Dublin City farce

**Dodge** · 21/08/2006, 10:38 AM

Originally posted by dcfcsteve

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

Originally posted by dcfcsteve

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

Originally posted by Bald Student

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

Originally posted by Student Mullet

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.

**Mr A** · 21/08/2006, 1:09 PM

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

Originally posted by Dodge

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

Originally posted by Stiof

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

Originally posted by higgins

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

Originally posted by John83

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....

**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

Originally posted by pineapple stu

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.......?

Dublin City farce

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment