Shels to win league without kicking a ball?

[Shelsman]

Yup, Ollie is at it again ( trying to get other clubs deducted points ). Maybe in future we will win the league without having to kick a ball? :rolleyes:

To be fair though, if the other clubs did break the rules either intentionally or through incompetence then they should be punished. :(

[pineapple stu]

Like getting winding-up orders and not paying players?

[Risteard]

Could ya blame Shelsman really?
League incompetence just plays into the convicts hands every time.
It's a joke.
The final league table is going to have more asterisks than a french comic store.

[Shelsman]

Like getting winding-up orders and not paying players?

How long are you going to drag this issue into every debate on Shels? Ye UCD fans seem to have worked it into almost every thread discussing Shels issues recently. Just because the tax payer pays UCD wages like...........

Why don't you start a thread discussing your above issue and keep all discussions on it within that thread? Or is that too much to ask?

:mad:

[John83]

How long are you going to drag this issue into every debate on Shels? Ye UCD fans seem to have worked it into almost every thread discussing Shels issues recently. Just because the tax payer pays UCD wages like...........

Why don't you start a thread discussing your above issue and keep all discussions on it within that thread? Or is that too much to ask?

:mad:
This is utter tripe. The club does not get any grant. The club is run at break even. Money in = money out. Shels could learn from that concept.

It's pathetic to attack clubs for breaking rules while your own club is buying the league with money it doesn't have. It's utterly pathetic to start crying when this is pointed out to you.

[pineapple stu]

It's pathetic to attack clubs for breaking rules while your own club is buying the league with money it doesn't have. It's utterly pathetic to start crying when this is pointed out to you.
Thank you.

Evidently we're not even allowed criticise Shels...

[Bald Student]

Thank you.

Evidently we're not even allowed criticise Shels...You are pineapple but I think you have to ask if you're starting to repeat yourself.

[pineapple stu]

Who, me?

Who, me?

Who, me?

I think it's a perfectly valid point to bring up and it's in the context of the thread.

Anyway, my repeating myself is only a literary device to mirror Shels' repeating theirselves. :)

[Shelsman]

The club does not get any grant. The club is run at break even. Money in = money out. Shels could learn from that concept. .

You could be right, but then we'd all have a sh!te team like UCD ! :p


It's pathetic to attack clubs for breaking rules while your own club is buying the league with money it doesn't have. It's utterly pathetic to start crying when this is pointed out to you.

I'm not crying, I'm just pointing out that ye are like a dog with a bone, no, OBSESSED with Shel's finances and if Shels choose to take a risk and build a brilliant squad then that is their decision to make. How they manage themselves financially throughout each season is for themselves to decide and not for any other club dictate! It's a free country we live in after all...

I don't like Ollie or his constant use of the rulebook, but let's get this straight:
(1) Other eL clubs have broken the rules on playing suspended players etc and should be punished according to the rules.
(2) Shels were given their club licence at the start of the season and passed the appropriate audits for their finances. They did not break any rules in this regard. If you would like to see a stricter financial constraint on all clubs throughout the season then you're welcome to that opinion but I do not agree with it. Maybe you would like an MLS style 'allocation' of all players to various clubs at the start of each season?

[Shelsman]

Evidently we're not even allowed criticise Shels...

Criticise all you want, it would be nice though if you could make sure that
(a) It's fair and
(b) You don't keep on with the same criticism in more than one thread.

[pineapple stu]

If you would like to see a stricter financial constraint on all clubs throughout the season then you're welcome to that opinion but I do not agree with it.
We've had three winding up orders and one club going broke, and you don't think financial criteria should be tightened?


Criticise all you want, it would be nice though if you could make sure that
(a) It's fair and
(b) You don't keep on with the same criticism in more than one thread.
(a) My criticism was fair. You noted that "other" teams should keep within the rules; I noted Shels were a prime example who wouldn't be covered by "other" teams.
(b) A point being made elsewhere oughtn't disallow it from being mentioned in another, relevant, place.

[Shelsman]

We've had three winding up orders and one club going broke, and you don't think financial criteria should be tightened? .

Ideally yes, but what do you propose?



(a) My criticism was fair. You noted that "other" teams should keep within the rules; I noted Shels were a prime example who wouldn't be covered by "other" teams..

Shels did not field any ineligible players this season as far as I know.



(b) A point being made elsewhere oughtn't disallow it from being mentioned in another, relevant, place.

Maybe, but it does become very PEDANTIC and BORING. We heard you the first time, like.......... :rolleyes:

[pineapple stu]

Ideally yes, but what do you propose?
Rules whereby clubs who are about to go broke or end up in court due to serious cash flows problems get punished by a refusal of a licence would be a start. It happens in other countries.


Shels did not field any ineligible players this season as far as I know.
And that's the only way to break the rules, is it?


Maybe, but it does become very PEDANTIC and BORING. We heard you the first time, like.......... :rolleyes:
Strikes me as being your fault, not mine.