FAI Junior Cup 2009/10

**the dazzler** · 30/03/2010, 4:32 PM

any truth pike+saints appeals thrown out?

**the bandit** · 30/03/2010, 5:47 PM

Originally Posted by the dazzler

any truth pike+saints appeals thrown out?

how do you mean thrown out.sure they did'nt even get a hearing yet.did st michaels not appeal to senior council?..and if it's true what happen's now.the word is pike have all their paperwork in order so st michaels will probably thrown out.there not doing themselves any favours.

**historynut** · 30/03/2010, 6:00 PM

According to the FAI site it states that in fairness of the game the original match declared null and void and St Michaels v Pike Rovers to be replayed. Have I missed a further development ?

**nononsense** · 30/03/2010, 6:14 PM

Originally Posted by the dazzler

any truth pike+saints appeals thrown out?

The appeals were not heard yet.

**Blackpanther** · 30/03/2010, 6:21 PM

Originally Posted by nononsense

The appeals were not heard yet.

Heard that both appeals were ruled out of order as they were not received on time, can anyone confirm from Michaels or Pike

**the bandit** · 30/03/2010, 7:24 PM

Originally Posted by Blackpanther

Heard that both appeals were ruled out of order as they were not received on time, can anyone confirm from Michaels or Pike

thats the rumour going round alright.so what happens now does the replay go ahead,surely they cant go back to senior council now.and apparently st michaels are refusing point blank to a replay so will they be thrown out.......................

**nononsense** · 30/03/2010, 9:33 PM

Originally Posted by Blackpanther

Heard that both appeals were ruled out of order as they were not received on time, can anyone confirm from Michaels or Pike

Could I repeat, the appeals were not heard yet.

**awiseman** · 30/03/2010, 9:55 PM

come on the saints

**saintsfan** · 31/03/2010, 11:31 AM

Originally Posted by awiseman

come on the saints

I would like to second that! According to Star yesterday, Saints successfully won their appeal over Pike Rovers (1st appeal) ie, Pike did field one or more illegal player - but reckoned a reply was the fairest result ie, FAI did not have the balls to throw Pike out first time round appeal - But both clubs appealing the decision, Pike to play the replay and Saints appealing the 1st decision made!

**gaidin** · 31/03/2010, 12:14 PM

Originally Posted by saintsfan

I would like to second that! According to Star yesterday, Saints successfully won their appeal over Pike Rovers (1st appeal) ie, Pike did field one or more illegal player - but reckoned a reply was the fairest result ie, FAI did not have the balls to throw Pike out first time round appeal - But both clubs appealing the decision, Pike to play the replay and Saints appealing the 1st decision made!

Ans saints threw away a 2 goal lead and lost....

**mulla** · 31/03/2010, 1:19 PM

Originally Posted by gaidin

Ans saints threw away a 2 goal lead and lost....

and what has that got to do with his post

**gaidin** · 31/03/2010, 2:16 PM

Originally Posted by mulla

and what has that got to do with his post

Nothing..Just reminding him that they threw away a 2 goal lead..Whats that got to do with you?

**gaidin** · 31/03/2010, 2:23 PM

Originally Posted by saintsfan

I would like to second that! According to Star yesterday, Saints successfully won their appeal over Pike Rovers (1st appeal) ie, Pike did field one or more illegal player - but reckoned a reply was the fairest result ie, FAI did not have the balls to throw Pike out first time round appeal - But both clubs appealing the decision, Pike to play the replay and Saints appealing the 1st decision made!

I also agree with you though

...If Pike were found to have played an illegal player (known to them or not) they should be thrown out. The fai are setting all sorts of precedents by giving a replay. Either Pike were wrong (then should be thrown out) OR they werent (then why a replay?)

**joeSoap** · 31/03/2010, 2:46 PM

A replay here is the only sensible conclusion. Pike have played an illegal player-plain and simple. The reason they played him is that their local governing body, the LDMC, mis-informed them as to the status of this player or players. Therefore Pike were unaware of the situation as a result of this mis-information and it should be pointed out here that the LDMC are representatives of the FAI in the area. Pike had no reason to question the judgement of the LDMC (who have admitted responsibility)and picked their players according to what they were informed the rules were. Saint Michaels objection is valid, but not water tight legally and if this matter is not resolved the way the FAI ruled (ie a replay) then it will get ugly and go to arbitration. If this happens, there's not a court in the land that will rule against Pike. If I were Michaels manager I would grab the replay chance with both arms while it is still on the table.

**Longshanks** · 31/03/2010, 3:39 PM

Joesoap,

'Pike have played an illegal player-plain and simple. The reason they played him is that their local governing body, the LDMC, mis-informed them as to the status of this player or players.'

Seems the only logical outcome is the removal of Pike from the FAI Junior Cup. I'd hazzard a guess and indeed wager a few quid that the illegal player/s played in previous rounds of the FAI Junior Cup also. ~And if this is the case you would have to seriously question the validity of Pikes participation in the Junior Cup and indeed the integrity of Junior football. Most posters on here accept that Pike played an illegal player(indeed the FAI Junior Council seem to too) and they therefore broke the rules of the comp., they have to be thrown out for the sake of the competitions future, it is after all an amateur Cup.

Also posters here are saying that if St. Michaels go on to win the Junior Cup because of the removal of Pike what value is on that medal. Well if Pike go on to win it what value is on that medal?? especially if they have played illegal player/s in more than one round of the comp.!!! I know from previous years Cups that Pike are determined to win the Junior Cup by hook or by crook because of a local rivallary with a certain club who will remain nameless.

Before I get bashed for being 'anti Pike' I wish to state I'm not and I wouldnt begrudge them winning the junior Cup(we have a Pike plaque hanging in our local boozer from a few years back?!?!) but if they win it this year having played illegal player/s in at least one round it will be terrible for all involved, Pike included.

**kev08** · 31/03/2010, 3:45 PM

Originally Posted by Longshanks

Joesoap,

'Pike have played an illegal player-plain and simple. The reason they played him is that their local governing body, the LDMC, mis-informed them as to the status of this player or players.'

Seems the only logical outcome is the removal of Pike from the FAI Junior Cup. I'd hazzard a guess and indeed wager a few quid that the illegal player/s played in previous rounds of the FAI Junior Cup also. ~And if this is the case you would have to seriously question the validity of Pikes participation in the Junior Cup and indeed the integrity of Junior football. Most posters on here accept that Pike played an illegal player(indeed the FAI Junior Council seem to too) and they therefore broke the rules of the comp., they have to be thrown out for the sake of the competitions future, it is after all an amateur Cup.

Also posters here are saying that if St. Michaels go on to win the Junior Cup because of the removal of Pike what value is on that medal. Well if Pike go on to win it what value is on that medal?? especially if they have played illegal player/s in more than one round of the comp.!!! I know from previous years Cups that Pike are determined to win the Junior Cup by hook or by crook because of a local rivallary with a certain club who will remain nameless.

Before I get bashed for being 'anti Pike' I wish to state I'm not and I wouldnt begrudge them winning the junior Cup(we have a Pike plaque hanging in our local boozer from a few years back?!?!) but if they win it this year having played illegal player/s in at least one round it will be terrible for all involved, Pike included.

its a player not players ie carroll as a know of he didnt play against nenagh,springfield just against aisling

**serpico** · 31/03/2010, 4:00 PM

Originally Posted by Longshanks

Joesoap,

'Pike have played an illegal player-plain and simple. The reason they played him is that their local governing body, the LDMC, mis-informed them as to the status of this player or players.'

Seems the only logical outcome is the removal of Pike from the FAI Junior Cup. I'd hazzard a guess and indeed wager a few quid that the illegal player/s played in previous rounds of the FAI Junior Cup also. ~And if this is the case you would have to seriously question the validity of Pikes participation in the Junior Cup and indeed the integrity of Junior football. Most posters on here accept that Pike played an illegal player(indeed the FAI Junior Council seem to too) and they therefore broke the rules of the comp., they have to be thrown out for the sake of the competitions future, it is after all an amateur Cup.

Also posters here are saying that if St. Michaels go on to win the Junior Cup because of the removal of Pike what value is on that medal. Well if Pike go on to win it what value is on that medal?? especially if they have played illegal player/s in more than one round of the comp.!!! I know from previous years Cups that Pike are determined to win the Junior Cup by hook or by crook because of a local rivallary with a certain club who will remain nameless.

Before I get bashed for being 'anti Pike' I wish to state I'm not and I wouldnt begrudge them winning the junior Cup(we have a Pike plaque hanging in our local boozer from a few years back?!?!) but if they win it this year having played illegal player/s in at least one round it will be terrible for all involved, Pike included.

longshanks i presume you're from ballygawley celtic.for your information pike have not played an illegal player,yu are just listening to all the rubbish that people who have'nt a clue whats goin on are posting,so why dont ye just mind yere own business for once.

**Longshanks** · 31/03/2010, 4:40 PM

Originally Posted by serpico

longshanks i presume you're from ballygawley celtic.for your information pike have not played an illegal player,yu are just listening to all the rubbish that people who have'nt a clue whats goin on are posting,so why dont ye just mind yere own business for once.

Serpico you have 'outted' me, I wouldnt be clued in on FAI policies, as you might remember my club wouldnt have the luxury/neccesity to have to regrade palyers and the last time i checked this was a public forum.

I can only comment on what I've read here(from Pike posters too lets not forget) and in the National press. I'm struggling to get my head around it, 1. Pike did nothing wrong, 2. St Michaels did nothing wrong, 3. TSDL did nothing wrong 4. LDMC did nothing wrong........(or 4a. LDMC did something wrong), over to the FAI.....'lets have a replay'??? I dont get it. As I stated when the replay was ordered it appears to be a fudge of the issue, maybe because of the standing of the clubs involved. I couldnt imagine if you put my club in Pikes position that the SLDL would take the hit and a replay would be ordered. Or put my club in St Michaels position that the FAI would order a reply with Pike if there was no actual wrong doing. Could you??

Anyway the quicker this is put to bed the better.......Best of luck to both clubs in this weeks semi, the winners might get the final played before the World cup starts!!

**blackjack** · 31/03/2010, 4:52 PM

Originally Posted by hoops12

correct ,the people on here should or going by the info they have already are working for the fai,it is all only here say but ye are right about 1 thing saints wont play pike again cos pike done nothing wrong and dont forget they objected against 6 pike players and also the star has said saints were successful in their objection i think not. the fai have cleared pike of any wrong doing but because mr deleaney was backing saints they bottled it and gave them a 2nd chance.

fact,fact,fact