Jim Roddy - All-Ireland League

**pineapple stu** · 08/03/2006, 12:53 PM

So why hasn't it happened anywhere else in Europe in the last ten years (bar a couple of special instances like FC Vaduz and San Marino, where the country is too small to have a proper league and the country also has very close ties with the country whose leagues those clubs entered)? Why haven't the G14 broken away to form their own super league? Why should clubs have to vote on it - surely that's a restraint of trade?

Either way, a Celtic football league is complete pie in the sky. Just another of the utter absurdities to add weight - physically, not literally - to the Genesis Report.

**Schumi** · 08/03/2006, 1:44 PM

Originally Posted by Shimokita

If Celtic and Rangers move to the Premiership, I'd rather see a Celtic League forming (like there is in rugby). Any thoughts?

Unfeasable I think. The travelling costs would be too big.

**Bald Student** · 08/03/2006, 2:51 PM

One of the big advantages of an AIL that I see is that there would be enough teams of a reasonable quality to have a 16 team league so we would only have 2 rounds of games. It would make games more of an event if your home crowd only gets to see a team once a year.

The big thing though is publicity. There's a negative image that the league has which, in my opinion, is almost completly unwarrented. You'll oftem hear people say that the grounds in the eL are a dump but you never hear that criticism of rugby or gaa grounds even though their grounds can me much worse. For example, to bring the UCD rugby ground up to football standard will take about a million euro's worth of work.

Peple will come if they feel as though there is an exciting event on.

**dcfcsteve** · 08/03/2006, 4:59 PM

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

So why hasn't it happened anywhere else in Europe in the last ten years (bar a couple of special instances like FC Vaduz and San Marino, where the country is too small to have a proper league and the country also has very close ties with the country whose leagues those clubs entered)? Why haven't the G14 broken away to form their own super league? Why should clubs have to vote on it - surely that's a restraint of trade?

Firstly - just because something HASN'T happened, doesn't mean it never will, or more importantly can't. A clear legal precedent was set on this 12 years ago. To ignore that fact and claim anything else based purely on one's own unproven opinions is absurd.

Secondly - the Champions League has been crafted and re-crafted a number of times over the last decade by UEFA specifically to remove/delay the thread of break-aways occuring. That is abundantly clear to anyone who has been following European football closely. They've successfully kept the big boys (G14) happy - for now. Their ability to do so ongoing is in question, however. So the main reason why a breakaway hasn't happend to-date is that the key clubs involved have managed to get what they wanted (i.e. more big games and more revenue) without taking such drastic steps.

Thirdly - the reason, for example, English clubs would need to vote to accept the Old Firm into the English structure should be patently obvious. All football Associations have defined sets of rules - including rules governing how new teams can enter their structure etc. You cannot ignore those rules and just parachute teams in, as that would in itself be illegal by not following the association's guidelines. The organisation's own governing rules take precedence with regards the governing of its behaviour - unless those rules in-of themselves contradict national or European law. The rules on how teams get admitted etc into the leagues do not contradict restraint of trade law, as they are the same for all teams regardless of where they originate from. So - any team who unwillingly got hoofed-out of the Premiership/Championship to make way for the Old Firm would take legal recourse on the basis of the association not following it's own rules, and would win their case. If WBA unwillingly lost their Premier place to Accrington Stanley next year, they would be able to have it reversed legally due to the rules not being followed. Likewise if they lost it to the Old Firm unwillingly. The rule is consistent, regardless fo where the teams originate from. The organisation's own rules take precedent, so long as they don't specifically conflict with higher laws. Which in this case they don't.

Pineapple - I've quoted to you the legal case in which this ruling was made. I've also given you details of the former FIFA/UEFA Ruling Committee member who directly explained all of this to me. What more will it take for you to accept that what I'm saying is an established fact, rather than continue to ignore it in-favour of your own base-less assumptions ??

**pineapple stu** · 08/03/2006, 6:13 PM

Originally Posted by dcfcsteve

Pineapple - I've quoted to you the legal case in which this ruling was made. I've also given you details of the former FIFA/UEFA Ruling Committee member who directly explained all of this to me. What more will it take for you to accept that what I'm saying is an established fact, rather than continue to ignore it in-favour of your own base-less assumptions ??

I don't know...I suppose losing your history of being able to talk the hind legs off a donkey and yet still be fundamentally wrong...boy who cried wolf and all that...

**Bald Student** · 08/03/2006, 6:18 PM

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

I don't know...I suppose losing your history of being able to talk the hind legs off a donkey and yet still be fundamentally wrong...boy who cried wolf and all that...

The difference here is that he's fundamentally right. I can't think of any case of a club which wanted to move country being stopped but there are plenty of clubs who were allowed.

**pineapple stu** · 08/03/2006, 6:26 PM

Originally Posted by Bald Student

there are plenty of clubs who were allowed.

Who? OK, you have the likes of Derry (special case due to political considerations), Gretna (again special case because they had been playing in England but were based in Scotland, so they were moving back home), Vaduz (special case as the Liechtenstein league disbanded and all its clubs entered the Swiss league; Liechtenstein and Switzerland have very close ties), San Marino (again, very close ties between San Marino and Italy), but all those have special cases attached.

Bar Celtic and Rangers, I haven't heard of anyone wanting to move leagues (and I imagine there are a few - the likes of Anderlecht, Ajax, Rosenborg, Skonto Riga, Lyon would be prime examples of clubs who could well feel they have outgrown their league), which would by exntesion mean you wouldn't have heard of many clubs not being allowed. The most likely reason I see for this is that they simply aren't allowed and they know it. UEFA and FIFA have oftentimes stated their opposition, but I don't think I've ever heard the legal cases Steve's referring to being mentioned by anyone - the clubs concerned, media, etc. Doesn't mean it's not there, but I'm sceptical nonetheless.

**A face** · 08/03/2006, 10:45 PM

Originally Posted by Shimokita

If Celtic and Rangers move to the Premiership, I'd rather see a Celtic League forming (like there is in rugby). Any thoughts?

But its a fairly cr�p league without them though isn't it ... what would be the point, what would we have to gain?

Nah forget it.

**Magicme** · 08/03/2006, 10:54 PM

Oi stop using us as an example....Kildare County and Dublin City (among others am sure) havent been in Europe either.....THIS IS OUR YEAR!

**dcfcsteve** · 08/03/2006, 11:19 PM

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

Who? OK, you have the likes of Derry (special case due to political considerations), Gretna (again special case because they had been playing in England but were based in Scotland, so they were moving back home), Vaduz (special case as the Liechtenstein league disbanded and all its clubs entered the Swiss league; Liechtenstein and Switzerland have very close ties), San Marino (again, very close ties between San Marino and Italy), but all those have special cases attached.

Bar Celtic and Rangers, I haven't heard of anyone wanting to move leagues (and I imagine there are a few - the likes of Anderlecht, Ajax, Rosenborg, Skonto Riga, Lyon would be prime examples of clubs who could well feel they have outgrown their league), which would by exntesion mean you wouldn't have heard of many clubs not being allowed. The most likely reason I see for this is that they simply aren't allowed and they know it. UEFA and FIFA have oftentimes stated their opposition, but I don't think I've ever heard the legal cases Steve's referring to being mentioned by anyone - the clubs concerned, media, etc. Doesn't mean it's not there, but I'm sceptical nonetheless.

Pineapple - there's no way I can say this without sounding harsh, but your consistent assertion of personal assumption over stated and sourced fact is really starting to bore now.

If you think I'm talking sh!t - fine. But go away and come back with the information to prove it. Google to your heart's content on the matter; write to Lord Blackburn himself, or even write to yer feckin MEP and ask for clarification if you're really that bothered. But otherwise - please shut the feck up and stop boring the arse off all of us, just because you refuse to have your own cherished opinions over-ruled by trivial points such as established judicial fact and the word of a former UEFA/FIFA ruling committee member.....

**Lux Interior** · 09/03/2006, 1:15 AM

Originally Posted by Maribor

Lux,

Some of the mid ninetines years were fairly woeful too

Conversely, Kev, those years you talk about (including the annus horriblis of 1993/94) seen some of the biggest away supports I've known since I've been following the Glens (and that's going on nearly 30 years now).

When our lads get together for a drunken blether about great games, the 'Cassidy Years' of 94-97 always feature highly. Something perverse about that, I think.

Interestingly, last year's title torpor was watched by a relatively low number of fans (if only we could attract even half the 7,000 who turned up in the home end on 23/4/05, we'd be like Shels, eh jolly rodge? Am I catching on?).

**pineapple stu** · 09/03/2006, 10:51 PM

Originally Posted by dcfcsteve

Google to your heart's content on the matter

Took your advice and did a google search...eventually found it (after linking in here several times!). It does appear that a critical relevant fact was that the clubs concerned were playing in the English league at the time, as they had a right to as there was no Welsh league when they entered the English leagues. The Welsh FA then ordered those clubs to leave the English league and play in the Welsh league. They refused. Given that they had an option of playing in either league, the FAW's ordering the Welsh clubs to leave the English league to play in the Welsh league or to play English league games in England was a restriction of trade. However, nowhere does the summary I read (300-ish KB pdf version here) does it refer to a situation where clubs do not already have an option under UEFA rules to play in a different league.

It may well be that that case can be offered as some sort of precedent; however, the relevant facts are different and I don't see any reason why that case of itself should conclusively allow an All-Ireland league.

**Bald Student** · 09/03/2006, 11:04 PM

I'm not a leagle eagle but my own view is that if both sides of this island decided to go ahead with an AIL, UEFA would be afraid to take a court case and call it another exception.

**Slash/ED** · 09/03/2006, 11:59 PM

Originally Posted by NY Hoop

Same here!

Rovers have won 10 games in Europe, shels 6.

KOH

Irrelevent, Shels have won more ties, nobody remembers nor gives a toss about which loser won which one off match on their way out over two legs.

**anto eile** · 10/03/2006, 12:18 AM

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

However, nowhere does the summary I read (300-ish KB pdf version here) does it refer to a situation where clubs do not already have an option under UEFA rules to play in a different league..

uefa rules versus european law.therel be only only one winner.not uefa btw

**dcfcsteve** · 10/03/2006, 12:38 AM

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

Took your advice and did a google search...eventually found it (after linking in here several times!). It does appear that a critical relevant fact was that the clubs concerned were playing in the English league at the time, as they had a right to as there was no Welsh league when they entered the English leagues. The Welsh FA then ordered those clubs to leave the English league and play in the Welsh league. They refused. Given that they had an option of playing in either league, the FAW's ordering the Welsh clubs to leave the English league to play in the Welsh league or to play English league games in England was a restriction of trade. However, nowhere does the summary I read (300-ish KB pdf version here) does it refer to a situation where clubs do not already have an option under UEFA rules to play in a different league.

It may well be that that case can be offered as some sort of precedent; however, the relevant facts are different and I don't see any reason why that case of itself should conclusively allow an All-Ireland league.

A former member of FIFA and UEFA's ruling committee, who just so happened to be the President of the Welsh FA when they were taken to court over this very case, repeatedly confirmed to me directly and publically in a room full of sports academics and sports professionals (i.e. not some sort of off-the-record private conversation) that under European Law - as confirmed in this case - there was nothing legal that UEFA or the SFA could do to stop the Old Firm joining the English structure if the English clubs wanted to accept them.

Not only did you find nothing in your lengthy Google search to contradict this assertion - I think you'll excuse me (and seemingly the majority of people on this thread) if they accept his learned and directly-experienced word over your baseless personal assumptions on this matter...

C'mon Pineapple - stick to your maths and give up the ghost on this one.....

**dancinpants** · 10/03/2006, 5:47 AM

Originally Posted by Slash/ED

Irrelevent, Shels have won more ties, nobody remembers nor gives a toss about which loser won which one off match on their way out over two legs.

If we leave the coefficient out of it, it depends upon the quality of the opposition really...that being the case I'd put the Shamrock Rovers ahead of Shels.

**CollegeTillIDie** · 10/03/2006, 11:23 PM

Originally Posted by dcfcsteve

In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king....

Congratulations to UCD on such a proud European record. Thank God your mediocrity before and since then has helped to keep that proud record intact.

I hope you've informed 'World Soccer' magazine....

At least we weren't beaten 4-0 by Welsh Opposition unlike some teams we could mention !

**dcfcsteve** · 11/03/2006, 3:52 AM

Originally Posted by CollegeTillIDie

At least we weren't beaten 4-0 by Welsh Opposition unlike some teams we could mention !

Who was beaten 4:0 by a Welsh team......?

**pineapple stu** · 11/03/2006, 8:37 AM

Derry 0-4 Cardiff, 1988/89 Cup Winners' Cup.

By the way, do you want me to explain the difference between "baseless personal assumptions" and relevant facts in case law?

Facts, Steve, facts!