There's no boycott can we stop mentioning it now as it's going to damage the attendance.Quote:
Originally Posted by Martinho II
Printable View
There's no boycott can we stop mentioning it now as it's going to damage the attendance.Quote:
Originally Posted by Martinho II
In fairness longford could actually come out and say that then people would stop asking.
Probably don't want to step on the FAI's toes with anymore statements. Surely the fact the club are advertising the game should be enough clue for people?Quote:
Originally Posted by sbgawa
Looking unlikely we'll have a game anyway, pitch is currently unplayable and a flood warning in place for the county.
Statement issuing tomorrow morning apparently.
Johnny Ward on Twitter this evening saying he's heard rumblings of a third tier from next season with Rovers B, other LOI B teams and I can only assume a few junior clubs stepping up!
What's that about, confirming they'll play the game?Quote:
Originally Posted by Longfordian
Presumably. I genuinely have no idea but Daire Doyle was on the Between The Stripes podcast this week and was preparing for the game as normal and encouraging everyone to come out. There will probably be some sort of "we're doing this under protest" element to the statement.
Neil O'Riordan in The Sun yesterday suggested that Longford said they will not be fulfilling the fixture, though I would have thought if there is a joint boycott between the 9 teams it wouldn't be just one club announcing it
Maybe the statement will be on behalf of the First Division Alliance. I seem to recall LTFC being the first to post their original statement. The weather may intervene anyway as outspoken pointed out.
Neil O'Riordan tweeted this..
First Division clubs will issue a statement tomorrow confirming they will play Shamrock Rovers II under protest this season and for this season only.Rovers will be allowed field one outfield and one keeper from their A squad in addition to stated u21 squad.
This is a joke and makes an absoulte mockery of both competitions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Asterix
Why do Rovers have an advantage over every team in the Premier to keep players match fit?
Does this mean u21 players can play for both throughout the year?
How is it fair that different First Division teams will face different squads (Alan Mannus and Jack Byrne may play against one team for one game and deny them the title for example).
If you are going to II teams, do it right, players should only be able to move between squads in Transfer windows, end of.
Exactly and the fact they are only allowing 2 players is almost an indication they know it's wrong but they want to keep Rovers happy too and probably promised them 3 or 4 overage players at the startQuote:
Originally Posted by Kiki Balboa
The First Division clubs should have had some balls then instead of just making idle threats. They were always going to play Rovers.
What if 7 of them do, But one or two dont , and it ends up deciding the play off spots ??Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lilywhites
The clubs, who are also in competition with each other, simply should not be put into this position. Thats why you have an indpendent organisation (The Fai ) to create and enforce (fair )rules.
Rovers II are not a second team, but a reserve team. Reserve teams should not be in the first, especially against the other clubs wishes. This is a Senior league and should be treated as such.
Also, shows Rovers arrogence to the rest of the league to just power on through with this. Why are the fai trying to keep them happy ?
Some big European leagues have reserve teams playing within their national league system. Not sure what the fuss with Rovers B is. 10 team league with the fixture layout is far better then what the first division suggested. A 9 part time team league needing 36 games weeks to complete the regular season was never going to work.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kiki Balboa
Anyhow by all accounts the FAI are exploring the idea of reintroducing the A Championship from next season onwards.
Can everyone not grow the **** up already.
A 9 team league would be ridiculous. Rovers II is the only realistic way to make it a 10 team league.
Rovers aren't going to be playing ****ing Mannus and Byrne so that ****ing Longford don't win the division or some ****e if you think that's going to happen give your head a shake. And **** off with this "to keep rovers happy ****e" Rovers were the ones that offered to keep the team as an u21 team as a compromise, not the other way round.
It may be a senior league but what's the alternative? A 9 team league with the possibility of teams going weeks with no home game? Aka no income? Rovers II will bring crowds as big as any other, play good football, provide good facilities, and wont cause any unwanted headlines. The same cannot be said for the majority of first division clubs.
Anyone who has a problem with Rovers II needs a ****ing reality check cause there's absolutely no problem with it.
As for suggestion of Rovers arrogance, **** off with that, if there was a single reasonable argument against Rovers II you might have a point but there isn't so you dont
100%.
This unfairness BS and whinging about rovers being allowed play first team players is hilarious.
the b team rules are in the particpation agreement that every club signs up to and haven't changed since 2013.
Any club that wanted to could avail of them.
Rovers putting a pathway in for the academy players should be applauded.
Based on last time they won't bring any crowds but in fairness away support isn't generally a significant factor in the First overall. From a selfish point of view another Dublin fixture suits me.
Just sit down and do what you're told.🧐
Whatever about the merits of the argument, the arrogance of some Rovers fans here is telling. Seems to me that everyone should eff off and let Rovers do whatever they want.
I have no problem with a Rovers academy team (or any other) playing in the first division so that there is an even number of teams. The only issue I have is that it should be a set squad for the season with no movement between the first and second teams outside of the transfer window. And just because Rovers may not be planning to play Byrne or Mannus, the option is there for them to play either of them or any other player if they wish.
Stupid to say they wouldn't play Rovers B and then do on about turn, "under protest" or not. Not the best for their negotiating position long-term.
If under 21 players are able to move between squads then why do they need overage players be allowed? Brandon Kavanagh, Dean Williams & Sean Callan are all first team squad members but probably not going to get the game time to develop, I can see the logic in these being able to play for the B team but Leon Pohls or Greg Bolger needing games for match fitness doesn't feel right or fair.
The top 3/4 teams (and Galway) have a squad of 23/24 players of which the last few spots are young lads, as it should be, but these players will get little game time so we need to find a way to continue their development for the betterment of Irish football
I assume somebody has checked the rule book and it's OK for players to move outside the window? That it's not just an Irish solution to an Irish problem?
Daire Doyle summed it up perfectly on the pod the other night, Longford can't approach Sligo and say here those 4 lads you didn't play Friday any chance we can play them tomorrow against Drogheda.
Every other club has a set squad it should be no different for Rovers, they are a B team but this isn't a B league. It's shocking
It is completely disrespectful towards the competitive integrity of the First Division to allow Rovers B a "floating squad" of players under the age of 21.
I can understand why Rovers would want this and they are only looking after themselves, as would all clubs.
However, the FAI appear willing to sacrifice the sporting integrity of the First Division.
I sympathise with the players, fans, and volunteers of first division clubs. Their efforts towards promotion are been treated with disrespect.
Rules should be the same for everyone.
You start with a squad of players & if you need more players or you need to transfer players between squads you do so during the window.
Except that's not what it's like at all. It's more like having a squad the size of cabos and having players not play for months then suddenly come back into the team. Or like UCD with their 2 teams.Quote:
Originally Posted by outspoken
Every player that is eligible to play for shamrock rovers is known at the start of the season so that comparison is ridiculous.
See Longfords social media guy is making a show of himself again
Will Rovers be allowed to play players from their Premier squad in their B squad when needed & the other way round as well ?Quote:
Originally Posted by RathfarnhamHoop
I don't know, nobody does, if Rovers can it's no big deal and for the record lads that's how it works in Germany, players can move between the squads on a week by week basisQuote:
Originally Posted by disgruntled
How in gods name would it be fair for Rovers B to play 6 first teamers one week against Longford and then go out the next week and play maybe 1 first teamer against Bray or Drogheda?? They should just have a set squad and not be allowed move players down from their A team.
It might be no big deal for Rovers but I'm sure the other 1st Div clubs would beg to differ ?Quote:
Originally Posted by RathfarnhamHoop
Have the arrangements been explained to the other 1st Div & if so what are they ?
Surely the idea of a Rovers B team was to give experience to players to old for under 19's but not yet up to 1st team standards ?
Anything else just skews the competition.
Lads can we stop talking about arrogance and fairness.
Rovers applied under the rules of the league in exactly the same way as anyone else could.
That's just not possible under any of the rules being thrown around.Quote:
Originally Posted by Town Legend
**** am I supposed to know who's been told what?Quote:
Originally Posted by disgruntled
Just saw the FDA Statement.
They requested players could only play between 18 and 21 LOL
St Josephs boys showing their true colors here.
We have several 17 year olds that the likes of St Josephs/Bray and Cabo have been trying to sign and they were trying to have them excluded from the Rovers Division 1 squad!
Anyway fair play to the FAI Nua for refusing to allow such a riddiculous change to the rules of the Participation agreement.
1 goalkeeper and 1 overage player can play for the B team.
As regards Div 1 players being allowed play for our first team they all are Rovers academy players so they could all do so anyway as can any of the 19s and 17s for any other Premier club
What a ridiculous statement. Couldn't even get Rovers II's name right.
For the first time in a long long time the first division clubs didn't have honest John around to tell them what to think.
So they huffed and they puffed and they whimpered.
All they had to do if they didn't want to play shamrock b is all agree not to tog out against shamrock b.
But they couldnt manage that.
Anything else is just hand wringing and buck passing.
Would tend to agree. If they had all just stated bluntly "We will not play Rovers B" and stuck to it, what would the FAI have really been able to do? Cancel the whole First Division?
Galway United continue to be my favourite first division club, not being dragged down by the minnowism of the other 8 clubs in the division