Replying To TheLineKing:  "I stopped reading when you used the word "probably", in relation to what you ASSUME happened. Like a lot of posts on here, all speculation without knowing the facts."

Replying To Claretandblue:  "Your correct in saying that the word probably was used incorrectly used in the above post, should have been replaced by the word unquestionably."

Replying To TheLineKing:  "And your club agreed to conduct competitions by the rules and regulations! Make an alternative proposal at the next AGM or planning meeting!"

Replying To Highball_Lowball:  "Lilliput Gaels started the year with a panel of just over 30. I believe the decision was made to enter a second team in Div 6 to allow their panel to play meaningful matches and to avoid having 15 or 16 subs for a single team. As we all know players drop out or change sports at 13-14 if they aren't playing games.

The whole panel are eligible to play for the Div 1 team, the 15 'named' players cannot and have not played on the Div 6 team. Apart from games, the mentors treat all players as one panel. Training at the same time etc.

Due to a club (probably Maryland/Tang) insisting that the planning report introduced a new stipulation that clubs with multiple teams must play at the same time at the start of the year they have always played their games at exactly the same time. What's different here is that the panel have now qualified for the Div 1 County Final and now half the squad are fixed to play at a different venue at the same time. Maryland/Tang will not agree to moving the fixture to allow the 15 players on the Div 6 team to attend the Div 1 final for which they are eligible.

This rule is extremely unfair on those kids who have trained and been part of the Div 1 panel all year. Is it not enough for a team to have to name 15 players as was always the case? Who requested this 'rule' be introduced in the planning report and if its good enough for Juvenile football, can we now look at introducing it for the adult clubs who have multiple teams going forward? Imagine the furore if Shamrocks, the downs, Lomans, Kinnegad et al should have their senior and junior games fixed for the same time in the planning report. (Not targeting any of the above clubs btw, they just happen to have senior and Junior teams)

As mentioned before Maryland/Tang should not be in division 6.
A quick glance at their results from the group would reveal the elephant the room:

Millmore 1-0 4-19 Maryland/Tang
Lilliput Gaels 0-2 3-9 Maryland/Tang
Kilbeggan Conceded against them.
Athlone did push them close and will again I hope.

Its not beyond the realms of possibility that Lilliput may decide to concede as Millmore have done in the previous round, and we would have the crazy situation of 16 subs at a Div 1 final and nobody at the Div 6 Semi final in Tang. Its very unfair on the Div 6 players and parents to have to make a choice like this and is totally against the County's Strategic plan which aims to increase playing numbers within the county.

I would like to think that Maryland/Tang have not used their influence on the Co Board to incorrectly place themselves in Div 6 and further use it to introduce the rule re multiple team into the planning report, but I'm sceptical.

One final point, I see its been mentioned multiple times that the rules are the rules and teams knew it from the outset. That's all fair enough, but what were the alternatives for clubs with panels of 30 +? Not enter a team and reduce game time for their panel? That's not an option in my opinion and the new rule here is ridiculous! The Minor board have done fantastic work, but if they want to increase games and participation at this critical age (u14) they must facilitate a more flexible system to allow clubs who from time to time retain enough numbers to enter a second team. Many clubs will not bother with a second team next year and that's a shame for the players in my opinion."