Dublin City farce

**mypost** · 20/08/2006, 1:47 AM

Originally Posted by DmanDmythDledge

all matches would be awarded as a 3-0 win to the other team.

Why 3-0? Why not 1-0??

**osarusan** · 20/08/2006, 3:45 AM

Originally Posted by mypost

Why 3-0? Why not 1-0??

Jaysus!! When the other team arent even on the pitch, surely a team can score more than one goal.

**pete** · 20/08/2006, 10:28 AM

Originally Posted by DmanDmythDledge

The way I see it is that if Dublin City shouldn't have been allowed to resign from the league then technically they should still be in the league. They would be unable to fulfil their remaining fixtures so all matches would be awarded as a 3-0 win to the other team and all previous results would stand.

Good point. I agree. I think Ollie Byrne may take this route. He could argue that the league were acting outside the rules by allowing Dublin City to resign. The rest takes care of itself then...

The way it is at the moment a Club Chairman could fold club & join another the next day which is completely wrong. Should be automatic 10 year ban from involvement in the league if you fold a club mid season.

**Mr A** · 20/08/2006, 10:41 AM

Jaysus!! When the other team arent even on the pitch, surely a team can score more than one goal.

Not really, as Dublin wouldn't be there to take the centre they'd be stuck after the first!

**DmanDmythDledge** · 20/08/2006, 1:09 PM

Originally Posted by mypost

Why 3-0? Why not 1-0??

When teams aren't able to fulfil their fixtures 3-0 is the standard score awarded.

**pineapple stu** · 20/08/2006, 7:28 PM

Originally Posted by Galway Harps

Not really, as Dublin wouldn't be there to take the centre they'd be stuck after the first!

Would you not get a free-kick for timewasting as DC don't take their tip-off?

3-0's a standard walkover win across the world. Removing a club's record from the league when they've played as few games as DC did is pretty much standard across the world.

**Poor Student** · 20/08/2006, 7:31 PM

Someone else raised the point on this board, and I think it's a good one. Should the league table not show the performances and rankings of the teams that comprise it? Dublin City are not part of the league anymore. Shouldn't the league's placings reflect how its members did against each other and not how some of them did some of the time against a defunct club?

**bohs til i die** · 20/08/2006, 7:54 PM

Originally Posted by Poor Student

Someone else raised the point on this board, and I think it's a good one. Should the league table not show the performances and rankings of the teams that comprise it? Dublin City are not part of the league anymore. Shouldn't the league's placings reflect how its members did against each other and not how some of them did some of the time against a defunct club?

thats my view. Teams should finish the season in the position the results they got against the other 10 teams earned them.

**bigmac** · 21/08/2006, 8:36 AM

Originally Posted by Poor Student

Someone else raised the point on this board, and I think it's a good one.

That was me, so obviously I agree with the decision.

**dcfcsteve** · 21/08/2006, 9:26 AM

Originally Posted by pete

Best solution:
- Teams will receive walkovers for all future DC games. 3-0 for all these games.

You either keep the DC records as much as possible or you remove the fact they ever existed.

It's absurd to suggest that any unplayed DC games should be awarded as 3:0 walkovers.

Dub City were a mid-table team when they imploded, and they'd proven themselves capable of taking points off a lot of teams to get there. Granting everyone who hadn't played them a 3:0 result would therefore be completely ludicrous.

The only sensible suggestion is the one of treating the league as if Dublin City were never in it. Suspensions, yellow cards etc are red herrings, as you can't travel back in time and change those elements.

As has been stated, any league table reflects the relative standings of those involved in it. It's therefore daft to have one that includes any reference to a team that aren't involved in that league any more.

**Dodge** · 21/08/2006, 10:38 AM

Originally Posted by dcfcsteve

It's absurd to suggest that any unplayed DC games should be awarded as 3:0 walkovers.

If they missed one game, this is how most leagues treat it. Not that absurd.

**Student Mullet** · 21/08/2006, 11:26 AM

If we awarded 3:0 walkovers Dublin City would probably still finish ahead of Waterford.

**Jerry The Saint** · 21/08/2006, 11:32 AM

Originally Posted by dcfcsteve

The only sensible suggestion is the one of treating the league as if Dublin City were never in it. Suspensions, yellow cards etc are red herrings, as you can't travel back in time and change those elements.

I thought Doctor Who was a Derry fan - should be simple enough to arrange...

**John83** · 21/08/2006, 11:38 AM

Originally Posted by Bald Student

I think the FAI should have healed any player who was injured against Dublin City.

I think that fans deserve a refund for Dublin City games. After all, they paid into a game that didn't happen.

If Wayne Rooney can be suspended because of something he did in a friendly, so can a player who picked up a booking against Dublin City. The games are considered friendlies now, right?

**pineapple stu** · 21/08/2006, 12:42 PM

Originally Posted by Student Mullet

If we awarded 3:0 walkovers Dublin City would probably still finish ahead of Waterford.

What's even more remarkable is that, if this were a normal season and not a transition to the John Delaney "Dance Rummy" league, Waterford would now be in the play-offs on four points, with Bray safe on ten.

**Mr A** · 21/08/2006, 1:09 PM

Is that for certain Stu? Will the second placed D1 definately play the last in the PD?

**pineapple stu** · 21/08/2006, 1:27 PM

Note my "If this were a normal season" comment.

Then you'd have 11th in the Premier v 2nd in the First as per the last few years.

**dcfcsteve** · 21/08/2006, 1:53 PM

Originally Posted by Dodge

If they missed one game, this is how most leagues treat it. Not that absurd.

There's a huge difference between a club missing one game, and a club disappearing entirely up its own arse.

The 3:0 default is a penalty to stop clubs missing fixtures when it suits them, and acts to punish THEM. Conversely, there is no point in trying to punish a club who have left the league altogether. Hence the walkover suggestion just doesn't work in this context.

And if it's all about how other leagues treat things, then the current FAI decision has plenty of precedent around Europe.

When was the last time a team was given a walkover in the Eircom league anyway....?

**higgins** · 21/08/2006, 2:42 PM

Originally Posted by Stiof

Derry got off cos we proved the eL didn't follow their own rules!

Well done, about time another club actually stood up and pointed out their mistakes.

If all 21 EL teams stood up and were counted when the FAI **** up we would be in a much better state. As it is today the only ones who do anything are the ones invloved and even then if its going their way they stay out of it.

**passerrby** · 21/08/2006, 6:27 PM

Originally Posted by higgins

Well done, about time another club actually stood up and pointed out their mistakes.

If all 21 EL teams stood up and were counted when the FAI **** up we would be in a much better state. As it is today the only ones who do anything are the ones invloved and even then if its going their way they stay out of it.

your spot on, ive found that clubs never support other clubs on any issue unless there is something in it for them, so when they need help there is nobody around, and this is why nothing changes except the faces.