Under 19's away for 10 days in Bulgaria

**dcfc_dee** · 15/10/2010, 10:30 PM

Or we could refer to the instance in question here? Any of these is good for you? Are you here to tell me that McEleney's recovery was genuine and that he went from being unable to perform in an under 19s international match on the 7th to being able to play 90 minutes on the 9th and score 2 goals? Of course you are. Dishonesty is the Derry way.
.

Were you watching the same game as me. Paddy didnt play 90 mins. He was subbed around 75/80 mins

**Derry** · 16/10/2010, 10:45 AM

Originally Posted by CSFShels

Summed it up much better than I could. Derry fans shouldn't assume innocence just because the FAI haven't punished them. On that basis, we should assume every team has always been 65% compliant.

Exactly, we know there are many teams fixing the books to get past the FAI's rules, but Derry City were the only team punished, why was that.

God boy's you are really letting yourself down. Take your oil and get on with it. Sure next season Shels will get another (their 5th) attempt to get out of the first division.

Can any of you tell me why there was no comments from anyone, when other players in the past done the exact same thing as Derry did. ie Sheppard?

**Mr A** · 16/10/2010, 11:11 AM

Originally Posted by Derry

Exactly, we know there are many teams fixing the books to get past the FAI's rules, but Derry City were the only team punished, why was that.

God boy's you are really letting yourself down. Take your oil and get on with it. Sure next season Shels will get another (their 5th) attempt to get out of the first division.

Can any of you tell me why there was no comments from anyone, when other players in the past done the exact same thing as Derry did. ie Sheppard?

Erm, you know you're quoting a Shels fan right? You're hardly the only team that was punished. And kicking Wellvan out was doing you a favour as they were massively insolvent anyway. And another massive favour was parachuting you into the first despite the application deadline being passed. But sure keep on acting as if you're oppressed.

**a.a.d** · 16/10/2010, 11:28 AM

Having read this whole thread from start to finish(which I hope comes soon) I can't see where the cheating aspect has come from. The lad got injured playing a game on the Friday he let's the management team know about this straight away then he is released from the squad.

Now the management team could have Made a decision to bring him anyway but instead decided to let him withdraw from the team and call in another fully fit player to take his place. Although the intial injury looks worse than it turned out (which happens all the time, but you generally wouldn't know for 24hours) it's to late then to be called back into the squad. Which it seems the FAI have agreed with in this case.

He then has a late fitness test before the game the following week to see if he can play the game and passes so he plays. Now at the same time Shelbourne have already emailed the FAI regarding his ability to play in said game, the FAI inform them he can so one can take it they also informed Derry City he can play.

So Shelbourne have been informed he can play and Derry have been informed he can play which would then suggest that no actual cheating took place. It was all above board and ratified by the FAI before hand.

I know people will say "but there's a rule and rules are rules" but for some reason or another the FAI are taking a common sense approach to this particular rule and are aware that players recover from injurys and so the can't really stop them playing for their club if fit and if the player was on a wage based on how many games he played they would be restricting his ability to earn a wage. We have all seen this in the league before and a case in point this season is Karl Sheppard for Galway united.

Anyway the main argument on here from Shelbourne fans regarding this latest test to the rule is that Derry City had an unfair advantage by having this one player available to play n this particular game therefore suggesting that Shelbourne were not happy that they didn't have the unfair advantage by playing against Derry without the player.

Anyway what's done is done and what's lost is lost and gone forever.

The end

**passerrby** · 16/10/2010, 12:22 PM

Originally Posted by a.a.d

but for some reason or another the FAI are taking a common sense approach to this particular rule .

there is the only part of your long statement that is telling the unknown reason is obvous to all .the same common sense they dont take any other time.
lets call a spade a spade your club tried it on and the league looked the other way..i wonder why

**a.a.d** · 16/10/2010, 12:46 PM

Originally Posted by passerrby

there is the only part of your long statement that is telling the unknown reason is obvous to all .the same common sense they dont take any other time.
lets call a spade a spade your club tried it on and the league looked the other way..i wonder why

but it's obvious that they use the same common sense on this rule ALL the time hence nothing ever been brought to light about other clubs who have been in the same situation not just this year but in previous years as well. As for Derry trying it on, How??? Shelbourne were told before the game the player was okay to play so that gave derry the all clear.

It's a nothing story which if it wasn't anything to do with Derry City would not have even merited a mention never mind a thread being hijacked.

**passerrby** · 16/10/2010, 2:23 PM

Originally Posted by a.a.d

but it's obvious that they use the same common sense on this rule ALL the time hence nothing ever been brought to light about other clubs who have been in the same situation not just this year but in previous years as well. As for Derry trying it on, How??? Shelbourne were told before the game the player was okay to play so that gave derry the all clear.

It's a nothing story which if it wasn't anything to do with Derry City would not have even merited a mention never mind a thread being hijacked.

because other clubs are told that if the players is not available he will not be available to his club.
I agree derry did proberly get permission to play him (which I think the league had no right to give)
and it is no a nothing story because it ensures derry will be league champions and are promoted in line with the wishes of the league.

**a.a.d** · 16/10/2010, 4:29 PM

Ah now come on Passerby have some faith, there is still a lot of football to be played yet before anybody gets handed a trophy I'm I know that's the way Mick Cooke will be looking at it. One result over the length of the league season does not win you a league. Monaghan have points on the board Derry don't and although people are saying tonights game is a walkover anything can happen as well as this Derry have a tricky game against harps tonokay as well.

**pineapple stu** · 17/10/2010, 10:10 AM

Can any Derry fan actually make refernece to the rule quoted while discussing this topic instead of bringing up a nonsensical anti-Derry forum bias?

**SwanVsDalton** · 17/10/2010, 1:30 PM

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

Can any Derry fan actually make refernece to the rule quoted while discussing this topic instead of bringing up a nonsensical anti-Derry forum bias?

A couple of us already did...

**MariborKev** · 17/10/2010, 3:38 PM

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

Can any Derry fan actually make refernece to the rule quoted while discussing this topic instead of bringing up a nonsensical anti-Derry forum bias?

To be fair PS,

There are as many of us trying to debate the actual point. A few fans of other clubs seem intent to see this as some sort of conspiracy.....

**pineapple stu** · 18/10/2010, 9:23 AM

Fair points.

So apart from those Derry fans who are discussing the topic instead of bringing up a nonsensical anti-Derry forum bias, can any Derry fan actually make reference to the rule quoted while discussing this topic instead of bringing up a nonsensical anti-Derry forum bias?

**osarusan** · 18/10/2010, 9:51 AM

I think use of the word 'cheating' is harsh. According to Derry fans, in the game on the 1st, McEleny went off injured in the second half. He / the club decides he's not fit to travel and pulls him out of the international squad. He gets over the injury and plays against Shels eight days later. There's nothing very unusual or suspicious about any of that (imo).

The rule is apparently this:

Any Participant Club refusing to release a player(s) selected for an International or Representative panel
under the jurisdiction of the FAI shall not be entitled to play such players(s) until a period of five (5)
calendar days has elapsed from the date of such fixture(s). Any selected player failing to join the panel shall
not be permitted to play for his Club for the same period. Call-ups of registered players by Associations
other than the FAI for International duty are governed by the regulations of FIFA.

Now, if this rule is the entirety of the FAI's position on the issue, with no leeway of any kind, as McEleny was selected for the panel but failed to join it, then he should not have been allowed to play for 5 days after the international fixture he would have played in (on the 7th).

But it looks like this is not the entirety of the FAI's position, and there is leeway, which there should be, in my opinion. It is just that it is not clear how a player/club becomes exempt from the application of this rule. For one, it seems that a FAI doctor must examine any player pulling out (which nobody here seemed aware of). As this didn't happen, Derry have no case to answer.

(What confuses me is how any player/club would ever fall foul of this rule. A FAI doctor pronounces them uninjured but the club still withdraws them?)

**nigel-harps1954** · 19/10/2010, 4:44 AM

My head hurts.

**SkStu** · 19/10/2010, 3:00 PM

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

Can any Derry fan actually make refernece to the rule quoted while discussing this topic instead of bringing up a nonsensical anti-Derry forum bias?

so most posters here were accusing Derry fans of their club breaking rules without actually knowing the rule or quoting the rule broken?

Priceless. Typical of this forum.

**Dodge** · 19/10/2010, 3:13 PM

Nope, the rule they broke was clearly linked a couple of times.

Whether they're charged with anything or allowed to break it (or any other point of view you want to take on it) is immaterial.

(And as I said earlier, I don't mind either way)

**SkStu** · 19/10/2010, 3:18 PM

ah okay - misread the post quoted.

i dont really care either - what i object to is the gnashing of teeth and clamours for points deductions from so many fans of teams who are unaffected by any "breach" etc... it is really quite pathetic and typical of the attitiude of a lot of posters on this forum.

**pineapple stu** · 19/10/2010, 3:50 PM

Fans are perfectly entitled to complain if a rule is broken even if it doesn't affect their team. What's to say it won't affect us next time? If there's a rule, either implement it or write it out of the rule book. Having a rule broken, only for the FAI to say "Ah sure it's grand; there's no case to answer" with absolutely no reason given at all is a farce. And it's the sort of farce which has blighted our league for years, and which needs to be sorted.

**SkStu** · 19/10/2010, 4:13 PM

but the default position of most posters in calling for points deductions really grates on my nerves. This is a minor breach (if it is even a breach) that would be amply resolved with a very small fine.

**osarusan** · 19/10/2010, 4:19 PM

The reason fans are suggesting a points deduction is because that's what the FAI rulebook indicates is the penalty for breaking this rule. If it was indicated by the FAI that the punishment was a very small fine, no posters on here would be asking for a points deduction.