Longford Forum

Local Championship

(Oldest Posts First) - Go To The Latest Post


Replying To slasher9:  "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.""
The DRA will assess the proportionality (or not) of the Longford County Boards application of the full extent of rule 6.24c on the Killoe club and will look to establish if the maximum ban handed out is proportional to the issue it relates to (including size of the fine) and the context around the non payment of the fine (Covid delay to Leinster hearing). There is a good reason why you don't see much/any precedent for the application of the full weight of rule 6.24c especially in absence of violence or endangerment - and it is not because clubs everywhere religiously pay all fines on time. IMO the DRA will regard the application of the max ban per the rule book as a disproportionate measure in managing or resolving the issue.

arcadia (Longford) - Posts: 163 - 02/09/2020 14:51:32    2290212

Link

I'm puzzled as to why people on this forum and Killoe supporters are saying Clonguish are pushing this. Clonguish have no say on the matter......sounds like Killoe are trying to blame it on anything or anyone bar themselves. From what I was told by someone on the inside is that Killoe have been constantly shooting themselves in the foot from the mediation in Cavan to the meeting in Portlaoise. Now they are trying their last resort and have Mickey Quinn come out and question whether he'll play county again. Sounds a bit like blackmail! Killoe always the innocent party.

Spinx (Longford) - Posts: 896 - 02/09/2020 23:38:49    2290308

Link

Replying To arcadia:  "The DRA will assess the proportionality (or not) of the Longford County Boards application of the full extent of rule 6.24c on the Killoe club and will look to establish if the maximum ban handed out is proportional to the issue it relates to (including size of the fine) and the context around the non payment of the fine (Covid delay to Leinster hearing). There is a good reason why you don't see much/any precedent for the application of the full weight of rule 6.24c especially in absence of violence or endangerment - and it is not because clubs everywhere religiously pay all fines on time. IMO the DRA will regard the application of the max ban per the rule book as a disproportionate measure in managing or resolving the issue."
i hope ur right as this rule is completely over the top imo and in our small county we need all our clubs. Though i cant see how the dra can establish proportionality when the rule is what it is, it doesn't provide for a minimum or maximum ban just 48 weeks. If it said "up to" 48 weeks then i would see it reduced massively. Have killoe got their hearing yet?

slasher9 (Longford) - Posts: 31 - 03/09/2020 09:01:29    2290322

Link

Replying To Spinx:  "I'm puzzled as to why people on this forum and Killoe supporters are saying Clonguish are pushing this. Clonguish have no say on the matter......sounds like Killoe are trying to blame it on anything or anyone bar themselves. From what I was told by someone on the inside is that Killoe have been constantly shooting themselves in the foot from the mediation in Cavan to the meeting in Portlaoise. Now they are trying their last resort and have Mickey Quinn come out and question whether he'll play county again. Sounds a bit like blackmail! Killoe always the innocent party."
Can you quote where people on the forum are saying Clonguish are pushing this, I cant find it anywhere. As for supporters, Killoe haven't the monopoly on idiots. There are good people and idiots in every club and parish in the country. On the Mickey Quinn interview, while a bit unnessessary and badly timed, he like a lot others, is surely ****** off but I don't think he'd be told by the club to say that, I'd assume that would be a personal stance. I wouldn't be surprised if others had a similar mindset as that stuff is common in many clubs over the years. But it will have no bearing on the CB's decision as its gone above them long ago. All parties have the statement letter in possession. All resultant issues stem from that, so let's see how the DRA hearing goes.

botheyesclosed (Longford) - Posts: 76 - 03/09/2020 12:03:55    2290357

Link

Replying To botheyesclosed:  "Can you quote where people on the forum are saying Clonguish are pushing this, I cant find it anywhere. As for supporters, Killoe haven't the monopoly on idiots. There are good people and idiots in every club and parish in the country. On the Mickey Quinn interview, while a bit unnessessary and badly timed, he like a lot others, is surely ****** off but I don't think he'd be told by the club to say that, I'd assume that would be a personal stance. I wouldn't be surprised if others had a similar mindset as that stuff is common in many clubs over the years. But it will have no bearing on the CB's decision as its gone above them long ago. All parties have the statement letter in possession. All resultant issues stem from that, so let's see how the DRA hearing goes."
Turnipayter said it on 22/08/2020 and you also commented about the alleged Clonguish official on the 22/08/2020 "A conflict of interest, even if only in appearance is still a conflict of interest"

Nelson39 (Longford) - Posts: 33 - 03/09/2020 12:59:38    2290371

Link

Replying To Nelson39:  "Turnipayter said it on 22/08/2020 and you also commented about the alleged Clonguish official on the 22/08/2020 "A conflict of interest, even if only in appearance is still a conflict of interest""
Stating the possibility of a conflict of interest of a CB member is completely different to stating Clonguish are pushing something. I cannot speak for TurnipAyter but I read his post to say something similar to my own, I may be wrong there.
We are starting to veer away from the initial issue which led to Killoe not partaking in the U16 final, and getting into paying too much attention to rumours. Hopefully the correct version comes out shortly

botheyesclosed (Longford) - Posts: 76 - 03/09/2020 14:24:27    2290406

Link

Replying To slasher9:  "i hope ur right as this rule is completely over the top imo and in our small county we need all our clubs. Though i cant see how the dra can establish proportionality when the rule is what it is, it doesn't provide for a minimum or maximum ban just 48 weeks. If it said "up to" 48 weeks then i would see it reduced massively. Have killoe got their hearing yet?"
The DRA does not have the power or has it within their remit to reduce the punishment.
The review the full process to see if due dillegence has been followed through.
The only options open to them is
1. Uphold the suspension (if it is the verdict they are appealing)
2. Quash the suspension/punishment based upon due p[rocess not followed.
3. Hand the case back to County Board to adjudicate.

B&G (Longford) - Posts: 164 - 03/09/2020 15:11:50    2290412

Link

Replying To botheyesclosed:  "Stating the possibility of a conflict of interest of a CB member is completely different to stating Clonguish are pushing something. I cannot speak for TurnipAyter but I read his post to say something similar to my own, I may be wrong there.
We are starting to veer away from the initial issue which led to Killoe not partaking in the U16 final, and getting into paying too much attention to rumours. Hopefully the correct version comes out shortly"
Yeah, the issue is with a particular individual who happens to be a member of the club rather than with the club itself. I'm aware that there has been dissatisfaction with the situation expressed within Clonguish.

TurnipAyter (Longford) - Posts: 114 - 03/09/2020 15:13:22    2290413

Link

Replying To B&G:  "The DRA does not have the power or has it within their remit to reduce the punishment.
The review the full process to see if due dillegence has been followed through.
The only options open to them is
1. Uphold the suspension (if it is the verdict they are appealing)
2. Quash the suspension/punishment based upon due p[rocess not followed.
3. Hand the case back to County Board to adjudicate."
if what your saying is true then killoe are in bother. they will have to hope someone didnt cross a t or dot an i for option 2. have they another outlet if this fails?

slasher9 (Longford) - Posts: 31 - 03/09/2020 15:38:10    2290420

Link

Replying To botheyesclosed:  "Can you quote where people on the forum are saying Clonguish are pushing this, I cant find it anywhere. As for supporters, Killoe haven't the monopoly on idiots. There are good people and idiots in every club and parish in the country. On the Mickey Quinn interview, while a bit unnessessary and badly timed, he like a lot others, is surely ****** off but I don't think he'd be told by the club to say that, I'd assume that would be a personal stance. I wouldn't be surprised if others had a similar mindset as that stuff is common in many clubs over the years. But it will have no bearing on the CB's decision as its gone above them long ago. All parties have the statement letter in possession. All resultant issues stem from that, so let's see how the DRA hearing goes."
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: 137 - 31/08/2020 19:51:18 2290002

Spinx (Longford) - Posts: 896 - 03/09/2020 16:07:34    2290428

Link

Replying To slasher9:  "if what your saying is true then killoe are in bother. they will have to hope someone didnt cross a t or dot an i for option 2. have they another outlet if this fails?"
B&G is likely correct in that summary and in correcting me there. The dotting of i's and crossing of t's will however likely include all of the context around the 'ref' element this time around, and able to determine whether the Longford CCC acted on that intel sufficiently or at all when conducting the original hearing on the issue. They may find that the Longford CCC did not adequately investigate or address all of the issues which came to light around that original player objection (i.e. the apparent pressuring of the ref to change a red to two yellows to void the objection) and in not doing so had denied Killoe a full and fair resolution of the issue, which led to the subsequent action by Killoe in not fulfilling the U16 final until what they would have seen as gross interference was adequately addressed. That's a pretty big piece of the puzzle here and we have to hope all of that detail is with the DRA so this thing gets solved with all of the information on the table. We will know tomorrow for sure, and the beauty of DRA process is that (a) they are privy to much more information and (b) they publish their report on their website so we can all read the precise facts of the case once the decision is made, thus rumours can be put to bed.

arcadia (Longford) - Posts: 163 - 03/09/2020 18:12:36    2290442

Link

Replying To slasher9:  "if what your saying is true then killoe are in bother. they will have to hope someone didnt cross a t or dot an i for option 2. have they another outlet if this fails?"
They do not have another avenue via GAA route. The other option would be challenge the case through the courts. Risky route as the DRA channel is equivalent to the court route

B&G (Longford) - Posts: 164 - 03/09/2020 18:49:27    2290446

Link

Replying To arcadia:  "B&G is likely correct in that summary and in correcting me there. The dotting of i's and crossing of t's will however likely include all of the context around the 'ref' element this time around, and able to determine whether the Longford CCC acted on that intel sufficiently or at all when conducting the original hearing on the issue. They may find that the Longford CCC did not adequately investigate or address all of the issues which came to light around that original player objection (i.e. the apparent pressuring of the ref to change a red to two yellows to void the objection) and in not doing so had denied Killoe a full and fair resolution of the issue, which led to the subsequent action by Killoe in not fulfilling the U16 final until what they would have seen as gross interference was adequately addressed. That's a pretty big piece of the puzzle here and we have to hope all of that detail is with the DRA so this thing gets solved with all of the information on the table. We will know tomorrow for sure, and the beauty of DRA process is that (a) they are privy to much more information and (b) they publish their report on their website so we can all read the precise facts of the case once the decision is made, thus rumours can be put to bed."
But what they cannot do is break the rules either. Which is what Leinster hearings committee effectively said when turning down killoe last week ie Longford hearings committee did not misapply any rule. Longford hearings found that Longford ccc did not misapply any rule when fixing the match so whether they go back to the original issue or not is really not relevant to the fact that killoe did not play in a game which was legitimately fixed and notified.
I hope they have the suspension lifted but that should be it. Longford supporters are sick of this and want to focus on football. Great win for Abbeylara last Friday night . Recovered well from surprise defeat to Granard and will be hard beaten now.
Masterson was mighty for Dromard. Great coverage and commentary on tv.

jack99 (Dublin) - Posts: 16 - 03/09/2020 19:13:33    2290451

Link

Replying To jack99:  "But what they cannot do is break the rules either. Which is what Leinster hearings committee effectively said when turning down killoe last week ie Longford hearings committee did not misapply any rule. Longford hearings found that Longford ccc did not misapply any rule when fixing the match so whether they go back to the original issue or not is really not relevant to the fact that killoe did not play in a game which was legitimately fixed and notified.
I hope they have the suspension lifted but that should be it. Longford supporters are sick of this and want to focus on football. Great win for Abbeylara last Friday night . Recovered well from surprise defeat to Granard and will be hard beaten now.
Masterson was mighty for Dromard. Great coverage and commentary on tv."
DRA will investigate whether the original decision of Longford Hearing Committee on the original Killoe objection was valid. Leinster ruled on whether Longford CB applied the rule book accurately when they fined Killoe for not playing the U16 final. They did NOT rule on the legitimacy of the decision to fine Killoe (that's an important distinction). So the DRA will now look at everything, the refs report on the player being sent off (reason for the card, impact in terms of playing subsequent games, whether rules were adhered to subsequently on terms of the sending off) all of which dictates whether the original Longford Hearing Committee and Longford CCC decision on Killoe's original objection was correct or not (something that Leinster did not rule on), The DRA will also have sight of the referee statement and controversy which emerged at the time too. They will then make a decision based on all of the evidence, which is not what happened in the Leinster hearing, and the absence of which is at the core of Killoe's beef with the County Board. So this is effectively Longford Hearing Committee vs DRA on Killoe's original objection, and to be blunt, this is one specific individual on the Longford Hearing Committee vs DRA if we cut to the chase here. Whatever way this goes, it is an opportunity to have an objective ruling on all elements of this debacle, including ref-gate which should be good news to a great many clubs in the county who don't want a repeat of this farce. Then we all move on!

Abbeylara could be a surprise package this year. Old dog for the hard road.

arcadia (Longford) - Posts: 163 - 03/09/2020 20:18:59    2290460

Link

Replying To botheyesclosed:  "Stating the possibility of a conflict of interest of a CB member is completely different to stating Clonguish are pushing something. I cannot speak for TurnipAyter but I read his post to say something similar to my own, I may be wrong there.
We are starting to veer away from the initial issue which led to Killoe not partaking in the U16 final, and getting into paying too much attention to rumours. Hopefully the correct version comes out shortly"
I don't know who is suggesting for a moment that our club are pushing any agenda. As a Clonguish supporter, I in no way agree with the way this saga has resulted in Killoe being unable to field in any competition from minor, junior, senior etc. Any genuine Longford GAA person just wants the games to resume and for all this nonsense to stop. The way the alleged incident was handled at the start was a shambles and it has since gone totally out of control. Technicalities and loopholes all being blown out of proportion. Totally against the ethos of the GAA that lads aren't allowed to play football based on an incident from 12 months ago that has nothing got to do with Killoe. Rant over.

backtoback2 (Longford) - Posts: 1 - 03/09/2020 21:57:15    2290473

Link

Ardagh to win intermediate?

Theeagleeye (Roscommon) - Posts: 130 - 04/09/2020 00:05:22    2290486

Link

Replying To B&G:  "They do not have another avenue via GAA route. The other option would be challenge the case through the courts. Risky route as the DRA channel is equivalent to the court route"
they better win this DRA case so. end of championship if it goes legal route id say. disaster

slasher9 (Longford) - Posts: 31 - 04/09/2020 16:36:09    2290577

Link

Replying To slasher9:  "they better win this DRA case so. end of championship if it goes legal route id say. disaster"
There won't be any legal route. The Rules of the GAA were amended in 2005 to provide for an independent arbitration body for GAA disputes (Disputes Resolution Authority). The DRA was established to avoid decisions made by the internal bodies within the GAA being appealed to the Courts. In essence, the DRA is the forum of last resort in respect of GAA disputes. It is supported by Rule 7.13(c) of the GAA Rules, which states that no member or body within the GAA may bring a Court action concerning a GAA dispute. All clubs and members have by definition signed up to that arrangement, hence this issue will be decided one way or another this weekend with no legal routes thereafter.

arcadia (Longford) - Posts: 163 - 05/09/2020 11:11:33    2290658

Link

Good win for Ardagh, hard to see them not winnsing it now

Longfordpat (Longford) - Posts: 13 - 06/09/2020 10:31:56    2290775

Link

Replying To Longfordpat:  "Good win for Ardagh, hard to see them not winnsing it now"
Yeah. Killashee to meet them in the final?

keeper7 (Longford) - Posts: 3869 - 06/09/2020 11:17:22    2290780

Link