Under 19's away for 10 days in Bulgaria

[pineapple stu]

when they heard the state of his fitness etc
The state of his fitness which should have indicated that actually, he was perfectly well able to play a game when needed (as evidenced by the fact that - on the same day he was apparently needed for an Ireland game - he was able to play for Derry)?

[Schumi]

Maybe Derry have lower standards.

[passerrby]

is there any part of the rules that allows the league to release player/club from its obligation once he is selected. and if so can the league say that one player might be eneilgable and another player from a different club may not.

[EalingGreen]

The state of his fitness which should have indicated that actually, he was perfectly well able to play a game when needed (as evidenced by the fact that - on the same day he was apparently needed for an Ireland game - he was able to play for Derry)?Then that should be a question for the FAI doctors, then.

The fact is, the FAI released the player because they did not need him. If they had been concerned that he might eg have been feigning injury in order to play for his club, then they (FAI) always had the option of imposing the 5-day rule.

The fact that they did not do so, nor raise any objections subsequent to Derry playing him, suggests that they have no problem with either Derry or the player.

In which case, it's no business of any other club (imo).

[Charlie Darwin]

The FAI's statement seems to suggest that McEleney was no longer required by the time his injury cleared up, so Derry would seem to be in the clear. I just don't understand why they didn't invite him back along when he did regain fitness, since he'd already been released by his club and was presumably willing to travel.

[pineapple stu]

The fact is, the FAI released the player because they did not need him. If they had been concerned that he might eg have been feigning injury in order to play for his club, then they (FAI) always had the option of imposing the 5-day rule.
Which, as noted earlier, opens up allegations of favouritism from the FAI if they release one player and don't release another.

[passerrby]

Then that should be a question for the FAI doctors, then.

The fact is, the FAI released the player because they did not need him. If they had been concerned that he might eg have been feigning injury in order to play for his club, then they (FAI) always had the option of imposing the 5-day rule.

The fact that they did not do so, nor raise any objections subsequent to Derry playing him, suggests that they have no problem with either Derry or the player.

In which case, it's no business of any other club (imo).

a. who said they released him as they did not need him.. they released him as he was injuried
the fact they did nothing leads the cynic in me to believe they wished to give derry every opportunity to get back to the premier

[EalingGreen]

a. who said they released him as they did not need him.. they released him as he was injuried
the fact they did nothing leads the cynic in me to believe they wished to give derry every opportunity to get back to the premier
Had that been the case, they wouldn't have selected him in the first place.

In fact, if one wanted to be truly cynical, they'd have selected another player, from one of Derry's less-favoured rivals, just to screw with them.

[pineapple stu]

FAI - "McEleaney, you're called up". Duly announced
Derry - "Actually, hold on - we've a big game that day. We need him. Anything you can do for us?"
FAI - "Yerrah, sure go ahead..."

Not the most implausible of situations.

[osarusan]

The fact is, the FAI released the player because they did not need him. If they had been concerned that he might eg have been feigning injury in order to play for his club, then they (FAI) always had the option of imposing the 5-day rule.
They released him as he told them he was injured (which I don't doubt). Seeing as he was selected as it was felt he would be of value to the international squad, and seeing the rule is in place to stop players feigning injury in order to avoid international duty (as well as other reasons I'd imagine) , why did the FAI make no effort to determine the extent of his injury?

[EalingGreen]

Which, as noted earlier, opens up allegations of favouritism from the FAI if they release one player and don't release another.And did they decline to release a player from another club?

Or did they also release another player, only with the 5 day rule imposed?

(Genuine questions)

Perhaps whoever gave the nod to release the player never even considered the effect it may have on his club's promotion situation?

Quite clearly, I do not know the ins-and-outs of this case, but as a general rule, I tend to look for "c o c k-up" before "conspiracy", especially when it comes to football's administrators.

Unless, of course, you tell me that John Delaney might have had a hand in this...:sinister:

[passerrby]

Had that been the case, they wouldn't have selected him in the first place.

In fact, if one wanted to be truly cynical, they'd have selected another player, from one of Derry's less-favoured rivals, just to screw with them.

they did not select him the international manager whoever he is selelcted him. the league made the ruling on the breach or otherwise

[SwanVsDalton]

Which, as noted earlier, opens up allegations of favouritism from the FAI if they release one player and don't release another.

Has the FAI not released another U-19 player though? A lot of accusations of favouritism are already being made without there being a comparable example existing AFAIK.

[pineapple stu]

And did they decline to release a player from another club?

Or did they also release another player, only with the 5 day rule imposed?
I don't know enough about the ins and outs of the various international squads to answer those questions.

But in any event, it's coming away from the issue. The rule was broken, and the punishment in that rule wasn't issued. If the rule needs to be changed, fire ahead and do it. But you can't just ignore a rule because you feel like it. And that's more or less what's happened here.

[passerrby]

Has the FAI not released another U-19 player though? A lot of accusations of favouritism are already being made without there being a comparable example existing AFAIK.

stand to be corrected but think wexford were deducted 3 points for playing a player ealier in the season who was not avalible for international duty.

in honesty i agree with ealing more change of **** up than conspiriicy

[EalingGreen]

they did not select him the international manager whoever he is selelcted him. the league made the ruling on the breach or otherwiseAye, but the Association which selected McEleney, was also that which released him, without imposing the 5-day penalty which was open to them.

Thereafter, when an objection was raised, it happened to fall to the League to adjudicate. However, the purpose of the rule is to ensure that when there is a club vs country conflict, the country shall prevail. And the FAI clearly confirmed to the League that their first-call over the player was not frustrated by the club.

Of course, other clubs may be thought to be suffering "collateral damage" when an Association releases a player prematurely, and he subsequently proves fit enough to play for his club in a vital game.

But such a scenario is much less frequent (once in a blue moon?) than the converse i.e. a club's domestic prospects suffering* because they are forced to release players to their Association for international duty.

* - Just ask any EPL manager, for instance.

[Schumi]

stand to be corrected but think wexford were deducted 3 points for playing a player ealier in the season who was not avalible for international duty.

Was that what it was for? I don't remember hearing about that.

[osarusan]

Close to the start of this season, Wexford had a victory against Salthill turned around to a 3-0 defeat after fielding an ineligible player. Don't think it was related to international duty though.

[EalingGreen]

But in any event, it's coming away from the issue. The rule was broken, and the punishment in that rule wasn't issued. If the rule needs to be changed, fire ahead and do it. But you can't just ignore a rule because you feel like it. And that's more or less what's happened here.Technically, perhaps.

But the spirit of the Rule is to protect an Association should it feel it is being messed around by a club. And the League was reassured by the Association that it was not being messed-about, so there is no "victim", so no real transgression.

Of course, Derry's opponents may not like the player being released early by the Association.

Then again, I'm sure Derry didn't like his being called up by the Association in the first place, considering they had a critical match coming up.

That's the way it goes, sometimes - no Rule can ever anticipate every possible eventuality, in which case I personally feel the spirit of the law (common sense)should prevail over the letter (technicality).

[osarusan]

But the spirit of the Rule is to protect an Association should it feel it is being messed around by a club. And the League was reassured by the Association that it was not being messed-about, so there is no "victim", so no real transgression.

But on what basis were the Association able to reassure the league that they weren't being messed around?

[CSFShels]

I don't understand this spirit of the rule malarky people are going on about. A rule is just a rule. Not to be bended when a situation does not fit into the 'spirit' of the rule.

[Charlie Darwin]

I don't understand this spirit of the rule malarky people are going on about. A rule is just a rule. Not to be bended when a situation does not fit into the 'spirit' of the rule.
They said the same thing in Nazi Germany and look where that got them.

[garyderry]

Technically, perhaps.

But the spirit of the Rule is to protect an Association should it feel it is being messed around by a club. And the League was reassured by the Association that it was not being messed-about, so there is no "victim", so no real transgression.

Of course, Derry's opponents may not like the player being released early by the Association.

Then again, I'm sure Derry didn't like his being called up by the Association in the first place, considering they had a critical match coming up.

That's the way it goes, sometimes - no Rule can ever anticipate every possible eventuality, in which case I personally feel the spirit of the law (common sense)should prevail over the letter (technicality).

What on earth are you spouting your rubbish about.

THE FAI DID NOT NOT NOT RELEASE THE PLAYER FOR A LEAGUE GAME.

player was called into the u19 squad.
Player was delighted to be called in and was available.
Player plays the following Friday and get injured for his club
Player informs the FAI and is removed from the squad
Player early the following week recovers and immediately informs the FAI he will actually be available
FAI say they have replaced him and he is no longer needed
EIGHT days latter player plays for Derry (after confirming there is no issue with FAI)

Patrick McElaney was never released to play a match, by the time he had recovered from his injury the FAI had replaced him and didnt require him, simple as. There was no point in Paddy not playing over a week latter.

No rule was breached, and the player at all times was in contact with the FAI and available to the FAI.

[pineapple stu]

EIGHT days latter player plays for Derry (after confirming there is no issue with FAI)
Completey irrelevant.

Your point about him telling the FAI's he's actually not injured and the FAI saying that they've already replaced him is probably valid alright though.

[passerrby]

What on earth are you spouting your rubbish about.

THE FAI DID NOT NOT NOT RELEASE THE PLAYER FOR A LEAGUE GAME.

player was called into the u19 squad.
Player was delighted to be called in and was available.
Player plays the following Friday and get injured for his club
Player informs the FAI and is removed from the squad
Player early the following week recovers and immediately informs the FAI he will actually be available
FAI say they have replaced him and he is no longer needed
EIGHT days latter player plays for Derry (after confirming there is no issue with FAI)

Patrick McElaney was never released to play a match, by the time he had recovered from his injury the FAI had replaced him and didnt require him, simple as. There was no point in Paddy not playing over a week latter.

No rule was breached, and the player at all times was in contact with the FAI and available to the FAI.

so as long as you inform the fai that the player is injuried he will no longer be needed. espically if he recovers before his club match and then says he is available, he can be excused... now thats how to use the system

[shantykelly]

so as long as you inform the fai that the player is injuried he will no longer be needed. espically if he recovers before his club match and then says he is available, he can be excused... now thats how to use the system

And the FAI was perfectly within their right to use an FAI-associated doctor to check on the player, both when he suffered the initial injury, and then when he declared that he was fit and available for the U-19 squad. That they didn't do either is their own perogative, and I fail to see how this means that DCFC essentially cheated. Your post smacks of paranoia - cynicism I can understand, but I think in this instance you've gone beyond that.

[Mr A]

Given Derry's history I think he's perfectly justified.

[shantykelly]

so a young player with no previous association with the clubs recent history, and by some accounts was delighted to be chosen to represent his country, is, in your eyes, a cheat simply because he plays for DCFC? I wonder would this be an issue if A) the title wasnt coming down to the wire, or B) it wasnt Derry City. seems to me there's a lot of people looking for any excuse to accuse derry of cheating. and yes stu, before you get on your wee high horse, you were proved right with the previous setup. well done. any evidence this time round? or are you just getting your digs in early?

[passerrby]

well lets agree to differ, I believe that the league allowed your player to play in a game that he was not eligible to play in for their own reasons. but then i believed they gave you the least punishment available last year for the exact same reason.
I have long lost any faith in the leauge to be fair and equitable.

[pineapple stu]

and yes stu, before you get on your wee high horse, you were proved right with the previous setup. well done. any evidence this time round? or are you just getting your digs in early?
What are you talking about? I'm pointing out that a rule was broken, and that the appropriate punishment wasn't handed out. I've noted repeatedly that I've no problem with the rule being rewritten/rescinded if it's not reflecting what the clubs/the FAI want it to say.

[mrtndvn]

Stu it's been made clear that a rule wasn't broken, pointed out to you by both Derry fans and the FAI.

You can interpret the events what ever way you like, but no rule was broken, and as a result, there was no case.

Tread surely should be locked because that really is the end of it.

[Sam_Heggy]

If only I were able to post up images on this forum I would put one up of a monkey breaking a record over his head.

[Charlie Darwin]

Did he inform the FAI that he'd regained fitness? If he did, then case closed, he was fully entitled to play.

[SkStu]

Did he inform the FAI that he'd regained fitness? If he did, then case closed, he was fully entitled to play.

agree absolutely.

[A N Mouse]

Can anyone complaining about this provide an instance were the rule was enforced?

Frankly they would be leaving themselves open to accusations of hypocrisy the next time the full international squad, for a friendly, is announced.

[EalingGreen]

What on earth are you [Ealing Green] spouting your rubbish about.


Eh?

Did you actually read anything I posted? I defended both Derry and McEleney, on the basis that they did nothing wrong, the FAI was satisfied and other clubs had no grounds for complaint about the LOI's adjudication.

What is it about you Derry wans, anyway? Even when someone sympathises with you, it's still not enough.

Derry - "UK City of Culture 2013", "World City of Mopery Every Other Bloody Year..."

[SwanVsDalton]

I think the main problem is the rule, in it's current form, is far too ambiguous, open to interpretation and abuse (or at least allegations of abuse). The FAI should either clarify it or scrap it (if they have no intention of enforcing it).

Technically we did break it - we don't have a case to answer, as has been explained, but all these accusations have only come up because the rule is so poorly worded and thought through. Our dear association, for the sake of being beyond reproach (when are they ever?), definitely need to sort it out for the future. If they don't it'll probably lead to another embarrassment down the line.

[osarusan]

Technically we did break it - we don't have a case to answer, as has been explained, but all these accusations have only come up because the rule is so poorly worded and thought through. Our dear association, for the sake of being beyond reproach (when are they ever?), definitely need to sort it out for the future. If they don't it'll probably lead to another embarrassment down the line.
I'd say this is correct. As I posted previously, my main issue with all this is not Derry, but with the FAI who have unsurprisingly created a very ambiguous / fudgey situation. Either there is no leeway, and the rule highlighted in this thread is the rule in its entirety, which would mean Derry did breach it, or there is leeway given by the FAI, but what exactly that leeway is has not been made clear, and probably won't be.

[Candystripe]

Jesus wept!

Can't believe this thread is still running when the player made himself available and was told he was not needed by the F.A.I. and was then available to play seven days after his original injury when he limped out of the game early!

[SwanVsDalton]

Jesus wept!

Can't believe this thread is still running when the player made himself available and was told he was not needed by the F.A.I. and was then available to play seven days after his original injury when he limped out of the game early!

Chill out man - we're just debating an issue that the FAI should probably clear up to prevent us from having the same pointless ten page thread six months down the line.

[MariborKev]

I've just seen the playlist for the pre match music in the Brandy.

Apparently this features......

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=86GQf4F8htI

[passerrby]

Jesus wept!

Can't believe this thread is still running when the player made himself available and was told he was not needed by the F.A.I. and was then available to play seven days after his original injury when he limped out of the game early!

was finished posting on this thread until you posted the same rubbish again ,what the blue blazes has seven days got to do with the debate.
and saying something repeatly does not make it true. i accept that this is your point of view it is not mine, and i reserve the right to disagree.
best of luck tonight.