FAI Cup Result Sligo Rovers 1 Monaghan 2 ?

[nr637]

Sorry, that should have read Sligo Rovers 1 Monaghan 3......

What happens with this result now?

Are Sligo reinstated or not?

[Mr A]

They are not reinstated. One of the teams in the next round receives a bye.

[legendz]

I thought Monaghan the club is still there only not in the league. Will they be in a position to fulfil the fixture, be they in the Ulster Senior League or whatever?

[marinobohs]

I thought Monaghan the club is still there only not in the league. Will they be in a position to fulfil the fixture, be they in the Ulster Senior League or whatever?

As they left the league their registration would have been withdrawn by FAI and therefore they could not cmpete in the FAI Cup

[Jofspring]

The only catch here is when sheriff were thrown out Shels were reinstated. Surely this is a similar situation. Especially if mons are put down as not ever competing. Sligo should get the bye and not the next team to draw mons just like Shels got the bye to the quarter finals and not limerick to the semi-finals.

[adamd164]

Logically Sligo couldn't just be allowed back in. If Mons had gotten to the semi final before dropping out, the FAI would have to re-instate the 3 sides they knocked out in that case!

Sheriff was different as it was an ineligible player playing in 1 game. That's realised after the particular game itself and rectified.

[Sean South]

Rovers lost on the pitch that's all that matters. Getting back in would have no honour.

[razor]

Sheriff was different as it was an ineligible player playing in 1 game. That's realised after the particular game itself and rectified.Pity they didn't "rectify" the other "issues" with that game.
Or was the ineligible player all part of the plan?

[Nah Nah Nah Nah]

Logically Sligo couldn't just be allowed back in. If Mons had gotten to the semi final before dropping out, the FAI would have to re-instate the 3 sides they knocked out in that case!

Sheriff was different as it was an ineligible player playing in 1 game. That's realised after the particular game itself and rectified.

Logically Sheriff were kicked out of the cup and Shels took their place while Monaghan resigned their place and no one took their place. We didn't deserve to take their place all the same

[adamd164]

Logically Sheriff were kicked out of the cup and Shels took their place while Monaghan resigned their place and no one took their place. We didn't deserve to take their place all the same
So you're suggesting if Mons got through another round or two then all clubs they beat along the way would have to be re-instated? Or do you draw a line depending on what round it is?

[Nah Nah Nah Nah]

So you're suggesting if Mons got through another round or two then all clubs they beat along the way would have to be re-instated? Or do you draw a line depending on what round it is?

Where did I suggest that?

[Schumi]

The difference, as far as I can see, between the Sheriff and Monaghan situations is that, as far as the rules are concerned, Sheriff cheated against Shels by playing a player that they shouldn't have while Monaghan did nothing wrong in the game against Sligo.

[legendz]

If whoever lost to Monaghan in the last round make an appeal, is that all that's required to be re-instated?

[Dodge]

Sherriff weren't kicked out, technically. Shels were awarded a 3-0 victory (the standard result when a player is ineligible) and progressed to next round.

Sligo were beaten on the field without any infringements from Monaghan, so won't be "re-instated". in 2006 Dublin City beat Monaghan in the first round, before folding. Monaghan weren't re-instated and Millester Utd received a bye

[Nah Nah Nah Nah]

The way its been handled in the league and cup isn't consistent. In the league people who dropped points get them back but in the cup whoever knocked them out is still out. I think the league should have awarded 3-0 victories to everyone for the rest of the season. Although I also think that they should have done a Galway on it and hung on until the end of the season even if they were just playing under 19s. Pretty much every club is out of pocket for gate receipts from a home game that is not going to take place now.

[redobit]

The way its been handled in the league and cup isn't consistent. In the league people who dropped points get them back but in the cup whoever knocked them out is still out. I think the league should have awarded 3-0 victories to everyone for the rest of the season. Although I also think that they should have done a Galway on it and hung on until the end of the season even if they were just playing under 19s. Pretty much every club is out of pocket for gate receipts from a home game that is not going to take place now.

No, that would not be fair accross the board. Whatever about taking points away from teams (which they did) they most certianly cant give points to teams. Some of whom had left to play them twice and others just once. Cancelling all the results mean everyone plays the same amount of games against all the same teams. I dont like it but thats the only way they can be done really. Think a cup return would have been fair tho.

[Sean South]

It wouldn't be fair. Sligo Rovers lost on the pitch so deserve to be out of the competition, returning would have no sporting honour and would undermine the integrity of a knockout competition. Yes the people paying the bills would like to see Rovers back in it but they are looking at it from a bussiness point of view. Monaghan didn't cheat Rovers out of anything. What would happen if MU had knocked two clubs out of the cup before going bust? Invite the two clubs back?

[marinobohs]

It wouldn't be fair. Sligo Rovers lost on the pitch so deserve to be out of the competition, returning would have no sporting honour and would undermine the integrity of a knockout competition. Yes the people paying the bills would like to see Rovers back in it but they are looking at it from a bussiness point of view. Monaghan didn't cheat Rovers out of anything. What would happen if MU had knocked two clubs out of the cup before going bust? Invite the two clubs back?


Hmmmmmm a 33rd team option :o could never see the FAI supporting such a silly idea.

[redobit]

It wouldn't be fair. Sligo Rovers lost on the pitch so deserve to be out of the competition, returning would have no sporting honour and would undermine the integrity of a knockout competition. Yes the people paying the bills would like to see Rovers back in it but they are looking at it from a bussiness point of view. Monaghan didn't cheat Rovers out of anything. What would happen if MU had knocked two clubs out of the cup before going bust? Invite the two clubs back?

But they didnt.

Some people might say that without their 'infractions' off the pitch they would have not gotten the result on it. In fairness I can understand why were not back in, dosent mean Im going to like it is all.

[Dodge]

But they didnt.

Some people might say that without their 'infractions' off the pitch they would have not gotten the result on it. In fairness I can understand why were not back in, dosent mean Im going to like it is all.

They didn't have any infractions of the pitch.

[redobit]

For want of a better word Dodge. Hence the ' '

They went under so obviously there were 'breaches', 'voilations', 'pick the work you fell most appropriate'.

But as I said, some peoples point is, if they hadnt these off pitch financial problems would they have had a team on the pitch to have won the game! There is a point hear but it is hearsay I suppose cause at the time they beat us fair and square and they still could have gone on and lasted out the season.

[adamd164]

But they didnt.
That's not the point though. If Sligo got back in the cup, and next year a club gets through 2 rounds before dropping out of the league, what do the FAI do then?

[redobit]

That's not the point though. If Sligo got back in the cup, and next year a club gets through 2 rounds before dropping out of the league, what do the FAI do then?

There must be a similar case or a guideline that they are following?

People are taking a retrospective view on it based on the sheriff shels thing recently. But it isint the same atall so thats why I dont have a problem with us not geting back in.

[Dodge]

There must be a similar case or a guideline that they are following?
I've already posted one in the thread


People are taking a retrospective view on it based on the sheriff shels thing recently. But it isint the same atall so thats why I dont have a problem with us not geting back in.
Agreed, its not similar to sheriff at all

[redobit]

I've already posted one in the thread


Its a good example you give Dodge but have they actually come out and used the Dublin City case as the precedent or have they even said here is the guideline we follow? To my knowledge or what Ive read they have just said: Rovers aren't geting back in. Thats that.

[SkStu]

It makes no sense for cup games as its not points based. Cup games are win or bust and if a team that progresses goes out of business, rearranging x numer of rounds, potentially quite a few,just won't work. It's actually a ridiculous suggestion.

[Oldred]

While I would'nt want to be re-admitted to any competition we were beaten on the field in,
what irks me is the fact that league points lost to Monaghan have been reinstated.
Let's say Pats win the league by 2 points with Sligo second, they will have won with points from a
game they lost.
Different scenario from the cup but the same as well!

[Dodge]

Its a good example you give Dodge but have they actually come out and used the Dublin City case as the precedent or have they even said here is the guideline we follow? To my knowledge or what Ive read they have just said: Rovers aren't geting back in. Thats that.

so even though you know that is a precedent, you want them to explicitely reference that? Get a bleddin' grip

You know why they done it, and its consistent with past efforts. End of story

[redobit]

so even though you know that is a precedent, you want them to explicitely reference that? Get a bleddin' grip

You know why they done it, and its consistent with past efforts. End of story

End of story. What are you the foot police. And read my post, I dont know its a precedent thats why I aksked the question. Its not to much to ask for a simple explanation from the FAI, an association that lack accountability all the time.

[Dodge]

End of story. What are you the foot police. And read my post, I dont know its a precedent thats why I aksked the question. Its not to much to ask for a simple explanation from the FAI, an association that lack accountability all the time.

It happened the last time. Thats the very definition of a precedent.

Jesus....

[redobit]

Still think an brief explanation now is a simple courtesy to the club and fans and is not too much to ask.