16 Team Premier Division / Winter Season from 2012/13 TODAY'S DAILY MAIL

[harpin]

With just the relegation/promotion play-off to come, we could nearly start predictions on how the divisions will line-up at the start of next year, not many leagues could make a prediction competition based on that at a season's end! My own prediction for the start of next season is 12 & 12 of:


First Division:
Galway Utd
Limerick FC
Waterford Utd
Longford Town
Mervue Utd
Athlone Town
Finn Harps
Wexford Youths
Salthill
FC Carlow
Tralee Dynamos
Cobh Ramblers

Well that'll draw the crowds:p

[bluepowers]

Mons are playing Keith Quinn and John Reilly tonight as they agree with Limerick that suspensions should not count. Also seeking to get Finn Harps 2-2 draw in March replayed as Monaghan were forced to not play Declan O'Brien after he had been sent off playing for ANOTHER TEAM in ANOTHER SEASON.
Limerick logic. Bore off.

We did it on the pitch Monaghan didnt .... So any news on tonights match been called off

[monsexile]

What you did on the pitch was finish one point short of what you needed to do. I wonder will Limerick have spent more on lawyers than on Gamble, Behan and Gaffney by the end of the year.

[harpin]

What you did on the pitch was finish one point short of what you needed to do. I wonder will Limerick have spent more on lawyers than on Gamble, Behan and Gaffney by the end of the year.

If you have it spend it, is what I always say....I suppose you could call it a motto:)

[Nesta99]

Or whether you have it or not spend it anyway...well thats what the rest of the league says! ;P Worked for the Corkies and they are back with a bang lol

[gspain]

What you did on the pitch was finish one point short of what you needed to do. I wonder will Limerick have spent more on lawyers than on Gamble, Behan and Gaffney by the end of the year.


On the pitch we got 1 point more than Monaghan.

There is still a lot to come out on this but not my place to be revealing anything.

[monsexile]

On the pitch we got 1 point more than Monaghan.

There is still a lot to come out on this but not my place to be revealing anything.

Very mysterious. Has already been taken to FAI appeal and then rejected in arbritation, the European Court of Human Rights must be clearing their case schedule to make room for another farcical waste of Limerick money. Even Harps have accepted the decision and taken their punishment.

[harpin]

Very mysterious. Has already been taken to FAI appeal and then rejected in arbritation, the European Court of Human Rights must be clearing their case schedule to make room for another farcical waste of Limerick money. Even Harps have accepted the decision and taken their punishment.

How much was Harps fine?

It was never heard in arbitration

[harpstilidie]

How much was Harps fine?

It was never heard in arbitration

€2,500 I think it was. Money we can't afford.

[Charlie Darwin]

Just to be clear, Limerick are complaining that the FAI is enforcing the rules correctly?

[Mr A]

I think their point is that the FAI did not enforce their own rules correctly. I think if they're willing to take it to court that they'd have a good case.

[holidaysong]

Are Limerick arguing that the norm is to deduct 3 points from the offending team rather than award all the points to the other team? To be honest, I think I can remember both of those scenarios happening at different times in the past so hard to tell what the precedent would be...

[Nesta99]

Kilkenny were deducted points (and then got them back). Pats recieved a points deduction. Cant recall points being awarded tbh....vaguely Shels maybe?

[Dodge]

I'm fairly certain the FAI changed their rules within the past 5 years.

Specifically to both punish the offending club, and reward the 'honest' club who had been disadvantaged by the ineligible player playing

(The example usually giving is that if TEAM A only require a draw to stay ahead of TEAM B, and they played each other in the last game, the old rule wouldn't stop TEAM A playing 6 ineligible players jusst to win the game, even with the knowledge they'd be deducted those 3 points)

EDIT; last season (2010) Salthill awarded 3-0 win after Wexford played an ineligible player

[Charlie Darwin]

Are Limerick arguing that the norm is to deduct 3 points from the offending team rather than award all the points to the other team? To be honest, I think I can remember both of those scenarios happening at different times in the past so hard to tell what the precedent would be...
It's standard practice for the team that infringed to forfeit the match.

A points deduction would make sense if Harps had lost the match as a walkover wouldn't be any sort of punishment. For Limerick to argue that Mons shouldn't get the points from a match in which they were placed at an unfair advantage is just bizarre.

Rule 35 here (http://www.fai.ie/images/stories/pdf/FAI_Rule_Book_2011.pdf) in the FAI rule book is purposefully vague, but that's only to account for whether the offending club won, lost or drew.

[Mr A]

To clarify- I think Limerick would argue that the player was never suspended as the official notification was never sent.

[Nesta99]

Ah! Now that is a plausible argument. But once again a messy business especially with the play-off tonight

[Shannonsider]

. I wonder will Limerick have spent more on lawyers than on Gamble, Behan and Gaffney by the end of the year.

Get over it. Limerick have the money for the first time years because a geniune football man, in Pat' O Sullivan has invested in the club. Many clubs in the past few years have spent money they didn't have to be successfull in both tiers and Limerick were always spending within their means doing things properly while these clubs took all the sucess and when they were put down to the First Divsion it was Limerick that suffered as the likes of Derry, Cork had the resources to do well even though they spent money they didn't have. Limerick got it this year and have been building a very good team and unfortunatly were good enough on the pitch at the end but points rewarded off the pitch were enough to keep Limerick down.

[dfx-]

On the pitch we got 1 point more than Monaghan.

There is still a lot to come out on this but not my place to be revealing anything.

Mons got the points they needed on the pitch. They fielded a valid team against Harps and got three points for it.

Harps have to be punished, the result cannot stand as it was not a valid game, Mons have to be awarded the points. Why is this so difficult?

Are Limerick seriously trying to argue the result should stand or the game be replayed or what?

[Mr A]

From my understanding: They're arguing that the player was not suspended and that therefore the result of the match should stand.

[bluewhitearmy]

Mons got the points they needed on the pitch. They fielded a valid team against Harps and got three points for it.

Harps have to be punished, the result cannot stand as it was not a valid game, Mons have to be awarded the points. Why is this so difficult?

Are Limerick seriously trying to argue the result should stand or the game be replayed or what?

Why are people like you commenting when they clearly havent a clue what happened.

[monsexile]

I'd say this puts the points issue to bed - Limerick end-of-season statement
https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=10150379414863886&id=93574368885

"We are obviously disappointed that the Senior Team missed out on a deserved promotion play-off spot, not on the number of points won on the field but due to an administrative issue with the eligibility of a Finn Harps player. Monaghan as you know were awarded a 3-0 win over Finn Harps despite the game finishing 0-0 and these extra two points proved crucial in deciding the final league positions. Limerick FC did request Arbitration in relation to this case but our case was not heard by the arbitrator due to objections from the other parties involved. While we feel we had a solid case and are very disappointed and frustrated that our case was not heard, ultimately this is out of our hands and as a result an administrative error has decided the play-off place. I would hope that it will be an area of the rules that the FAI Rules Committee will rectify in the future to ensure no other team suffers in the manner which Limerick FC have in this case."

"Finally, we would like to congratulate Cork City on winning the league, Shelbourne on securing the second promotion place, and would like to wish the Best of Luck to both Monahgan Utd and Galway Utd in the promotion/relegation playoffs.”

[monutdfc]

Very gracious of Pat O'Sullivan. I would be livid if I were a Limerick fan.*

*edit for clarity - I'd be livid missing out on a playoff place like this, not livid with Pat O'Sullivan

[Charlie Darwin]

So does this mean Harps declined to take part in arbitration? That's the only way I can see it not taking place.

[bluewhitearmy]

Very gracious of Pat O'Sullivan. I would be livid if I were a Limerick fan.

Why..?

[dfx-]

From my understanding: They're arguing that the player was not suspended and that therefore the result of the match should stand.

Ah. :D

Have they totted up the yellow/reds or something?

[Sam_Heggy]

At least people are still talking about us I suppose

[Charlie Darwin]

Ah. :D

Have they totted up the yellow/reds or something?
According to Mr. A's post earlier in the thread, they're arguing Harps didn't know he was suspended because they hadn't received official confirmation from the FAI. I'd have thought it was still the club's responsibility to know whether a player is suspended or not, but the FAI has form (http://www.tribalfootball.com/articles/readings-long-admits-lying-ireland-153960) in that area too.

[dfx-]

I'd have thought it was still the club's responsibility to know whether a player is suspended or not, but the FAI has form (http://www.tribalfootball.com/articles/readings-long-admits-lying-ireland-153960) in that area too.

That's what I'm getting at. They're claiming the result should stand because of an administrative error and yet that it would be unfair that Monaghan are third because of an administrative error. The player was suspended, Harps shouldn't have played him, they did, they were in the wrong, the result cannot stand and Mons have to get the three points. It is that simple.

[nigel-harps1954]

That's what I'm getting at. They're claiming the result should stand because of an administrative error and yet that it would be unfair that Monaghan are third because of an administrative error. The player was suspended, Harps shouldn't have played him, they did, they were in the wrong, the result cannot stand and Mons have to get the three points. It is that simple.

You're clearly missing the point here though. Harps weren't told when he was supposed to miss his game. Harps were completely unaware he was suspended for that game. This is where Limerick would get their argument.
Nevertheless, it's all been put to bed now.

[Charlie Darwin]

I think that has to be Harps' responsibility to know though. Surely there's somebody at the club keeping a notebook with records of red and yellow cards. I mean they'll be written on the referee's match reports so it's not as if it's difficult to check.

[4tothefloor]

That's what I'm getting at. They're claiming the result should stand because of an administrative error and yet that it would be unfair that Monaghan are third because of an administrative error. The player was suspended, Harps shouldn't have played him, they did, they were in the wrong, the result cannot stand and Mons have to get the three points. It is that simple.
It's not that simple. Actually it's very simple, but not the hollywood version that you're spouting as gospel. This is what I was told by Limerick FC club officials: The FAI did send Harps a suspension notification, but it said on the notice, in plain black and white English, that the suspension was an A Championship suspension. Harps subsequently played said player in the First Division game against Mons. This is the administrative error. Now is this Finn Harps fault or is it the FAI's? Do any of you honestly think that Harps, with little to play for and struggling financially, would knowingly play a suspended player ending up in a hefty FAI fine? They played the player because they were officially notified by the FAI that he was only suspended for the A Championship. So it is an issue regarding suspensions between the A Championship and Senior football. It is an FAI fcuk up. To make this farce even worse, apparently the person that made the administrative balls up was the one that heard the appeal, and guess what - rejected the appeal and blamed Harps!!

Now, bare in mind that Limerick are aware of this official document and that Harps have the original document. The case was NOT heard at arbitration. If Pat O'Sullivan wanted, he could easily seek an injunction preventing the play-offs based on this document alone. Why he hasn't done that I do not know, but his statement today was very gracious indeed, which is typical of the man really. Now, who is to say what has or hasn't been going on behind the scenes since Saturday night? Because when you consider that Bohemians are racing certainties to be relegated and made start over, and very unlikely that Galway are going to get a Premier Licence, Limerick could then be in line for automatic promotion. Maybe they know that and that's not why we're pursuing this.....because I have to say I am surprised that we are not pursuing it.

[Mr A]

I think that has to be Harps' responsibility to know though. Surely there's somebody at the club keeping a notebook with records of red and yellow cards. I mean they'll be written on the referee's match reports so it's not as if it's difficult to check.

In this case the cards were a mixture of A League and 1st Team cards so not as simple as usual. It was only a senior suspension because the A League went away and he was over age for the U19s.

And according to the FAI's press releases their press release is not official notification, only an official notification is (The exact wording was quoted on here by someone).

Yeah, Harps should have caught this (it so happened that a few directors were unavailable that week) but that doesn't change the fact that from the FAI side this was very messy.

On a vaguely related note- Didn't Derry get off with playing Sean Hargan while suspended because they said their fax machine was broken a few years ago? In any case, none of this matters now.

And to wander back on to the actual topic- Daniel McDonnell seems to think there is a lot of uncertainty around the shape of the division next year: http://www.independent.ie/sport/soccer/league-of-ireland/playoff-pressure-rises-as-uncertainty-shrouds-first-division-2921848.html


However, with suggestions that the 2012 First Division might be regionalised, and murmurs about the intentions of some existing teams, the cost of missing out could be quite significant.

[SwanVsDalton]

Now, who is to say what has or hasn't been going on behind the scenes since Saturday night? Because when you consider that Bohemians are racing certainties to be relegated and made start over, and very unlikely that Galway are going to get a Premier Licence, Limerick could then be in line for automatic promotion. Maybe they know that and that's not why we're pursuing this.....

http://rarerborealis.com/wordpressblog/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/tumblr_lemkdyfPaq1qdoghio1_500.png

[SwanVsDalton]

On a vaguely related note- Didn't Derry get off with playing Sean Hargan while suspended because they said their fax machine was broken a few years ago?

As I recall our rep simply said 'I'm needed in the basement!' and then slowly descended under a table.

[osarusan]

Just to be clear, Limerick are complaining that the FAI is enforcing the rules correctly?


For Limerick to argue that Mons shouldn't get the points from a match in which they were placed at an unfair advantage is just bizarre.



Mons got the points they needed on the pitch. They fielded a valid team against Harps and got three points for it.

Harps have to be punished, the result cannot stand as it was not a valid game, Mons have to be awarded the points. Why is this so difficult?

Are Limerick seriously trying to argue the result should stand or the game be replayed or what?


That's what I'm getting at. They're claiming the result should stand because of an administrative error and yet that it would be unfair that Monaghan are third because of an administrative error. The player was suspended, Harps shouldn't have played him, they did, they were in the wrong, the result cannot stand and Mons have to get the three points. It is that simple.

Fair play lads. You've both been a monument to ignorance about the issue.

[dfx-]

It's not that simple. Actually it's very simple, but not the hollywood version that you're spouting as gospel. This is what I was told by Limerick FC club officials: The FAI did send Harps a suspension notification, but it said on the notice, in plain black and white English, that the suspension was an A Championship suspension. Harps subsequently played said player in the First Division game against Mons. This is the administrative error. Now is this Finn Harps fault or is it the FAI's? Do any of you honestly think that Harps, with little to play for and struggling financially, would knowingly play a suspended player ending up in a hefty FAI fine? They played the player because they were officially notified by the FAI that he was only suspended for the A Championship. So it is an issue regarding suspensions between the A Championship and Senior football. It is an FAI fcuk up. To make this farce even worse, apparently the person that made the administrative balls up was the one that heard the appeal, and guess what - rejected the appeal and blamed Harps!!

Now, bare in mind that Limerick are aware of this official document and that Harps have the original document. The case was NOT heard at arbitration. If Pat O'Sullivan wanted, he could easily seek an injunction preventing the play-offs based on this document alone. Why he hasn't done that I do not know, but his statement today was very gracious indeed, which is typical of the man really. Now, who is to say what has or hasn't been going on behind the scenes since Saturday night? Because when you consider that Bohemians are racing certainties to be relegated and made start over, and very unlikely that Galway are going to get a Premier Licence, Limerick could then be in line for automatic promotion. Maybe they know that and that's not why we're pursuing this.....because I have to say I am surprised that we are not pursuing it.

So all-in-all, to cut a long story short, it was still an administrative error.

Whoever's fault it is, the game the player subsequently played in that he should not have must be invalid. The result should not count. So what do you propose then.

[4tothefloor]

So all-in-all, to cut a long story short, it was still an administrative error.

Whoever's fault it is, the game the player subsequently played in that he should not have must be invalid. The result should not count. So what do you propose then.
Listen if you can't figure it out for yourself I'm not going to hold your hand and spell it out for you. Now if you can't figure it out based on the detailed explanations that have been given here by a few posters, well then the best thing for you to do is to exit the thread ;) Here's a clue though - look at who made the administrative error and then work your way up from there..... it's not rocket science. :rolleyes:

[Charlie Darwin]

Fair play lads. You've both been a monument to ignorance about the issue.
I'm not sure how asking a question amounts to ignorance. The situation was subsequently explained in more detail and I said thanks to the people who did so.

I think the basic fact is still true though. Harps played a player who was not eligible for the fixture and Monaghan faced a stronger team than they should have as a result. If it's true that the FAI explicitly told the club the player was eligible for the fixture, then there is a matter for dispute there.

[osarusan]

And according to the FAI's press releases their press release is not official notification, only an official notification is (The exact wording was quoted on here by someone).




I think the basic fact is still true though. Harps played a player who was not eligible for the fixture and Monaghan faced a stronger team than they should have as a result.
If Mr A's post is correct, then a player only becomes ineligible for a fixture when the FAI have officially notified the club, not automatically when a certain number of cards has been received. So if Finn Harps were not notified that the player was suspended for the next LOI Div 1 game, then he was in fact eligible for that fixture.

[Mr A]

Harps played a player who was not eligible for the fixture and Monaghan faced a stronger team than they should have as a result.

The player in question was Aaron O'Hagan so if anything we were weaker. :(

[nigel-harps1954]

The player in question was Aaron O'Callaghan so if anything we were weaker. :(

I think Limerick now have a case if this is true...I don't recall him being on the teamsheet..

[harpin]

I think Limerick now have a case if this is true...I don't recall him being on the teamsheet..

He wasn't Aaron O' Hagan is though

[Dodge]

Is the argument either;
a) a notification was sent to clubs that week and O'Hagan wasn't on it
or
b) no notification at all was sent to Harps?

[nigel-harps1954]

Is the argument either;
a) a notification was sent to clubs that week and O'Hagan wasn't on it
or
b) no notification at all was sent to Harps?

I believe a notification was sent saying he picked up maximum yellow cards in A league. Which before the end of that meant he was due to serve a suspension in the A league and not First Division. It wasn't clarified whether he could play in said game or not. Either way, it's both a lack of communication from FAI and part stupidity on Harps behalf for not clarifying it.

[Dodge]

it said 'maximum' amount of yellow cards? it usually says 4 or 8

[nigel-harps1954]

it said 'maximum' amount of yellow cards? it usually says 4 or 8

You know what I meant..

I'm clearly not very good at explaining things.

[Dodge]

Sorry, wasn't trying to be facetious. It wouldn't surprise me in the least to read a notification of "maximum allowed"

[nigel-harps1954]

The worst thing is, it probably has happened somewhere along the line.

[Magicme]

So if Harps didnt think they had played a suspended player, how come they contacted the FAI the following monday morning and said they had played a suspended player?

Another admin error?