IAG off field points

**pineapple stu** · 14/12/2006, 8:22 PM

Without bringing up the issue of whether this whole thing is a disgraceful way to choose a new league (oops!

), the off-field points do (a) appear to have been worked fairly according to the criteria at hand and (b) can probably be read as like marking licencing. In that case, the overall marks are interesting to see what clubs are fooked and which aren't...

Galway - 389
UCD - 374
Bohemians - 371
Derry City - 370
St Patrick's Athletic - 364
Sligo Rovers - 360
Bray Wanderers - 351
Dundalk - 348
Shamrock Rovers - 346
Drogheda United - 300
Waterford - 295
Longford Town - 284
Shelbourne - 278
Cork City - no figure yet

All the above are per the papers, bar Pat's (on their website) and Longford (only saw that on the Cork forum, so don't know if it's correct or not).

Obviously, Shels are in serious trouble, and the above reflects that. On the other hand, it's always been known that UCD are one of the best-run clubs in the league, and that's reflected above too. However, Longford, Waterford and Drogheda don't score that much higher than Shels. Longford are releasing a lot of players as they seem to be broke, but Drogheda aren't. Are they next to implode?

Anyone got any scores for Cork or other other seven teams? Interesting to see how they shape up against those above.

**Mr A** · 14/12/2006, 8:25 PM

An interesting think here is that apparently even the clubs haven't been told how the points break down yet, just given a total.

Apparently they'll get 'feedback' over the coming weeks if they want it. That's FAI transparency for you.

**Student Mullet** · 14/12/2006, 8:33 PM

Originally Posted by Galway Harps

An interesting think here is that apparently even the clubs haven't been told how the points break down yet, just given a total.

Apparently they'll get 'feedback' over the coming weeks if they want it. That's FAI transparency for you.

I mark the reports for Computer Labs here in UCD and I can tell you that the reason for that is because the FAI don't want to have to defend their decisions. If they gave a detailed breakdown they'd have people challenging them on specific points where as it's much more difficult to challenge an overall score. It's a trick I use all the time.

**pineapple stu** · 14/12/2006, 8:39 PM

Points for everyone as posted on the Waterford forum and apparently from the Daily Mail. Doesn't include Limerick as they didn't get a licence.

Off-Field:
1. Galway--------389
2. UCD-----------374
3. Bohemians----372
4. Derry City-----370
5. St. Pat's-------364
6. Sligo Rovers--360
7. Bray Wands---351
8. Cork City------348
8. Dundalk-------348
10. Shamrock R--346
11. Monaghan-----331
12. Cobh Rmbls---315
13. Finn Harps-----310
14. Athlone Town--305
15. Drogheda------300
16. Waterford----296
17. Longford-------284
18. Shelbourne----278
19. Kilkenny-------266
20. Kildare Cty----265

Monaghan well up there; Shels worst than all bar two clubs (and presumably Limerick as well).

**Poor Student** · 14/12/2006, 8:44 PM

There's an argument that safe clubs couldn't be arsed to argue their case much with the IAG. Apparently Ollie Byrne said he wasn't going to worry too much about the presentation. The same case is possibly true of Kilkenny and Kildare. Aren't Kilkenny one of the few sides in the league to turn a profit?

Some clubs must have taken a hit for antics at U-21 level too. I can't think of which specific clubs have done so but some have failed to field underage teams at times this season and in other years.

**Philly** · 14/12/2006, 9:10 PM

Kildare turned a profit last year anyway, not sure about Kilkenny.

Our PA announcer probably cost us 100 points

**stann** · 14/12/2006, 11:30 PM

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

Points for everyone as posted on the Waterford forum and apparently from the Daily Mail.

Not apparently, I have the (cough) paper in my hand now.
So it's about as official a release as we're going to get from the FAI.

**Magicme** · 15/12/2006, 10:56 AM

Well not being smart, but we did expect to do well on the off the field as there has been major efforts on that front in the past few years and our youth set up is well run (by a waterford man!). Our on the pitch is what has let us down but thats to be expected because despite all our efforts to field effective teams, we have to work within the strictest budget in the league to try to maintain our off the field activites. This will change and improve over the years but it does take time and patience to run a club well.

**Celdrog** · 15/12/2006, 11:27 AM

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

Longford are releasing a lot of players as they seem to be broke, but Drogheda aren't. Are they next to implode?

You wish !!

**pineapple stu** · 15/12/2006, 12:34 PM

Anything to put Doolin out of a job.

On a serious note, though, it coincides with lots of stories of bounced cheques from Drogheda in the thread here on the record fee between eL clubs, and also with the continued drawn-out nature of your new ground, which has people starting to wonder if it's ever going to take. Bouncing cheques is worrying, no matter how securely bankrolled you think you are.

**pete** · 16/12/2006, 11:23 AM

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

Points for everyone as posted on the Waterford forum and apparently from the Daily Mail...

So we have a bastion of Daily Mail readers in Waterford eh....

Drogs may have money but its not in a sustainable way (i.e. director loans) so i presume that affected their rating. However teams high up on the on field list probably had better things to be doing that worrying about the IAG process like winning games... Teams with Uefa licenced grounds would do better too which would mark Drogs down.

**SeanDrog** · 16/12/2006, 6:42 PM

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

Anything to put Doolin out of a job.

On a serious note, though, it coincides with lots of stories of bounced cheques from Drogheda in the thread here on the record fee between eL clubs, and also with the continued drawn-out nature of your new ground, which has people starting to wonder if it's ever going to take. Bouncing cheques is worrying, no matter how securely bankrolled you think you are.

Haven't read it anywhere regarding bounced cheques (not saying itn wasn't posted just I haven't seen them) now we all know you hate the drogs due to your obsession with Doolin, so instead of ranting about false accusations etc I would rather ask you to provide proof of these statements:

1. the threads regarding these so called cheques

2. your last line states we have bounced cheques (effectively) so proof of this also would be nice.

Thanking you in advance of your efforts in supplying this evidence. Once you provide me with these we will take the issue up with the club to see whats going on - as I trust an individual closely associated with UCD would not be spreading lies out of bitterness.

**ColinR** · 17/12/2006, 11:20 AM

stories come from the transfer thread - aparently our fee for tony grant bounced ..

**Macy** · 17/12/2006, 12:25 PM

Drogs also didn't cough up for Gartland until forced to when they wanted to sign Barrett. i.e. a year later.

You can partly put our releasing players down to benefactors not being as forthcoming as they used to be, so a move to a more sustainable structure. Any club that spends based on benefactors is ultimately risking the club on the whims of individuals.

**pineapple stu** · 17/12/2006, 7:00 PM

Originally Posted by SeanDrog

now we all know you hate the drogs due to your obsession with Doolin

as I trust an individual closely associated with UCD would not be spreading lies out of bitterness.

Oh for God's sake...

I noted there were stories about it. I never said I had proof. Macy has reiterated what I was talking about. I know Drogheda tried to wangle out of Pat Sullivan's transfer fee and his wages for a period.

An apology from you regarding the above quoted comments would be nice, but I won't be holding my breath...

**Student Mullet** · 17/12/2006, 10:06 PM

Originally Posted by Macy

Drogs also didn't cough up for Gartland until forced to when they wanted to sign Barrett. i.e. a year later.

Surley this can't be true. The UEFA License requires a club to have cleared all transfer debts and Drogs had the license so they must have paid the money on time. There's no other explanation possible.

**Macy** · 18/12/2006, 7:37 AM

Originally Posted by Student Mullet

The UEFA License requires a club to have cleared all transfer debts and Drogs had the license so they must have paid the money on time.

The Gartland Transfer was probably to soon before that licencing round, and the Barrett Transfer would've been before the next one. And would Longford have to report it anyway.

Originally Posted by Student Mullet

There's no other explanation possible.

A very big assumtion that Licencing has been in anyway effective or properly implemented.

**SeanDrog** · 18/12/2006, 8:19 AM

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

Oh for God's sake...

I noted there were stories about it. I never said I had proof. Macy has reiterated what I was talking about. I know Drogheda tried to wangle out of Pat Sullivan's transfer fee and his wages for a period.

An apology from you regarding the above quoted comments would be nice, but I won't be holding my breath...

Big back track in the tone of your post. Be honest with yourself as you fully know the message you were trying to promote.

As for an apology, well we know you hate us due to Doolin so it must be my reference saying that I trusted that someone closely related to UCD wouldn't spread lies (or to that effect) so do you want me to say that you do spread lies? are you sure?

**pineapple stu** · 19/12/2006, 9:10 PM

Back track? I fail utterly to see how. I noted that stories were going around, have stuck with that story and have been backed up. The stories have been backed up here, and yet you choose to ignore that and continue with made-up offence.

Your second sentence may sound smart to you, but actually it makes no sense. Clearly the apology sought is for your insinuation that my anti-Doolin-ness would cause me to to make up stories about the club he happens to be associated with at this moment.