags was also centrally involved in the "debate"?

Moderators aren't the only ones who can add tags.

As stated above, the thread title is non-contentious. Dundalk fans alleged a conspiracy. It is what it is.

[pineapple stu]

FFS.

SMorgan didn't start this thread; I split it after the Galway thread was taken way off topic. I make no apologies for that. Everyone happy and aware that SMorgan didn't start the thread?

As ORA noted, the thread title is perfectly appropriate for exactly the reasons given. I make no apologies for choosing a suitable caption. If you'd prefer not to post in the thread, then the forum won't be any the worse for having this thread die anyways.

(I didn't add the tags though. But it's nice to see others agree with me).

[Ezeikial]

FFS.

SMorgan didn't start this thread; I split it after the Galway thread was taken way off topic. I make no apologies for that. Everyone happy and aware that SMorgan didn't start the thread?

As ORA noted, the thread title is perfectly appropriate for exactly the reasons given. I make no apologies for choosing a suitable caption. If you'd prefer not to post in the thread, then the forum won't be any the worse for having this thread die anyways.

(I didn't add the tags though. But it's nice to see others agree with me).

Apologies about the incorrect assertion about adding tags.

I didn't expect you to be able to acknowledge the possibility of the thread title you assigned being unsuitable, or in any was being a relfection of your own views or bias.

For what it is worth 5 Dundalk fans have posted on this thread, after others introduced the question of the IAG process. Apart from the views I expressed about the process being "gerrymandered", none of these made allegations of this being a conspiracy against Dundalk, more that the process was skewed favourably towards others

I don't think they were anti-Dundalk........
....They were pro-Galway United due to it's location and the size of the city.

I don't believe that the FAI / IAG were intentionally anti-Dundalk, but that they were pro-others. They obviously skewed the criteria in such a manner that they would maximise their preferred selections. Your earlier post illustrates an understanding that many of the outcomes were fait-accompli before the season even started:

[A N Mouse]

Maybe just use the results of the season in question, you know like happens every year?

And that would have defeated the purpose of the exercise at hand. (Which, with hindsight, defeated itself) Which was to have well run clubs throughout the league. On field criteria had to be brought into it, because it wouldn't have been in anyone's interests to throw in a few teams just to make up the numbers.

[Dillonman]

I think this thread should be locked before things get way out of hand again and it goes completely off topic!

[pineapple stu]

So long as it doesn't start back on Galway's training ground, it's grand.

[Mr A]

I added the tags. Anyone who is a member can add two to any thread.

But it was a guy from the FAI that made me do it

[Schumi]

And that would have defeated the purpose of the exercise at hand. Which was to have well run clubs throughout the league.

I don't see how good results 5, 4, 3 or 2 years ago give any indication that a club is well run. Bohs would be top of such a list now and Shels when this process was done. It seems pretty clear that picking teams based on factors other than their previous year's on-pitch performance did nothing to improve the quality of teams in the premier division.

On field criteria had to be brought into it, because it wouldn't have been in anyone's interests to throw in a few teams just to make up the numbers.

I don't understand this. Your placing in the league the year before is an on-pitch criterion.

[Réiteoir]

FFS.

SMorgan didn't start this thread; I split it after the Galway thread was taken way off topic. I make no apologies for that. Everyone happy and aware that SMorgan didn't start the thread?

As ORA noted, the thread title is perfectly appropriate for exactly the reasons given. I make no apologies for choosing a suitable caption. If you'd prefer not to post in the thread, then the forum won't be any the worse for having this thread die anyways.

(I didn't add the tags though. But it's nice to see others agree with me).

I hear the Boycott Memo is in the post on it's way to Louth from the Tallaght Council House, Bar and Grill

[A N Mouse]

I don't see how good results 5, 4, 3 or 2 years ago give any indication that a club is well run. Bohs would be top of such a list now and Shels when this process was done. It seems pretty clear that picking teams based on factors other than their previous year's on-pitch performance did nothing to improve the quality of teams in the premier division.

You're deliberately confusing the points. The well run part was supposed to be the off field criteria. And ultimately shels were denied a licence, though I believe that even with their poor showing off the field they still out scored dundalk in this process.

I don't understand this. Your placing in the league the year before is an on-pitch criterion.

Course it is. A Premier Divison including Kildare, Athlone, Monaghan and Kilkenny would have been a possibility otherwise. And this wouldn't have benefited either these teams or the league as a whole.

You want the clubs to get their house in order, but at the same time you want to keep some semblance of competitiveness. Course the thing is flawed but come up with a better way of doing it. [this was in my quote of the day today]

I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please everybody.

[John83]

Valid point - if it is felt necessary to hive posts off to a new thread, it is reasonable to expect a Mod to assign a non-contentious title thread.

It'd have been fairer alright, but the title, however provocative, is reasonably descriptive.

The fact that "Dundalk Paranoia" an "LoI fake moon landing" were added as tags speaks for itself.

Could it possibly be that the Moderator who imposed this thread title and tags was also centrally involved in the "debate"?

Mods aren't the only ones who can tag a thread. As such, I've tagged this thread "Dundalk paranoia paranoia", which makes less sense than the thread.

[Schumi]

You're deliberately confusing the points. The well run part was supposed to be the off field criteria. And ultimately shels were denied a licence, though I believe that even with their poor showing off the field they still out scored dundalk in this process.

Course it is. A Premier Divison including Kildare, Athlone, Monaghan and Kilkenny would have been a possibility otherwise. And this wouldn't have benefited either these teams or the league as a whole.

You want the clubs to get their house in order, but at the same time you want to keep some semblance of competitiveness. Course the thing is flawed but come up with a better way of doing it. [this was in my quote of the day today]

I think you've taken me up wrong here. What I'm saying is that it would have made more sense to only use the standings for the year before in the on-field points rather than having points from years before as well. I'd leave it at that but if you have to use off-field points too, then add them on to that. There's only so far first division teams could get on the field so a topsy-turvy league would be unlikely although I'm not sure what the point of this process was if it wasn't to change the divisions from what would have happened through normal promotion and relegation.