I covered that earlier in the thread. I consider the two points to be one and the same, on the basis that invitational leagues are BS of the highest order.Originally Posted by EalingGreen
A rulebook should cover all eventualities. That's the same whether it's football, rugby, table tennis....whatever.
What happened with Bangor, whilst by no means likely, was hardly as unlikely as a meteor strike or alien invasion.
Ergo the IFA stuffed up.
I made no comment on bias either way.
You are confusing two separate issues - Ground Licensing (specific) and League Admission Criteria (general)
When clubs had to apply to the IFA for Admission to the new IFA Prem 12 months ago, the entire operation of each was assessed on a number of criteria, including facilities:
"For the 2008/09 season, the League system for Northern Ireland was re-organised. It was renamed as the IFA Premiership, and reduced to twelve teams, included on the basis not only of their performance in the 2007/08 season, but in the previous two seasons, and other off-the-field criteria as follows. Each applicant club was assessed by an independent panel and awarded points against the following criteria:
- Sporting (maximum 450 points) - based on league placings, Irish Cup, League Cup and European performances in 2005/06, 2006/07 and 2007/08; with points also awarded for running youth teams, women's teams and community development programmes.
- Finance (maximum 200 points) - based on solvency, debt management and cash-flow projection.
- Infrastructure (maximum 150 points) - based on stadium capacity, changing provisions, sanitary facilities, field of play, floodlighting, existence and standard of control room, first aid room, drug testing room and media facilities.
- Business planning (maximum 50 points)
- Personnel (maximum 100 points) - based on qualification and experience of staff
- Attendances (maximum 50 points)
Portadown were relegated to the IFA Championship as a result of submitting their application for the IFA Premiership 29 minutes past the deadline for consideration"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Football_League
In DC's case, as an existing IPL team, they ought to have accrued enough points from the "Sporting" Category (450 pts) to have comfortably made the top 12 for the new IFA Prem.
However, they still missed out because they scored so poorly in the other categories. In particular, despite their ground being eligible (just)* for a Licence for the IFA Prem, nonetheless their whole physical set-up was so far behind the other leading contenders, that they bombed in the "Infrastructure" category (150 points).
To give an example, DC had no separate drug-testing room - something which FIFA is increasingly insisting on. By contrast, neither had Bangor, but when they studied the criteria properly, they went out and bought one (a Portacabin, with fridge, table and chairs etc), and so cheaply picked up a few extra handy points that way!
* - Which is why, had DC actually won their Play-Off against Swifts, they and their ground would have been eligible to be promoted (and why other IFA Prem teams like C'ville were permitted to use Suffolk Road for their games temporarily.)
You're right, but not in the way you think (imo).
Portadown's Application was superior to DC's in every single aspect - including the major one ("Sporting").
Indeed, it was sufficient to see them finish v.comfortably in the Top 12. The only reason it was rejected was because it was submitted half an hour late.
Considering they finished ahead of DC both last season and this, have considerably bigger support, and are currently spending a 7-figure sum to rebuild Shamrock Park, when in its former state it was infinitely better than Suffolk Road, if anyone had a right to feel aggrieved at being excluded, it was they.
Instead, they "took it on the chin" and got on with winning promotion where it counts - on the field.
Nonsense.Changing the rulebook mid-season is a no-no for most football associations. But the IFA is different.
The IFA did not "change the Rulebook", because unlike, say, a club folding mid-season, or a club having to be expelled mid-season, there was no provision in the Rules for a club avoiding relegation on the field, being able to fulfil all their forthcoming fixtures, but nonetheless voluntarily electing to withdraw from the League at a future date.
Now you might consider that the Rules were inadequate in not foreseeing such a scenario, but personally, never ever having heard of it before, I do not.
Furthermore, such a situation having been forced upon them*, they had to make a complex Determination which would be flexible enough to cover a wide range of outcomes, none of which could be predicted in advance.
In doing so, they were operating within their general powers, including leaving open the option of appeal, otherwise any number of clubs might have sought to have it overturned.
* - Unless you think the IFA somehow welcomed Bangor's decision, perhaps because it would give them (yet) another opportunity to "do down" DC?
Last edited by EalingGreen; 12/05/2009 at 2:16 PM.
Not being admitted, and being thrown out, are NOT the same thing, as anyone who has any familiarity e.g. with nightclubs or bars, schools or universities, or public service or private sector jobs could attest!
Complete non-sequitur.
All Invitational Leagues, or just some of them?
And if the latter, was the IFA Prem one of the BS ones?
Of course you are entirely entitled to your opinion, for whatever reason (or none), but merely stating something does not automatically make it so.
All invitational leagues are BS of the highest order. League members are decided on the pitch, with certain allowances for licencing. However, the notion of asking clubs to apply for a place in a league, using the criteria you've posted, is BS.
Your point attempting to differentiate between being thrown out and not being admitted is spurious at best; it's really differentiating between two terms of grammar when the principle is the same. They weren't invited, which I equate to their face not fitting.
Last edited by pineapple stu; 12/05/2009 at 2:42 PM.
In an ideal world, yes. We do not live in an ideal world.
Are you saying that the football in other countries has never had to deal with unforeseen/unforeseeable eventualities? Or rugby or table tennis? Are you in any way familiar with Formula One, for example, where virtually every race seems to be subject to complaints, objections and and appeals of one sort or another?
True, I suppose. Then again, if a meteor were to strike Suffolk Road, no doubt DC would blame the IFA for that, as well...
Anyhow, returning to the "by no means likely" category, can you provide me with even one example of a team which has not gone bust, has not been ejected, and has not been unable to fulfil its fixtures, voluntarily agreeing to "relegate" itself at a future date (i.e. when it could not be predicted who their likely replacement would be from the League tables etc)?
I suppose that is arguable. Myself, I prefer to consider that the greater "stuff-up" came from e.g. Portadown who, had they met the deadline, would have pushed DC's original Application into 14th place, thereby depriving them of (yet another) reason for feeling hard done by.
Or you might consider that it was Bangor FC who "stuffed up", by trying to "run before they could walk" when makig such an effort to gain admission to the IFA Prem.
Hell, you might even consider it a teensy-weensy little "stuff-up" by DC themselves, for appearing to believe that NI football owes their club a living simply because they are located in West Belfast, have the word "Celtic" in their name and were discriminated against in the past, thereby meaning that the normal Admission criteria do not actually apply to them like everybody else.
And that's before you consider that they had not one, but two chances (regular season and play-off) of getting what they wanted, where it counts i.e. on the field of play.
Still, no doubt it was someone elses fault when they lost to glorified village teams like Glebe Rangers, Loughgall, Coagh United and Ballinamallard...
Fair point (though not something which could be said about their fans and sympathisers generally!
Hmmm.... "took it on the chin"? Portadown had nobody but themselves to blame for their relegation yet they did appeal the decision. Was Portadown's appeal more noble than DC's appeal for you to state that Portadown "took it on the chin" whilst suggesting DC didn't? And let's be honest about it, the ins and outs of DC's relegation was much less clear cut than Portadown's relegation, - all the more so in light of Bangor's promotion and subsequent inability to compete in the Premiership.
Team Bath just last month in the Conference South.
Leaving aside the obvious observation that ALL football leagues were originally formed by a process of invitation(!), do you consider that many (most?) of the Leagues in Britain and continental Europe are BS?
Because if you check the figures, I suspect you'll find that an ever-increasing number of Leagues have been reconfigured recently, on an Invitation basis, including unquestionably the most successful of these, the English Premier League.
Exactly how are those criteria "BS"? Because you say it is so?
And before you care to elaborate, bear in mind two things.
First, those criteria were modelled on the criteria successfully used by other Leagues and Associations, when they were re-configuring their own set-ups.
Second, all such criteria have to be approved in advance by UEFA, precisely in order to confirm that they are fair and effectual.
Really? So when a Bouncer declines to admit someone to a Nightclub on the basis of his clothing, say, that is the same as admitting someone else who does comply with the Dress Code, but who is later chucked out e.g. for fighting?
The principle would only be the same if the first punter was refused entry e.g because of his trainers, whilst the second was admitted despite his wearing the same type of trainer.
Once again, nonsense (or should that be "BS"?)
DC were invited to apply, but their application was not successful because they did not achieve a high enough mark.
What evidence do you have that DC's Application was in some way unsuccessful due to their "face not fitting"?
Portadown were also invited, but their (otherwise much superior) Application was the one which was rejected.
If it was a case of "faces fitting", as you allege, then the Ports' delay could easily have been ignored or covered up, in which case why would the IFA want to reject on a technicality a club whose "face" clearly did "fit", if they were minded to make such decisions in a subjective or arbitrary way?
More to the point why, when they are otherwise such a litigious club, did DC not actually challenge the legality of the IFA's Application process, as they threatened to do at the time?
Perhaps because when your case doesn't actually have merit, it is easier to "play the victim", thereby at least gaining an audience amongst the prejudiced, the uninformed and the gullible?
Last edited by EalingGreen; 12/05/2009 at 3:44 PM.
Apples and Pears. Team Bath were unwilling to continue because their Constitution conflicted with the League's rules.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/foot...nf/7991750.stm
Bangor faced no such conflict, so there was no reason why the IFA might have foreseen their (Bangor's) decision, mid-season, not to continue in the Prem the following season.
Besides, if you want to be picky, Bangor made their announcement in February, a good two m onths before Team Bath's example might have alerted the IFA to such a possibility.
Maybe the IFA should have anticipated that one, too?
Feel free to provide examples.
The EPL was going to be a makey-uppey invitational league using silly criteria, but they backed down and it was the same 20 teams who had qualified through normal promotion/relegation in the end. The original league was a grouping of clubs who got together to start such a competition; there was no choice but to seek further clubs, who were generally accepted on writing in to apply. Completely different to the situation at hand. (And I don't buy into the notion that the league has been disbanded and started anew; again, a triumph of grammatical pedantry over real life).
Again, feel free to provide examples. I hope you're not using the LoI as an example of successful implementation!
You talk a lot, but most of what you say misses the point. The only pertinent point of your post was "Exactly how are those criteria "BS"?" Leagues shouldn't be chosen - as the IL was, and as the LoI was - on the basis of attendances, success three years ago or whether a club has a women's team or a drug testing room. If you're going to argue they should, then I'll have to let you be happy with that, because as far as I'm concerned, that's the fundamental factor in deciding leagues. The other factors I noted have nothing to do with it; ergo, my comment about DC's face not fitting stands.
(And LOL at you making up a difference between bangor and Team Bath just because it didn't suit your argument.
PFC didn't blame anyone else (other than "traffic congestion"!) for their failure to make the deadline.
Instead, they appealed to the IFA to make allowances for the delay.
And when the appeal was rejected, they accepted it with good grace.
DC, on the other hand, threatened legal action, yet failed to go through with it.
Neither club was "relegated". Portadown's Application was rejected, whereas DC's was unsuccessful.
But now you mention "clear cut", they were equally so in one respect, namely that PFC's application was demonstrably submitted late and DC's application demonstrably received fewer marks than 12 other clubs (or 13, if you counted PFC!).
The fact that Bangor made such an effort to get into the IFA Prem actually made it less foreseeable that they would voluntarily announce mid-season their intention to withdraw, not more so (if you think about it).
There is/was no suggestion that their Application was in any way false or unreliable, or that the IFA's assessment of it was inadequate.
Rather, Bangor appear to have invested money to get them into the IFA Prem, in the hope that this would be repaid by the extra revenue that the Prem would generate.
As soon as it became apparent that this was not the case, they made a decision to "cut their losses" and withdraw, rather than trying to hold on and risk going bust.
And having made that decision, they announced it early, so that the IFA would have time to consider the situation, rather than at the end of the season, when it might have been too late, and/or have compromised the IFA.
Now you might argue with Bangor's conduct in this matter*, but I still don't see how the IFA might reasonably have been expected to have anticipated this.
More pertinently, I fail to see how the IFA's eventual determination in some way singled out DC unfavourably, as some people seem to be implying, since they (IFA) had no way of knowing in February where Bangor, or DC, or any of the non-qualifying Championship sides, would finish at the beginning of May.
After all, had DC beaten PFC at home in the last game of the season, rather than losing, they (DC) would have been promoted automatically and PFC would have had to face the lottery of the Play-Offs.
I wonder how/why the IFA left such a possibility open? Must be something to do with the Ports being from Nationalist West Belfast or something...
P.S. I'm surprised no-one has yet claimed that the real reason the IFA rejected Portadown's Application was so that they would finish 1st ahead of DC in the Championship, thereby depriving DC of the one guaranteed Promotion place to the Prem...
* - Though perhaps a few LOI clubs might follow their example?
Last edited by EalingGreen; 12/05/2009 at 4:25 PM.
Have you ever met dcfcsteve?
Sometimes it is best to aquaint yourself with hard facts, knowledge of what you are talking about and ensure you you are not standing in a glass house too.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).
It was not "protectionism." Their case was based on religious discrimination. Lurgan Celtic lead the case with Donegal Celtic assisting in a 'class action.' The then IFL could not defend the indefencible and settled on the courtroom steps.
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".
Donegal Celtic, like many clubs before them were allowed to get their facilities in order before the season started. When it did, they at least met the minimum standards, unlike some clubs who had been admitted before them.
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).
"Prefering to claim"?? What you mean like Dungannon Swifts who were in a similar predicament? If you even bothered to check some basic facts you would find "the claim" to be a valid one. Oh and btw, maybe you should check this to see what is happening with these supposed "failed....promises"
http://www.bebo.com/PhotoAlbumBig.js...Id=10723875461
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.
Their ground met the requirements for the new league. You obviously failed to understand the process. *shakes head*
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).
More ignorance. Portadown did not 'take it on the chin' and took the process to appeal.
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.
No appeal was open to any club following that ruling, despite what the IFA statement said. You can only appeal a ruling/decision that is made directly in respect of your club. You cannot appeal 'what ifs.'
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.
Donegal Celtic did not 'fax an appeal.' They sought clarification.
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...
That avenue was not 'closed to them.' They appear to have chosen not to follow it. In what way did Portadown 'sort out their team and ground' following being 'hard done 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?
It is good then that they don't profess their political stance like some clubs. How dare they approach their local elected representives for help. Of course Glentoran have never done that.
"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!"
Tell us in which club boardroom the politician who stood on the Dee Street bridge with local 'residents' and prevented Cliftonville supporters attending a game for purely political and what appeared to be religious reasons? Or maybe you could share which club held a minutes silence for a convicted terrorist?
Last edited by Mr_Parker; 12/05/2009 at 7:02 PM.
That "just" should be crucial. Assuming a basic minimum standard of facilities/ infrastructure/ tastefully appointed portacabin, admission to the league should be on playing record. DC are unlikely ever to need 3,000 seats like Portadown or Ballymena- that shouldn't disavantage them provided their existing 750 (or whatever) seats are accessible and offer a view of the pitch.
Why "glorified"?Still, no doubt it was someone elses fault when they lost to glorified village teams like Glebe Rangers, Loughgall, Coagh United and Ballinamallard...
Surely they reached the previously-agreed minimum standard (x points of the 1,000 available)? As above, the top 12 teams according to league positions could and should have been admitted IF they achieved 'x'
Last edited by Gather round; 13/05/2009 at 1:16 PM.
EG: 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).
MP: It was not "protectionism." Their case was based on religious discrimination. Lurgan Celtic lead the case with Donegal Celtic assisting in a 'class action.' The then IFL could not defend the indefencible and settled on the courtroom steps.
EG: I am well aware that that that was the grounds of their complaint and am in no way attempting to deny it.
However, my point was that not every IL club opposed DC/LC's admission, nor do we know exactly why all of those who had, did so. Imo, one of these factors will have been protectionism, as was seen for decades when the IL had 12 clubs and no P&R, such that even suitable clubs from Unionist areas etc were excuded from the League.
EG: 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 etc.
MP: Donegal Celtic, like many clubs before them were allowed to get their facilities in order before the season started. When it did, they at least met the minimum standards, unlike some clubs who had been admitted before them.
EG: My point was not about allowing DC or other clubs extra time during the close season to comply etc. Nor was it about other clubs who may or may not have been compliant. Rather, I was querying how Suffolk Road acquired a full licence in the first place (about more of which below).
I suspect that because of the "history" between DC and the IL, that DC were treated more sympathetically than other clubs might.
EG: 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.
MP: "Prefering to claim"?? What you mean like Dungannon Swifts who were in a similar predicament? If you even bothered to check some basic facts you would find "the claim" to be a valid one. Oh and btw, maybe you should check this to see what is happening with these supposed "failed....promises"
http://www.bebo.com/PhotoAlbumBig.js...Id=10723875461
EG: Are you trying to tell me that Suffolk Road is comparable in its fitness for senior football to Stangmore? The fact is, DC neglected to spend significant money on their ground for even rudimentary facilities over a long period. When SC grants etc were delayed, that merely extended the problem, not explained it.
As for your Link, I was aware that DC are now (belatedly) attending to their Ground and fair play to them for it. But you will also be aware of the rest of the ground, parts of which can only be described as primitive. Or did you miss e.g. the photos of the grass bank 'terrace'?
Or are you seriously contending that the ground has always been fit for senior football, even with the paltry crowds drawn to the IL?
EG: 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.
MP: Their ground met the requirements for the new league. You obviously failed to understand the process. *shakes head*
EG: I am aware that their ground met the requirements etc. My question is "How?".
EG: 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.
MP: No appeal was open to any club following that ruling, despite what the IFA statement said. You can only appeal a ruling/decision that is made directly in respect of your club. You cannot appeal 'what ifs.'
EG: You may not be able to appeal the decision, but that does not preclude e.g. appeals against the process by which it was arrived at, or the fitness/appropriateness of the Committee to determine etc
EG: 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.
MP: Donegal Celtic did not 'fax an appeal.' They sought clarification.
EG: Fair enough - though that surely backs my contention i.e. that DC had no grounds for grievance at the original IFA decision, or how it eventually panned out. Yet still we have people complaining that they were somehow "done down" by the IFA, apparently because of who they are, rather than what they had done/not done etc.
EG: 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...
MP: That avenue was not 'closed to them.' They appear to have chosen not to follow it. In what way did Portadown 'sort out their team and ground' following being 'hard done by the powers that be'?
EG: Partly in preparation for the new IFA Prem etc, PFC committed to an expensive and extensive redevelopment of Shamrock Park. When their Application to the new League was rejected, they continued with their plans, such that they now have two excellent brand new stands (with a 3rd to follow), plus top class new floodlights. They are currently levelling, re-aligning and relaying a brand new pitch.
On top of that, they also continued to invest in the team. Which essentially is why they won automatic promotion at the first attempt. Imo, that approach compares favourably with that of DC's
EG: 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?
MP: It is good then that they don't profess their political stance like some clubs. How dare they approach their local elected representives for help. Of course Glentoran have never done that.
EG: Addressed below
(Extract from DC's own Website)
MP: Tell us in which club boardroom the politician who stood on the Dee Street bridge with local 'residents' and prevented Cliftonville supporters attending a game for purely political and what appeared to be religious reasons? Or maybe you could share which club held a minutes silence for a convicted terrorist?
EG: My point in quoting that episode from DC's history was to illustrate that things are not always how they seem at first sight, i.e. that both sides of the political divide in NI can use football for its own purposes.
Furthermore, individual clubs are not above playing the appropriate Orange/Green card when it suits them - something which I suspect certain DC sympathisers are doing in the present controversy.
As for your references to the Glens, you might be surprised by my views on those, but you're not going to hear them here, specifically because this thread is about Donegal Celtic and generally because I try to avoid dealing in "Whataboutery".
Whether you agree or not, I trust that the above addresses (your version of) the "hard facts etc".
As such, my reply is intended to support my general point which is that the longer DC continue to "play the victim" over historical grievances which have since been corrected etc, and fail to address properly their own problems and responsibility for them, the less sympathy they will receive from people like myself, who would otherwise wish them well.
In short, if they want to be a Senior club, they should start acting like one.
Last edited by EalingGreen; 13/05/2009 at 2:24 PM.
Gresley Rovers resigned from the Unibond League at the end of this season:
http://www.gresleyrovers.com/news/article/2423
Taking the voluntary demotion to cut costs - although they still are solvent.
Kom Igen, FCK...
Didn't Canvey island do the same last year?
It does happen (would be amazing if it didn't- there are more than 200 semi-pro clubs in the four main regional leagues in England, many of whom are insolvent at any given moment), but isn't the crux what, if anything, those leagues' rule books specify should happen next when a club announces its intention to withdraw in advance. Anyone know?
I don't think it's hugely relevant as in every case mentioned so far, there's three (or four) straight down and no promotion/relegation play-off.
Posting Permissions
Quote
Bookmarks