Dungannon retain place in IPL

[Dassa]

Dungannon retained their place in the IPL after last nights second leg with Donegall Celtic.

DS won 1-0 last night and went through on away goals (2-2)

[gufc2000]

Donegal Celtic are appealing, saying they should have gone up as Dungannon finished bottom of the league, and therefore automatically relegated

[pineapple stu]

Didn't Bangor say they didn't want a licence for next year, so they're down either way?

[gufc2000]

Didn't Bangor say they didn't want a licence for next year, so they're down either way?
Ya they did, but what Donegal maintain is that 2 teams should go up automatcially.

Bangor should never have been let near the Premiership if they were going to pull up halfway through, it defeats all logic of them playing matches. For half the season, the players were essentially playing meaningless games. Can't imagine how frustrating it was for supporters

[Gather round]

Donegal Celtic should have been in this season's top division: they fulfilled the minimum requirement for a licence as it stood this time last year.

So clearly Bangor shouldn't, as there were already 12 teams qualifying with entitlement to licences and better playing record (Bangor finished third in the second division last year, thus 19th overall).

Dungannon should have gone down this year regardless, once they finished in the bottom two: teams in relegation places shouldn't get a second chance to stay up.

I've no idea what advice Bangor took at the beginning of this season, or how confident they were of fulfilling fixtures. But superficially they should be able to compete against teams largely from smaller country towns.

[pineapple stu]

Ya they did, but what Donegal maintain is that 2 teams should go up automatcially.
Fair enough. Sounds ridiculous that there could be a query over whether there is or isn't supposed to be a play off.

DC must be feeling really ****ed off with the IFA. Relegated last year because their face didn't fit, awarded a 3-0 defeat early in the season, for which they won an appeal, and now this.

[Schumi]

The question seems to be whether Bangor should be counted as finishing last because they don't want a licence next year. I don't see why they should, that's an issue for next year. In a normal situation, Dungannon finished bottom and should be relegated and replaced by Portadown; Bangor were second bottom and should play-off against DC for the Premier Division place. As Bangor don't want a Premier place, DC should go straight up IMO.

[pineapple stu]

Clubs who withdraw - as Bangor effectively did - are usually counted as finishing bottom. But I doubt that's in the rule book.

[holidaysong]

The original rules stated that the team finishing bottom would be relegated regardless of other issues. The IFA then went and changed the rules half way during the season when Bangor decided not to renew their licence, meaning that now the bottom placed club would only have to play in the playoff. The IFA moved the goalposts half way during the season and IMO DC have a strong claim to have gone up automatically.

[Schumi]

Clubs who withdraw - as Bangor effectively did - are usually counted as finishing bottom. But I doubt that's in the rule book.They finished the season though, so I don't think it's the same as withdrawing mid-season, Dublin City style.

[Mr A]

Fair enough. Sounds ridiculous that there could be a query over whether there is or isn't supposed to be a play off.

DC must be feeling really ****ed off with the IFA. Relegated last year because their face didn't fit, awarded a 3-0 defeat early in the season, for which they won an appeal, and now this.

In fairness, they were not relegated because their face didn't fit, but due to a combination of factors including a very poor ground, which they have now finally moved to improve. Poor crowds wouldn't have helped either.

Very messy situation at the end of this season, but had Dungannon not been told they were guaranteed a play-off regardless they probably would have beaten Stute on the last day and moved ahead of Bangor.

[pineapple stu]

They finished the season though, so I don't think it's the same as withdrawing mid-season, Dublin City style.

It's not the same, but I think the treatment - and this is talking very broadly from the ATW column - is to put them bottom. Obviously that doesn't necessarily hold for the IL. If holidaysong's post is correct, then the rules changed from your interpretation to my interpretation after the event, at which I'd be rightly annoyed.


In fairness, they were not relegated because their face didn't fit, but due to a combination of factors including a very poor ground, which they have now finally moved to improve. Poor crowds wouldn't have helped either.
Tomato, tomayto. They were the team who were relegated for non-footballing reasons, and now they've been done over twice more by the IFA (in their view), so they'd be fairly annoyed. You can be rightly or wrongly annoyed though.

[EalingGreen]

It is the received wisdom that DC were formerly badly treated (by the Irish League) when they had previously applied for admission to the League some years back. This was said to be due to Protectionism by the existing IL clubs, exacerbated in some cases by Politics etc, such that DC had to threaten legal action to reverse it etc (I have no idea how much of this is true myself, btw).

Anyhow, whilst there is a lot to admire about DC, and they can contribute in many ways to senior football in NI, it is beginning to look as if one of the consequences of this earlier discrimination is an enduring sense of victimhood, which often serves to conceal their own inability to make good on various promises and commitments since etc.

For example, when they were at last admitted to the top division of the IL, this was despite their Suffolk Road ground appearing seriously unfit for the purpose. Consequently, most people assume that the only reason they hadn't been denied a Licence was because the IL didn't want to have to counter claims that they were "picking on poor DC again".
In any case, DC have conspicuously failed to make good their promises to upgrade the ground to any degree, instead preferring to claim that this was due to the IFA/Sports Council not doing enough to help them etc.
(Which presumably is also their excuse for not attracting the huge crowds they promised as well :eek:).

In any case, when the the new IPL was being designed, with all clubs having to apply for admission, that ought to have been the signal for DC to sort their ground out, as part of the overall application process. Yet whilst other clubs (including, most notably Bangor!) did the necessary, DC appear to have assumed their (self-annointed) "sleeping giant" status would see them through.
Moreover, what they had not appreciated was that for once, the IFA/IL had got independently-assessed procedures in place, so that when all the points were added up, DC clearly failed to make the grade.
Yet instead of taking it on the chin, eg like Portadown, they instead cried "discrimination" and threatened legal action. (We're all still waiting on that one, btw).

Which, a season later, brings us to this latest dispute. Now that DC are complaining that they've been unfairly treated over Promotion in Bangor's place, they are (conveniently?) overlooking certain pertinent aspects of their claim.

First, when in February, Bangor signalled their intention not to renew their Premier Licence for next season, this was no explicit provision in the Rules of the new League for such a case. Therefore, the IFA made a Ruling outlining what they would do in all possible circumstances (i.e. Bangor finishing bottom, 2nd from bottom, or outside the bottom two).
At this stage, it was open to DC to Appeal against this Ruling within an appropriate period, but they failed to do so.

Moreover, at the time the IFA had to make their decision, they (IFA) had no way of predicting where Bangor would finish in the IPL (they had started reasonably well, as it happens).
Indeed, they had even less means of predicting which teams would finish in the top two of the Championship, nor whether the eventual top two would both be eligible for a License to play in the IPL. (Remember, Loughgall, Coagh and Ballinamallard had all made a flying start, whereas DC and the Ports were "slow out of the traps".)
Even then, this would all have been academic had DC actually won the final game of their regular season (against Portadown!), but they didn't.

Finally, when it panned out that DC would have to meet Swifts in a Play-Off, they faxed in an appeal the day before the first leg was due:
http://www.ifachampionship.com/news040509_1.htm
And when the IFA stood by their original decision, DC failed to back up (apparent) mutterings about taking the IFA to Court, and instead took their chance on the pitch.

Of course, now that that avenue was closed to them as well, I would not be too surprised if we are in for another season of grievances and complaints etc from Suffolk Road, when many think they might be better advised sorting out their team and their ground etc, as Portadown did when they felt hard done by by the powers that be...

P.S. As an afterthought, perhaps they should enlist the assistance of Mr. Adams, their local MP in West Belfast, in taking their grievance further, since their relationship with him and his fellow party members has already been long established?

"In 1998 the football at Donegal Celtic Park became a political one yet again though when we were drawn to play the RUC team in the Steel & Sons Cup semi-final. The cup is considered the most prestigious in Irish junior football, attracting large crowds for its Christmas Day final and the club felt that this year would be its best chance to capture what had eluded them for decades. The club’s members initially voted to go ahead with the game. They were forced, however, to reverse their decision after intense pressure from local Sinn Fein politicians. The club stated it had been 'thrown into the eye of the storm', with football being the only true loser. Sinn Fein, at the time, claimed the RUC was in a 'charm offensive' - yet the cup competition was an open draw!"
(From DC's official website)

[pineapple stu]

Thanks for that; interesting reading.

[waide]

Have to say that i feel Dc have been harshly treated by the ifa yet again.

[OneRedArmy]

Having to amend the rulebook midseason can never reflect well on the IL.

This is what opened them to accusations of favouritism.

[ifk101]

For example, when they were at last admitted to the top division of the IL, this was despite their Suffolk Road ground appearing seriously unfit for the purpose. Consequently, most people assume that the only reason they hadn't been denied a Licence was because the IL didn't want to have to counter claims that they were "picking on poor DC again".
In any case, DC have conspicuously failed to make good their promises to upgrade the ground to any degree, instead preferring to claim that this was due to the IFA/Sports Council not doing enough to help them etc.
(Which presumably is also their excuse for not attracting the huge crowds they promised as well :eek:).

That's fair enough but it doesn't explain why Suffolk Rd was deemed suitable for Cliftonville to play their "home" matches there at the start of the 2008/2009 season. If I remember correctly there was a Setanta Cup fixture or two played there as well.


In any case, when the the new IPL was being designed, with all clubs having to apply for admission, that ought to have been the signal for DC to sort their ground out, as part of the overall application process. Yet whilst other clubs (including, most notably Bangor!) did the necessary, DC appear to have assumed their (self-annointed) "sleeping giant" status would see them through.
Moreover, what they had not appreciated was that for once, the IFA/IL had got independently-assessed procedures in place, so that when all the points were added up, DC clearly failed to make the grade.
Yet instead of taking it on the chin, eg like Portadown, they instead cried "discrimination" and threatened legal action. (We're all still waiting on that one, btw).

Portadown were late with their application. Hardly comparable with DC, no?


Which, a season later, brings us to this latest dispute. Now that DC are complaining that they've been unfairly treated over Promotion in Bangor's place, they are (conveniently?) overlooking certain pertinent aspects of their claim.

First, when in February, Bangor signalled their intention not to renew their Premier Licence for next season, this was no explicit provision in the Rules of the new League for such a case. Therefore, the IFA made a Ruling outlining what they would do in all possible circumstances (i.e. Bangor finishing bottom, 2nd from bottom, or outside the bottom two).
At this stage, it was open to DC to Appeal against this Ruling within an appropriate period, but they failed to do so.

Moreover, at the time the IFA had to make their decision, they (IFA) had no way of predicting where Bangor would finish in the IPL (they had started reasonably well, as it happens).
Indeed, they had even less means of predicting which teams would finish in the top two of the Championship, nor whether the eventual top two would both be eligible for a License to play in the IPL. (Remember, Loughgall, Coagh and Ballinamallard had all made a flying start, whereas DC and the Ports were "slow out of the traps".)
Even then, this would all have been academic had DC actually won the final game of their regular season (against Portadown!), but they didn't.

Finally, when it panned out that DC would have to meet Swifts in a Play-Off, they faxed in an appeal the day before the first leg was due:
http://www.ifachampionship.com/news040509_1.htm
And when the IFA stood by their original decision, DC failed to back up (apparent) mutterings about taking the IFA to Court, and instead took their chance on the pitch.

Of course, now that that avenue was closed to them as well, I would not be too surprised if we are in for another season of grievances and complaints etc from Suffolk Road, when many think they might be better advised sorting out their team and their ground etc, as Portadown did when they felt hard done by by the powers that be...

Changing the rulebook mid-season is a no-no for most football associations. But the IFA is different ;).

[Gather round]

Changing the rulebook mid-season is a no-no for most football associations. But the IFA is different ;)

Does every other FA have a specific clause in its rule book allowing for teams announcing in mid-season that they won't contest the following season?

[EalingGreen]

Having to amend the rulebook midseason can never reflect well on the IL.
How so? Surely the need to amend the rulebook in such circumstances if anything reflects badly upon Bangor FC, not the IL*

* - IFA, actually



This is what opened them to accusations of favouritism.Who exactly do you believe the IFA was favouring/disfavouring when they made their ruling in February?
Were they to know where Bangor would eventually finish? Were they to know that Swifts would finish bottom? Or that DC would finish 2nd in their Division?
With the way the table was panning out at the time, there was a greater likelihood that one of the "small" clubs who do not qualify for the IPL (Coagh, Loughgall, Mallards) would finish 1st/2nd in the Championship than DC.
In fact, Portadown were a better bet to finish 2nd than DC. Are you trying to say that the IFA was favouring the Swifts over the Ports?
I have to say, only a (deluded) conspiracy theorist, or a DC sympathiser, could claim that the IFA deliberately arranged things at their Extrordinary Meeting in February, so that Swifts would be favoured over DC in May.

[EalingGreen]

DC must be feeling really ****ed off with the IFA. Relegated last year because their face didn't fit, awarded a 3-0 defeat early in the season, for which they won an appeal, and now this.Sorry to go back on this, PS, but DC were NOT "relegated last year because their face didn't fit".

Rather, they were not admitted to the new IPL because they did not secure enough ranking points under an independently assessed, objective evaluation.

Furthermore, when they received the results of the Evaluation, they attempted to cry "Foul" and threatened to sue. However, like several other of their assurances and assertions, the threat of legal action was subsequently quietly withdrawn*.

As for the 3-0 forfeit, doesn't the fact that they subsequently won their appeal not indicate that they are capable of receiving a fair hearing from the IFA - at least when they have a fair case to make?

* - Assuming they took legal advice, I imagine it was something along the lines of "Not a leg to stand on..."

[pineapple stu]

Sorry to go back on this, PS, but DC were NOT "relegated last year because their face didn't fit".

Rather, they were not admitted to the new IPL because they did not secure enough ranking points under an independently assessed, objective evaluation.
I covered that earlier in the thread. I consider the two points to be one and the same, on the basis that invitational leagues are BS of the highest order.

[OneRedArmy]

How so? Surely the need to amend the rulebook in such circumstances if anything reflects badly upon Bangor FC, not the IL*

* - IFA, actually

Who exactly do you believe the IFA was favouring/disfavouring when they made their ruling in February?
Were they to know where Bangor would eventually finish? Were they to know that Swifts would finish bottom? Or that DC would finish 2nd in their Division?
With the way the table was panning out at the time, there was a greater likelihood that one of the "small" clubs who do not qualify for the IPL (Coagh, Loughgall, Mallards) would finish 1st/2nd in the Championship than DC.
In fact, Portadown were a better bet to finish 2nd than DC. Are you trying to say that the IFA was favouring the Swifts over the Ports?
I have to say, only a (deluded) conspiracy theorist, or a DC sympathiser, could claim that the IFA deliberately arranged things at their Extrordinary Meeting in February, so that Swifts would be favoured over DC in May.A rulebook should cover all eventualities. That's the same whether it's football, rugby, table tennis....whatever.

What happened with Bangor, whilst by no means likely, was hardly as unlikely as a meteor strike or alien invasion.

Ergo the IFA stuffed up.

I made no comment on bias either way.

[EalingGreen]

That's fair enough but it doesn't explain why Suffolk Rd was deemed suitable for Cliftonville to play their "home" matches there at the start of the 2008/2009 season. If I remember correctly there was a Setanta Cup fixture or two played there as well.

You are confusing two separate issues - Ground Licensing (specific) and League Admission Criteria (general)

When clubs had to apply to the IFA for Admission to the new IFA Prem 12 months ago, the entire operation of each was assessed on a number of criteria, including facilities:

"For the 2008/09 season, the League system for Northern Ireland was re-organised. It was renamed as the IFA Premiership, and reduced to twelve teams, included on the basis not only of their performance in the 2007/08 season, but in the previous two seasons, and other off-the-field criteria as follows. Each applicant club was assessed by an independent panel and awarded points against the following criteria:

- Sporting (maximum 450 points) - based on league placings, Irish Cup, League Cup and European performances in 2005/06, 2006/07 and 2007/08; with points also awarded for running youth teams, women's teams and community development programmes.

- Finance (maximum 200 points) - based on solvency, debt management and cash-flow projection.

- Infrastructure (maximum 150 points) - based on stadium capacity, changing provisions, sanitary facilities, field of play, floodlighting, existence and standard of control room, first aid room, drug testing room and media facilities.

- Business planning (maximum 50 points)

- Personnel (maximum 100 points) - based on qualification and experience of staff

- Attendances (maximum 50 points)

Portadown were relegated to the IFA Championship as a result of submitting their application for the IFA Premiership 29 minutes past the deadline for consideration"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Football_League

In DC's case, as an existing IPL team, they ought to have accrued enough points from the "Sporting" Category (450 pts) to have comfortably made the top 12 for the new IFA Prem.

However, they still missed out because they scored so poorly in the other categories. In particular, despite their ground being eligible (just)* for a Licence for the IFA Prem, nonetheless their whole physical set-up was so far behind the other leading contenders, that they bombed in the "Infrastructure" category (150 points).
To give an example, DC had no separate drug-testing room - something which FIFA is increasingly insisting on. By contrast, neither had Bangor, but when they studied the criteria properly, they went out and bought one (a Portacabin, with fridge, table and chairs etc), and so cheaply picked up a few extra handy points that way!

* - Which is why, had DC actually won their Play-Off against Swifts, they and their ground would have been eligible to be promoted (and why other IFA Prem teams like C'ville were permitted to use Suffolk Road for their games temporarily.)



Portadown were late with their application. Hardly comparable with DC, no? You're right, but not in the way you think (imo).
Portadown's Application was superior to DC's in every single aspect - including the major one ("Sporting").
Indeed, it was sufficient to see them finish v.comfortably in the Top 12. The only reason it was rejected was because it was submitted half an hour late.
Considering they finished ahead of DC both last season and this, have considerably bigger support, and are currently spending a 7-figure sum to rebuild Shamrock Park, when in its former state it was infinitely better than Suffolk Road, if anyone had a right to feel aggrieved at being excluded, it was they.
Instead, they "took it on the chin" and got on with winning promotion where it counts - on the field.



Changing the rulebook mid-season is a no-no for most football associations. But the IFA is different ;).Nonsense.
The IFA did not "change the Rulebook", because unlike, say, a club folding mid-season, or a club having to be expelled mid-season, there was no provision in the Rules for a club avoiding relegation on the field, being able to fulfil all their forthcoming fixtures, but nonetheless voluntarily electing to withdraw from the League at a future date.
Now you might consider that the Rules were inadequate in not foreseeing such a scenario, but personally, never ever having heard of it before, I do not.

Furthermore, such a situation having been forced upon them*, they had to make a complex Determination which would be flexible enough to cover a wide range of outcomes, none of which could be predicted in advance.

In doing so, they were operating within their general powers, including leaving open the option of appeal, otherwise any number of clubs might have sought to have it overturned.

* - Unless you think the IFA somehow welcomed Bangor's decision, perhaps because it would give them (yet) another opportunity to "do down" DC? :rolleyes:

[EalingGreen]

I covered that earlier in the thread. I consider the two points to be one and the sameNot being admitted, and being thrown out, are NOT the same thing, as anyone who has any familiarity e.g. with nightclubs or bars, schools or universities, or public service or private sector jobs could attest!


on the basis thatComplete non-sequitur.


invitational leagues are BS of the highest order.All Invitational Leagues, or just some of them?
And if the latter, was the IFA Prem one of the BS ones?

Of course you are entirely entitled to your opinion, for whatever reason (or none), but merely stating something does not automatically make it so.

[pineapple stu]

All invitational leagues are BS of the highest order. League members are decided on the pitch, with certain allowances for licencing. However, the notion of asking clubs to apply for a place in a league, using the criteria you've posted, is BS.

Your point attempting to differentiate between being thrown out and not being admitted is spurious at best; it's really differentiating between two terms of grammar when the principle is the same. They weren't invited, which I equate to their face not fitting.

[EalingGreen]

A rulebook should cover all eventualities. In an ideal world, yes. We do not live in an ideal world.


That's the same whether it's football, rugby, table tennis....whatever.
Are you saying that the football in other countries has never had to deal with unforeseen/unforeseeable eventualities? Or rugby or table tennis? Are you in any way familiar with Formula One, for example, where virtually every race seems to be subject to complaints, objections and and appeals of one sort or another?


What happened with Bangor, whilst by no means likely, was hardly as unlikely as a meteor strike or alien invasion.True, I suppose. Then again, if a meteor were to strike Suffolk Road, no doubt DC would blame the IFA for that, as well...:rolleyes:
Anyhow, returning to the "by no means likely" category, can you provide me with even one example of a team which has not gone bust, has not been ejected, and has not been unable to fulfil its fixtures, voluntarily agreeing to "relegate" itself at a future date (i.e. when it could not be predicted who their likely replacement would be from the League tables etc)?


Ergo the IFA stuffed up.
I suppose that is arguable. Myself, I prefer to consider that the greater "stuff-up" came from e.g. Portadown who, had they met the deadline, would have pushed DC's original Application into 14th place, thereby depriving them of (yet another) reason for feeling hard done by.
Or you might consider that it was Bangor FC who "stuffed up", by trying to "run before they could walk" when makig such an effort to gain admission to the IFA Prem.
Hell, you might even consider it a teensy-weensy little "stuff-up" by DC themselves, for appearing to believe that NI football owes their club a living simply because they are located in West Belfast, have the word "Celtic" in their name and were discriminated against in the past, thereby meaning that the normal Admission criteria do not actually apply to them like everybody else.
And that's before you consider that they had not one, but two chances (regular season and play-off) of getting what they wanted, where it counts i.e. on the field of play.
Still, no doubt it was someone elses fault when they lost to glorified village teams like Glebe Rangers, Loughgall, Coagh United and Ballinamallard...:rolleyes:


I made no comment on bias either way.Fair point (though not something which could be said about their fans and sympathisers generally! ;))

[ifk101]

Instead, they "took it on the chin" and got on with winning promotion where it counts - on the field.

Hmmm.... "took it on the chin"? Portadown had nobody but themselves to blame for their relegation yet they did appeal the decision. Was Portadown's appeal more noble than DC's appeal for you to state that Portadown "took it on the chin" whilst suggesting DC didn't? And let's be honest about it, the ins and outs of DC's relegation was much less clear cut than Portadown's relegation, - all the more so in light of Bangor's promotion and subsequent inability to compete in the Premiership.

[pineapple stu]

Anyhow, returning to the "by no means likely" category, can you provide me with even one example of a team which has not gone bust, has not been ejected, and has not been unable to fulfil its fixtures, voluntarily agreeing to "relegate" itself at a future date (i.e. when it could not be predicted who their likely replacement would be from the League tables etc)?
Team Bath just last month in the Conference South.

[EalingGreen]

All invitational leagues are BS of the highest order. League members are decided on the pitch, with certain allowances for licencing.
Leaving aside the obvious observation that ALL football leagues were originally formed by a process of invitation(!), do you consider that many (most?) of the Leagues in Britain and continental Europe are BS?
Because if you check the figures, I suspect you'll find that an ever-increasing number of Leagues have been reconfigured recently, on an Invitation basis, including unquestionably the most successful of these, the English Premier League.


However, the notion of asking clubs to apply for a place in a league, using the criteria you've posted, is BS.
Exactly how are those criteria "BS"? Because you say it is so?
And before you care to elaborate, bear in mind two things.
First, those criteria were modelled on the criteria successfully used by other Leagues and Associations, when they were re-configuring their own set-ups.
Second, all such criteria have to be approved in advance by UEFA, precisely in order to confirm that they are fair and effectual.


Your point attempting to differentiate between being thrown out and not being admitted is spurious at best; it's really differentiating between two terms of grammar when the principle is the same.
Really? So when a Bouncer declines to admit someone to a Nightclub on the basis of his clothing, say, that is the same as admitting someone else who does comply with the Dress Code, but who is later chucked out e.g. for fighting?
The principle would only be the same if the first punter was refused entry e.g because of his trainers, whilst the second was admitted despite his wearing the same type of trainer.


They weren't invited, which I equate to their face not fitting.Once again, nonsense (or should that be "BS"?)
DC were invited to apply, but their application was not successful because they did not achieve a high enough mark.
What evidence do you have that DC's Application was in some way unsuccessful due to their "face not fitting"?
Portadown were also invited, but their (otherwise much superior) Application was the one which was rejected.
If it was a case of "faces fitting", as you allege, then the Ports' delay could easily have been ignored or covered up, in which case why would the IFA want to reject on a technicality a club whose "face" clearly did "fit", if they were minded to make such decisions in a subjective or arbitrary way?
More to the point why, when they are otherwise such a litigious club, did DC not actually challenge the legality of the IFA's Application process, as they threatened to do at the time?
Perhaps because when your case doesn't actually have merit, it is easier to "play the victim", thereby at least gaining an audience amongst the prejudiced, the uninformed and the gullible? :rolleyes:

[EalingGreen]

Team Bath just last month in the Conference South.
Apples and Pears. Team Bath were unwilling to continue because their Constitution conflicted with the League's rules.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/eng_conf/7991750.stm
Bangor faced no such conflict, so there was no reason why the IFA might have foreseen their (Bangor's) decision, mid-season, not to continue in the Prem the following season.

Besides, if you want to be picky, Bangor made their announcement in February, a good two m onths before Team Bath's example might have alerted the IFA to such a possibility.

Maybe the IFA should have anticipated that one, too? ;)

[pineapple stu]

Because if you check the figures, I suspect you'll find that an ever-increasing number of Leagues have been reconfigured recently, on an Invitation basis, including unquestionably the most successful of these, the English Premier League.
Feel free to provide examples.

The EPL was going to be a makey-uppey invitational league using silly criteria, but they backed down and it was the same 20 teams who had qualified through normal promotion/relegation in the end. The original league was a grouping of clubs who got together to start such a competition; there was no choice but to seek further clubs, who were generally accepted on writing in to apply. Completely different to the situation at hand. (And I don't buy into the notion that the league has been disbanded and started anew; again, a triumph of grammatical pedantry over real life).


First, those criteria were modelled on the criteria successfully used by other Leagues and Associations, when they were re-configuring their own set-ups.
Again, feel free to provide examples. I hope you're not using the LoI as an example of successful implementation!

You talk a lot, but most of what you say misses the point. The only pertinent point of your post was "Exactly how are those criteria "BS"?" Leagues shouldn't be chosen - as the IL was, and as the LoI was - on the basis of attendances, success three years ago or whether a club has a women's team or a drug testing room. If you're going to argue they should, then I'll have to let you be happy with that, because as far as I'm concerned, that's the fundamental factor in deciding leagues. The other factors I noted have nothing to do with it; ergo, my comment about DC's face not fitting stands.

(And LOL at you making up a difference between bangor and Team Bath just because it didn't suit your argument. :rolleyes:)

[EalingGreen]

Hmmm.... "took it on the chin"? Portadown had nobody but themselves to blame for their relegation yet they did appeal the decision. Was Portadown's appeal more noble than DC's appeal for you to state that Portadown "took it on the chin" whilst suggesting DC didn't?
PFC didn't blame anyone else (other than "traffic congestion"!) for their failure to make the deadline.
Instead, they appealed to the IFA to make allowances for the delay.
And when the appeal was rejected, they accepted it with good grace.
DC, on the other hand, threatened legal action, yet failed to go through with it.


And let's be honest about it, the ins and outs of DC's relegation was much less clear cut than Portadown's relegation
Neither club was "relegated". Portadown's Application was rejected, whereas DC's was unsuccessful.
But now you mention "clear cut", they were equally so in one respect, namely that PFC's application was demonstrably submitted late and DC's application demonstrably received fewer marks than 12 other clubs (or 13, if you counted PFC!).


all the more so in light of Bangor's promotion and subsequent inability to compete in the Premiership.The fact that Bangor made such an effort to get into the IFA Prem actually made it less foreseeable that they would voluntarily announce mid-season their intention to withdraw, not more so (if you think about it).
There is/was no suggestion that their Application was in any way false or unreliable, or that the IFA's assessment of it was inadequate.
Rather, Bangor appear to have invested money to get them into the IFA Prem, in the hope that this would be repaid by the extra revenue that the Prem would generate.
As soon as it became apparent that this was not the case, they made a decision to "cut their losses" and withdraw, rather than trying to hold on and risk going bust.
And having made that decision, they announced it early, so that the IFA would have time to consider the situation, rather than at the end of the season, when it might have been too late, and/or have compromised the IFA.
Now you might argue with Bangor's conduct in this matter*, but I still don't see how the IFA might reasonably have been expected to have anticipated this.
More pertinently, I fail to see how the IFA's eventual determination in some way singled out DC unfavourably, as some people seem to be implying, since they (IFA) had no way of knowing in February where Bangor, or DC, or any of the non-qualifying Championship sides, would finish at the beginning of May.
After all, had DC beaten PFC at home in the last game of the season, rather than losing, they (DC) would have been promoted automatically and PFC would have had to face the lottery of the Play-Offs.
I wonder how/why the IFA left such a possibility open? Must be something to do with the Ports being from Nationalist West Belfast or something...


P.S. I'm surprised no-one has yet claimed that the real reason the IFA rejected Portadown's Application was so that they would finish 1st ahead of DC in the Championship, thereby depriving DC of the one guaranteed Promotion place to the Prem...:rolleyes:


* - Though perhaps a few LOI clubs might follow their example? ;)

[pineapple stu]

Have you ever met dcfcsteve?

[Mr_Parker]

It is the received wisdom that DC were formerly badly treated (by the Irish League) when they had previously applied for admission to the League some years back. This was said to be due to Protectionism by the existing IL clubs, exacerbated in some cases by Politics etc, such that DC had to threaten legal action to reverse it etc (I have no idea how much of this is true myself, btw).

It was not "protectionism." Their case was based on religious discrimination. Lurgan Celtic lead the case with Donegal Celtic assisting in a 'class action.' The then IFL could not defend the indefencible and settled on the courtroom steps.

Anyhow, whilst there is a lot to admire about DC, and they can contribute in many ways to senior football in NI, it is beginning to look as if one of the consequences of this earlier discrimination is an enduring sense of victimhood, which often serves to conceal their own inability to make good on various promises and commitments since etc.

For example, when they were at last admitted to the top division of the IL, this was despite their Suffolk Road ground appearing seriously unfit for the purpose. Consequently, most people assume that the only reason they hadn't been denied a Licence was because the IL didn't want to have to counter claims that they were "picking on poor DC again".

Donegal Celtic, like many clubs before them were allowed to get their facilities in order before the season started. When it did, they at least met the minimum standards, unlike some clubs who had been admitted before them.

In any case, DC have conspicuously failed to make good their promises to upgrade the ground to any degree, instead preferring to claim that this was due to the IFA/Sports Council not doing enough to help them etc.
(Which presumably is also their excuse for not attracting the huge crowds they promised as well :eek:).

"Prefering to claim"?? What you mean like Dungannon Swifts who were in a similar predicament? If you even bothered to check some basic facts you would find "the claim" to be a valid one. Oh and btw, maybe you should check this to see what is happening with these supposed "failed....promises"
http://www.bebo.com/PhotoAlbumBig.jsp?PageNbr=1&MemberId=7566475428&PhotoAlbumId=10416377040&PhotoId=10723875461

In any case, when the the new IPL was being designed, with all clubs having to apply for admission, that ought to have been the signal for DC to sort their ground out, as part of the overall application process. Yet whilst other clubs (including, most notably Bangor!) did the necessary, DC appear to have assumed their (self-annointed) "sleeping giant" status would see them through.

Their ground met the requirements for the new league. You obviously failed to understand the process. *shakes head*

Moreover, what they had not appreciated was that for once, the IFA/IL had got independently-assessed procedures in place, so that when all the points were added up, DC clearly failed to make the grade.
Yet instead of taking it on the chin, eg like Portadown, they instead cried "discrimination" and threatened legal action. (We're all still waiting on that one, btw).

More ignorance. Portadown did not 'take it on the chin' and took the process to appeal.

Which, a season later, brings us to this latest dispute. Now that DC are complaining that they've been unfairly treated over Promotion in Bangor's place, they are (conveniently?) overlooking certain pertinent aspects of their claim.


First, when in February, Bangor signalled their intention not to renew their Premier Licence for next season, this was no explicit provision in the Rules of the new League for such a case. Therefore, the IFA made a Ruling outlining what they would do in all possible circumstances (i.e. Bangor finishing bottom, 2nd from bottom, or outside the bottom two).
At this stage, it was open to DC to Appeal against this Ruling within an appropriate period, but they failed to do so.

No appeal was open to any club following that ruling, despite what the IFA statement said. You can only appeal a ruling/decision that is made directly in respect of your club. You cannot appeal 'what ifs.'

Moreover, at the time the IFA had to make their decision, they (IFA) had no way of predicting where Bangor would finish in the IPL (they had started reasonably well, as it happens).
Indeed, they had even less means of predicting which teams would finish in the top two of the Championship, nor whether the eventual top two would both be eligible for a License to play in the IPL. (Remember, Loughgall, Coagh and Ballinamallard had all made a flying start, whereas DC and the Ports were "slow out of the traps".)
Even then, this would all have been academic had DC actually won the final game of their regular season (against Portadown!), but they didn't.

Finally, when it panned out that DC would have to meet Swifts in a Play-Off, they faxed in an appeal the day before the first leg was due:
http://www.ifachampionship.com/news040509_1.htm
And when the IFA stood by their original decision, DC failed to back up (apparent) mutterings about taking the IFA to Court, and instead took their chance on the pitch.

Donegal Celtic did not 'fax an appeal.' They sought clarification.

Of course, now that that avenue was closed to them as well, I would not be too surprised if we are in for another season of grievances and complaints etc from Suffolk Road, when many think they might be better advised sorting out their team and their ground etc, as Portadown did when they felt hard done by by the powers that be...

That avenue was not 'closed to them.' They appear to have chosen not to follow it. In what way did Portadown 'sort out their team and ground' following being 'hard done by the powers that be'?

P.S. As an afterthought, perhaps they should enlist the assistance of Mr. Adams, their local MP in West Belfast, in taking their grievance further, since their relationship with him and his fellow party members has already been long established?

It is good then that they don't profess their political stance like some clubs. How dare they approach their local elected representives for help. Of course Glentoran have never done that. :rolleyes:

"In 1998 the football at Donegal Celtic Park became a political one yet again though when we were drawn to play the RUC team in the Steel & Sons Cup semi-final. The cup is considered the most prestigious in Irish junior football, attracting large crowds for its Christmas Day final and the club felt that this year would be its best chance to capture what had eluded them for decades. The club’s members initially voted to go ahead with the game. They were forced, however, to reverse their decision after intense pressure from local Sinn Fein politicians. The club stated it had been 'thrown into the eye of the storm', with football being the only true loser. Sinn Fein, at the time, claimed the RUC was in a 'charm offensive' - yet the cup competition was an open draw!"

Tell us in which club boardroom the politician who stood on the Dee Street bridge with local 'residents' and prevented Cliftonville supporters attending a game for purely political and what appeared to be religious reasons? Or maybe you could share which club held a minutes silence for a convicted terrorist?



Sometimes it is best to aquaint yourself with hard facts, knowledge of what you are talking about and ensure you you are not standing in a glass house too.

[Gather round]

In particular, despite their ground being eligible (just)* for a Licence for the IFA Prem, nonetheless their whole physical set-up was so far behind the other leading contenders, that they bombed in the "Infrastructure" category (150 points)

That "just" should be crucial. Assuming a basic minimum standard of facilities/ infrastructure/ tastefully appointed portacabin, admission to the league should be on playing record. DC are unlikely ever to need 3,000 seats like Portadown or Ballymena- that shouldn't disavantage them provided their existing 750 (or whatever) seats are accessible and offer a view of the pitch.


Still, no doubt it was someone elses fault when they lost to glorified village teams like Glebe Rangers, Loughgall, Coagh United and Ballinamallard...:rolleyes:

Why "glorified"? :)


DC were invited to apply, but their application was not successful because they did not achieve a high enough mark

Surely they reached the previously-agreed minimum standard (x points of the 1,000 available)? As above, the top 12 teams according to league positions could and should have been admitted IF they achieved 'x'

[EalingGreen]

EG: It is the received wisdom that DC were formerly badly treated (by the Irish League) when they had previously applied for admission to the League some years back. This was said to be due to Protectionism by the existing IL clubs, exacerbated in some cases by Politics etc, such that DC had to threaten legal action to reverse it etc (I have no idea how much of this is true myself, btw).
MP: It was not "protectionism." Their case was based on religious discrimination. Lurgan Celtic lead the case with Donegal Celtic assisting in a 'class action.' The then IFL could not defend the indefencible and settled on the courtroom steps.
EG: I am well aware that that that was the grounds of their complaint and am in no way attempting to deny it.
However, my point was that not every IL club opposed DC/LC's admission, nor do we know exactly why all of those who had, did so. Imo, one of these factors will have been protectionism, as was seen for decades when the IL had 12 clubs and no P&R, such that even suitable clubs from Unionist areas etc were excuded from the League.


EG: Anyhow, whilst there is a lot to admire about DC, and they can contribute in many ways to senior football in NI, it is beginning to look as if one of the consequences of this earlier discrimination is an enduring sense of victimhood etc.
MP: Donegal Celtic, like many clubs before them were allowed to get their facilities in order before the season started. When it did, they at least met the minimum standards, unlike some clubs who had been admitted before them.
EG: My point was not about allowing DC or other clubs extra time during the close season to comply etc. Nor was it about other clubs who may or may not have been compliant. Rather, I was querying how Suffolk Road acquired a full licence in the first place (about more of which below).
I suspect that because of the "history" between DC and the IL, that DC were treated more sympathetically than other clubs might.



EG: In any case, DC have conspicuously failed to make good their promises to upgrade the ground to any degree, instead preferring to claim that this was due to the IFA/Sports Council not doing enough to help them etc.
MP: "Prefering to claim"?? What you mean like Dungannon Swifts who were in a similar predicament? If you even bothered to check some basic facts you would find "the claim" to be a valid one. Oh and btw, maybe you should check this to see what is happening with these supposed "failed....promises"
http://www.bebo.com/PhotoAlbumBig.js...Id=10723875461
EG: Are you trying to tell me that Suffolk Road is comparable in its fitness for senior football to Stangmore? The fact is, DC neglected to spend significant money on their ground for even rudimentary facilities over a long period. When SC grants etc were delayed, that merely extended the problem, not explained it.
As for your Link, I was aware that DC are now (belatedly) attending to their Ground and fair play to them for it. But you will also be aware of the rest of the ground, parts of which can only be described as primitive. Or did you miss e.g. the photos of the grass bank 'terrace'?
Or are you seriously contending that the ground has always been fit for senior football, even with the paltry crowds drawn to the IL?



EG: In any case, when the the new IPL was being designed, with all clubs having to apply for admission, that ought to have been the signal for DC to sort their ground out, as part of the overall application process. Yet whilst other clubs (including, most notably Bangor!) did the necessary, DC appear to have assumed their (self-annointed) "sleeping giant" status would see them through.
MP: Their ground met the requirements for the new league. You obviously failed to understand the process. *shakes head*
EG: I am aware that their ground met the requirements etc. My question is "How?".


EG: Which, a season later, brings us to this latest dispute. Now that DC are complaining that they've been unfairly treated over Promotion in Bangor's place, they are (conveniently?) overlooking certain pertinent aspects of their claim.
First, when in February, Bangor signalled their intention not to renew their Premier Licence for next season, this was no explicit provision in the Rules of the new League for such a case. Therefore, the IFA made a Ruling outlining what they would do in all possible circumstances (i.e. Bangor finishing bottom, 2nd from bottom, or outside the bottom two).
At this stage, it was open to DC to Appeal against this Ruling within an appropriate period, but they failed to do so.
MP: No appeal was open to any club following that ruling, despite what the IFA statement said. You can only appeal a ruling/decision that is made directly in respect of your club. You cannot appeal 'what ifs.'
EG: You may not be able to appeal the decision, but that does not preclude e.g. appeals against the process by which it was arrived at, or the fitness/appropriateness of the Committee to determine etc


EG: Moreover, at the time the IFA had to make their decision, they (IFA) had no way of predicting where Bangor would finish in the IPL (they had started reasonably well, as it happens).
Indeed, they had even less means of predicting which teams would finish in the top two of the Championship, nor whether the eventual top two would both be eligible for a License to play in the IPL. (Remember, Loughgall, Coagh and Ballinamallard had all made a flying start, whereas DC and the Ports were "slow out of the traps".)
Even then, this would all have been academic had DC actually won the final game of their regular season (against Portadown!), but they didn't.
Finally, when it panned out that DC would have to meet Swifts in a Play-Off, they faxed in an appeal the day before the first leg was due:
http://www.ifachampionship.com/news040509_1.htm
And when the IFA stood by their original decision, DC failed to back up (apparent) mutterings about taking the IFA to Court, and instead took their chance on the pitch.
MP: Donegal Celtic did not 'fax an appeal.' They sought clarification.
EG: Fair enough - though that surely backs my contention i.e. that DC had no grounds for grievance at the original IFA decision, or how it eventually panned out. Yet still we have people complaining that they were somehow "done down" by the IFA, apparently because of who they are, rather than what they had done/not done etc.


EG: Of course, now that that avenue was closed to them as well, I would not be too surprised if we are in for another season of grievances and complaints etc from Suffolk Road, when many think they might be better advised sorting out their team and their ground etc, as Portadown did when they felt hard done by by the powers that be...
MP: That avenue was not 'closed to them.' They appear to have chosen not to follow it. In what way did Portadown 'sort out their team and ground' following being 'hard done by the powers that be'?
EG: Partly in preparation for the new IFA Prem etc, PFC committed to an expensive and extensive redevelopment of Shamrock Park. When their Application to the new League was rejected, they continued with their plans, such that they now have two excellent brand new stands (with a 3rd to follow), plus top class new floodlights. They are currently levelling, re-aligning and relaying a brand new pitch.
On top of that, they also continued to invest in the team. Which essentially is why they won automatic promotion at the first attempt. Imo, that approach compares favourably with that of DC's


EG: P.S. As an afterthought, perhaps they should enlist the assistance of Mr. Adams, their local MP in West Belfast, in taking their grievance further, since their relationship with him and his fellow party members has already been long established?
MP: It is good then that they don't profess their political stance like some clubs. How dare they approach their local elected representives for help. Of course Glentoran have never done that.
EG: Addressed below

(Extract from DC's own Website)
MP: Tell us in which club boardroom the politician who stood on the Dee Street bridge with local 'residents' and prevented Cliftonville supporters attending a game for purely political and what appeared to be religious reasons? Or maybe you could share which club held a minutes silence for a convicted terrorist?
EG: My point in quoting that episode from DC's history was to illustrate that things are not always how they seem at first sight, i.e. that both sides of the political divide in NI can use football for its own purposes.
Furthermore, individual clubs are not above playing the appropriate Orange/Green card when it suits them - something which I suspect certain DC sympathisers are doing in the present controversy.
As for your references to the Glens, you might be surprised by my views on those, but you're not going to hear them here, specifically because this thread is about Donegal Celtic and generally because I try to avoid dealing in "Whataboutery".



Sometimes it is best to aquaint yourself with hard facts, knowledge of what you are talking about and ensure you you are not standing in a glass house too.
Whether you agree or not, I trust that the above addresses (your version of) the "hard facts etc".

As such, my reply is intended to support my general point which is that the longer DC continue to "play the victim" over historical grievances which have since been corrected etc, and fail to address properly their own problems and responsibility for them, the less sympathy they will receive from people like myself, who would otherwise wish them well.

In short, if they want to be a Senior club, they should start acting like one.

[Réiteoir]

Anyhow, returning to the "by no means likely" category, can you provide me with even one example of a team which has not gone bust, has not been ejected, and has not been unable to fulfil its fixtures, voluntarily agreeing to "relegate" itself at a future date (i.e. when it could not be predicted who their likely replacement would be from the League tables etc)?


Gresley Rovers resigned from the Unibond League at the end of this season:

http://www.gresleyrovers.com/news/article/2423

Taking the voluntary demotion to cut costs - although they still are solvent.

[pineapple stu]

Didn't Canvey island do the same last year?

[Gather round]

It does happen (would be amazing if it didn't- there are more than 200 semi-pro clubs in the four main regional leagues in England, many of whom are insolvent at any given moment), but isn't the crux what, if anything, those leagues' rule books specify should happen next when a club announces its intention to withdraw in advance. Anyone know?

[pineapple stu]

I don't think it's hugely relevant as in every case mentioned so far, there's three (or four) straight down and no promotion/relegation play-off.

[EalingGreen]

I don't think it's hugely relevant as in every case mentioned so far, there's three (or four) straight down and no promotion/relegation play-off.
Exactly.

Of course it would have been great if the IFA had envisaged the scenario of a club announcing in advance its intention not to compete the following season, without this following the normal explanation (e.g. insolvency, points deduction, League punishment, or utter inability to compete at the higher level etc).

But none of these applied to Bangor. Worse still, there were three additional factors complicating the IFA's decision:

1. The Play-Off complication (as PS alludes to);
2. No-one could predict where Bangor might finish. In February, they were doing OK, so might have finished outside the bottom two. On the other hand, with morale and commitment likely to suffer after the announcement, they might have finished bottom/2nd bottom;
3. Further, the IFA could not have predicted in February whether either/both of the the top two Championship places would have been filled by clubs able/willing to take their place in the Premiership. In fact, Coagh, Glebe, Loughgall and Mallards were all fighting it out for the top places, whilst DC and Ports were "playing catch-up".

Therefore, the IFA settled upon a solution which saw the top Championship club promoted automatically and the 2nd club go into a Play-Off for another Promotion place - exactly the same as was outlined from the very beginning.

As for DC's gripe that it all worked out against them, unless one is of the Princess Diana/JFK/Fake Moon Landing School of Utterly Implausible Conspiracy Theories, there is no way that the IFA could have made their determination in February in such a way as to catch out DC, and no other club, in May.

In the end, DC's case for being in the IFA Prem rests on their assertion that on purely footballing terms, they deserve to be in the top 12 teams in NI. Yet look at their actual record:
1. They were no great shakes when they were in the top Division;
2. Despite spending big money on players' wages i(n Championship terms), they couldn't finish top of a Division which only had one other "big" club worthy of the name;
3. If they had even drawn their final game of the Season (at home to Portadown), then they would have gained automatic promotion;
4. When they did have to play the worst team in the Premiership (Swifts) over two legs, they couldn't beat them, either.

So there you have it, the IFA has once again discriminated against poor wee Donegal Celtic and their thousands of fans, simply because they're West Belfast Nationalists, in favour of that well-known Loyalist club from the East, Dungannon Swifts... :rolleyes:

[pineapple stu]

I figured you'd seize on the chance to show your faltering argument as proven!

If a team pulls out in England, it's not relevant where they're deemed to finish as they simply go down, and the team in the last relegation spot is reprieved. However, with a promotion/relegation play-off, there's a case to be made for anticipating the problem and having a solution in place.

It's not necessary to predict everything exactly in order to have a precaution in place.

[EalingGreen]

I figured you'd seize on the chance to show your faltering argument as proven!

If a team pulls out in England, it's not relevant where they're deemed to finish as they simply go down, and the team in the last relegation spot is reprieved. However, with a promotion/relegation play-off, there's a case to be made for anticipating the problem and having a solution in place.

It's not necessary to predict everything exactly in order to have a precaution in place.
I'm not claiming that the Bangor scenario could not never have been envisaged, rather, what I'm saying is this:
1. It was so unusual that the IFA might have been forgiven (imo) for not having made provision for it, especially with all the other developments going on at Windsor Avenue. After all, the two "precedents" quoted, the world-famous Team Bath and Gresley Rovers(!), both occurred AFTER Bangor made their announcement;
2. The IFA's eventual determination was not perfect, but as I outlined in my previous post, whatever they had decided was liable to be "unacceptable" to some club or other;
3. Above all, if some club were eventually to feel aggrieved at the way it turned out, there is no way on earth the IFA could have predicted in February that come May, that club would have been Donegal Celtic.

Therefore those people who are hinting at "Discrimination against poor old DC etc", are in this instance talking out of their backside (imo).

[pineapple stu]

3. Above all, if some club were eventually to feel aggrieved at the way it turned out, there is no way on earth the IFA could have predicted in February that come May, that club would have been Donegal Celtic.
As I said though, they weren't being asked to predict that; they were just asked to cover all possibilities.

A third precedent was also quoted, incidentally (Canvey Island), which occurred before the Bangor case. So your point on that - however spurious it was to start with - is invalid.

[Gather round]

I don't think it's hugely relevant as in every case mentioned so far, there's three (or four) straight down and no promotion/relegation play-off

Either leagues should have specific rules to cover every eventuality in which teams leave them, or they are allowed to claim unforeseeable circumstances and thus to change the rule book. If the former, the IFA/ IL are obviously incompetent, and have presumably ignored advice from other leagues, UEFA etc. But given the consensus on the WC 2010 play-offs thread- that FIFA will decide in October (ie, half way through the competition) whether they should be seeded, and how- I think we can cut some slack?

As above, I'm opposed to teams in relegation places getting a play-off second chance, on principle. And probably in practice, given the rancour they cause...

[EalingGreen]

A third precedent was also quoted, incidentally (Canvey Island), which occurred before the Bangor case. So your point on that - however spurious it was to start with - is invalid.
Canvey Island was not the "third precedent" - the other two were ex post facto.

Nor are they comparable to Bangor FC, since Canvey pulled out of the Conference at the end of the season, rather than announcing their intention to pull out mid-season, as Bangor did.

Keep Googling...

[pineapple stu]

Either leagues should have specific rules to cover every eventuality in which teams leave them
I don't think there's many eventualities in which teams can leave a league. Either they pull out before the start of the season, during the season or at the end of the season. Why they pull out is irrelevant.

(That said, in terms of cutting them some slack, the FAI rulebook says that clubs can't pull out mid-season. When Dublin City did just that, they had to make up a rule as to what happened in that scenario. So they're not alone in screwing up!)


Nor are they comparable to Bangor FC, since Canvey pulled out of the Conference at the end of the season, rather than announcing their intention to pull out mid-season, as Bangor did.
Again, there's no difference. They played all their matches, didn't finish in the relegation zone but opted for relegation. Same situation. The same rule would have covered both scenarios, and when the decision was formally announced by the club isn't relevant. The play-off scenario just didn't arise because there is no promotion/relegation play off in England.

Also, you dismissed the Team Bath and Gresty Rovers examples spefically because they occured after the Bangor example. Canvey Island opted for relegation before Bangor, so it's a relevant example.

[EalingGreen]

Again, there's no difference. They played all their matches, didn't finish in the relegation zone but opted for relegation. Same situation. The same rule would have covered both scenarios, and when the decision was formally announced by the club isn't relevant. The play-off scenario just didn't arise because there is no promotion/relegation play off in England.

The difference is that when the Conference had to determine what to do as a result of Canvey Island pulling out, they knew exactly how their decision would affect all the other clubs. In which case, they made a single determination.
Whereas, when Bangor announced mid-season that they would be withdrawing, the IFA could not wait to decide until the end of the season and all the results were known.
Which is why their eventual determination had to contain three alternatives, each consequent on a different set of results.

As I said before, what the IFA eventually decided was hardly ideal, but imo there was no ideal decision which was likely to please everyone.

[pineapple stu]

Whereas, when Bangor announced mid-season that they would be withdrawing, the IFA could not wait to decide until the end of the season and all the results were known.
Which is why their eventual determination had to contain three alternatives, each consequent on a different set of results.
Which brings us back to the starting point, which is that (with hindsight) the IFA should have had a rule which said that if a team pulls out mid-season, but finishes all their games, they automatically place last. End of problems. The various possibilities of whom this affects are irrelevant, as indeed is the timing of the decision (and your attempt to use this to distance it from the Canvey Island case). Similarly, if a team pulls out mid-season and leaves matches unplayed, then either all remaining games are awarded 3-0, or all results to date are scratched.