Dundalk IAG conspiracy theories

[DmanDmythDledge]

As for the comment about GUFC being the only club with a five year plan- that was an outrageously untrue claim that Leeson made.
:eek:Where did he get that from? All clubs had to submit/present a five year plan to the IAG.


To me, the fact that UCD were not screwed over actually gave some credibility to the process.
That's true; it shows that all clubs were treated equally.

But I don't think the process had all that much credibility in the respect of the grading of teams on their off the field points. The committee were "particularly impressed with our 5 year plan" (quote from journalist that was there PM'd to me by pineapple stu on the day). Given that our five year plan consisted of winning the Premier Division and having a full Irish international play for us it seems that putting down the most ambitious stuff you could think of rather than what was realistically achievable and what the club would actually attempt to achieve.


Can you suggest any logical reason why it was not part of the competition from the outset?
What are you on about? The playoff at the end of the season has always been there for the past number of years.

[OneRedArmy]

Much in the same way that Derry fans (ridiculously) whinge about an anti-Derry bias in refs, I think some of the Dundalk fans are drastically overestimating how much those in power considered the situation their club, and by extension the situation of other clubs during the whole IAG process.

The FAI developed what they thought was an objective criteria, applied it and the cards fell the way they fell. The playoff is a smokescreen (pardon the pun given what happened).

The whole IAG/FAI takeover process lost credibility because of the problems that have happened to nearly the clubs ranked highly off the field since the ranking process, not because of what happened Dundalk or Galway in isolation.

[dfx-]

I remember knowing Rovers didn't really have to win the FD that year because of (somewhat monetarily ambitious) performances in previous seasons...Dundalk could've won the league and still not made a difference.

Everyone knew this..what was surprising was Waterford's ranking

[Ezeikial]

So next time Dundalk qualify for Europe can we expect their fans to complain about the unfair advantage they gained from the performances of Irish teams over the previous 5 years, and each of them weighted equally to boot :o


Spurious argument - each Irish club that qualifies gains (or loses) in this way.



And, while past performance is not an indicator of future returns, in this case it was a valid basis for determining the ability to compete in the premier.


If you actually believe this, you appear to be in a very small minority.



5 years is an arbitrary number [see above for some kind of precedence], but your issue with the results that year being worth less than the previous FOUR years [together] is just plain wrong headed - in essence that year was worth, roughly, three times any single previous year, so there was, in theory, scope to overcome a reasonable deficit.


Clearly no reasonable scope, as evidenced by the previously stated facts that Dundalk finished 2nd in the division, won the play-off, and were ranked joint 8th in the off-the-field criteria.

In any case I am content to let the issue rest, and consign it to history, and davour the fact that Dundalk are finally back in the premier.

[A N Mouse]

Spurious argument - each Irish club that qualifies gains (or loses) in this way.



If you actually believe this, you appear to be in a very small minority.



Clearly no reasonable scope, as evidenced by the previously stated facts that Dundalk finished 2nd in the division, won the play-off, and were ranked joint 8th in the off-the-field criteria.

In any case I am content to let the issue rest, and consign it to history, and davour the fact that Dundalk are finally back in the premier.

Glad to hear you're finally letting go, and it's only taken near three years. :p

Take off the tinted specs for a moment and ask yourself exactly what fairer system could have been used. If historic results had not been taken into account then it really could have all boiled down to who had the best powerpoint show.

Taking into account historic results Dundalk had to overcome, unreasonable, deficits to Shamrock Rovers, Waterford, UCD, Bray, Harps and - the elephant in the room as far as your conspiracy theory is concerned - Dublin City. As has been stated previously, even, had Dundalk won the first devision, it was highly unlikely they would have been invited to the new league because they been languishing in the graveyard for nigh on a decade. And, they were never going to score enough points to suddenly leapfrog enough teams to be in the top twelve.

[Schumi]

Take off the tinted specs for a moment and ask yourself exactly what fairer system could have been used. If historic results had not been taken into account then it really could have all boiled down to who had the best powerpoint show.

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

[SMorgan]

Can I make it absolutely clear that I didn't start this thread and the subject heading is that of the site Moderator, Pineapple Student, and not mine.

I also think that it is totally inappropriate for Moderators to be going around picking subject headings And typing stuff and then attributing it to others. In my book that is an abuse of their position and powers.

[OneRedArmy]

Can I make it absolutely clear that I didn't start this thread and the subject heading is that of the site Moderator, Pineapple Student, and not mine.

I also think that it is totally inappropriate for Moderators to be going around picking subject headings And typing stuff and then attributing it to others. In my book that is an abuse of their position and powers.But the thread is full of Dundalk fans alleging that you were kept out of the reconstituted Premier Division by a wilfull act of the FAI, acting in cahoots with the IAG and Galway.

Thats pretty much the definition of a conspiracy.

[SMorgan]

You completely missed the point.

Regardless of whether anybody believes its an appropriate heading or not, it is not one I would have used and it should not have been attributed to me, by the moderator.

Even if something is true or not I am sure you wouldn't appreciate somebody posting something under your name. Where does this leave us?

When I reply to your message am I replying to something you wrote or the moderator wrote?

[Ezeikial]

Can I make it absolutely clear that I didn't start this thread and the subject heading is that of the site Moderator, Pineapple Student, and not mine.

I also think that it is totally inappropriate for Moderators to be going around picking subject headings And typing stuff and then attributing it to others. In my book that is an abuse of their position and powers.

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"?

[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.:confused: 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.



:confused: 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.