Dundalk IAG conspiracy theories

[SMorgan]

what?

Did you don't know that Dundalk folk were not the only ones annoyed by Galway's presentation?

There was discontent a lot closer to home...

[Rovers Maniac]

Did you don't know that Dundalk folk were not the only ones annoyed by Galway's presentation?

There was discontent a lot closer to home...

I think at that time Galway were a much bigger club than Dundalk and this probably the reason why these 12 clubs were chose ahead of you.

[SMorgan]

Behave yourself. Galway were never, in the history of Irish football, a bigger club than Dundalk.

[JC_GUFC]

Well according to their famour DVD they do own Salthill Devons training facilities. This is the club that got the most off-field assessment points because of THEIR training facilities.

I also thought having training facilities is a licensing requirement. How could the FAI let some thing like this happen?

Galway United sent the FAI a slick DVD with a famous tune from one of the world's leading DJs as the soundtrack.

Dundalk sent the FAI a madman with a dislike of Christmas trees and a petrol canister to their offices. If their was a soundtrack it would have been this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MK6TXMsvgQg

Which team would you have promoted to the Premier Division?

[eelmonster]

Galway are an abomination of a club, they've no business in senior football (that's soccer for those of you in Connaught, outside of Sligo). I'm with Maxi, burn those friggers down.

[Dunny]

I think at that time Galway were a much bigger club than Dundalk and this probably the reason why these 12 clubs were chose ahead of you.

Thanks for that, give me a good chuckle!:D

[SMorgan]

Galway United sent the FAI a slick DVD with a famous tune from one of the world's leading DJs as the soundtrack.

Dundalk sent the FAI a madman with a dislike of Christmas trees and a petrol canister to their offices. If their was a soundtrack it would have been this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MK6TXMsvgQg

Which team would you have promoted to the Premier Division?

Well at least Maxi isn't the CEO of Dundalk FC.

[Ezeikial]

Which team would you have promoted to the Premier Division?

Those that won promotion through the league.

[Mr A]

On the other hand, GUFC were able to manage a whole season in the premier before the financial **** hit the fan.

[Mr A]

Those that won promotion through the league.

Did Dundalk vote for or against the process that lead to IAG and Galway going up?

[Ezeikial]

Did Dundalk vote for or against the process that lead to IAG and Galway going up?

Clubs that voted for this IAG process in good faith were sold a pup by the FAI. If ever that was clearly demonstrated, it was by the disgraceful duplicity that was the play-off process - only announced (and the outcome duly disregarded) when it appeared that league standings might not suit the FAI's designs.

Fair play to Galway at the time for getting a good PR spin together - it's a sad reflection on the FAI that spin and style outweighed substance and sporting achievement. The IAG process was a scam then, and is even more obviously so a small number of years later.

[pineapple stu]

The position regarding the play-off was clearly indicated months in advance. I recall Bald Student pointing it out in July or August of that year, indicating that it would be the most pointless match ever. If you didn't read that bit, that's your problem. (And I'm no fan of the whole IAG nonsense).

[Ezeikial]

The position regarding the play-off was clearly indicated months in advance.

The promotion/relegation play-offs were not part of the First Division competition when it commenced. They were subsequently introduced during the season, without clubs agreement, at a time when Dundalk were leading the division by about 6 points.

Initially it was billed as a promotion/relegation play-offs and this was subsequently down-graded to a determination of final "rankings", when it became apparent that the sporting outcome may not have been in line with the FAI / IAG agenda.

The whole IAG process was seriously flawed, but this piece of duplicity laid bare its total lack of transparency and fairness. To partially defend this outrageous gerrymandering strategy by the ridiculous assertion that the "position" was clear before the play-offs took place, reflects badly on your knowledge and insights.

[pineapple stu]

Where was it billed as a promotion/relegation play-off?

The clubs signed up to the IAG, so you can't now say they didn't agree with it. Of course it was nonsense, but a club can't sign up for something and then cry when they don't like what they've signed up for.

Edit - here's (http://foot.ie/forums/showpost.php?p=482605&postcount=310) Bald Student in May of 2006 drawing attention to the game. He quotes the section from the FAI, which makes no mention of "promotion/relegation". It was merely a 12th/13th place play off.

This reflects badly on your knowledge and etc etc.

[Mr A]

From the start of the IAG process it was clear that Dundalk had not a hope of promotion due to their poor performance in the years leading up to it leaving them at a serious disadvantage.

It was and remains a source of much amusement that so many at DFC seemed surprised by the outcome when it was so clear from the start.

[SMorgan]

From the start of the IAG process it was clear that Dundalk had not a hope of promotion due to their poor performance in the years leading up to it leaving them at a serious disadvantage.

It was and remains a source of much amusement that so many at DFC seemed surprised by the outcome when it was so clear from the start.

Not a hope??. We would have been promoted were it not for Galway's claims. But listen, that's all by the by. We're in the Premier Division with average crowds of over 2,500 and major revelopment of the ground and Galway are a complete basket case with two men and a dog at their home matches and making appeals for somewhere to train, ffs!! Now that's what I call a wrong being righted!!!

[eamo1]

It wasnt "style over substance" as you claim for Utd.At the time of the IAG process they had the best off the field set up-best training pitches,the ONLY club to have a 5 year plan,finances in perfect order etc etc.However a combination of poor decisions by Nick and the Board(ticket prices being one),Nick turning it into a dictatorship and poor attendances has led to the current situation happening in the last 9-12months.

[White Horse]

It was and remains a source of much amusement that so many at DFC seemed surprised by the outcome when it was so clear from the start.


It was no surpirse to many at Dundalk that we were denied promotion, although not for the reason you mentioned.

[Mr A]

Not a hope??. We would have been promoted were it not for Galway's claims. But listen, that's all by the by. We're in the Premier Division with average crowds of over 2,500 and major revelopment of the ground and Galway are a complete basket case with two men and a dog at their home matches and making appeals for somewhere to train, ffs!! Now that's what I call a wrong being righted!!!

Galway had similar crowds in their first year up. And managed to pay the wages in full all the way through it as well. GUFC took the process aboard and made the best of it, DFC should have done the same.

And if I recall correctly Waterford were next in line for a premier place, not Dundalk.

As for the comment about GUFC being the only club with a five year plan- that was an outrageously untrue claim that Leeson made.

[pineapple stu]

Is that where it came from? Thought I was imagining our own five-year plan.

Think Galway were E150k in debt at the end of 2006, having lost E50k-E100k that year, so I think that rules out "finances in perfect order", as eamo1 said.

[Ezeikial]

Where was it billed as a promotion/relegation play-off?


While the early announcements were typically FAIesque in content, the media interpretation was unequivocal, even if subsequently incorrect, in billing it as a promotion/relegation playoff. Even as late as the build-up to the actual fixtures this notion was still prevalent:

[/QUOTE] (http://www.independent.ie/sport/soccer/dundalk-hampered-by-injuries-for-crunch-showdown-with-waterford-70392.html)
http://www.independent.ie/sport/soccer/dundalk-hampered-by-injuries-for-crunch-showdown-with-waterford-70392.html

By Daniel McDonnell, Saturday November 25 2006
DUNDALK have a number of fitness worries as they travel to Waterford for the second leg of their promotion/relegation playoff at the RSC this evening.


[/QUOTE] (http://www.independent.ie/sport/soccer/fai-bring-injustice-to-a-new-level-with-dundalk-dumping-138095.html)
http://www.independent.ie/sport/soccer/fai-bring-injustice-to-a-new-level-with-dundalk-dumping-138095.html

(http://www.independent.ie/sport/soccer/fai-bring-injustice-to-a-new-level-with-dundalk-dumping-138095.html)
Dundalk, you may recall, recently won a promotion play-off against Waterford United.




The clubs signed up to the IAG, so you can't now say they didn't agree with it. Of course it was nonsense, but a club can't sign up for something and then cry when they don't like what they've signed up for.


I didn't say that. What I said was that the entire process was a farce, and that the play-offs only being unilaterally introduced after the season had started, was simply a further bizarre element in the whole gerrymandering process that was the IAG.

Perhaps it should have been obvious from the outset, given that the "on-field" criteria was set over the previous five seasons, that Dundalk had little prospect of achieving sufficient points, but the lack of transparency and the denial of sporting and natural justice still rankles.

In hindsight, Dundalk are probably better equiped now - from an organisational and financial perspective - then they were then to compete in the premier. With no disrespect to Galway, I doubt that they were in a superior position then or now.

[pineapple stu]

LOL at using a Dundalk fan to back up your argument!

And it doesn't matter what the media thought; you noted they were incorrect.

[Ezeikial]

LOL at using a Dundalk fan to back up your argument!

And it doesn't matter what the media thought; you noted they were incorrect.

The IAG judgement rendered it so.

The play-off farce was not really the critical aspect of this mullarkey - it merely highlighted the (failed) lengths the FAI / IAG were prepared to go to create the illusion that natural justice and sporting acheivement was in some way relevent to their (pre-determined) decisions.

Any notion that the process was designed to reward those clubs with the best off-field organisation is also a nonsense when you consider that Dundalk were ranked in the top 10 by this criteria!

[pineapple stu]

The IAG judgement rendered it so.
What does that mean?

Those newspaper articles are both dated long after Bald Student pointed out that it wasn't a promotion/relegation play-off. The articles, therefore, are wrong (and written by a Dundalk fan), and should be ignored.


Any notion that the process was designed to reward those clubs with the best off-field organisation is also a nonsense when you consider that Dundalk were ranked in the top 10 by this criteria!
It was never designed to reward those clubs with the best off-field organisation; it was designed to reward a mixture of off-field organisation and on-field performances.

[Ezeikial]

It was never designed to reward those clubs with the best off-field organisation;

It looks like we agree on something!



it was designed to reward a mixture of off-field organisation and on-field performances.

It was designed to reward the clubs that the FAI / IAG wanted in the premier - it's really that simple.

It's pretty clear that they wanted Shamrock Rovers and Galway from the first division (with Waterford as next preference), and designed a system to accomodate them - gerrymandering is the most apt description.

Are you inherently argumentative or do you believe that this procees was in some way fair and reasonable?

[Mr A]

You reckon they wanted UCD in the premier? Yeah right!

And why would they be so anti-Dundalk?

To me, the fact that UCD were not screwed over actually gave some credibility to the process.

[Rovers Maniac]

It looks like we agree on something!



It was designed to reward the clubs that the FAI / IAG wanted in the premier - it's really that simple.

It's pretty clear that they wanted Shamrock Rovers and Galway from the first division (with Waterford as next preference), and designed a system to accomodate them - gerrymandering is the most apt description.

Are you inherently argumentative or do you believe that this procees was in some way fair and reasonable?

Back then i think they wanted the biggest clubs together, they probably seen Waterford's and Galway's plans for a new ground and they are bigger population centres than Dundalk and said right Galway and Waterford are bigger clubs. Dundalk remind me a bit of Galway in their first season up in the premier in terms of crowds.

[White Horse]

And why would they be so anti-Dundalk?

I don't think they were anti-Dundalk. I think they had looked at a map of the country and picked locations where they wanted franchises.

With Drogheda being an established permier club at the time, they didn't want a club in the far north east of the jurisdiction.

They were pro-Galway United due to it's location and the size of the city.

It is the lack of honesty on the part of the FAI in this regard that still gets my goat.

[pineapple stu]

As mentioned, I think the fact that we got in rules out that theory. It wasn't even as if our on-field stuff saved us either; we were second in the off-field nonsense. i think it was just an idiotic idea implemented by idiots. No conspiracy.

[Schumi]

The Dublin IAG refs probably helped us.

[Ezeikial]

You reckon they wanted UCD in the premier? Yeah right!

And why would they be so anti-Dundalk?

To me, the fact that UCD were not screwed over actually gave some credibility to the process.


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:



From the start of the IAG process it was clear that Dundalk had not a hope of promotion due to their poor performance in the years leading up to it leaving them at a serious disadvantage.



I imagine that one of their regrets was the inability to create a system that would also exclude UCD.

[osarusan]

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 shows an understanding that many of the outcomes were fait-accompli before the season even started:




I imagine that one of their regrets was the inability to create a system that would also exclude UCD.

You cannot seriously expect anybody to believe this can you?

[pineapple stu]

You're getting very argumentative, osarusan.

(LOL at the notion that it was harder to devise a system to relegate us than to keep Dundalk down. This is a system whereby we lost points for coming sixth instead of seventh that year).

[gufc2000]

Galway are an abomination of a club, they've no business in senior football (that's soccer for those of you in Connaught, outside of Sligo). I'm with Maxi, burn those friggers down.
Who do you think you are? Galway having no business in Senior football, you obviously don't know what you are on about


Not a hope??. We would have been promoted were it not for Galway's claims. But listen, that's all by the by. We're in the Premier Division with average crowds of over 2,500 and major revelopment of the ground and Galway are a complete basket case with two men and a dog at their home matches and making appeals for somewhere to train, ffs!! Now that's what I call a wrong being righted!!!
We have higher crowds than Bray, and just a little less than Drogheda

[Ezeikial]

You cannot seriously expect anybody to believe this can you?

I'm not sure if you are referring to my tongue-in-cheek remark about excluding UCD, or my belief that the criteria was gerrymandered to favour certain clubs.

I don't have expectations of most people believing anything other then what they want to believe!

Most agree that the whole process was a farce and an affront to fair play and natural justice. My fundamental point here has consistently been that the play-off series being introduced after the competition had already commenced was simply a further illustration of the lack of integrity, fairness and transparency by the FAI/IAG.

[pineapple stu]

The play-off was fully transparent. It was never hidden what it was a play-off for, as the link I posted shows.

[Ezeikial]

The play-off was fully transparent. It was never hidden what it was a play-off for, as the link I posted shows.

Can you suggest any logical reason why it was not part of the competition from the outset?

[pineapple stu]

Because, as was clearly stated at the time, the FAI said that the IAG criteria were to be decided mid-season; the clubs agreed to an IAG before the season in full knowledge that the exact details were yet to be formulated. Those details came out in May. The clubs were fully aware this was going to happen.

[Ezeikial]

Because, as was clearly stated at the time, the FAI said that the IAG criteria were to be decided mid-season; the clubs agreed to an IAG before the season in full knowledge that the exact details were yet to be formulated. Those details came out in May. The clubs were fully aware this was going to happen.

I bow to you in the face your incontrovertible logic!

The FAI get the clubs to agree pre-season to an undefined selection process. When they see how the first division is shaping up, they then go "ehh things aren't looking too good here - our picks ain't doing as well as we hoped. OK lets put in a play-off in case anyone starts bitching about who we have selected"

A disgraceful sham from start to finish.

[dahamsta]

I'm reopening this now, and I'm feeling generous so I haven't doled out any infractions. It's unlikely this will last.

Mods, this applies to you too. You should know the "attack the post" refrain better than anyone.

adam

[davidatrb]

I don't think they were anti-Dundalk. I think they had looked at a map of the country and picked locations where they wanted franchises.

With Drogheda being an established permier club at the time, they didn't want a club in the far north east of the jurisdiction.

They were pro-Galway United due to it's location and the size of the city.

It is the lack of honesty on the part of the FAI in this regard that still gets my goat.

It was the on-the-field criteria that let Dundalk down. Galway didn't go up because of their DVD, nor did Dundalk stay down because of their location or any other off-the-field criteria. They were as you said in the top 10 for the off-the-field criteria. It was their results in the previous five seasons that put them in the First.

It had nothing to do with "picking locations" like you talk about above.

[Ezeikial]

It was the on-the-field criteria that let Dundalk down. Galway didn't go up because of their DVD, nor did Dundalk stay down because of their location or any other off-the-field criteria. They were as you said in the top 10 for the off-the-field criteria. It was their results in the previous five seasons that put them in the First.

It had nothing to do with "picking locations" like you talk about above.

You are correct in saying that it was in the on-the-field criteria that Dundalk scored insufficient points. More specifically, it was in the category for performances in the previous 4 years, which had a weighting of 30%. The fact that Dundalk ranked in the top 10 in both the combined off-field criteria (50%), and in the 2006 current season on-field performance (20%) was ultimately insufficient.

The argument - which of course you can accept or reject - was that choosing this 4 year period (as opposed to say 0/1/5/15 years), and giving such it a weighting was unfair and unreasonable.
(It was effectively saying that a clubs on-field-performance in the previous 4 years was 1.5 times more important then how they performed in the current season! Can you imagine the ridicule that would be heaped on any league that calculated league titles and promotion/relegation that way?)

While we will probably never know why the FAI/IAG devised the system in the manner that they did, it is inevitable that people cried "foul" at a system that was skewed disproportionately in favour of some clubs from the outset. Speculation and accusations that this was done in a premeditated fashion to aid inclusion of some clubs for geographical/demographical reasons are a natural consequence of such a farcical process.

[prince20]

You are correct in saying that it was in the on-the-field criteria that Dundalk scored insufficient points. More specifically, it was in the category for performances in the previous 4 years, which had a weighting of 30%. The fact that Dundalk ranked in the top 10 in both the combined off-field criteria (50%), and in the 2006 current season on-field performance (20%) was ultimately insufficient.

The argument - which of course you can accept or reject - was that choosing this 4 year period (as opposed to say 0/1/5/15 years), and giving such it a weighting was unfair and unreasonable.
(It was effectively saying that a clubs on-field-performance in the previous 4 years was 1.5 times more important then how they performed in the current season! Can you imagine the ridicule that would be heaped on any league that calculated league titles and promotion/relegation that way?)

While we will probably never know why the FAI/IAG devised the system in the manner that they did, it is inevitable that people cried "foul" at a system that was skewed disproportionately in favour of some clubs from the outset. Speculation and accusations that this was done in a premeditated fashion to aid inclusion of some clubs for geographical/demographical reasons are a natural consequence of such a farcical process.

So i take it you agree the process so:D

[osarusan]

Speculation and accusations that this was done in a premeditated fashion to aid inclusion of some clubs for geographical/demographical reasons are a natural consequence of such a farcical process.

Speculation and accusations that this was done in a premeditated fashion to aid inclusion of some clubs for geographical/demographical reasons are a natural consequence of being a whinger.

[Ezeikial]

Speculation and accusations that this was done in a premeditated fashion to aid inclusion of some clubs for geographical/demographical reasons are a natural consequence of being a whinger.

It's up to you if want to repeat these "whinger" labels - you seem to want to vilify the poster without anything to say about the post itself!

[osarusan]

you seem to want to vilify the poster without anything to say about the post itself!I'm not vilifying anybody.

I do think that your arguments are either deliberately misleading or just plain wrong, and they have been proven so by more than one poster.

The process was a farce, or as Pineapple Stu put it, and idiotic idea implemented by idiots. There is no logical reason to believe that the FAI were anti-Dundalk or pro-certain teams.

[Ezeikial]

I'm not vilifying anybody.

Ok, if you say so - but I find it strange when you repeatedly wail "whinging" as your central (only?) point when replying to a post you disagree with.




I do think that your arguments are either deliberately misleading or just plain wrong, and they have been proven so by more than one poster.

The process was a farce, or as Pineapple Stu put it, and idiotic idea implemented by idiots. There is no logical reason to believe that the FAI were anti-Dundalk or pro-certain teams.

You have a very liberal interpretation of "proven"!!

I'm glad, though, that we are in agreement that the process was a farce, and was not an anti-Dundalk conspiracy.

But you are on dangerous teritory using "logical" and the "FAI" in the same sentence when it comes to this IAG nonsense. If the criteria was not designed to favour certain clubs, they made a damn fine job of gerrymandering it by awarding 30% of the points for performances in the previous 4 years (see earlier "whinging" post - #86).

[osarusan]

If the criteria was not designed to favour certain clubs, they made a damn fine job of gerrymandering it by awarding 30% of the points for performances in the previous 4 years

Gerrymandering means a conscious effort to rewrite rules to try and influence an outcome.

The difference in our opinions is that I believe that the system in place to determine invitation to the new league was simply idiotic, while you believe that criteria were deliberately designed in order to result in the selection of, and to give an appearance of legality to, a pre-determined list of desired teams.

Crucially, in my opinion, you, and other Dundalk fans, have been unable to convince me of two points - firstly, why the FAI would want to exclude Dundalk in favour of Galway, and secondly, that it is clear that the criteria laid out were specifically designed in order to reach a pre-determined conclusion.

As an example of this, the fact that you (and I mean you, Ezeikial) have (deliberately, in my opinion) mislead others on the issue of the non-existent play-off, only to be repeatedly corrected by Pineapple Stu, and also the fact that you are unable to explain why, considering the dark motives apparently involved in the criteria, UCD were selected for the premier division despite having what I'd imagine even UCD fans would accept as the least appealing profile of all the clubs selected, seriously weakens your argument and indeed your credibility.

[Ezeikial]

Gerrymandering means a conscious effort to rewrite rules to try and influence an outcome.


A good definition - and that's precisely what I believe happened: the FAI / IAG wrote the criteria in a conscious effort to influence the outcome.

From the moment that the criteria was announced the outcome was already influenced and significantly predetermined; a huge proportion of the points being awarded for retrospective performance that was unalterable by the individual clubs.



The difference in our opinions is that I believe that the system in place to determine invitation to the new league was simply idiotic, while you believe that criteria were deliberately designed in order to result in the selection of, and to give an appearance of legality to, a pre-determined list of desired teams.


While the process was bizarrely inequitable, in my opinion it is simplistic, implausible and naive to dismiss it exclusively as the work of fools.

I have no difficulty with the concept that off-the-field criteria should have a bearing on whether a club wins or retains its premier status (this remains the case now in terms of licensing, 65% rule etc).

By creating a system whereby performances in the previous 4 years were 1.5 times more important then that seasons results (and a whopping 30% of the total points) is where the problem lies. This is directly akin to allocating a points deduction to each team in next seasons first division based on their respective performances from 2006 to 2009.

Crucially, this element of the process was the single biggest area that clubs could not effect after the system was declared.

Even a fool would have an understanding that the process presented had the effect of handing significant advantages to certain clubs, and disadvantages to others.




Crucially, in my opinion, you, and other Dundalk fans, have been unable to convince me of two points - firstly, why the FAI would want to exclude Dundalk in favour of Galway, and secondly, that it is clear that the criteria laid out were specifically designed in order to reach a pre-determined conclusion.


Obviously only those directly involved will know the true motivation within the FAI/IAG for the obvious gerrymandering - others are left to speculate.





As an example of this, the fact that you (and I mean you, Ezeikial) have (deliberately, in my opinion) mislead others on the issue of the non-existent play-off, only to be repeatedly corrected by Pineapple Stu, and also the fact that you are unable to explain why, considering the dark motives apparently involved in the criteria, UCD were selected for the premier division despite having what I'd imagine even UCD fans would accept as the least appealing profile of all the clubs selected, seriously weakens your argument and indeed your credibility.

The play-off farce is not the central issue at all - but it was simply a further bit of FAI/IAG duplicity and a futile attempt "to give an appearance of legality" to the farce. While I accept that the FAI did not declare it to be a "promotion/relegation" playoff (promotion/relegation obviously being guaranteed to no one), they did little to clarify this misconception in the media and among the sporting public.

The inclusion of UCD was puzzling and perhaps illustrated some shortcomings in their gerrymandering process. I imagine that their need to create an illusion of fairness prevented them from simply selecting all their desired clubs (even during the worst of electoral gerrymandering in Northern Ireland, some "undesirables" got elected). Perhaps if they were to repeat the exercise (franchise football?), they will have learned to iron out these blips!

[A N Mouse]

By creating a system whereby performances in the previous 4 years were 1.5 times more important then that seasons results (and a whopping 30% of the total points) is where the problem lies. This is directly akin to allocating a points deduction to each team in next seasons first division based on their respective performances from 2006 to 2009.

Crucially, this element of the process was the single biggest area that clubs could not effect after the system was declared.

Even a fool would have an understanding that the process presented had the effect of handing significant advantages to certain clubs, and disadvantages to others.

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

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. 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.

Even a fool would understand that there are only two possible reasons for bringing this up AGAIN