It was the on-the-field criteria that let Dundalk down. Galway didn't go up because of their DVD, nor did Dundalk stay down because of their location or any other off-the-field criteria. They were as you said in the top 10 for the off-the-field criteria. It was their results in the previous five seasons that put them in the First.Originally Posted by White Horse
It had nothing to do with "picking locations" like you talk about above.
You are correct in saying that it was in the on-the-field criteria that Dundalk scored insufficient points. More specifically, it was in the category for performances in the previous 4 years, which had a weighting of 30%. The fact that Dundalk ranked in the top 10 in both the combined off-field criteria (50%), and in the 2006 current season on-field performance (20%) was ultimately insufficient.
The argument - which of course you can accept or reject - was that choosing this 4 year period (as opposed to say 0/1/5/15 years), and giving such it a weighting was unfair and unreasonable.
(It was effectively saying that a clubs on-field-performance in the previous 4 years was 1.5 times more important then how they performed in the current season! Can you imagine the ridicule that would be heaped on any league that calculated league titles and promotion/relegation that way?)
While we will probably never know why the FAI/IAG devised the system in the manner that they did, it is inevitable that people cried "foul" at a system that was skewed disproportionately in favour of some clubs from the outset. Speculation and accusations that this was done in a premeditated fashion to aid inclusion of some clubs for geographical/demographical reasons are a natural consequence of such a farcical process.
Last edited by Ezeikial; 04/09/2009 at 2:25 PM.
So i take it you agree the process so
Why are people who "need no introduction" always introduced?
Speculation and accusations that this was done in a premeditated fashion to aid inclusion of some clubs for geographical/demographical reasons are a natural consequence of being a whinger.
It's up to you if want to repeat these "whinger" labels - you seem to want to vilify the poster without anything to say about the post itself!
I'm not vilifying anybody.
I do think that your arguments are either deliberately misleading or just plain wrong, and they have been proven so by more than one poster.
The process was a farce, or as Pineapple Stu put it, and idiotic idea implemented by idiots. There is no logical reason to believe that the FAI were anti-Dundalk or pro-certain teams.
Ok, if you say so - but I find it strange when you repeatedly wail "whinging" as your central (only?) point when replying to a post you disagree with.
You have a very liberal interpretation of "proven"!!
I'm glad, though, that we are in agreement that the process was a farce, and was not an anti-Dundalk conspiracy.
But you are on dangerous teritory using "logical" and the "FAI" in the same sentence when it comes to this IAG nonsense. If the criteria was not designed to favour certain clubs, they made a damn fine job of gerrymandering it by awarding 30% of the points for performances in the previous 4 years (see earlier "whinging" post - #86).
Gerrymandering means a conscious effort to rewrite rules to try and influence an outcome.
The difference in our opinions is that I believe that the system in place to determine invitation to the new league was simply idiotic, while you believe that criteria were deliberately designed in order to result in the selection of, and to give an appearance of legality to, a pre-determined list of desired teams.
Crucially, in my opinion, you, and other Dundalk fans, have been unable to convince me of two points - firstly, why the FAI would want to exclude Dundalk in favour of Galway, and secondly, that it is clear that the criteria laid out were specifically designed in order to reach a pre-determined conclusion.
As an example of this, the fact that you (and I mean you, Ezeikial) have (deliberately, in my opinion) mislead others on the issue of the non-existent play-off, only to be repeatedly corrected by Pineapple Stu, and also the fact that you are unable to explain why, considering the dark motives apparently involved in the criteria, UCD were selected for the premier division despite having what I'd imagine even UCD fans would accept as the least appealing profile of all the clubs selected, seriously weakens your argument and indeed your credibility.
Last edited by osarusan; 06/09/2009 at 10:07 PM.
A good definition - and that's precisely what I believe happened: the FAI / IAG wrote the criteria in a conscious effort to influence the outcome.
From the moment that the criteria was announced the outcome was already influenced and significantly predetermined; a huge proportion of the points being awarded for retrospective performance that was unalterable by the individual clubs.
While the process was bizarrely inequitable, in my opinion it is simplistic, implausible and naive to dismiss it exclusively as the work of fools.
I have no difficulty with the concept that off-the-field criteria should have a bearing on whether a club wins or retains its premier status (this remains the case now in terms of licensing, 65% rule etc).
By creating a system whereby performances in the previous 4 years were 1.5 times more important then that seasons results (and a whopping 30% of the total points) is where the problem lies. This is directly akin to allocating a points deduction to each team in next seasons first division based on their respective performances from 2006 to 2009.
Crucially, this element of the process was the single biggest area that clubs could not effect after the system was declared.
Even a fool would have an understanding that the process presented had the effect of handing significant advantages to certain clubs, and disadvantages to others.
Obviously only those directly involved will know the true motivation within the FAI/IAG for the obvious gerrymandering - others are left to speculate.
The play-off farce is not the central issue at all - but it was simply a further bit of FAI/IAG duplicity and a futile attempt "to give an appearance of legality" to the farce. While I accept that the FAI did not declare it to be a "promotion/relegation" playoff (promotion/relegation obviously being guaranteed to no one), they did little to clarify this misconception in the media and among the sporting public.
The inclusion of UCD was puzzling and perhaps illustrated some shortcomings in their gerrymandering process. I imagine that their need to create an illusion of fairness prevented them from simply selecting all their desired clubs (even during the worst of electoral gerrymandering in Northern Ireland, some "undesirables" got elected). Perhaps if they were to repeat the exercise (franchise football?), they will have learned to iron out these blips!
So next time Dundalk qualify for Europe can we expect their fans to complain about the unfair advantage they gained from the performances of Irish teams over the previous 5 years, and each of them weighted equally to boot
And, while past performance is not an indicator of future returns, in this case it was a valid basis for determining the ability to compete in the premier. 5 years is an arbitrary number [see above for some kind of precedence], but your issue with the results that year being worth less than the previous FOUR years [together] is just plain wrong headed - in essence that year was worth, roughly, three times any single previous year, so there was, in theory, scope to overcome a reasonable deficit.
Even a fool would understand that there are only two possible reasons for bringing this up AGAIN
Where did he get that from? All clubs had to submit/present a five year plan to the IAG.
That's true; it shows that all clubs were treated equally.
But I don't think the process had all that much credibility in the respect of the grading of teams on their off the field points. The committee were "particularly impressed with our 5 year plan" (quote from journalist that was there PM'd to me by pineapple stu on the day). Given that our five year plan consisted of winning the Premier Division and having a full Irish international play for us it seems that putting down the most ambitious stuff you could think of rather than what was realistically achievable and what the club would actually attempt to achieve.
What are you on about? The playoff at the end of the season has always been there for the past number of years.
Much in the same way that Derry fans (ridiculously) whinge about an anti-Derry bias in refs, I think some of the Dundalk fans are drastically overestimating how much those in power considered the situation their club, and by extension the situation of other clubs during the whole IAG process.
The FAI developed what they thought was an objective criteria, applied it and the cards fell the way they fell. The playoff is a smokescreen (pardon the pun given what happened).
The whole IAG/FAI takeover process lost credibility because of the problems that have happened to nearly the clubs ranked highly off the field since the ranking process, not because of what happened Dundalk or Galway in isolation.
I remember knowing Rovers didn't really have to win the FD that year because of (somewhat monetarily ambitious) performances in previous seasons...Dundalk could've won the league and still not made a difference.
Everyone knew this..what was surprising was Waterford's ranking
The Model Club
Tell all the Bohs you know
that we've gone and won two-in-a-row
and it's not gonna be three
and it's not gonna be four
it's more likely to be 5-1.
Spurious argument - each Irish club that qualifies gains (or loses) in this way.So next time Dundalk qualify for Europe can we expect their fans to complain about the unfair advantage they gained from the performances of Irish teams over the previous 5 years, and each of them weighted equally to boot
If you actually believe this, you appear to be in a very small minority.
Clearly no reasonable scope, as evidenced by the previously stated facts that Dundalk finished 2nd in the division, won the play-off, and were ranked joint 8th in the off-the-field criteria.
In any case I am content to let the issue rest, and consign it to history, and davour the fact that Dundalk are finally back in the premier.
Glad to hear you're finally letting go, and it's only taken near three years.
Take off the tinted specs for a moment and ask yourself exactly what fairer system could have been used. If historic results had not been taken into account then it really could have all boiled down to who had the best powerpoint show.
Taking into account historic results Dundalk had to overcome, unreasonable, deficits to Shamrock Rovers, Waterford, UCD, Bray, Harps and - the elephant in the room as far as your conspiracy theory is concerned - Dublin City. As has been stated previously, even, had Dundalk won the first devision, it was highly unlikely they would have been invited to the new league because they been languishing in the graveyard for nigh on a decade. And, they were never going to score enough points to suddenly leapfrog enough teams to be in the top twelve.
Maybe just use the results of the season in question, you know like happens every year?
We're not arrogant, we're just better.
Can I make it absolutely clear that I didn't start this thread and the subject heading is that of the site Moderator, Pineapple Student, and not mine.
I also think that it is totally inappropriate for Moderators to be going around picking subject headings And typing stuff and then attributing it to others. In my book that is an abuse of their position and powers.
Last edited by SMorgan; 08/09/2009 at 7:03 AM.
Neale Fenn on retiring: 'I think once you finish you might as well finish rather than making all sorts of comebacks.'
But the thread is full of Dundalk fans alleging that you were kept out of the reconstituted Premier Division by a wilfull act of the FAI, acting in cahoots with the IAG and Galway.
Thats pretty much the definition of a conspiracy.
You completely missed the point.
Regardless of whether anybody believes its an appropriate heading or not, it is not one I would have used and it should not have been attributed to me, by the moderator.
Even if something is true or not I am sure you wouldn't appreciate somebody posting something under your name. Where does this leave us?
When I reply to your message am I replying to something you wrote or the moderator wrote?
Neale Fenn on retiring: 'I think once you finish you might as well finish rather than making all sorts of comebacks.'
Valid point - if it is felt necessary to hive posts off to a new thread, it is reasonable to expect a Mod to assign a non-contentious title thread.
The fact that "Dundalk Paranoia" an "LoI fake moon landing" were added as tags speaks for itself.
Could it possibly be that the Moderator who imposed this thread title and tags was also centrally involved in the "debate"?
Posting Permissions
Quote
Bookmarks