Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 68

Thread: Fixtures published for 2022

  1. #41
    International Prospect Martinho II's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Killashee Longford
    Posts
    8,924
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    5,251
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    614
    Thanked in
    520 Posts
    A great debate lads. To be honest where were the Waterford stewards in all this? If they were expecting trouble why not search all Shamrock Rovers fans going to that game coming in ? I too think its harsh on the Shamrock Rovers fans.
    Daire Doyles red and black army

  2. #42
    International Prospect Nesta99's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    5,995
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,217
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,098
    Thanked in
    762 Posts
    I'd be the first to call for some serious penalty for fans' misbehaviour, my own club included, but its always going to be harsh on the club and the vast majority of fans that behave like normal people. It wouldnt be a surprise if it was the proverbial straw after eg flares in Oriel smoking out RTE and obscuring being able to see the game, flares at most cup finals, and that this happened during a live covered game etc. I'd have thought a suspended BCD sanction would have been appropriate with a big enough fine for Rovers and a lesser one for Waterford being responsible for security. It does set an potentially awkward precedent but it would be worse if Waterford as the home club were held most culpable as it could lead to some away fans misbehaving just to get a host club sanctioned and not care about the fine for their own club. The scrotes of course wont pay or care about fine for their own club either way.

    While its on a totally different level its not unprecedented for 'away' clubs/fans to be held accountable for misbehaviour. Linfield after playing Dundalk lost out on hosting a home European leg and got a hefty fine compared to Dundalk for security arrangements. All English clubs banned from European competitions for the trouble caused by one club's fans abroad. Now before I get accused of being ott in these examples Im not drawing a direct comparison and I know there was a much bigger overall problem politically and in the English game at those times - I just cant see how you can really sanction clubs other than predominantly the one whose fans have put people at risk!?

    Season ticket holders, club members, could or should be allowed attend but that will be divisive in its own way to many. Maybe setting up a pilot voluntary supporters' ID scheme could have worked for the FAI and as a good opportunity for Rovers to lead the way for similar schemes across the league, incentivise signing up but then individuals can be easier excluded if they cause trouble especially at away games where trouble makers wouldnt be known. Basically to be openly proactive on ridding clubs of these cretins without the sense of clamping down needed to be done by the governing body if there is a perception of clubs being too soft. If there is an appeals process to go then Id expect this to be overturned after all the early eyeballing - SRFC/FAI havent gone away ye know!

    *I should add that its extremely unfair on UCD if their fans dont get to attend, if they are then it could be the biggest ever attendance of 'UCD fans' at a league game ever!!

    I've read a H&S report from another ground last season where broadcast and technical staff were in fear for their lives and there were no Gardai present as the club concerned owed a significant sum to the Guards.

    Official complaints were made by various parties and other than a grovelling apology from the club nothing was done - no sanctions whatsoever. Can I assume based on the precedent set that the ground involved will now be closed should there be a repeat this season? I won't be holding my breath.
    Were they all mentored by Phillip Greene by any chance...Melodramatic much?? If they were in fear of smoke inhalation in Oriel Park for example then yeah not pleasant but in fear of lives - you'd need to give insight as to how or why before this injustice sticks as an example of a lack of imbalance by the FAI!

    I think it was also very clearly 2 idiots who weren't out to hurt anyone. They were aiming for the roof to begin with....the one right above their own heads...
    Aiming for the roof...Is that what they claimed and you believe it, come on oth, really...?!
    Last edited by Nesta99; 20/01/2022 at 11:42 PM.

  3. #43
    Reserves
    Joined
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    675
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    343
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    298
    Thanked in
    180 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Nesta99 View Post
    I'd be the first to call for some serious penalty for fans' misbehaviour, my own club included, but its always going to be harsh on the club and the vast majority of fans that behave like normal people. It wouldnt be a surprise if it was the proverbial straw after eg flares in Oriel smoking out RTE and obscuring being able to see the game, flares at most cup finals, and that this happened during a live covered game etc. I'd have thought a suspended BCD sanction would have been appropriate with a big enough fine for Rovers and a lesser one for Waterford being responsible for security. It does set an potentially awkward precedent but it would be worse if Waterford as the home club were held most culpable as it could lead to some away fans misbehaving just to get a host club sanctioned and not care about the fine for their own club. The scrotes of course wont pay or care about fine for their own club either way.

    While its on a totally different level its not unprecedented for 'away' clubs/fans to be held accountable for misbehaviour. Linfield after playing Dundalk lost out on hosting a home European leg and got a hefty fine compared to Dundalk for security arrangements. All English clubs banned from European competitions for the trouble caused by one club's fans abroad. Now before I get accused of being ott in these examples Im not drawing a direct comparison and I know there was a much bigger overall problem politically and in the English game at those times - I just cant see how you can really sanction clubs other than predominantly the one whose fans have put people at risk!?

    Season ticket holders, club members, could or should be allowed attend but that will be divisive in its own way to many. Maybe setting up a voluntary supporters' ID scheme could have worked for the FAI and as a good opportunity for Rovers to lead the way for similar schemes across the league, incentivise signing up but then individuals can be easier excluded if they cause trouble especially at away games where trouble makers wouldnt be known. Basically to be openly proactive on ridding clubs of these cretins without the sense of clamping down needed to be done by the governing body if there is a perception of clubs being too soft. If there is an appeals process to go then Id expect this to be overturned after all the early eyeballing - SRFC/FAI havent gone away ye know!

    *I should add that its extremely unfair on UCD if their fans dont get to attend, if they are then it could be the biggest ever attendance of 'UCD fans' at a league game ever!!



    Were they all mentored by Phillip Greene by any chance...Melodramatic much?? If they were in fear of smoke inhalation in Oriel Park for example then yeah not pleasant but in fear of lives - you'd need to give insight as to how or why before this injustice sticks as an example of a lack of imbalance by the FAI!



    Aiming for the roof...Is that what they claimed and you believe it, come on oth, really...?!
    Fair post.

    The bit in bold is what I heard from hoops who were close to them but yeah it could just have been the first thing they claimed after they got lifted by the other fans. There was no good answer! Does it matter though? They injured 3 Rovers fans and hit a Waterford player so regardless of where they were aiming, they didn't hit the target very well unless you think they wanted to hurt both parties?

    You might be right and it may have been a culmination of various dodgy events across the league but how is the punishment in any way fair if it's on only one club? Will they just let a few things build up and then dish out another punishment when they feel a tipping point has been reached or is there a hard and fast rule here? I don't like whataboutery in most cases but when multiple clubs had issues and one club gets the punishment then it's fair enough to cite the other examples. The firework at the RSC was the worst of the bunch to be fair as it was a repeater instead of a single rocket and it exploded unlike a flare although the lads in Oriel were lucky enough their effort didn't hit anyone. Again though, if this happened in Tallaght I could see an argument for a closure.

    Lastly, I think this should have been done and dusted last year. Starting the new season with this headline is no good for anyone.

  4. #44
    International Prospect Nesta99's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    5,995
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,217
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,098
    Thanked in
    762 Posts
    I dont think its fair on club or fans but I can see why the decision was made - starkly when a player and 3 fans were injured. It pushes the boat out in comparison to previous incidents where it was purely luck that people werent injured, or those clubs would be facing BCD. Its not particularly logical to separate similar behaviour but when injuries do actually happen the kneejerk reaction follows. It should be proactive rather than reactive of course and it was only a matter of time before injury happened and for that club to bear the brunt irrespective of other previous similar incidents. I reckon clubs will be taking this a whole lot more seriously now now that the FAI are cornered in to having to react to further incidents so it may well do the job at Rovers and elsewhere!?!

    Considering the leeway that UEFA have given clubs and international sides for some awful stuff by supporters and then fine Dundalk as much as the Spanish association among others, for one fan of 3000 having a Palestinian flag (which of course is recognised as a national by this country) I get the frustration and sense of the sanction being disproportionate. You have a point on it being poor PR as i'd even forgotten about it whereas now its centre stage rightly or wrongly.

  5. #45
    First Team WeAreRovers's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2002
    Posts
    1,926
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    49
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    71
    Thanked in
    47 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Nesta99 View Post
    Were they all mentored by Phillip Greene by any chance...Melodramatic much?? If they were in fear of smoke inhalation in Oriel Park for example then yeah not pleasant but in fear of lives - you'd need to give insight as to how or why before this injustice sticks as an example of a lack of imbalance by the FAI!
    I never mentioned Oriel Park. My 'melodrama' is literally a direct quote from the H&S report written by the unit manager who has decades of experience of outside broadcasts. Melodramatic he ain't. Other phrases used were 'grave concern' over safety of staff and a reference to the home club having 'little or no control' over events in their own ground. it's a damning read but hey let's sanction Rovers for events in an away ground.
    No One Likes Us, We Don't Care

  6. #46
    Reserves kksaints's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    399
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    22
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    50
    Thanked in
    31 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by WeAreRovers View Post
    I never mentioned Oriel Park. My 'melodrama' is literally a direct quote from the H&S report written by the unit manager who has decades of experience of outside broadcasts. Melodramatic he ain't. Other phrases used were 'grave concern' over safety of staff and a reference to the home club having 'little or no control' over events in their own ground. it's a damning read but hey let's sanction Rovers for events in an away ground.
    Is this report publicly available or is it an internal document?

  7. #47
    First Team WeAreRovers's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2002
    Posts
    1,926
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    49
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    71
    Thanked in
    47 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by kksaints View Post
    Is this report publicly available or is it an internal document?
    Internal for the parties involved.
    No One Likes Us, We Don't Care

  8. Thanks From:


  9. #48
    International Prospect Nesta99's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    5,995
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,217
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,098
    Thanked in
    762 Posts
    No I mentioned Oriel as an example of where I'm sure it was an uncomfortable experience for some RTE staff to work with the whole smoke thing. I didnt suggest that Oriel was the ground that this H&S report was from as obviously I dont know. You didnt mention Oriel but that doesnt rule it out and speculation beyond Oriel is going to be the Dublin Derby in Dalymount. Doesnt matter which ground really but I cant for the life of me think of an incident where TV coverage staff would have had their lives at risk, not being reported generally too and we all know how media hop on this sort of thing and supporters of other clubs would have a field day. Was anyone actually hurt? If not what grounds should that club be sanctioned. You sure you are not mixing up a report from 1995 in Landsdowne Rd as i'd have grave concerns about the validity of this 'report'.....melodramatic or BS!

    Quote Originally Posted by WeAreRovers View Post
    Internal for the parties involved.
    Convenient!

  10. #49
    Biased against YOUR club pineapple stu's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2002
    Location
    In the long grass
    Posts
    34,653
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    2,036
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    4,046
    Thanked in
    2,560 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by ontheotherhand View Post
    Well when the original argument are that some Rovers fans brought guns in and assaulted players (not your point) while all the other Rovers fans watched on in delight then I think another perspective is fair enough no? The intent doesn't diminish the risk so I'm definitely not saying it should have gone without punishment though. I just think that punishment should have been at the individual level in this case. At most the club should have been given a fine. This is a fine with an extra punishment for the fans. To punish Rovers fans and UCD fans on opening night is way over the top. Maybe we both agree that it's hard for Rovers to take any effective action here and that the punishment is therefore not only harsh but pointless as well though?

    In this case it's fairly easy to separate the club from the two involved. They were identified by rovers fans (easy enough what with the cannon in their hand), given a few slaps and handed to the guards on the night. Criminal charges and bans would have been enough. Again, if it had happened in Tallaght I'd have a different take.
    I think on the incident themselves, the guys were handed over to the Gardaí and that's certainly a good thing. If it was a one-off incidence of crowd trouble at Rovers games, I would absolutely say that that's the end of it. But it's not, and Rovers as a club probably have to address that side of things a bit more. And absolutely it's really hard. (And in fairness, it's easy (and fun ) to slag Rovers, but their problem is more that they've some knackers following them rather than an organised hooligan element like you see at some European clubs, which is much more of an issue)

    There's definitely arguments that while a stadium ban may make a club and its fans take more action than "just" a fine, it can also be of limited impact, and I think to be fair that's a point you're trying to make. But I think to try bring in the other arguments which you and others are doing - he was aiming for the roof (which is even more dangerous), it was only a repeater stick not a gun (I obviously didn't mean a bullet-laden handgun; a pellet gun is still a gun for example), they didn't mean any harm, I want to go and watch the game, the FAI have it in for us, blah blah covid mental health - those arguments all take away from the discussion which should be happening, and I've no real time for those.

    Quote Originally Posted by sbgawa
    The stadium bans work well because even if they get past the turnstiles the home stewards tend to know these guys.
    Its like life in general everyone knows the local gob****es.
    But how effective is that really? In a crowd of 5,000+, are you really going to spot these guys? What if they're wearing a scarf around their lower face or a hat or sunglasses or a beard? Does a steward approach someone and tell them to leave because they're banned and risk mistaken identity?

    Quote Originally Posted by sbgawa
    And what about the pyro display when UCD won the playoff game??
    You know im being tongue in cheek but where does it stop?
    Yeah, flares on the pitch is bad* and you're right that precedent-setting is always risky. But I do think a firework like yer man let off is inherently more dangerous because of how it explodes and goes any number of ways at speed and I think you could say that the punishment for that doesn't necessarily apply to a flare dropped onto the sidelines.


    * - which was Bray, not us! UCD flares were just held up. I don't mind that, though I know others have different views on it.
    Last edited by pineapple stu; 21/01/2022 at 1:50 PM.

  11. #50
    International Prospect mypost's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2004
    Location
    foot.ie Night Shift
    Posts
    5,072
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    241
    Thanked in
    171 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by ontheotherhand
    Maybe if it happened in Tallaght I could see the argument for this but punishing the likes of you, me and the thousands who were looking forward to their first game of the season does nothing at all to stop it from happening again which should be the aim surely? It's essentially a fine in terms of gate receipts gone but with added punishment for regular fans. Make the fine heftier if you want the club to pay attention but I'm still not sure what the FAI expect the club to do outside of bans.
    Are you sure you were looking forward to playing UCD? When everyone looks forward to seeing the fixture list, there are lots of games they look out for. I think UCD would not be top of many lists. It's not like the away team allocation is going to sell out.

    It could have been worse, it could have been extended or a ban for a game people really look forward to. It probably will be successfully appealed anyway.

  12. #51
    Reserves
    Joined
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    675
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    343
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    298
    Thanked in
    180 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by mypost View Post
    Are you sure you were looking forward to playing UCD? When everyone looks forward to seeing the fixture list, there are lots of games they look out for. I think UCD would not be top of many lists. It's not like the away team allocation is going to sell out.

    It could have been worse, it could have been extended or a ban for a game people really look forward to. It probably will be successfully appealed anyway.
    I'm sure yeah.

  13. #52
    First Team Calcio Jack's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,047
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    110
    Thanked in
    69 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by mypost View Post
    Are you sure you were looking forward to playing UCD? When everyone looks forward to seeing the fixture list, there are lots of games they look out for. I think UCD would not be top of many lists. It's not like the away team allocation is going to sell out.

    It could have been worse, it could have been extended or a ban for a game people really look forward to. It probably will be successfully appealed anyway.
    Covid restrictions gone and mypost back…. Surely life can’t get much better 😜

  14. #53
    Reserves
    Joined
    Oct 2018
    Posts
    592
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    178
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    119
    Thanked in
    83 Posts
    https://twitter.com/markmccadden/sta...006542339?s=21

    Rovers UCD now won’t be played behind closed doors and the fine rovers received has now increased to €5k instead. Rovers be delighted with that, 5k is a peanuts fee for the crime of that nature and will barely make a dent on gate receipts that night.


    On another note it’s great to see ticket sales going so well across the board in the league. Pats sold the original presidents cup allocation of 800 in a couple of days and then received an increase to 1300 which have sold. Looks like it’ll be by far the biggest attendance the competition has ever had. Likewise the pats away allocation of 900 for the shels match in Tolka on the opening night were snapped up and plenty of pats fans have had to buy home end tickets for it.

    EDIT: Pats have today been given another 200 tickets to take the allocation up to 1500.

    Along with pre-season numbers reported across the league being up and no covid restrictions we could see some big crowds this year
    Last edited by 2 Year Contract; 09/02/2022 at 1:22 PM.
    Paaatrick's Agletic

  15. #54
    Seasoned Pro NeverFeltBetter's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Gouldavoher
    Posts
    4,772
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    255
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    728
    Thanked in
    510 Posts
    Would love to see how that decision was reached.

  16. #55
    Seasoned Pro sbgawa's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2016
    Location
    Dublin
    Posts
    4,933
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    158
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    697
    Thanked in
    514 Posts
    Someone with a bit of cop on realised that promoting the league by having the narrative on opening day that the champions are playing behind closed doors because of crowd trouble was a bad idea I presume.

  17. #56
    First Team
    Joined
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    1,713
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    8
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    197
    Thanked in
    142 Posts
    The FAI have a habit of using a sledgehammer to crack a walnut policy when it comes to decision making it seems.
    Rovers board went to them, outlined their appeal based on common sense, and common sense has now prevailed.

    Great to hear about ticket sales for the presidents cup going well.
    My nephews 1st game so hopefully he gets hooked to the experience and another LOI fan is created.

  18. #57
    Godless Commie Scum
    Joined
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Co Wickla
    Posts
    11,396
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    138
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    656
    Thanked in
    436 Posts
    Didn't realise tickets were going well, but got tickets this morning for the Presidents Cup for me and the daughter. I think the cup final has her hooked already, at least for live football.
    If you attack me with stupidity, I'll be forced to defend myself with sarcasm.

  19. #58
    International Prospect Nesta99's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    5,995
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,217
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,098
    Thanked in
    762 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by placid casual View Post
    The FAI have a habit of using a sledgehammer to crack a walnut policy when it comes to decision making it seems.
    Rovers board went to them, outlined their appeal based on common sense, and common sense has now prevailed.
    I think this has been well played by the FAI - they dished out a harsh punishment knowing it would be appealed and an independent appeals committee reduces the punishment. Win win, FAI can say they took action, Rovers can say they were punished with a big fine, fans get to go but club + fans will be on their toes if someone looks like they're are going to step out of line. PR of having the reigning champions opening game bcd avoided so credit where credit due. Bradley's comments after made me smile in their very Irish manner of over/under statement and stating the obvious, '"I felt the ban was a bit severe. Are we delighted with the fine? Obviously not. But we have to pay it.


  20. #59
    Reserves Jd2793's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    329
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    17
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    31
    Thanked in
    27 Posts
    can anyone tell me if suspensions for yellow cards carry over from previous season or was that scrapped ? I see Mandriou + Whelan both on 5 for last season but whelans came in play off v bray and mandriou started v drogs after a yellow v bohs?

  21. #60
    First Team
    Joined
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    1,634
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    473
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    491
    Thanked in
    296 Posts
    Anyone know why there are no Premier Division fixtures scheduled for the weekend of 25th/26th March ?

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. 2022 fixtures to be released on monday
    By Foot.ie in forum St Patrick's Athletic
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 16/12/2021, 1:30 PM
  2. FAI: 2018 FARE Report is published
    By Foot.ie in forum Football Feeds
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10/12/2018, 12:20 PM
  3. Attendance figures now published.....
    By AnnaghRed in forum Irish League
    Replies: 88
    Last Post: 03/05/2009, 10:21 PM
  4. Anybody on here ever written anything thats been published
    By Block G Raptor in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 07/01/2008, 1:08 PM
  5. fake football photo published
    By the 12 th man in forum World League Football
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 19/05/2004, 7:25 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •