FAI Junior Cup 2009/10

Printable View

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

08/04/2010, 8:38 AM
green&white

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damo

How could you say this? Have you some kinda of doctorate in admin law? It is nowhere the foregone conclusion you make it out to be if this case does drag on into arbitration. That's tantamount to saying Pike are pleading ignorance (thinking they had a properly registered player and took their league's word for it) and this ignorance not being a defence in the eyes of the law.

I have to agree with above, ignorance cannot be a defence. Irrespective of where or from whom advice was received , if any club use a player not properly registered then that club must accept responsibility. Both Park Utd and Clonmel Town (Pike obj) were expelled from FAI and Munster cups respectively for same offence. I cannot see where Pike can be treated differently.
Every club has same set of rules and are obliged to respect them. I hope this wont be "different strokes for different folks" decision .
The good name and great history of the Junior cup is possibly at stake here.
08/04/2010, 9:04 AM
Fairkop

Quote:

Originally Posted by green&white

I have to agree with above, ignorance cannot be a defence. Irrespective of where or from whom advice was received , if any club use a player not properly registered then that club must accept responsibility. Both Park Utd and Clonmel Town (Pike obj) were expelled from FAI and Munster cups respectively for same offence. I cannot see where Pike can be treated differently.
Every club has same set of rules and are obliged to respect them. I hope this wont be "different strokes for different folks" decision .
The good name and great history of the Junior cup is possibly at stake here.

The ldmc have their fingerprints all over this case as well,they are in there to do a job and have no system in place to let clubs know if players are actually allowed to play as was the case of the park player whose form was sent in but not recieved by the ldmc,receipts and details of players coming back from l.o.i. should be put in writing that they are legal,otherwise this farce will continue every year.
Also the f.a.i. will have to come out and make the rules known to everyone and not wait till legal action is taken before they wake up.
08/04/2010, 9:10 AM
joeSoap

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damo

How could you say this? Have you some kinda of doctorate in admin law? It is nowhere the foregone conclusion you make it out to be if this case does drag on into arbitration. That's tantamount to saying Pike are pleading ignorance (thinking they had a properly registered player and took their league's word for it) and this ignorance not being a defence in the eyes of the law.

It's my opinion, thats all. The LDMC is an official arm of the FAI, and therefore its validation of a player, even if wrong, cannot make a club accountable once that player has been cleared. The LDMC cleared him, ergo, the FAI cleared him by its affiliation with the LDMC. It's not ignorance on Pike's behalf. Can you honestly tell me thay would have played Carroll if the LDMC told them not to?
08/04/2010, 11:40 AM
Damo

Quote:

Originally Posted by joeSoap

It's my opinion, thats all. The LDMC is an official arm of the FAI, and therefore its validation of a player, even if wrong, cannot make a club accountable once that player has been cleared. The LDMC cleared him, ergo, the FAI cleared him by its affiliation with the LDMC. It's not ignorance on Pike's behalf. Can you honestly tell me thay would have played Carroll if the LDMC told them not to?

JS, I completely accept the point you make in the last sentence of your post above. I merely suggested that your contention that any court would side with Pike in an arbitration scenario as one that is without any solid foundation, in a purely legal context. I used the hypothetical situation of Pike pleading ignorance as one which a court (taking many other factors into account) could "potentially" give short shrift to. Basically, when parties to a dispute take legal recourse, history has shown that nothing is ever cut and dried.
08/04/2010, 3:36 PM
Longshanks

We should all know what has gone on by this time next week
09/04/2010, 2:14 PM
Damo

Quote:

Originally Posted by magnet

Is mick o brien, Adrian Ryan and Barry ryan scouts for St Michaels? or are they involved in some way.

Barry Ryan is managing the Tipp Oscar Traynor team as far as I know.
09/04/2010, 10:14 PM
Fairkop

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damo

Barry Ryan is managing the Tipp Oscar Traynor team as far as I know.

ya barry ryan is manager of tipp ot,adrian ryan managed st,micheals and played with pike i think.....who,s mike o brien?
09/04/2010, 10:43 PM
the bandit

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fairkop

ya barry ryan is manager of tipp ot,adrian ryan managed st,micheals and played with pike i think.....who,s mike o brien?

Gerry smyths fella.I mean scout.
12/04/2010, 8:55 AM
leather

Final word from myself on this matter...Having read the FAI's letter to pike, I have to say that the Fai are a disgrace...Pike should be in semi final end of story ..
I would go as far as to say that if the result does not stand all limerick clubs should bycott the competition next season..
12/04/2010, 9:20 AM
Goals4fun

Quote:

Originally Posted by leather

Final word from myself on this matter...Having read the FAI's letter to pike, I have to say that the Fai are a disgrace...Pike should be in semi final end of story ..
I would go as far as to say that if the result does not stand all limerick clubs should bycott the competition next season..

unless 'Leather' is a closet pike fan, fair play to him posting a strong opinion in favour of another limerick club as he has done. If what leather says is true then i think somebody from pike should 'leak' the letter onto here and see what happens. .......at least everubody would know what the real story/situation is then
12/04/2010, 10:15 AM
kev08

shame

afaik two lads went to saints after game sayin pike were illegal these two people i cant name but 1 was very close to saints before:eek: lots know who these are anyway
12/04/2010, 5:39 PM
the only 1

1 of these lads play with view?
12/04/2010, 5:43 PM
the only 1

Quote:

Originally Posted by kev08

afaik two lads went to saints after game sayin pike were illegal these two people i cant name but 1 was very close to saints before:eek: lots know who these are anyway

who are they so def not any lads mentioned above anyways
12/04/2010, 5:47 PM
kev08

any odds for fai lads or is it suspended no none of lads above ger 1 boro man was there with an ex saints player with view now
12/04/2010, 5:49 PM
the only 1

Quote:

Originally Posted by kev08

any odds for fai lads or is it suspended no none of lads above ger 1 boro man was there with an ex saints player with view now

haha my name not ger u on about cossie so?
12/04/2010, 7:39 PM
mulla

Quote:

Originally Posted by redcardrory

i totally agree with you on this leather seen the letter myself fai are a disgrace st micheals had no proof only hear say what ajoke going in there to an appeal with no proof pike should be in the semi's and st micheals should have there appeal thrown out by the senior fai council this letter can not be published on this site cos the appeals are still in,people will have to wait till wednesday to see it,just take our words for it thats why st micks are quiet on this site

unfortunately not everyone could have the option of seeing the letter so i agree someone should "leak it",going by what leather says and being the only 1 on this site to talk of such a letter then of course pike should go through, can't believe it hasn't appeared on this site already though giving there has been so much debate on the subject
12/04/2010, 8:02 PM
da bishop

loads of people seem to know about this letter lads,and given what yer saying it seems that micheals had no proof just hearsay,hardly the base for a strong objection,why then were micheals offered a replay,it does,n make sense.
12/04/2010, 8:11 PM
the dazzler

Quote:

Originally Posted by da bishop

loads of people seem to know about this letter lads,and given what yer saying it seems that micheals had no proof just hearsay,hardly the base for a strong objection,why then were micheals offered a replay,it does,n make sense.

excactly madness and tis talk of someone tellin st,mikes weird
12/04/2010, 8:18 PM
kev08

Quote:

Originally Posted by the dazzler

excactly madness and tis talk of someone tellin st,mikes weird

its true mark letter says only proof saints had 1 of yere told them and boro lad, pike lad told me this they got names im sayin no names here anyone think it will be replay ?
13/04/2010, 1:56 AM
The Dark Knight

Quote:

Originally Posted by redcardrory

lads seriously if that letter was posted pike would be in trouble with the fai just take our word for it st micheals went into an appeal with hear say and the fai never ruled it out of order :bomb:

That may be so, but as with anything the guardians of the game must investigate allegations and rule on the accordingly. I haven't seen the letter so I don't know but from what I hear, Colm Carroll was legal on the day of the match but was illegal in previous rounds.

That leaves the FAI with a difficult decision.

Their options are
1. Allow Pike to proceed to the semi final
2. Allow St Michaels proceed to the semi final
3. Allow Clonmel Town proceed to the final
4. Reinstate the team that Colm Carroll played against
5. Replay the quarter final

If what I hear is true, Colm Carroll played in the competition as an ineligible player under rule 86 of the FAI rule book Pike must forfeit that match.

Rule 86 point 1
If a player takes part in an official match despite being ineligible, his team shall be sanctioned by forfeiting the match and paying a fine.

But the FAI's problem is what to do next.

1. They cannot allow Pike to proceed as it would contravene Rule 86
2. Allow St Michaels proceed into the Semi Final? as the player was legal there is no basis for this
3. Allow Clonmel proceed to the final? from a legal viewpoint, this would be the most sound but would make a mockery of the competition (and another small payday for the FAI)
4. Reinstate the last team that Colm Carroll played against while he was ineligible? - not practicable especially if it occurred a couple of rounds back
5. Replay the match? from a legal viewpoint, there is absolutely no basis for this but for the FAI it avoids a messy situitation

We'll know tomorrow.

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