View Full Version : Dublin City farce
Team get the results they played in removed.
Teams that lost games get a reprieve.
Shamrock Rovers get a 3 point ban as they did not know a player who earned a suspension with DC was due a ban.
Teams that played Dublin City twice instead of only once are penalised because yellow & red cards earned in these games are not removed.
:confused: :confused:
How can any of this make sense? Points & goals scored in these non-existent games do not remain while yellow & red cards are kept???
The eL has a rule that clubs may not leave the league mid-season. Instead of criticism Ronan Seery gets praise for his efforts from Delaney!
:rolleyes:
(rant over)
A face
19/08/2006, 11:20 AM
info@fai.ie .... If they dont know you're píssed off then they wont do anything about it.
Student Mullet
19/08/2006, 1:27 PM
Team get the results they played in removed.
Teams that lost games get a reprieve.
Shamrock Rovers get a 3 point ban as they did not know a player who earned a suspension with DC was due a ban.
Teams that played Dublin City twice instead of only once are penalised because yellow & red cards earned in these games are not removed.
:confused: :confused:
How can any of this make sense? Points & goals scored in these non-existent games do not remain while yellow & red cards are kept???
The eL has a rule that clubs may not leave the league mid-season. Instead of criticism Ronan Seery gets praise for his efforts from Delaney!
:rolleyes:
(rant over)But players who were suspended for games against Dublin City don't have their suspension reinstated. These 2 cancel out.
But players who were suspended for games against Dublin City don't have their suspension reinstated. These 2 cancel out.
Are you joking? What does that mean? How does that cancel out?
:confused: :rolleyes:
Student Mullet
19/08/2006, 2:08 PM
Are you joking? What does that mean? How does that cancel out?
No, I'm not joking.
Suspensions were picked up against Dublin City and suspensions were served against Dublin City. Do you want a player who served a suspension a few months back to be suspended again because the game against DC never happened? The FAI had to pick and choose what aspects of DC's existance to expunge and on this point I think they chose correctly.
:confused: :rolleyes:
A face
19/08/2006, 2:08 PM
But players who were suspended for games against Dublin City don't have their suspension reinstated. These 2 cancel out.
What say what now ??
I'm with Pete here, how does that cancel out ??
A face
19/08/2006, 2:12 PM
No, I'm not joking.
Suspensions were picked up against Dublin City and suspensions were served against Dublin City. Do you want a player who served a suspension a few months back to be suspended again because the game against DC never happened? The FAI had to pick and choose what aspects of DC's existance to expunge and on this point I think they chose correctly.
:confused: :rolleyes:
Wha'cha mean suspend them again .... if they were suspended and are up again for one then surely they'd have one in credit, if y'know what i mean !!
Student Mullet
19/08/2006, 2:20 PM
Wha'cha mean suspend them again .... if they were suspended and are up again for one then surely they'd have one in credit, if y'know what i mean !!I don't quite know what you mean.
What I mean is that a player sent off in a game before his clubs DC game would have missed the DC game. If we expunge the DC game, do we expunge the fact that he served his suspension and make him serve it again? To do that would be silly, in my opinion.
If you're not expunging suspensions served I don't think you should expunge suspensions earned either, which would be much more difficult. Wasn't George O'Callaghan sent off aganst DC and he missed a few games? He can't go back in time to play in those games so how can you expunge that suspension?
the league has turned into a farce yet again.nothing against derry but how can they get off when shamrock rovers dont.there has been more rows over admin errors in the last five years in the el than in my lifetime watching english football.
the clubs are going professional moving forward playing to a higher standard,yet the admin side of it just lets everyone down.no wonder people think our league is a joke:mad:
Derry got off cos we proved the eL didn't follow their own rules!
If you're not expunging suspensions served I don't think you should expunge suspensions earned either, which would be much more difficult.
Well you cannot into the past so suspensions seved woulod have to stay.
At the moment Shiels is serving a suspension for games that effectively never existed.
Best solution:
- Results stand.
- Teams will receive walkovers for all future DC games. 3-0 for all these games.
- Any open suspensions stand.
- Remove any yellow or red cards earned in DC games. i.e. if players has 4 yellows he'll now have just 3 (assuming 1 earned in DC game).
- Goals stand
You either keep the DC records as much as possible or you remove the fact they ever existed.
Well you cannot into the past so suspensions seved woulod have to stay.
At the moment Shiels is serving a suspension for games that effectively never existed.
- Remove any yellow or red cards earned in DC games. i.e. if players has 4 yellows he'll now have just 3 (assuming 1 earned in DC game).
Why pick and choose. If a player serves a suspension v Dublin City they should be made serve it again. if a player got sent off in a game v Dub City and served a suspension the club should claim compesation as forced to rest player by FAI.. :rolleyes:
The whole thing is a ****ing joke and the league have come at it half arsed. I agree with pete on nearly everything but why say cards shouldn't count?
To be honest, I think the league pretty much got it right on the Dublin City issue.
Results are gone, but actions of individual players aren't. Except they've taken the goals off players who scored for or against Dublin (which makes sense, sort of, as otherwise the goals scored by players wouldn't add up to the same as in the league table). Anyway, I think they were right to let suspensions stand and expunge the results.
Sniffer
19/08/2006, 5:53 PM
- Remove any yellow or red cards earned in DC games. i.e. if players has 4 yellows he'll now have just 3 (assuming 1 earned in DC game).
- Goals stand
Cards are issued for actions, which exist! If Shiels or anyone had broken a player up with a reckless challenge while playing for CHF and was subsequently suspended would it make sense to you if the suspension were expunged from the record.
Bald Student
19/08/2006, 7:09 PM
I think the FAI should have healed any player who was injured against Dublin City.
DmanDmythDledge
19/08/2006, 7:53 PM
The main problem about Dublin City resigning from the league is that it has never happened that a team has resigned from the league in the middle of a season so there is no rules that cover this scenario, therefore allowing the league to do whatever they want. Furthermore resigning from the league is forbidden in the league rules so the league makes yet again another fúck up.
The way I see it is that if Dublin City shouldn't have been allowed to resign from the league then technically they should still be in the league. They would be unable to fulfil their remaining fixtures so all matches would be awarded as a 3-0 win to the other team and all previous results would stand.
sligoman
19/08/2006, 7:57 PM
The way I see it is that if Dublin City shouldn't have been allowed to resign from the league then technically they should still be in the league. They would be unable to fulfil their remaining fixtures so all matches would be awarded as a 3-0 win to the other team and all previous results would stand.No cos that would mean Waterford United would actually win a game then!:D.
I think the FAI should have healed any player who was injured against Dublin City.
Now you're talking!
And any gate money received in a game against Dublin must be returned to those who paid in.
And every season ticket holder at every premier club should receive a partial refund as they're getting to see less games than they paid for.
Maybe we should just call it quits and start this season again.
Bald Student
19/08/2006, 8:07 PM
Now you're talking!
And any gate money received in a game against Dublin must be returned to those who paid in.
And every season ticket holder at every premier club should receive a partial refund as they're getting to see less games than they paid for.
Maybe we should just call it quits and start this season again.Just wait a few weeks and we can start a winter season from scratch.
Sheridan
19/08/2006, 8:41 PM
Why bother completing a season at all? It would be far more economical to have the John Delaney Massive compile a league table based on Past, Current and Potential Marketability. Think of the savings clubs would make on wages! :eek:
holidaysong
20/08/2006, 12:27 AM
For once I think the FAI decision was spot on. :)
mypost
20/08/2006, 1:47 AM
all matches would be awarded as a 3-0 win to the other team.
Why 3-0? Why not 1-0??
osarusan
20/08/2006, 3:45 AM
Why 3-0? Why not 1-0??
Jaysus!! When the other team arent even on the pitch, surely a team can score more than one goal.
The way I see it is that if Dublin City shouldn't have been allowed to resign from the league then technically they should still be in the league. They would be unable to fulfil their remaining fixtures so all matches would be awarded as a 3-0 win to the other team and all previous results would stand.
Good point. I agree. I think Ollie Byrne may take this route. He could argue that the league were acting outside the rules by allowing Dublin City to resign. The rest takes care of itself then...
The way it is at the moment a Club Chairman could fold club & join another the next day which is completely wrong. Should be automatic 10 year ban from involvement in the league if you fold a club mid season.
Jaysus!! When the other team arent even on the pitch, surely a team can score more than one goal.
Not really, as Dublin wouldn't be there to take the centre they'd be stuck after the first!
DmanDmythDledge
20/08/2006, 1:09 PM
Why 3-0? Why not 1-0??
When teams aren't able to fulfil their fixtures 3-0 is the standard score awarded.
pineapple stu
20/08/2006, 7:28 PM
Not really, as Dublin wouldn't be there to take the centre they'd be stuck after the first!
Would you not get a free-kick for timewasting as DC don't take their tip-off?
3-0's a standard walkover win across the world. Removing a club's record from the league when they've played as few games as DC did is pretty much standard across the world.
Poor Student
20/08/2006, 7:31 PM
Someone else raised the point on this board, and I think it's a good one. Should the league table not show the performances and rankings of the teams that comprise it? Dublin City are not part of the league anymore. Shouldn't the league's placings reflect how its members did against each other and not how some of them did some of the time against a defunct club?
bohs til i die
20/08/2006, 7:54 PM
Someone else raised the point on this board, and I think it's a good one. Should the league table not show the performances and rankings of the teams that comprise it? Dublin City are not part of the league anymore. Shouldn't the league's placings reflect how its members did against each other and not how some of them did some of the time against a defunct club?
thats my view. Teams should finish the season in the position the results they got against the other 10 teams earned them.
bigmac
21/08/2006, 8:36 AM
Someone else raised the point on this board, and I think it's a good one.
That was me, so obviously I agree with the decision.
dcfcsteve
21/08/2006, 9:26 AM
Best solution:
- Teams will receive walkovers for all future DC games. 3-0 for all these games.
You either keep the DC records as much as possible or you remove the fact they ever existed.
It's absurd to suggest that any unplayed DC games should be awarded as 3:0 walkovers.
Dub City were a mid-table team when they imploded, and they'd proven themselves capable of taking points off a lot of teams to get there. Granting everyone who hadn't played them a 3:0 result would therefore be completely ludicrous.
The only sensible suggestion is the one of treating the league as if Dublin City were never in it. Suspensions, yellow cards etc are red herrings, as you can't travel back in time and change those elements.
As has been stated, any league table reflects the relative standings of those involved in it. It's therefore daft to have one that includes any reference to a team that aren't involved in that league any more.
Dodge
21/08/2006, 10:38 AM
It's absurd to suggest that any unplayed DC games should be awarded as 3:0 walkovers.
If they missed one game, this is how most leagues treat it. Not that absurd.
Student Mullet
21/08/2006, 11:26 AM
If we awarded 3:0 walkovers Dublin City would probably still finish ahead of Waterford.
Jerry The Saint
21/08/2006, 11:32 AM
The only sensible suggestion is the one of treating the league as if Dublin City were never in it. Suspensions, yellow cards etc are red herrings, as you can't travel back in time and change those elements.
I thought Doctor Who was a Derry fan - should be simple enough to arrange...
John83
21/08/2006, 11:38 AM
I think the FAI should have healed any player who was injured against Dublin City.
I think that fans deserve a refund for Dublin City games. After all, they paid into a game that didn't happen.
If Wayne Rooney can be suspended because of something he did in a friendly, so can a player who picked up a booking against Dublin City. The games are considered friendlies now, right?
pineapple stu
21/08/2006, 12:42 PM
If we awarded 3:0 walkovers Dublin City would probably still finish ahead of Waterford.
What's even more remarkable is that, if this were a normal season and not a transition to the John Delaney "Dance Rummy" league, Waterford would now be in the play-offs on four points, with Bray safe on ten.
Is that for certain Stu? Will the second placed D1 definately play the last in the PD?
pineapple stu
21/08/2006, 1:27 PM
Note my "If this were a normal season" comment.
Then you'd have 11th in the Premier v 2nd in the First as per the last few years.
dcfcsteve
21/08/2006, 1:53 PM
If they missed one game, this is how most leagues treat it. Not that absurd.
There's a huge difference between a club missing one game, and a club disappearing entirely up its own arse.
The 3:0 default is a penalty to stop clubs missing fixtures when it suits them, and acts to punish THEM. Conversely, there is no point in trying to punish a club who have left the league altogether. Hence the walkover suggestion just doesn't work in this context.
And if it's all about how other leagues treat things, then the current FAI decision has plenty of precedent around Europe.
When was the last time a team was given a walkover in the Eircom league anyway....?
higgins
21/08/2006, 2:42 PM
Derry got off cos we proved the eL didn't follow their own rules!
Well done, about time another club actually stood up and pointed out their mistakes.
If all 21 EL teams stood up and were counted when the FAI **** up we would be in a much better state. As it is today the only ones who do anything are the ones invloved and even then if its going their way they stay out of it.
passerrby
21/08/2006, 6:27 PM
Well done, about time another club actually stood up and pointed out their mistakes.
If all 21 EL teams stood up and were counted when the FAI **** up we would be in a much better state. As it is today the only ones who do anything are the ones invloved and even then if its going their way they stay out of it.
your spot on, ive found that clubs never support other clubs on any issue unless there is something in it for them, so when they need help there is nobody around, and this is why nothing changes except the faces.
OneRedArmy
21/08/2006, 9:16 PM
Presume its been referred to elsewhere but read in the Business Post (which sadly given the contents of the articles is now covering EL matters regularly) that Dublin City had creditors of E1.5m when it went into liquidation, including Rocky Seery to the tune of E1m.
I'd have saved him E900k and told him exactly what was going to happen for E100k a few years back when he started his experiment.
Tough lesson.
John83
21/08/2006, 9:54 PM
Yeah, that figure's been mentioned elsewhere. It's also been pointed out that Seery was likely the backer of other bank loans, so he's probably even more than the €1m out of pocket. He's not that wealthy either - that's probably his house.
dcfcsteve
22/08/2006, 1:27 AM
Yeah, that figure's been mentioned elsewhere. It's also been pointed out that Seery was likely the backer of other bank loans, so he's probably even more than the €1m out of pocket. He's not that wealthy either - that's probably his house.
And probably the wife, if he's blown that srrt of money on pursuing a pipe dream any dog in the street could've told him would never work.... :eek: :o
pineapple stu
22/08/2006, 1:22 PM
The wife was the second director. So she must have known full well what was happening.
dcfcsteve
22/08/2006, 4:38 PM
The wife was the second director. So she must have known full well what was happening.
Probably just to cover company law requirements, rather than an active Director.
Can kids file for a separation.......?
pineapple stu
22/08/2006, 4:46 PM
Probably just to cover company law requirements, rather than an active Director.
Oh undoubtedly. Still, she's a signatory to the accounts, so it hasn't just dawned anyway. Though you're right that there's probably a fair few rows in that household!
Does Seery have kids?
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.2 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.