FAI Junior Cup 2009/10

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by leather

I hope that this is not the case...all clubs in limerick will have too seriously consider their future participation in the competition if you are correct in your info..

---

Why would Limerick clubs have to do that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goals4fun

just got a text on the same saying pike are out. Michaels u are a disgrace for persuing this.....and u should be ashamed
I hope pike take this further. If not then Ashling should look to get back into the draw as with all other teams that Pike beat. If michaels can get in then why can't the rest.

joke the FAI are......

---

Why are Michaels a disgrace for pursuing justice?
As we all know now the player was illegal for the competition and Pike broke the rules so they got expelled from the competition theres no argument there!
Michaels placed an objection based on fact and the decision has gone correctly, i dont know if Ashling can appeal at this stage but maybe they should pursue it. This is a result for all clubs who follow the rules and abide by the laws.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by leather

I hope that this is not the case...all clubs in limerick will have too seriously consider their future participation in the competition if you are correct in your info..

---

Especially Aisling Annacotty, No??

well well the fai strike again.
if there is any team in this country that know what pike are going through its carew park.
carew had a letter from the fai saying wheelan was fine to play carew won the semi and where in a fai final which i believe they would of won handy with the team and the form they were in.
we got screwed over from the fai even after showing them there owe letter they sent us quiet unreal and it cost us BIG TIME AS A CLUB. if carew won a fai were would we be as a club now not fighting relagation i bet.

i know i was gutted for the whole summer the players lost all interest for the rest of the season they just wanted the season to end carew were beaten in two cup finals after that lawson and touy.

alot of pike supporters and players will be destroyed after this its a serious kick in the nuts

I hope that this is not the case...all clubs in limerick will have too seriously consider their future participation in the competition if you are correct in your info..

im sure pike would pull out of the fai in support of other limerick clubs :) just like they did when carew were thrown out!!!! bottom line is justice was done and pike got a taste of their own medicine...karma really is a b***h

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thomas72

alot of pike supporters and players will be destroyed after this its a serious kick in the nuts

---

As were a lot of Clonmel Town people a couple of years ago when the shoe was on the other foot.

Im sure its too late for other teams to appeal..why was said player illegal anyway??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pearoso27

Why are Michaels a disgrace for pursuing justice?
As we all know now the player was illegal for the competition and Pike broke the rules so they got expelled from the competition theres no argument there!
Michaels placed an objection based on fact and the decision has gone correctly, i dont know if Ashling can appeal at this stage but maybe they should pursue it. This is a result for all clubs who follow the rules and abide by the laws.

---

michaels had no grounds for getting to the semi's. They were beaten by a team fair and square.
if the ruling is right that pike are thrown out for playing an illegal player in a previous round then either go back to that match re-instate the team they played against or it should be clonmel that progress to the final. what this has to do with michaels i don't know....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goals4fun

michaels had no grounds for getting to the semi's. They were beaten by a team fair and square.
if the ruling is right that pike are thrown out for playing an illegal player in a previous round then either go back to that match re-instate the team they played against or it should be clonmel that progress to the final. what this has to do with michaels i don't know....

---

OK ill explain this again,
Pike progressed to the Quarter Final of FAI Junior Cup by fielding an illegal player.
They broke the rules and have been dealt with correctly after (and God only knows how the Junior Council came up with their decision) the Senior Council hearing.
Your issues are not with Saint Michaels, they followed the disiplinary route correctly and the decision was made by Senior Council, thats where your complaints should be focused on. Ashling should inquire about their position thats something they should look into but for now the decision has been made by and i say again The Senior Council!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goals4fun

michaels had no grounds for getting to the semi's. They were beaten by a team fair and square.
if the ruling is right that pike are thrown out for playing an illegal player in a previous round then either go back to that match re-instate the team they played against or it should be clonmel that progress to the final. what this has to do with michaels i don't know....

---

Blah blah blah - "...just the facts, Jack, the facts."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redcardrory

at least pike will get a fair hearing and no memebers of the fai are allow sit on the arbitration,come pike go all the way to clear yere name

---

how can they clear there name they played an illeagle player in a match. just a question did the player play in the league and can they loose the points from the games he played

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by joeSoap

The difference was when Town got kicked out the objection was lodged in a proper fashion by the club. St Michaels had no grounds at all for objection. Aisling were the only party that were in their right to object to Colm Carroll as they were the only club that he played illegally against. I'm pretty sure I would be taking this further if I were Pike Rovers management. Aisling should be the re-instated club, with ties having to be back dated if this is to be the case.

---

Sorry to burst the bubble but Colm Carroll came on as a sub in 1st ?2nd round game v Caherconlish and also played in subsequent games.
So we have to go back to round 1 if reinstatements are being talked of!

this is disappointing news not only for pike but for limerick soccer.i dont think people should be taking this out on micheals,after all clubs are entitled to persue the objection route if they feel they have one and this route is available to all.the fai have,n conducted their business very well and this decision shows the junior council in a very poor light.for pike its devastating however they need to take a long hard look at how they do their business be it how they sign players to how they let every ..tom,dick and harry ...see a letter sent to them by the fai and then have those same people refer to it on these forums.the suggestion that limerick clubs should question their future participation in the competition is of course ludricous,this is pikes problem ,other clubs should look after their own house,if pike feel they have another avenue open to them they should by all means challenge that.

i agree only let them play after 18 months from when officially released from senior football.
or else have both season running together..

I think leather has some explaining to do 1. you were the most critical of pikes involvement when you heard of micks objection
2. you claim to have seen a letter which makes a farce of this whole situation
3. You call on limerick teams to boycott the comp next year WHO DO YOU THINK YOU ARE???
4. Please explain to us why you come on a public forum making statements such as pts2 3 without providing proof
has connie got you tied up and is using your password

Lads, did Colm Carroll actually play against St Michaels?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pearoso27

OK ill explain this again,
Pike progressed to the Quarter Final of FAI Junior Cup by fielding an illegal player.
They broke the rules and have been dealt with correctly after (and God only knows how the Junior Council came up with their decision) the Senior Council hearing.
Your issues are not with Saint Michaels, they followed the disiplinary route correctly and the decision was made by Senior Council, thats where your complaints should be focused on. Ashling should inquire about their position thats something they should look into but for now the decision has been made by and i say again The Senior Council!!

---

If thats the case, what grounds had Michaels to appeal the decision, the player in question didnt play against Michaels so what business is it of theirs who played for Pike in previous rounds, surely if Pike were illegal in previous rounds its up to the teams they beat to object within 72hrs if not move on , so explain Michaels reason ?

too whom have i some explaining to do too.this is a public forum and people can have opinions and voice them...
but just for you a little bit of info...
(1)i was not critical of pikes involvement, i just said that any team that played any illegal player and it is proved by the opposition, they should be punished..it does not matter who the team are...
(2)I was given the FAI's letter in question by an officer of pike football club that explained the junior councils appeals comm'tee's version of events.This was basically a breakdown of the meeting in question.
It clearly states that Pike Rovers had not played an illegal player in the tie v St Michaels...I stress the tie v St Michaels. It also raised some serious questions as to the validity of the St michaels objection.Maybe the pike's officer gave me a made up letter..i dont know but it looked above board to me...
(3) That is my personal opinion because it seems that certain leagues have more influence than other's. Whether a club participates or does not particapte is up to each club's committe.
(4) what proof do you want... my opinions are mine.....though.. if you dont like ... build a bridge

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by da bishop

this is disappointing news not only for pike but for limerick soccer.i dont think people should be taking this out on micheals,after all clubs are entitled to persue the objection route if they feel they have one and this route is available to all.the fai have,n conducted their business very well and this decision shows the junior council in a very poor light.for pike its devastating however they need to take a long hard look at how they do their business be it how they sign players to how they let every ..tom,dick and harry ...see a letter sent to them by the fai and then have those same people refer to it on these forums.the suggestion that limerick clubs should question their future participation in the competition is of course ludricous,this is pikes problem ,other clubs should look after their own house,if pike feel they have another avenue open to them they should by all means challenge that.

---

Top post.

Official ruling was that Colm Carroll was ineligible to participate in the FAI cup game on the 14th of March 2010 in accordance with Rule 44. Had the game(Vs. St.Mick's) been Colm Carroll's first game for Pike since his last professional game with Limerick(13th/3/2009), rule 44(d) would have been applied and He would have been eligible.

And since Colm Carroll played in previous rounds of the competition, and as such not been reinstated in accordance with Rule 44, Pike were in breach of FAI rule 86.

So basically Pike lose by forfeit 3-0 and have been slapped on the wrist with a fine to boot.