According to their forum.
It also says they intend to appeal.
Printable View
According to their forum.
It also says they intend to appeal.
The eircom League Management Committee at its meeting this afternoon (Aug 16th) considered the decision of the FAI Appeal Board in the appeal taken by Shelbourne FC in relation to the eircom League Board of Control’s decision of July 19th to expunge the results of Dublin City FC from the League record.
The Management Committee decided to accept the decision of the Appeal Board to uphold Shelbourne’s appeal. Following a lengthy debate, it decided to expunge the results of Dublin City FC from the League record.
At the eircom League Board of Control meeting held earlier it was decided to deduct three (3) points from Shamrock Rovers FC for their playing of Paul Shiels while under suspension v Dundalk on July 23rd. The Board also decided to take no action against Derry City FC for their playing of Sean Hargan while under suspension v Bohemians on July 7th as the notification of the player’s suspension was not sent to the club within the prescribed timeframe.
ENDS
Further information:
Andy Needham
Media & Public Relations Officer
eircom League
Haha - talk about confusing....we agree the points were not deducted correctly, so we agreeed and then deducted them anyhow :)
A win tomorrow night puts us top of the division. :D
utterly rediculous
Derry get away with it because they wer not informed on time, rovers docked 3 points because they were not informed at all.
Nuts
A win tomorrow night puts us top of the division. :D
and a win on one of the 2 games we will have in hand on friday will put us right back :-)
Unless you play a suspended player again :)
And those very clowns are going to be running league next year!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by green-blood
I cant wait :rolleyes:
Unless I'm misreading, only the Shels complaint had an FAI involvement as it was appealed to the FAI. And they upheld Shels complaint.Quote:
Originally Posted by Anto McC
The other 2 decisions were made by the League Board of Management.
Is that as stupid as it sounds or am I missing something? 'we decided to accept the decision but then we reversed it'Quote:
Originally Posted by Fintan Cassidy
Actually I think the FAI have got things as near right as possible today. They acknowledged that Ollie was right about the exact procedures not being followed initially, and then remade the original decision.
They also, from what I have read of the cases, appear to have got the decisions on Derry and Rovers right as well. I could be wrong there of course!
They accepted that the decision was made by the wrong committee, but seeing as they are the right group to make the decision they did.
No, think Shels appealled that the correct processs wasn't followed. Now that it has been followed, its the same result
Ok, thanks; think I get it now
So the decision that was decided upon that should never have been a decision was decided to relook at the original decision in the context that it was decided that the subcommittee that had originally made the decision had no right to do so and hence the decision was made to decide that the correct decision making panel should take a look at the issue and make their own decision on it?
In a nutshell, yes.
Yeah for once things appear to be done properly by the FAI! :eek:
Not sure about the ins and outs of the suspended players but it looks like those decisions were correct too. Unfortunately it's a bit sloppy by Rovers, regardless of whether the player was at the club or not they should still have checked whether he was carrying a suspension or not.
Surely the player himself knew he had been sent off/received enough yellow cards to grant a ban?
He had served the first game of a two game suspension with Dublin City.Quote:
Originally Posted by sligoman
Not that the three point loss matters that much for Rovers; 1st, 2nd, 3rd no real difference as they'll be in next years league for sure.
Suppose they would like to say that they were promoted on merit but they don't care how they go up because they think they shouldn't have been allowed to be relegated.Quote:
Originally Posted by Red&White
Ah but the aul' Hoops have to get some sort of trophy for the first time in over ten years :eek: :rolleyes: :pQuote:
Originally Posted by Red&White
Have to laugh at some of the ****e written on here. If Rovers were deducted 200 points some people would still come on here and justify it. It's not too hard to understand a Galway fan saying it was justified as they're still clutching at the proverbial 2 straws that they've still a hope of winning the league, but for a Shels fan to come on and take the ****, this a club who've been cheating their way in this league for too long now, that really takes the biscuit
Am I missing something here or have Rovers been deducted 3 points for an ex-Dublin City player having a ban? How can he have a suspension if the league have come up with the decision to expung all Dublin City games from the records ?
The league have also admitted Hargan was suspended playing for Derry but it was the leagues fault for not notifying Derry ? This would be funny only for its so serious. Yet again the FAI/League Board have turned the league into a laughing stock. You wouldn`t see this kind of stuff in Junior Football
incorrect as usual dodge.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dodge
he had seen out his original two game ban with CHF but the league gave him an additional one game ban which is the bone of contention.
he was unaware, the club was unaware.
the hypocricy is sickening. derry were informed incorrectly so its ok, shields and rovers werent informed at all so its - 3 points. :confused:
it will be appealed of course.
how do you know they didnt?Quote:
Originally Posted by JC_GUFC
I think in this case Rovers very hard done by - if all DC results eliminated then surely bookings picked by players, both for DC and for players who got bookings against DC should be eliminated?
I was think the same thing, but then what else wouldn't count?
Would players who missed games against Dublin City because of suspension, have to serve their suspensions again?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronnie
I die your wrong there he had served a mandatory one game ban after his sending off and was susequently suspended for one more game.Rovers should have checked this out when they were signing him.
It is the player who carries the suspension not the club and to say that all bookings and suspension should be wiped out because DC no longer exist is stupid.
Its even worse than we thought then. They played a non existant player. Ban them forever! :cool:Quote:
Originally Posted by stickyjoe
Yes minister.Quote:
Originally Posted by CharlesThompson
No bother, thanks for clearing it up. Just posted what I read elsewhere.Quote:
Originally Posted by Roverstillidie
There's no way you can say Rovers didn''t drop the ball though by not contacting the league. If they did and were told he's OK I guarentee you Rovers wouldn't be docked points.
Anyway do the players still have to serve those suspensions? Presume so but who knows what the iLeague new rules are?
Quote:
Originally Posted by gufct
so the onus is on us to find out if shields is suspended despite the fact even the player himself hadnt been notified but the onus is on the league to tell derry that hargan is suspended?
the anti-rovers bias is on full flow
According to Derry City's solicitor, the league tried to claim the Disciplinary Committee met on the 21st July, and that Derry were informed 24 hours later.
When Derry investigated, it transpired that the Committee actually met on the 14th July - a week earlier than they claimed!!
Derry weren't "informed" of the suspension until 22nd July - more than 48 hours after the Committee met.
What a bunch of jokers!
Some facts
june 23 - Sheils sent off Vs DErry
june 26 - did not feature for DC Vs Drogheda
june 30 - did not feature for DC Vs Longford
July 8 - back for Sligo
July 14 - played Vs Shels
July 14 - disciplinary committee meetig, although they claimed to Derry it was the 21st
July 19 - DCFC resign from league, all players free agents
July 21 - claimed date of meeting - lie, as revealed by DCFC
July 22 - sheils signed for SRFCJuly 22 - Derry informed of Suspension, outside time limit, no notification to Sheils or SRFC
July 23 - Sub Vs dundalk
July 28 - Sub Vs Athlone
Aug 4 - did not feature Vs Galway
Aug 12 - sub Vs Kildare
complete bull****. He served a 2 game ban folowing his red Vs Derry, played for Dub city, was suspended in secret by a committee which did not send notices to Derry for 8 days and sent none to teh player or his new club at all. they then lied to Derry about when they held their meeting.
complete horse****
but the point here is on one hand the league admit that its up to them to notify clubs of suspensions and when they don't/cant its the leagues fault.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dodge
on the other hand its up to another club to find out themselves in the absence of notification from the league.
the same rule was not applied to both cases evenly. its the leagues responsibility to inform relevent parties of suspensions or its not. not sometimes their job.
I'm not saying Rovers deserved to get suspended, I'm saying they should still have checked with the FAI. He knew he was suspended for his last Dublin City game, he should've informed Rovers and they should have checked. Of course the FAi dropped the ball too, but they're fools and we need to know that when dealing with them. Pats certainly do...
I'm in Rovers corner on this one - either it's the league's responsibility to inform players or clubs about suspensions or it's not. Their stance in the Derry case seems to accept that they have a responsibility to inform the relevant club/player within a certain time period. The questions then are;
When was the official punishment decided? It appears as if he had a two game ban that he served with DC, then on the 14th there was a disciplinary meeting at which an extra game was imposed.
Was this communicated within the relevant time period to DC (still a functioning entity until the 19th)? I've no idea about this one, but if it was, then the question is - Did DC inform Sheils prior to their implosion? If not, then it would seem to be their fault, with the tricky result that there's nobody left to take the blame. I'm not sure of the rules regarding players suspensions when transfers or signings take place, but I wouldn't be surprised if none existed. If nobody told Sheils or Rovers, then I can totally sympathise, but if they told DC, then I don't see the appeal being successful.
Exactly - they've already made up for this points deduction by having a good run in the League Cup. If the FAI are going to promote/relegate teams for bullsh!t arbitrary reasons you can't expect them to pay attention to the actual players/clubs. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Red&White