View Full Version : Mrs Gill steps up to the plate
Calcio Jack
12/12/2006, 1:17 PM
Once Mrs Kenny left for Scotland.... I thought we'd seen the back of the greatest whinger and moaner that the league has produced during my 33 years following the game.
Little did I know that Mrs Gill was standing in the wings.... to listen to him wage his one man campaign since the criteria were published has been a pain in the proverbial...but his comments yesterday about not been able to enjure any more and that he was considering whether he could continue... He IMO is nothing but a whinger/bully who is now acting like a spoilt brat... so hopefully he'll fulfill his threat and move on. Or at least maybe one of the Directors of Dundalk would do us all a favour and ask him to shut it or do they not have his mobile number since he recently changed it !!:D
So for the last time Gill: The criteria were agreed to by your own and all the other clubs, if you didn't like them then you should of walked.
drummerboy
12/12/2006, 1:20 PM
Heard Giller is being linked with the Shels job.
mcgonigle
12/12/2006, 1:24 PM
do they not have his mobile number since he recently changed it !!:D
Says it all about your club really :rolleyes:
NY Hoop
12/12/2006, 1:29 PM
It gets better! Apparently in the Sun he's quoted: "I know we signed up but I feel we didn't have a full grasp of what it entailed"
Says it all about dundalk. Their chairman looks like he escaped from a zoo.
KOH
Agree he's a whinging ****. Big mates with Eamon Collins so look for them to link up at a club (possibly Shels)
It gets better! Apparently in the Sun he's quoted: "I know we signed up but I feel we didn't have a full grasp of what it entailed"
Says it all about dundalk. Their chairman looks like he escaped from a zoo.
In fairness when they signed up for it wasn't their 2002 cup win and 10th place finish going to count?
BrayUnknowns
12/12/2006, 1:33 PM
It gets better! Apparently in the Sun he's quoted: "I know we signed up but I feel we didn't have a full grasp of what it entailed"
Says it all about dundalk. Their chairman looks like he escaped from a zoo.
KOH
If Gill did say this then his club deserve to be where they are. It was in black and white and very very clear how it would work. If they didn't bother to read it and take the correct steps then the 1st division is the only place for them.
NY Hoop
12/12/2006, 1:37 PM
Agree he's a whinging ****. Big mates with Eamon Collins so look for them to link up at a club (possibly Shels)
If they got Roddy in they could have the Kermit, Gonzo and Ernie show. Three of the biggest lumps of **** ever to appear on the Irish football scene.
KOH
Gill and Collins as joint-managers. There's a thought to prompt a cringe
It gets better! Apparently in the Sun he's quoted: "I know we signed up but I feel we didn't have a full grasp of what it entailed"
He probably wonders why they scored so lowely on the off the field ratings. 200 points deducted for being illiterate.
:rolleyes:
Looks like Tolka park could be his spirital home...
I've found Gill to be an affable sort in person
far removed from the persona he's portraying here (where he's just fighting his clubs corner - more power to him I say)
holidaysong
12/12/2006, 2:11 PM
In fairness when they signed up for it wasn't their 2002 cup win and 10th place finish going to count?
That's correct. A lot of people on here seem to ignore that point.
dcfcsteve
12/12/2006, 2:20 PM
That's correct. A lot of people on here seem to ignore that point.
But it wouldn't have changed a thing, as you were so far behind Galway in the rankings anyway (54pts, I believe)..... :rolleyes:
It's therefore completely irrelevant and by no means picks any holes in the process, as you're misleadingly trying to suggest.
BrayUnknowns
12/12/2006, 2:27 PM
I've found Gill to be an affable sort in person
far removed from the persona he's portraying here (where he's just fighting his clubs corner - more power to him I say)
"I know we signed up but I feel we didn't have a full grasp of what it entailed"
John Gill.
Disgraceful if true and if i were a Dundalk fan would want a full explanitation of what he meant, and if that they didn't fully grasp what was going to happen why didn't they seek advice.
holidaysong
12/12/2006, 2:28 PM
But it wouldn't have changed a thing, as you were so far behind Galway in the rankings anyway (54pts, I believe)..... :rolleyes:
It's therefore completely irrelevant and by no means picks any holes in the process, as you're misleadingly trying to suggest.
Although it may not have made a difference it shows how much thought the FAI put into the entire process when they originally decide to include a year when one of the teams they are assessing didn't even exist. They arbitrarily picked a year - 5 years. Then realised they had to change it to 4. What if it had been just one year previous? Then we would have gotten in. It is the whole arbitrary way that the FAI decided to pluck a number from the air and use it to decide the future of my club that I am annoyed about. Why stop at 5 years why not our record in the last 25years?
londonhoop
12/12/2006, 2:38 PM
Their chairman looks like he escaped from a zoo.
KOH
:D :D :D
Potm
Although it may not have made a difference it shows how much thought the FAI put into the entire process when they originally decide to include a year when one of the teams they are assessing didn't even exist. They arbitrarily picked a year - 5 years. Then realised they had to change it to 4. What if it had been just one year previous? Then we would have gotten in. It is the whole arbitrary way that the FAI decided to pluck a number from the air and use it to decide the future of my club that I am annoyed about. Why stop at 5 years why not our record in the last 25years?
You explain yourself why they moved it from 5 years to 4 years and then at the end ask why wasnt it moved from 5 years to 25 years???????
You explain yourself why they moved it from 5 years to 4 years and then at the end ask why wasnt it moved from 5 years to 25 years???????
I think the tone of his post was lost on you with that one Terry
I think your right there Jebus ! but I am beginning to wonder what the Dundalk club and supporters were thinking before the annoucements? Did everybody understand the requirements??
dcfcsteve
12/12/2006, 3:12 PM
Although it may not have made a difference it shows how much thought the FAI put into the entire process when they originally decide to include a year when one of the teams they are assessing didn't even exist. They arbitrarily picked a year - 5 years. Then realised they had to change it to 4. What if it had been just one year previous? Then we would have gotten in. It is the whole arbitrary way that the FAI decided to pluck a number from the air and use it to decide the future of my club that I am annoyed about. Why stop at 5 years why not our record in the last 25years?
Well they had to pick some feckin number, didn't they....? :rolleyes:
It's obvious why neitehr 1 year nor 25yrs would've worked. 5 years feels about right - long eough to give a medium-term overview of performance (hence avoiding flashes-in-the-pan), but not so long that the stats are out-dated. The EL has changed dramatically since the start of the millennium, so yuou really couldn't have justified any longer than 5 years ago for such an analysis.
The idea of using 5 years was hampered by the disappearance of a team, which prevented that time-scale offering a level playing field. Yes - the FAI should've twigged this earlier, but the circumstances whereby they couldn't use a 5 yr timescale was not their fault. They obviously couldn't pick any longer a time-line, as it would still have been not comparing like with like, so they did the sensible thing and opted for 4 years. Long enough to give a medium-term overview - not long enough to start being irrelevant or involve periods when clubs didn't exist. Given that they had to have SOME form of cut-off point, i can't see what fairer period they could have chosen, and challenge you to tell me one with a sensible argement to back it up.
tis great to be a drog!!!!!!
Looking good for next season and Dundalk in the graveyard!!!!
marley
12/12/2006, 3:35 PM
Some Derry fans have short memories - 2 weeks ago the FAI couldn't organise a **** up in a brewery ( when it suits you) and now the process by the FAI is just great absolutely brilliant even though after clubs signed up to the ORIGINAL criteria that the gosh*tes in the FAI realised sh*t Kildare didn't exist in the Eircom League 5 years ago lets make it 4 years and sure if it fu*ks up a club so be it.
dcfcsteve
12/12/2006, 3:49 PM
Some Derry fans have short memories - 2 weeks ago the FAI couldn't organise a **** up in a brewery ( when it suits you) and now the process by the FAI is just great absolutely brilliant even though after clubs signed up to the ORIGINAL criteria that the gosh*tes in the FAI realised sh*t Kildare didn't exist in the Eircom League 5 years ago lets make it 4 years and sure if it fu*ks up a club so be it.
You can't compare the IAG process with things like the McDermott affair, as they are clearly completely different events. There is zero justification for the handling of suspensions by the FAI this year - all involved have declared it a farce. There is plenty of justification for the IAG process - it's primarily those who got caught out by it appear to be criticising it. Whether you agree with the process or not, it can be justified. The numerous volte-faces with McDermott cannot be.
No-one is claiming the IAG process was perfect, and it was obvious that a process like that would ineviatbly aggrieve some club or other. But all signed-up to it at the start - and for a club to claim that they didn't really understand it when they did is pure pathetic. Surprise, surprise - those clubs that fell foul of the process are the aggrieved ones, whilst every other club is just getting on with it...
As for the 5 year time-scale - name me a fairer period they should've used, and justify it intelligently ?
marley
12/12/2006, 3:56 PM
All clubs agreed to the previous 5 years it was after agreement changed to 4 years
dcfcsteve
12/12/2006, 4:08 PM
All clubs agreed to the previous 5 years it was after agreement changed to 4 years
Firstly - they had to to ensure equal comparison. What part of that don't you get ??
Secondly - I don't remember a single club complaining about that minor change at the time, do you ?? Not even Dundalk...
Thirdly - it wouldn't have changed a thing for Dundalk. The fact that you're grasping at this in an attempt to discredit the process that lead to an outcome that would still have gone against you anyway suggests that you are low on alternative criticisms.
Finally - give me a fairer time-scale than that used, and justify it intellligently. If you can't, then don't criticise that which was used....
Sheridan
12/12/2006, 4:24 PM
Says it all about your club really :rolleyes:
Quite, the players involved would have been disciplined by any club with reputable owners, but monkey see, monkey do, I guess.
Sheridan
12/12/2006, 4:26 PM
I've found Gill to be an affable sort in person
Giller is a sound and honourable man, he only gets a hammering on here because a sizeable body of posters happen to support clubs which were in direct competition with his this season (and are incapable of seeing further than their own allegiances, or of thinking for themselves.) I have limited sympathy for Dundalk - they signed up the process hoping to double their chances of promotion - but infinite sympathy for John Gill, a man who has devoted his entire adult life to Irish football, and from whom football has taken far more than he ever sought or received in return.
The playing field was tilted in his opponents' favour as soon as the process was devised. Shamrock Rovers knew a top-five finish would suffice, and so played without fear or pressure (just as Bernard Tapie fixed Marseille's final league fixture ahead of the European Cup final, except applied to an entire season.) Giller was asked to overhaul what amounted to an undeclared points deduction, with an inferior team (Trevor Vaughan FFS), then prepare his players for a two-legged game of indeterminate consequence against Premier Division opponents, and did all that was asked of him. He's entitled, as a genuine football man (a description which couldn't be applied to most posters here, judging from what I've read over the past 36 hours) to his bewilderment at a decision which offends the very essence of competitive sport.
Schumi
12/12/2006, 4:36 PM
It's obvious why neitehr 1 year nor 25yrs would've worked.Why wouldn't 1 have worked? Whatever about the relevence of the off-field criteria, I can't see any reason why clubs' results from years ago should impact on their suitability for the new league. The only effect I see was to guarantee Rovers' place in the premier.
passerrby
12/12/2006, 4:49 PM
giller does not give a monkies about dundalk and is only worried about himself and his comments yesterday about having to review his situation was putting himself back in the shop window and attempting to jump ship.
dcfcsteve
12/12/2006, 4:49 PM
Why wouldn't 1 have worked? Whatever about the relevence of the off-field criteria, I can't see any reason why clubs' results from years ago should impact on their suitability for the new league. The only effect I see was to guarantee Rovers' place in the premier.
One year wouldn't have worked, as it would've opened the possibility for one-offs to have a disproportionate influence on the process. Taking the average of a medm-term period allows for a broader view of a club's abilities to be factored-in.
If the overall objective of the process was to determine which teams were best located, structured, funded and performing to operate at the highest level, then it makes perfect sense to use a timescale of more than 1 year.
1 year probably wouldn't have stopped Rovers getting in anyway, and certainly wouldn't have helped Dundalk.
Why - what's your rational arguement for a 1 year period to have been used ? And does anyone really think the results would've differed widely - if at all - under a different time-period ? On-the-pitch considerations didn't provide a majority of points.
Calcio Jack
12/12/2006, 4:56 PM
Quite, the players involved would have been disciplined by any club with reputable owners, but monkey see, monkey do, I guess.
Rubbish..let's bin this one. Are you accusing Rovers players of something...if so where's your proof etc. You see we are not in the business of disciplining players unless there is (1) a complaint against them ,that (2) has been proven.
As for your inference that Rovers doesn't have reputable owners...well as one of the owners ie a member of the 400 Club , let me assure you we are very reputable..but again if you wish to accuse us of not being so..then provide the proof, in other words either put up or shut up.
Schumi
12/12/2006, 4:56 PM
what's your rational arguement for a 1 year period to have been used ? And does anyone really think the results would've differed widely - if at all - under a different time-period ? On-the-pitch considerations didn't provide a majority of points.One year of results is what's always used in leagues to determine playing strength. I think this year's results are far more important than previous years.
Sheridan
12/12/2006, 5:00 PM
do they not have his mobile number since he recently changed it !!:D
Explain (honestly) what this alluded to and I'll delete my post.
Sam Savic
12/12/2006, 5:09 PM
Explain (honestly) what this alluded to and I'll delete my post.
Have a look at the roundy yoke after the two exclamation marks in his post.:D
Sheridan
12/12/2006, 5:12 PM
It's interesting that Calcio Jack immediately made the connection with a particular club which wasn't named in my post.
dcfcsteve
12/12/2006, 5:28 PM
One year of results is what's always used in leagues to determine playing strength. I think this year's results are far more important than previous years.
No. One year's results are what's used in league's to determine the playing strength of clubs in a one-off snap-shot. They are highly susceptible to flukes and anomalies. What if Bohs had been condemned to the First Division because of points deductions over the McGuinness Affair ? Or other clubs because of the Dublin City points affair ? That shows you the potential for problems when such a narrow time-frame is taken as being representative.
They're not used in Independent Assessments of which clubs are best equipped on and off the pitch to survive and grow at the highest level.
It doesn't help that we probably can't think of any other league that has had its own IAG process mid-operation.
Sure feck it - why not just take the last game every team played as the sole reflection of their abilities.....?
ColinR
12/12/2006, 5:59 PM
All clubs agreed to the previous 5 years it was after agreement changed to 4 years
was the plan not meant to be the previous 5 seasons (not years). big difference, as craptown would need the previous six seasons to have their cup win included!
was the plan not meant to be the previous 5 seasons (not years). big difference, as craptown would need the previous six seasons to have their cup win included!
So when the FAI mentioned last 5 years it seems neither the clubs or the FAI noticed this would sort of disadvantage Kildare County?
Moving on from that error what other possible course of action could the FAI undertake?
:confused:
Maynard
12/12/2006, 6:40 PM
Giller is a sound and honourable man, he only gets a hammering on here because a sizeable body of posters happen to support clubs which were in direct competition with his this season (and are incapable of seeing further than their own allegiances, or of thinking for themselves.) I have limited sympathy for Dundalk - they signed up the process hoping to double their chances of promotion - but infinite sympathy for John Gill, a man who has devoted his entire adult life to Irish football, and from whom football has taken far more than he ever sought or received in return.
The playing field was tilted in his opponents' favour as soon as the process was devised. Shamrock Rovers knew a top-five finish would suffice, and so played without fear or pressure (just as Bernard Tapie fixed Marseille's final league fixture ahead of the European Cup final, except applied to an entire season.) Giller was asked to overhaul what amounted to an undeclared points deduction, with an inferior team (Trevor Vaughan FFS), then prepare his players for a two-legged game of indeterminate consequence against Premier Division opponents, and did all that was asked of him. He's entitled, as a genuine football man (a description which couldn't be applied to most posters here, judging from what I've read over the past 36 hours) to his bewilderment at a decision which offends the very essence of competitive sport.
Agree totally. Seeing the team that finishes behind you leap-frog you must've been bad enough, but it's the insistence of HAVING to play the play-off really sticks in the craw. Congrats to all the Dundalk players and officals on a very good season's work in 2006.
Flawless
12/12/2006, 8:01 PM
So for the last time Gill: The criteria were agreed to by your own and all the other clubs, if you didn't like them then you should of walked.
We agreed to a 5 Season Adjudication...
Don't understand why the club didnt put up more of a fight so that our Cup win would have been taken into account after the Kildare Fiasco.
Also someone mentioned our off-field criteria being a cause for us to lose points, that was our overall strength believe it or not!!,we actually scored more points than shels did in the off-field dept!!
Flawless
12/12/2006, 8:03 PM
If Gill did say this then his club deserve to be where they are. It was in black and white and very very clear how it would work. If they didn't bother to read it and take the correct steps then the 1st division is the only place for them.
See above post!
But what people are saying elsewhere Flawless is that if the 5th year was included ye still wouldnt have had enough points to go up!
dcfcsteve
12/12/2006, 8:28 PM
We agreed to a 5 Season Adjudication...
Don't understand why the club didnt put up more of a fight so that our Cup win would have been taken into account after the Kildare Fiasco.
Also someone mentioned our off-field criteria being a cause for us to lose points, that was our overall strength believe it or not!!,we actually scored more points than shels did in the off-field dept!!
Flawless - do you actually read what's on this site ??
It wouldn't have made a blind difference if it had been 5 seasons rather than 4 - you still wouln't have made the cut as you were too far behind Galway !
:rolleyes:
ColinR
12/12/2006, 9:59 PM
We agreed to a 5 Season Adjudication...
Don't understand why the club didnt put up more of a fight so that our Cup win would have been taken into account after the Kildare Fiasco.
your cup win wasn't in the last five seasons though:
last five fai cup winners:
2006: derry
2005: drogs
2004: longford
2003: longford
2002: derry
___________________
2001/02: dundalk
so even if you did sign up for five seasons, your cup win wasn't amongst them
Student Mullet
12/12/2006, 10:21 PM
your cup win wasn't in the last five seasons though:
last five fai cup winners:
2006: derry
2005: drogs
2004: longford
2003: longford
2002: derry
___________________
2001/02: dundalk
so even if you did sign up for five seasons, your cup win wasn't amongst themYour numbering is out by one. Kildare came in in 2002. The 'five years' were originally from 01/02 'til 2005 but it was changed to 4 years from 02 'til 05 to fit Kildare in.
2006 results were counted up seperately.
your cup win wasn't in the last five seasons though:
Don't worry they will find some excuse.
The fact is i think Dundalk about 35 points outside the top 12. The only way they can justify promotion is the scrapping of the process they signed up for.
ColinR
12/12/2006, 10:37 PM
2006 results were counted up seperately.
ah, it makes sense now!!
feel that the end result has left craptown shafted by the process, but it was inevitable that someone would be shafted.
i don't see why a strict licencsing system and normal promotion and relegation should not have been used. in fact i cannot see any justification for basing the results on anything other than the current year, but i suppose plenty of us said that at the time, but the fai obviously had an agenda to fulfill :rolleyes:
i don't see why a strict licencsing system and normal promotion and relegation should not have been used.
Keeping that system could have kept Dublin City in business a bit longer so they would creep into the Premier. I am sure that the FAI fancied dropping UCD but they got enough points so stay in as they should.
Calcio Jack
13/12/2006, 6:55 AM
It's interesting that Calcio Jack immediately made the connection with a particular club which wasn't named in my post.
Oh come on get real... and look at what I wrote and either reply to it or drop it... so were you accusing Rovers players of something or not for which they should be disciplined , because if you were , then as I said you need to be able to provide proof ? Everyone here IMO would presume that's whom you refering to...so it's easy one to respond to , it's either yes or no.
[QUOTE=Sheridan;590700]
Shamrock Rovers knew a top-five finish would suffice, and so played without fear or pressure (just as Bernard Tapie fixed Marseille's final league fixture ahead of the European Cup final, except applied to an entire season.) QUOTE]
I dont like normally making personal statements about individual posters (as opposed to their posts) on any forum but this has to be said, You have issues, genuinely, your grievance against all things Shamrock Rovers has gone beyond the realms of reality at this stage!! The above statement is so wide of the mark in terms of accuracy its undeserving of comment TBH!
Koh
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.2 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.