QuoteDonegal Celtic are appealing, saying they should have gone up as Dungannon finished bottom of the league, and therefore automatically relegated
Dungannon retained their place in the IPL after last nights second leg with Donegall Celtic.
DS won 1-0 last night and went through on away goals (2-2)
Donegal Celtic are appealing, saying they should have gone up as Dungannon finished bottom of the league, and therefore automatically relegated
Didn't Bangor say they didn't want a licence for next year, so they're down either way?
Ya they did, but what Donegal maintain is that 2 teams should go up automatcially.Originally Posted by pineapple stu
Bangor should never have been let near the Premiership if they were going to pull up halfway through, it defeats all logic of them playing matches. For half the season, the players were essentially playing meaningless games. Can't imagine how frustrating it was for supporters
Donegal Celtic should have been in this season's top division: they fulfilled the minimum requirement for a licence as it stood this time last year.
So clearly Bangor shouldn't, as there were already 12 teams qualifying with entitlement to licences and better playing record (Bangor finished third in the second division last year, thus 19th overall).
Dungannon should have gone down this year regardless, once they finished in the bottom two: teams in relegation places shouldn't get a second chance to stay up.
I've no idea what advice Bangor took at the beginning of this season, or how confident they were of fulfilling fixtures. But superficially they should be able to compete against teams largely from smaller country towns.
Fair enough. Sounds ridiculous that there could be a query over whether there is or isn't supposed to be a play off.
DC must be feeling really ****ed off with the IFA. Relegated last year because their face didn't fit, awarded a 3-0 defeat early in the season, for which they won an appeal, and now this.
The question seems to be whether Bangor should be counted as finishing last because they don't want a licence next year. I don't see why they should, that's an issue for next year. In a normal situation, Dungannon finished bottom and should be relegated and replaced by Portadown; Bangor were second bottom and should play-off against DC for the Premier Division place. As Bangor don't want a Premier place, DC should go straight up IMO.
We're not arrogant, we're just better.
Clubs who withdraw - as Bangor effectively did - are usually counted as finishing bottom. But I doubt that's in the rule book.
The original rules stated that the team finishing bottom would be relegated regardless of other issues. The IFA then went and changed the rules half way during the season when Bangor decided not to renew their licence, meaning that now the bottom placed club would only have to play in the playoff. The IFA moved the goalposts half way during the season and IMO DC have a strong claim to have gone up automatically.
They finished the season though, so I don't think it's the same as withdrawing mid-season, Dublin City style.
We're not arrogant, we're just better.
In fairness, they were not relegated because their face didn't fit, but due to a combination of factors including a very poor ground, which they have now finally moved to improve. Poor crowds wouldn't have helped either.
Very messy situation at the end of this season, but had Dungannon not been told they were guaranteed a play-off regardless they probably would have beaten Stute on the last day and moved ahead of Bangor.
#NeverStopNotGivingUp
It's not the same, but I think the treatment - and this is talking very broadly from the ATW column - is to put them bottom. Obviously that doesn't necessarily hold for the IL. If holidaysong's post is correct, then the rules changed from your interpretation to my interpretation after the event, at which I'd be rightly annoyed.
Tomato, tomayto. They were the team who were relegated for non-footballing reasons, and now they've been done over twice more by the IFA (in their view), so they'd be fairly annoyed. You can be rightly or wrongly annoyed though.
Last edited by pineapple stu; 11/05/2009 at 12:54 PM.
It is the received wisdom that DC were formerly badly treated (by the Irish League) when they had previously applied for admission to the League some years back. This was said to be due to Protectionism by the existing IL clubs, exacerbated in some cases by Politics etc, such that DC had to threaten legal action to reverse it etc (I have no idea how much of this is true myself, btw).
Anyhow, whilst there is a lot to admire about DC, and they can contribute in many ways to senior football in NI, it is beginning to look as if one of the consequences of this earlier discrimination is an enduring sense of victimhood, which often serves to conceal their own inability to make good on various promises and commitments since etc.
For example, when they were at last admitted to the top division of the IL, this was despite their Suffolk Road ground appearing seriously unfit for the purpose. Consequently, most people assume that the only reason they hadn't been denied a Licence was because the IL didn't want to have to counter claims that they were "picking on poor DC again".
In any case, DC have conspicuously failed to make good their promises to upgrade the ground to any degree, instead preferring to claim that this was due to the IFA/Sports Council not doing enough to help them etc.
(Which presumably is also their excuse for not attracting the huge crowds they promised as well).
In any case, when the the new IPL was being designed, with all clubs having to apply for admission, that ought to have been the signal for DC to sort their ground out, as part of the overall application process. Yet whilst other clubs (including, most notably Bangor!) did the necessary, DC appear to have assumed their (self-annointed) "sleeping giant" status would see them through.
Moreover, what they had not appreciated was that for once, the IFA/IL had got independently-assessed procedures in place, so that when all the points were added up, DC clearly failed to make the grade.
Yet instead of taking it on the chin, eg like Portadown, they instead cried "discrimination" and threatened legal action. (We're all still waiting on that one, btw).
Which, a season later, brings us to this latest dispute. Now that DC are complaining that they've been unfairly treated over Promotion in Bangor's place, they are (conveniently?) overlooking certain pertinent aspects of their claim.
First, when in February, Bangor signalled their intention not to renew their Premier Licence for next season, this was no explicit provision in the Rules of the new League for such a case. Therefore, the IFA made a Ruling outlining what they would do in all possible circumstances (i.e. Bangor finishing bottom, 2nd from bottom, or outside the bottom two).
At this stage, it was open to DC to Appeal against this Ruling within an appropriate period, but they failed to do so.
Moreover, at the time the IFA had to make their decision, they (IFA) had no way of predicting where Bangor would finish in the IPL (they had started reasonably well, as it happens).
Indeed, they had even less means of predicting which teams would finish in the top two of the Championship, nor whether the eventual top two would both be eligible for a License to play in the IPL. (Remember, Loughgall, Coagh and Ballinamallard had all made a flying start, whereas DC and the Ports were "slow out of the traps".)
Even then, this would all have been academic had DC actually won the final game of their regular season (against Portadown!), but they didn't.
Finally, when it panned out that DC would have to meet Swifts in a Play-Off, they faxed in an appeal the day before the first leg was due:
http://www.ifachampionship.com/news040509_1.htm
And when the IFA stood by their original decision, DC failed to back up (apparent) mutterings about taking the IFA to Court, and instead took their chance on the pitch.
Of course, now that that avenue was closed to them as well, I would not be too surprised if we are in for another season of grievances and complaints etc from Suffolk Road, when many think they might be better advised sorting out their team and their ground etc, as Portadown did when they felt hard done by by the powers that be...
P.S. As an afterthought, perhaps they should enlist the assistance of Mr. Adams, their local MP in West Belfast, in taking their grievance further, since their relationship with him and his fellow party members has already been long established?
"In 1998 the football at Donegal Celtic Park became a political one yet again though when we were drawn to play the RUC team in the Steel & Sons Cup semi-final. The cup is considered the most prestigious in Irish junior football, attracting large crowds for its Christmas Day final and the club felt that this year would be its best chance to capture what had eluded them for decades. The club’s members initially voted to go ahead with the game. They were forced, however, to reverse their decision after intense pressure from local Sinn Fein politicians. The club stated it had been 'thrown into the eye of the storm', with football being the only true loser. Sinn Fein, at the time, claimed the RUC was in a 'charm offensive' - yet the cup competition was an open draw!"
(From DC's official website)
Thanks for that; interesting reading.
Have to say that i feel Dc have been harshly treated by the ifa yet again.
Having to amend the rulebook midseason can never reflect well on the IL.
This is what opened them to accusations of favouritism.
That's fair enough but it doesn't explain why Suffolk Rd was deemed suitable for Cliftonville to play their "home" matches there at the start of the 2008/2009 season. If I remember correctly there was a Setanta Cup fixture or two played there as well.For example, when they were at last admitted to the top division of the IL, this was despite their Suffolk Road ground appearing seriously unfit for the purpose. Consequently, most people assume that the only reason they hadn't been denied a Licence was because the IL didn't want to have to counter claims that they were "picking on poor DC again".
In any case, DC have conspicuously failed to make good their promises to upgrade the ground to any degree, instead preferring to claim that this was due to the IFA/Sports Council not doing enough to help them etc.
(Which presumably is also their excuse for not attracting the huge crowds they promised as well
Portadown were late with their application. Hardly comparable with DC, no?
Changing the rulebook mid-season is a no-no for most football associations. But the IFA is different.
Does every other FA have a specific clause in its rule book allowing for teams announcing in mid-season that they won't contest the following season?Changing the rulebook mid-season is a no-no for most football associations. But the IFA is different
How so? Surely the need to amend the rulebook in such circumstances if anything reflects badly upon Bangor FC, not the IL*
* - IFA, actually
Who exactly do you believe the IFA was favouring/disfavouring when they made their ruling in February?
Were they to know where Bangor would eventually finish? Were they to know that Swifts would finish bottom? Or that DC would finish 2nd in their Division?
With the way the table was panning out at the time, there was a greater likelihood that one of the "small" clubs who do not qualify for the IPL (Coagh, Loughgall, Mallards) would finish 1st/2nd in the Championship than DC.
In fact, Portadown were a better bet to finish 2nd than DC. Are you trying to say that the IFA was favouring the Swifts over the Ports?
I have to say, only a (deluded) conspiracy theorist, or a DC sympathiser, could claim that the IFA deliberately arranged things at their Extrordinary Meeting in February, so that Swifts would be favoured over DC in May.
Sorry to go back on this, PS, but DC were NOT "relegated last year because their face didn't fit".
Rather, they were not admitted to the new IPL because they did not secure enough ranking points under an independently assessed, objective evaluation.
Furthermore, when they received the results of the Evaluation, they attempted to cry "Foul" and threatened to sue. However, like several other of their assurances and assertions, the threat of legal action was subsequently quietly withdrawn*.
As for the 3-0 forfeit, doesn't the fact that they subsequently won their appeal not indicate that they are capable of receiving a fair hearing from the IFA - at least when they have a fair case to make?
* - Assuming they took legal advice, I imagine it was something along the lines of "Not a leg to stand on..."
Last edited by EalingGreen; 12/05/2009 at 1:05 PM.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks