View Full Version : The first IL club 'Credit Crunch' casualty.
Mr_Parker
09/02/2009, 11:16 PM
Aye because they have a potential 10,000. :rolleyes:
No because when they were in the IPL their attendances were sufficient to help maintain them financially while Bangor said their attendances are not enough to do likewise.
Graemerz
09/02/2009, 11:55 PM
No because when they were in the IPL their attendances were sufficient to help maintain them financially while Bangor said their attendances are not enough to do likewise.
Different leagues. The Carnegie Premier Division that DC participated in, is not the same league Bangor have been playing in this year.
As for your previous post, regardless, the figures are still incorrect. Totally.
Mr_Parker
11/02/2009, 9:38 PM
As for your previous post, regardless, the figures are still incorrect. Totally.
You should report your club to the IFA then. :rolleyes:
Graemerz
12/02/2009, 12:43 PM
You should report your club to the IFA then. :rolleyes:
Why would I report my own club? :rolleyes:
I'm stating the figures are wrong throughout the entire league. Some are more wrong than others.
Indeed. And to be fair on DC they will be upgrading their ground soon. Ciould be playing some matches at solitude whilst the work goes on.
How long have we been hearing that. Let's be honest, it was a political decision to allow their ground in the Premier League in the first place. The IFA were frightened to say no when the fact is that the ground is not fit to hold top division matches and is a danger for those attending.
Mr_Parker
12/02/2009, 7:09 PM
How long have we been hearing that. Let's be honest, it was a political decision to allow their ground in the Premier League in the first place. The IFA were frightened to say no when the fact is that the ground is not fit to hold top division matches and is a danger for those attending.
Em, nonsense David. There ground met the criteria that applied at the time. There ground is/was no more dangerous than many IL grounds were/are. You state as "fact" that there ground was not fit to hold "top division matches." Can you explain then how such matches did in fact take place when they were in the "top division" and indeed their ground was used this season for "top division" games? Those are the FACTS.
While your at it David, please tell us how many games have been called off for spectator safety issues in recent years and which grounds they happened at? :rolleyes:
Em, nonsense David. There ground met the criteria that applied at the time. There ground is/was no more dangerous than many IL grounds were/are. You state as "fact" that there ground was not fit to hold "top division matches." Can you explain then how such matches did in fact take place when they were in the "top division" and indeed their ground was used this season for "top division" games? Those are the FACTS.
While your at it David, please tell us how many games have been called off for spectator safety issues in recent years and which grounds they happened at? :rolleyes:
On both occasions that Linfield played league games there I witnessed numerous people falling such was the conditions of the away part of the ground. Do you think that is acceptable for the any match, never mind the top division in the country?
Mr_Parker
13/02/2009, 7:14 PM
On both occasions that Linfield played league games there I witnessed numerous people falling such was the conditions of the away part of the ground. Do you think that is acceptable for the any match, never mind the top division in the country?
When you concede/rebut my points and answer my questions, then we can move to yours.
David
16/02/2009, 10:09 AM
When you concede/rebut my points and answer my questions, then we can move to yours.
It is the only ground where I have witnessed numerous people falling so I would say that it is more dangerous than other grounds.
Mr_Parker
17/02/2009, 12:40 AM
It is the only ground where I have witnessed numerous people falling so I would say that it is more dangerous than other grounds.
When you concede/rebut my points and answer my questions, then we can move to yours.
.....
JerseyRed
24/02/2009, 1:44 AM
On both occasions that Linfield played league games there I witnessed numerous people falling such was the conditions of the away part of the ground. Do you think that is acceptable for the any match, never mind the top division in the country?
Perhaps these people were standing in parts of the ground that is not deignated for spectators?:rolleyes: They've got terracing which passes the criteria.
Perhaps these people were standing in parts of the ground that is not deignated for spectators?:rolleyes: They've got terracing which passes the criteria.
And I have saw people slip on the terracing which is also covered in mud.
Graemerz
25/02/2009, 12:04 AM
Face it Parker, the ground is a shi*thole that isn't up to a standard and the only reason they got into the league was because they kicked up a stink.
SolitudeRed
25/02/2009, 12:43 AM
Face it Parker, the ground is a shi*thole that isn't up to a standard and the only reason they got into the league was because they kicked up a stink.
We all know Suffolk road isn't great but it must have fulfilled the licensing criteria after all we were able to play there at the begining of the season while the work was ongoing at Solitude.
JerseyRed
27/02/2009, 12:11 AM
And I have saw people slip on the terracing which is also covered in mud.
oh FFS:rolleyes:
Mr_Parker
01/03/2009, 3:08 PM
On both occasions that Linfield played league games there I witnessed numerous people falling such was the conditions of the away part of the ground. Do you think that is acceptable for the any match, never mind the top division in the country?
It is the only ground where I have witnessed numerous people falling so I would say that it is more dangerous than other grounds.
And I have saw people slip on the terracing which is also covered in mud.
:rolleyes:
When you concede/rebut my points and answer my questions, then we can move to yours. Still unable to answer but still prepared to trot out that old line. :rolleyes:
Face it Parker, the ground is a shi*thole that isn't up to a standard and the only reason they got into the league was because they kicked up a stink.
1. The grounds met the standard.
2. What stink was that/ The one when they had to take the Irish Football League to court along with Lurgan Celtic on the basis of discrimination and the one which the IFL settled out of court? :rolleyes:
Graemerz
01/03/2009, 8:10 PM
:rolleyes:
Still unable to answer but still prepared to trot out that old line. :rolleyes:
1. The grounds met the standard.
2. What stink was that/ The one when they had to take the Irish Football League to court along with Lurgan Celtic on the basis of discrimination and the one which the IFL settled out of court? :rolleyes:
IFL ran scared.
Mr_Parker
02/03/2009, 7:59 AM
IFL ran scared. Of being publically 'outed'
EalingGreen
02/03/2009, 12:55 PM
I don't know the exact circumstances about Donegal Celtic/Suffolk Road etc, but I suspect that with the IL/IFA having treated DCFC harshly in the past, and all the legal threats and bad publicity etc which followed, when it came to licensing the ground for senior football last time, they treated them leniently.
And if by doing so, the IFA/IL was tacitly admitting that they'd been harsh in the past, DCFC will also have given the IFA/IL to understand they would get the ground up to standard asap, in recognition of the new dispensation.
Subsequently, with "the slate having been wiped clean", when it came to Licensing the club (i.e. more than just the ground) for IPL purposes this season, DCFC fell short on the total number of points needed. I suspect that had they made good on the (implied) undertaking to improve Suffolk Road, this might have earned them enough points to have got into the IPL ahead of Bangor.
Consequently, my guess is that whilst Suffolk Road does have a License, it still isn't genuinely up to the standard that that implies.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.2 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.