Longford Forum

Local Championship

(Oldest Posts First) - Go To The Latest Post


Replying To keeper7:  "The CCC were left with no choice going by the rules but to issue that suspension."
That is not true. You have repeated that lie a number of times now, and no matter how many times you repeat it, it still won't be true. The July 31st date was arbitrarily set by the Longford County Board. The rule book doesn't have a prescribed timeline for payment of fees. The County Board could have done what any other CB in the country would have done and in the context of the fact that Leinster had not conducted hearings from March thru end of July due to Covid, extended the fee deadline the far side of the hearing, or had a conversation with Killoe about it. They chose (were not mandated) to do neither. They also chose to apply the full force of the rule via the ban. I will repeat again that there is no similar precedent for any County Board in the country applying that extent of ban on any club for a fine non-payment. The Longford County Board stand alone in their reaction, and they had a choice, they had many many choices. They chose an option which was clearly aimed at shutting the club down on the issue and the ref-gate elements therein.

arcadia (Longford) - Posts: 163 - 28/08/2020 11:33:41    2289475

Link

Replying To keeper7:  "The CCC were left with no choice going by the rules but to issue that suspension."
The CCC have plenty of scope in terms of non-payment of fine, ranging from a reminder of non-payment, to an increase in the fine, right the way through a range of options up to the nuclear last option of 48week suspension of club activities.

botheyesclosed (Longford) - Posts: 76 - 28/08/2020 14:06:10    2289501

Link

Replying To botheyesclosed:  "I know an ultimatum in terms of "we'll let you back in if you shut up" is a bully tactic and would not be acceptable in any walk of life. The issue is not around any player, underage or not. It is "allegedly" about a couple of CB officials (not from Clonguish - Nelson) putting a ref under duress to falsify a report. Subsequent issues are all as a result of this. Killoe would like that investigated and addressed. That would be success for them. Outside of that, everyone accepts that it is important that everyone gets back to the matches ASAP, including Killoe. If Killoe's Dublin based players want to take control they can exercise their democratic right in their club just like in any club a member has a say and a vote."
Thank you for the clarification of sorts Botheyesclosed. So if killoe want someone investigated why is there still an objection pending to the legality of an u16 player who played in a match against killoe almost 12 months ago. You say "The issue is not around any player, underage or not."
If not then killloe should withdraw this threat from the underage player at the centre of this by with drawing their objection. Everyone I have spoken to from Longford agrees with me so I cannot fathom why killoe are still Pursuing that. Thanks again.

jack99 (Dublin) - Posts: 16 - 28/08/2020 15:31:20    2289511

Link

Replying To arcadia:  "That is not true. You have repeated that lie a number of times now, and no matter how many times you repeat it, it still won't be true. The July 31st date was arbitrarily set by the Longford County Board. The rule book doesn't have a prescribed timeline for payment of fees. The County Board could have done what any other CB in the country would have done and in the context of the fact that Leinster had not conducted hearings from March thru end of July due to Covid, extended the fee deadline the far side of the hearing, or had a conversation with Killoe about it. They chose (were not mandated) to do neither. They also chose to apply the full force of the rule via the ban. I will repeat again that there is no similar precedent for any County Board in the country applying that extent of ban on any club for a fine non-payment. The Longford County Board stand alone in their reaction, and they had a choice, they had many many choices. They chose an option which was clearly aimed at shutting the club down on the issue and the ref-gate elements therein."
Do you really think this is what the new chairman & CCC want? They've been backed into a corner on this by Killoe after every attempt at mediation proved futile. Despite the hearsay, there's no actual evidence to substantiate the allegation of CB officials interfering with a referee's report.

Game over. Insert coin. Move on!

keeper7 (Longford) - Posts: 3869 - 28/08/2020 18:12:10    2289542

Link

Replying To keeper7:  "Do you really think this is what the new chairman & CCC want? They've been backed into a corner on this by Killoe after every attempt at mediation proved futile. Despite the hearsay, there's no actual evidence to substantiate the allegation of CB officials interfering with a referee's report.

Game over. Insert coin. Move on!"
When will the case be heard by the DRA

B&G (Longford) - Posts: 164 - 28/08/2020 22:15:56    2289576

Link

Replying To keeper7:  "Do you really think this is what the new chairman & CCC want? They've been backed into a corner on this by Killoe after every attempt at mediation proved futile. Despite the hearsay, there's no actual evidence to substantiate the allegation of CB officials interfering with a referee's report.

Game over. Insert coin. Move on!"
Ssssh Killoe supporters don't like critisism and are always right even when verbally abusive at games.

Nelson39 (Longford) - Posts: 33 - 29/08/2020 09:52:09    2289617

Link

Replying To keeper7:  "Do you really think this is what the new chairman & CCC want? They've been backed into a corner on this by Killoe after every attempt at mediation proved futile. Despite the hearsay, there's no actual evidence to substantiate the allegation of CB officials interfering with a referee's report.

Game over. Insert coin. Move on!"
Yes I do think that. some of 2019 board were actively involved in trying to manipulate to disable the original Killoe objection, other members resigned over that interference already, and this years county board has clearly got an axe to grind because they (not the 2019 guys) decided that a 48 week ban was normal and appropriate and it is clearly not normal or appropriate. You only have to go looking for any precedent anywhere else to see that something is off here. There has only been one mediation session (not multiple), chaired by Páraic Duffy earlier this month and which took place AFTER the current County Board (2020 not 2019) issued the 48-week ban and in that session Killoe were asked to drop the entire issue in exchange for the ban being dropped, which is pretty much a veiled threat by those who want the ref-gate issue to be buried. The shape/size of the ban is clear evidence that something nefarious is going on within this years CB, and when it is finally reviewed by an external entity at the DRA, it will likely be removed. What happens then wrt the logic and driving force behind that crazy size of ban, and the interference which is significantly more serious, has yet to be determined. This won't end with a DRA decision to throw out the ban. There is lots more to go here.

arcadia (Longford) - Posts: 163 - 29/08/2020 09:52:41    2289618

Link

Right, so Killoe are going after an underage player from another club. Why? At the risk of effectively a 2 year ban. (Think about that for a while). And they should withdraw any complaint of wrongdoing by any CB member, because someone on HS says they have no evidence and nobody wants to rock the boat. They really are silly, one wonders how they function as a club at all, with all their unethical, nonsensical stances. They mustn't know what they are at. Some players based in Dublin should take over to rescue them from their vile abusive supporters. The entertainment here is quite amusing.

*(for those who don't quite get it, all the above is sarcasm)

botheyesclosed (Longford) - Posts: 76 - 29/08/2020 10:33:56    2289621

Link

Replying To arcadia:  "Yes I do think that. some of 2019 board were actively involved in trying to manipulate to disable the original Killoe objection, other members resigned over that interference already, and this years county board has clearly got an axe to grind because they (not the 2019 guys) decided that a 48 week ban was normal and appropriate and it is clearly not normal or appropriate. You only have to go looking for any precedent anywhere else to see that something is off here. There has only been one mediation session (not multiple), chaired by Páraic Duffy earlier this month and which took place AFTER the current County Board (2020 not 2019) issued the 48-week ban and in that session Killoe were asked to drop the entire issue in exchange for the ban being dropped, which is pretty much a veiled threat by those who want the ref-gate issue to be buried. The shape/size of the ban is clear evidence that something nefarious is going on within this years CB, and when it is finally reviewed by an external entity at the DRA, it will likely be removed. What happens then wrt the logic and driving force behind that crazy size of ban, and the interference which is significantly more serious, has yet to be determined. This won't end with a DRA decision to throw out the ban. There is lots more to go here."
You said the CCC would drop any ban. You know about as much as the rest of us.

Nelson39 (Longford) - Posts: 33 - 29/08/2020 11:27:32    2289630

Link

Replying To Nelson39:  "You said the CCC would drop any ban. You know about as much as the rest of us."
I said the Leinster appeal would drop the ban (why would CCC drop it, they levied it). However the Leinster hearing was only concerned with the February objection alone, not the subsequent 48-week ban and that was not apparent publicly until the hearing was over, so the ban has to go to DRA to get reviewed and dropped. I'm still confident it will be dropped because no matter whose club it is, that level of ban in the context of the issue itself is completely disproportional and when it is eventually ruled on (the 48-week ban itself has not been ruled on externally at all yet), I am certain it will be dropped on account of it being knee-jerk and disproportional.

arcadia (Longford) - Posts: 163 - 29/08/2020 11:55:43    2289636

Link

Replying To arcadia:  "I said the Leinster appeal would drop the ban (why would CCC drop it, they levied it). However the Leinster hearing was only concerned with the February objection alone, not the subsequent 48-week ban and that was not apparent publicly until the hearing was over, so the ban has to go to DRA to get reviewed and dropped. I'm still confident it will be dropped because no matter whose club it is, that level of ban in the context of the issue itself is completely disproportional and when it is eventually ruled on (the 48-week ban itself has not been ruled on externally at all yet), I am certain it will be dropped on account of it being knee-jerk and disproportional."
From a Killoe man:
"So the ban that everyone said "Ah that's just a slap on the wrist that will be overturned " is turning into a battle and a right mess.. I hope the ones who are pushing this and are backing it can stand by the fact of punishing the young lads who may never get to play minor or miss out on u16 for club and county..
In saying that wouldn't it be a better kick for them if killoe players at all levels didn't make themselves available for county teams anymore."

keeper7 (Longford) - Posts: 3869 - 29/08/2020 17:19:05    2289681

Link

Replying To arcadia:  "There are a lot of opinions on here (i'm plenty/overly opinionated myself), and that is fine and healthy. It's a forum after all. I reckon we can all agree that the Championship benefits from having the defending champions taking part, and that the extent of the ban imposed (48 weeks affecting everyone including young lads of 13-18 years old) seems strangely vindictive (I really can't find an equivalent precedent anywhere in the country) and is not helping anyone when we are all battling against the confinement and gagging to get back into outdoor sports (not least the younger kids). For what its worth I don't think the original objection to the U16 player was valid and that seems to have been borne out by the Leinster decision, but we have an objection process for a reason, and sometimes people get it right and sometimes they don't. But other stuff has emerged during this debacle which is more worrying and potentially affects us all, and questions the fairness and impartiality of certain elements within the County Board, past and present (not all though - many in the county board are hard working and honest volunteers, as is the case in clubs across the county). Surely we all want those problems to be flushed out for all our clubs sake, not just for the Killoe lads. So I hope the DRA route (or mediation part 2) solves this and we can get back to watching streamed games rather than fighting over he-said-she-said.

I'm looking forward to watching the Longford Hurling Championship and the Dromard-Abbey game at the weekend, both of which should make for great viewing if the weather improves."
Did you get to see the games? How did the hurling look?

keeper7 (Longford) - Posts: 3869 - 30/08/2020 10:35:02    2289742

Link

Quarter Final Draw
Match A-St Marys Vs Group 2
Match B- Abbeylara Vs Group 2
Match C- Longford Slashers Vs Fr Manning Gaels
Match D- Mullinaughta Vs Colmcille

When Group 2 is finalised another draw will take place with the two teams. The first team out will play St Marys with the second team playing Abbeylara

Semi Final
Winner Match A V Winner Match B
Winner Match C V Winner Match D

B&G (Longford) - Posts: 164 - 30/08/2020 14:40:41    2289766

Link

McDonald's Juvenile Football Championship - Round 1
Saturday 29th August, 2020

Killoe Óg 4-8
Clonbroney/Wolfe Tones Óg 0-7

So the ban clearly does not include all Killoe teams from U16 upwards as the media reports had us believe. So this begs a couple of questions...

1) Does anyone actually know what the ban covers and specifically why certain grades rather than the 'club'?
2) It was the Killoe U16 team who didn't fulfill the 2019 U16 Championship Final, so why is there a ban on the Killoe Junior and Senior teams specifically but not on other/all teams within the club?

All starting to look more arbitrary and cobbled together the more this goes on.

arcadia (Longford) - Posts: 163 - 30/08/2020 19:12:51    2289797

Link

Replying To arcadia:  "McDonald's Juvenile Football Championship - Round 1
Saturday 29th August, 2020

Killoe Óg 4-8
Clonbroney/Wolfe Tones Óg 0-7

So the ban clearly does not include all Killoe teams from U16 upwards as the media reports had us believe. So this begs a couple of questions...

1) Does anyone actually know what the ban covers and specifically why certain grades rather than the 'club'?
2) It was the Killoe U16 team who didn't fulfill the 2019 U16 Championship Final, so why is there a ban on the Killoe Junior and Senior teams specifically but not on other/all teams within the club?

All starting to look more arbitrary and cobbled together the more this goes on."
I already told you the rule states "where a club is suspended, the suspension shall not apply to its Juvenile (U16 and younger) section unless specifically included in the decision" which it was not.

keeper7 (Longford) - Posts: 3869 - 30/08/2020 21:19:11    2289839

Link

Replying To keeper7:  "I already told you the rule states "where a club is suspended, the suspension shall not apply to its Juvenile (U16 and younger) section unless specifically included in the decision" which it was not."
I looked back thru all of your messages here, and you didn't already state that. Nor did anyone else who added comments thus far either. I'm pretty confident that in context of the media reporting on this issue (there has been no statements either from Killoe or the County Board), that almost nobody on here was aware of that subtlety.

arcadia (Longford) - Posts: 163 - 31/08/2020 00:01:53    2289870

Link

Replying To arcadia:  "I looked back thru all of your messages here, and you didn't already state that. Nor did anyone else who added comments thus far either. I'm pretty confident that in context of the media reporting on this issue (there has been no statements either from Killoe or the County Board), that almost nobody on here was aware of that subtlety."
My apologies. I thought I had already quoted that rule.

keeper7 (Longford) - Posts: 3869 - 31/08/2020 09:53:08    2289887

Link

Lads everyone has there opinion but nobody knows whats going on. Word is that the RSA wont overrule the county board and leinster and killoe will indeed be kicked out of the championship but thats just rumour like everything else
If that happens, its no real benefit to clonguish especially as they only managed 1 point from two games. If they cant make the last 8 on their own they have no business being there.
Thought it was a bit weird the county board making the draw yesterday with everything going on maybe they have been told it wil be sorted this week.
Lets hope it is.. the 2020 longford championship seems cursed this year

honlongford (Longford) - Posts: 139 - 31/08/2020 19:51:18    2290002

Link

Replying To honlongford:  "Lads everyone has there opinion but nobody knows whats going on. Word is that the RSA wont overrule the county board and leinster and killoe will indeed be kicked out of the championship but thats just rumour like everything else
If that happens, its no real benefit to clonguish especially as they only managed 1 point from two games. If they cant make the last 8 on their own they have no business being there.
Thought it was a bit weird the county board making the draw yesterday with everything going on maybe they have been told it wil be sorted this week.
Lets hope it is.. the 2020 longford championship seems cursed this year"
Agree with most of that. However DRA will have a wider remit than Leinster did. The Leinster Council hearing had a very specific mandate, which was to rule on the original Killoe objection, associated €750 fine and forfeit of U16 final. The Leinster Council didn't rule on the legitimacy or not of the 48 week ban (outside their remit). That will be externally ruled on for the first time by DRA. The most likely outcome here IMO is that the decision of Leinster Council regarding Killoe's player objection, €750 fine and forfeit will stand, but the 48-week ban by the Longford County Board for non-payment of the fine will be deemed OTT and removed or reduced to a slightly larger fine. Whether or not the DRA is able or inclined to dig into the driving force behind the size/shape of the ban or the ref-gate issue is yet to be seen. Somehow I doubt it.

arcadia (Longford) - Posts: 163 - 02/09/2020 10:47:22    2290172

Link

Replying To arcadia:  "Agree with most of that. However DRA will have a wider remit than Leinster did. The Leinster Council hearing had a very specific mandate, which was to rule on the original Killoe objection, associated €750 fine and forfeit of U16 final. The Leinster Council didn't rule on the legitimacy or not of the 48 week ban (outside their remit). That will be externally ruled on for the first time by DRA. The most likely outcome here IMO is that the decision of Leinster Council regarding Killoe's player objection, €750 fine and forfeit will stand, but the 48-week ban by the Longford County Board for non-payment of the fine will be deemed OTT and removed or reduced to a slightly larger fine. Whether or not the DRA is able or inclined to dig into the driving force behind the size/shape of the ban or the ref-gate issue is yet to be seen. Somehow I doubt it."
How do u think the DRA will remove the 48 week ban? Rule 6.24 (c) is clear "The Penalties for a Club/Unit failing to fulfil a
Championship Game shall be as follows: A Club/Unit shall be compelled to pay any Fine imposed for loss of revenue by the Committee-in-Charge and all vouched reasonable expenses incurred, and failure to
do so shall involve a Suspension of forty eight weeks."

slasher9 (Longford) - Posts: 31 - 02/09/2020 14:30:14    2290209

Link