League Cup shenanigans

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

19/09/2009, 2:37 PM
Dunny

Quote:

Originally Posted by SkStu

que..?

I think we've all seen how difficult boycotts are to enforce on foot.ie - a self imposed exile might be easier. But thats for another day...

:o:o

Post amended.
19/09/2009, 2:55 PM
A N Mouse

Quote:

Originally Posted by SkStu

wasting your time trying to make a point regarding Bohs here BD. Its just big bad bohs being unreasonable again.

In this instance it is being unreasonable.

What you're asking is Derry go two weeks without a game - then go the month of October playing 2 games a week.

We all know the reason is not wanting to play the 2nd and 3rd placed teams in the space of 4 days. Just come out and say it.

Look at Derry and Sligo's fixtures for October. Ask you self where will this, Derry v Bohs, match fit in? Given silgo still have to fit in a cup semi, and the possibility of a replay with knock on effects.
19/09/2009, 3:08 PM
Quadruple1928

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derry

So they are saying that they wouldn't have played the final in Waterford unless they got an assurance that they wouldn't have to play Derry in mid week. Why the f*** should they have been given an assurance for that. They had some brass neck asking for it in the 1st place. And so far we only have wee Fenlon's word on that. Like has been pointed out before, Bohs time travelling is wayyyyyyyyyyyyy smaller than the likes of Derry, as every away game can be anything from 2 hours, up till 7 hours. Yet Boh's longest journey is only 3 hours, In 2 sets of games in the league at present, Derry travel approx 31 hours while Bohs travel approx 13. Now they are complaining about having to travel 5 hours out of a total of 3 games. My bleeding heart goes out to them.

I'll break it down for you, the FAI(Delaney) wanted the LC final in Waterford! So their was no coin toss on the understanding Bohs wouldn't have to go to Derry on the tuesday. The reason Bohs asked for the game to not be on the tuesday, was the FAI asked Bohs to play the final in Waterford. The only reason Bohs agreed to the final in Waterford was the FAI said they would not have to go to to derry on the tuesday. Did you understand that?.
19/09/2009, 3:12 PM
A N Mouse

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quadruple1928

I'll break it down for you, the FAI(Delaney) wanted the LC final in Waterford! So their was no coin toss on the understanding Bohs wouldn't have to go to Derry on the tuesday. So, the reason Bohs asked for the game to not be on the tuesday, was the FAI asked Bohs to play it in Waterford. Did you understand that?.

And a verbal agreement isn't worth the paper its written.

Do you understand that?
19/09/2009, 3:15 PM
SkStu

the more i read on this the more it seems that Derry City might be playing hardball and maybe the FAI simply cant accommodate the request as Derry have refused to move it. It wouldnt surprise me given that Derry have had issues on this subject over the last couple of seasons (possibly where they werent accommodated).

Anyway ANMouse, yes we do not want to play a cup final and 2 top of the table clashes in the space of 7 days. Its a big ask for any team.

Furthermore, the FAI gave us an assurance that this would not happen (in exhange to agreement that Waterford would be the venue) and the Derry game would be rescheduled. This assurance is being reneged upon.

Is it any wonder we are beig "unreasonable"?
19/09/2009, 3:16 PM
Quadruple1928

Quote:

Originally Posted by A N Mouse

And a verbal agreement isn't worth the paper its written.

Do you understand that?

A verbal agreement is legally binding actually.
19/09/2009, 3:28 PM
A N Mouse

Quote:

Originally Posted by SkStu

the more i read on this the more it seems that Derry City might be playing hardball and maybe the FAI simply cant accommodate the request as Derry have refused to move it. It wouldnt surprise me given that Derry have had issues on this subject over the last couple of seasons (possibly where they werent accommodated).

Anyway ANMouse, yes we do not want to play a cup final and 2 top of the table clashes in the space of 7 days. Its a big ask for any team.

Furthermore, the FAI gave us an assurance that this would not happen (in exhange to agreement that Waterford would be the venue) and the Derry game would be rescheduled. This assurance is being reneged upon.

Is it any wonder we are beig "unreasonable"?

While Bohs may have come to an understanding with the FAI - more fool them - in the cold light of day the request simply cannot be accommodated. Why should Derry be punished for Bohs success?

The alternative to playing at the end of September is playing end of October or first week of November - before the final set of games (again this would depend on the Derry Sligo game not being affected by their cup match). And I don't think anyone would want to fit an extra game into the last week of the season. Would Bohs want to travel to the Brandywell on the 3rd Nov knowing the title depended on them getting a result?
19/09/2009, 3:29 PM
SkStu

it sounds like my suspicions are bang on the money then.
19/09/2009, 3:33 PM
hoops1

Haha This is just Nutsy using something to motivate his players. He probably feels as I do that the league will decided by that game in Derry and is trying the us against the world trick
19/09/2009, 3:36 PM
A N Mouse

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quadruple1928

A verbal agreement is legally binding actually.

That maybe so, but Pat Fenlon clearly stated they were told to wait on the outcome of the cup matches before a decision was reached.
19/09/2009, 3:51 PM
BohDiddley

Quote:

Originally Posted by A N Mouse

... what is the issue here?

a) fixture congestion
b) travelling
c) assurances from the FAI

a - that's never happened before :o
b - bit rich coming from a Dublin club
c - I'd be fairly supprised if 'assurances' were given. More likely is bohs asked and were told we'll see what happens with the cup replays. If 'assurances' were given then this raises the question in my op of why bohs should be treated differently than anyone else?

Er, that would be C, Bob.

Let's try to focus, shall we? An agreement was made and broken. That has nothing to do with whether an agreement should or should not have been made in the first place.
19/09/2009, 4:00 PM
A N Mouse

Quote:

Originally Posted by BohDiddley

Er, that would be C, Bob.

Let's try to focus, shall we? An agreement was made and broken. That has nothing to do with whether an agreement should or should not have been made in the first place.

So the breaking of this 'agreement' has Pat Fenlon, mainly, worried about 'the Health and Safety of the players'?

This is because:

a) an agreement was broken by the bad, bad, fai. Which raises serious concerns about the players' mental wellbeing
b) they have to do a bit of travelling
c) they have to play three games in the space of a week
d) the results of those games will have a big impact on the outcome of the season

Ayone want to throw up an aul poll?
19/09/2009, 4:01 PM
blue til i die

IF the FAI made the agreement with bohs, then bohs shouldnt have to go to Derry on the Tuesday.
19/09/2009, 4:24 PM
A N Mouse

Quote:

Originally Posted by blue til i die

IF the FAI made the agreement with bohs, then bohs shouldnt have to go to Derry on the Tuesday.

Well then sure, when would suit you Bohs? Just we're a little busy up to 'bout November 6th.
19/09/2009, 4:39 PM
blue til i die

Quote:

Originally Posted by A N Mouse

Well then sure, when would suit you Bohs? Just we're a little busy up to 'bout November 6th.

Its not a point of when it is, where it is or who it is, if the FAI made the agreement, they should honour it.
19/09/2009, 5:07 PM
A N Mouse

Quote:

Originally Posted by blue til i die

Its not a point of when it is, where it is or who it is, if the FAI made the agreement, they should honour it.

I think it is exactly a case of when it is, where it is and who it is.

Would they have asked for a fixture change - to be considered - if it was at Dalymount? They didn't have another game for a week? Their next opponents were Drogheda? Or the match in question was against Bray?

Once the fixture list has been agreed upon it is not, generally, within the gift of the FAI to magnanimously change fixtures.

If they did so, on this occasion, they would also - rightly imo - stand to be accused of handing Bohs an advantage in the title race. If Bohs got their way they'd have a week off before they played their nearest title rivals, and play the, current, 3rd placed team in their 8th game of 9 in 27 days.

The fai didn't do anything for shels, drogs, derry or cork re fixtures. So why start handing advantages to teams in title races now? Because they agreed to switch the league cup final to the venue that'll probably attract more support?
19/09/2009, 5:13 PM
blue til i die

Quote:

Originally Posted by A N Mouse

I think it is exactly a case of when it is, where it is and who it is.

Would they have asked for a fixture change - to be considered - if it was at Dalymount? They didn't have another game for a week? Their next opponents were Drogheda? Or the match in question was against Bray?

Once the fixture list has been agreed upon it is not, generally, within the gift of the FAI to magnanimously change fixtures.

If they did so, on this occasion, they would also - rightly imo - stand to be accused of handing Bohs an advantage in the title race. If Bohs got their way they'd have a week off before they played their nearest title rivals, and play the, current, 3rd placed team in their 8th game of 9 in 27 days.

The fai didn't do anything for shels, drogs, derry or cork re fixtures. So why start handing advantages to teams in title races now? Because they agreed to switch the league cup final to the venue that'll probably attract more support?

But that still isnt relevant, if the FAI made the agreement with Bohs, which Bohs claim they did, then they should honour it, simple as!!
19/09/2009, 5:22 PM
A N Mouse

Quote:

Originally Posted by blue til i die

But that still isnt relevant, if the FAI made the agreement with Bohs, which Bohs claim they did, then they should honour it, simple as!!

I agree.

But, the FAI are unable to make such an 'agreement' as claimed here. They could only agree to take it into consideration. As it required the consent of another party, and impacted, possibly adversely, the interests of several others.
19/09/2009, 6:21 PM
pineapple stu

Can people calm down a little bit?

If quadruple's post is correct, and there was a gentleman's agreement in place which was reneged on, Bohs are entitled to be annoyed. For those opposing Bohs' position, starting by (properly) refuting that post is the place to start. Getting aggressive will get nowhere, on either side of the debate.
19/09/2009, 6:32 PM
blue til i die

The fact that we dont know whether its true or not, makes it impossible to go for either side of the argument at the end of the day.

For all we know, Bohs are making this up? (not that thats what i'm implying)

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page