LOI 2014 Thread

anncoates wrote: »

It would certainly seem that way.

Are people honestly saying in this instance - or in terms of the B Team - that Delaney sat down and thought how can we expressly do Shamrock Rovers a favour here?

I don't know enough about the circumstances surrounding the Shams-Liverpool friendly to comment. But, with regard to the B team, it seems very strange that other clubs were not consulted when those clubs had floated the idea themselves in the past. Does that amount to favouritism towards Shams? I don't know, but it certainly leaves them at a distinct advantage this season and it certainly amounts to an unprofessional approach from the FAI.

Also, the FAI have been heavily criticised, both on this forum and elsewhere, for their management (or lack thereof) of the league in the past (with regard to Cork, Derry and Galway, for example). I don't know where you're getting this idea that criticism is only being leveled in cases where Shams are involved, because that's ridiculous.

djpbarry wrote: »

I don't know enough about the circumstances surrounding the Shams-Liverpool friendly to comment. But, with regard to the B team, it seems very strange that other clubs were not consulted when those clubs had floated the idea themselves in the past. Does that amount to favouritism towards Shams? I don't know, but it certainly leaves them at a distinct advantage this season and it certainly amounts to an unprofessional approach from the FAI.

Also, the FAI have been heavily criticised, both on this forum and elsewhere, for their management (or lack thereof) of the league in the past (with regard to Cork, Derry and Galway, for example). I don't know where you're getting this idea that criticism is only being leveled in cases where Shams are involved, because that's ridiculous.

You clearly stated it was favouritism as opposed to a considered reaction to applications.

Presumably the B team opening was there this season because of league numbers and Rovers were adjudged to be able to afford it.

Similarly the FAI presumably sanctioned involvement in the friendly because Rovers were viewed as a commercial draw on the domestic league side.

Ironically your objection invalidates your favouritism claim somewhat because if other clubs fielded B teams then they would have "unfair" advantage themselves unless the first division was doubled in size. Likewise if Pat's or any other team had been sanctioned for that friendly, do you think they'd refuse it for fear of what other clubs thought?

dfx-

djpbarry wrote: »

However, it now appears that the FAI were involved in some capacity.
Which still potentially represents a conflict of interest.

But nothing to do with the level of money Rovers are getting or why they are getting it, which is what Madworld appears to be bringing up.

djpbarry wrote: »

You're not honestly trying to suggest that nobody has thought to question the FAI's handling of affairs in the past? People are just having a go in this instance just because it involves Shams? Seriously?

I'd be questioning FAI involvement every bit as much if it were Sligo or Cork or whoever.

Have you not read Madworld's post?

anncoates wrote: »

You clearly stated it was favouritism as opposed to a considered reaction to applications.

The FAI shouldn’t be involved in arranging lucrative friendlies for clubs playing in a league that they’re supposed to administering in an impartial manner. What isn’t clear at this point is how involved the FAI were.

anncoates wrote: »

Presumably the B team opening was there this season because of league numbers...

League numbers are arbitrary, so that doesn’t make much sense. Why only one B team? Why not three? Or five?

anncoates wrote: »

Similarly the FAI presumably sanctioned involvement in the friendly because Rovers were viewed as a commercial draw on the domestic league side.

You could play pretty much any LOI Premier side in that friendly and the Aviva would still sell out with Liverpool fans.

anncoates wrote: »

Ironically your objection invalidates your favouritism claim somewhat because if other clubs fielded B teams then they would have "unfair" advantage themselves unless the first division was doubled in size.

I’ve already stated on this thread that I think the inclusion of B teams in the First Division is a bad idea, so your point is moot.

anncoates wrote: »

Likewise if Pat's or any other team had been sanctioned for that friendly, do you think they'd refuse it for fear of what other clubs thought?

Probably not, but it would still amount to favouritism.

Hard Worker

The Rovers V Liverpool game is an FAI gig. Obviously to make money for the financially strapped association.

SantryRed

Hard Worker wrote: »

The Rovers V Liverpool game is an FAI gig. Obviously to make money for the financially strapped association.

Well it's hardly fair that Shamrock Rovers are getting a 6 figure sum for the game over any other club in the country? I can't believe teams aren't kicking up more of a fuss about this. That game has probably paid for McPhail's contract for the year.

kksaints

http://balls.ie/football/hated-team-league-ireland/.Uzw8V3u7jWQ.twitter

Enjoyable article. I would have Billy Dennehy near the top of the list myself.

dundalkfc10

SantryRed wrote: »

Well it's hardly fair that Shamrock Rovers are getting a 6 figure sum for the game over any other club in the country? I can't believe teams aren't kicking up more of a fuss about this. That game has probably paid for McPhail's contract for the year.

What a waste of money that will be. He wont play 15 games this season!

GLaDOS

SantryRed wrote: »

That game has probably paid for McPhail's contract for the year.

I'm sure it's conveniently covered the expense of entering a B team, which certainly helped the FAI out.

Ebbs

Why is everything a conspiracy theory that the FAI are really Shamrock Rovers in disguise?

The match was pushed by Warrior. They see Ireland as a base for selling shirts and other warrior gear. We have a rather lucrative market for both shirts and tracksuits/sportgear...go figure.

FAI approved it because they're getting the majority of ticket sales helping repaying their debt, Warrior have no interest in that money as they only want publicity and exposure and finally Rovers are getting a rather large sum but once again mostly about publicity and building links just as we've done with Spurs, Malmoa etc.

The reason Limerick were denied was because they weren't giving the profits to the FAI and didn't include the FAI in the process to make them look good.

djpbarry wrote: »

, with regard to the B team, it seems very strange that other clubs were not consulted when those clubs had floated the idea themselves in the past. Does that amount to favouritism towards Shams? I don't know, but it certainly leaves them at a distinct advantage this season and it certainly amounts to an unprofessional approach from the FAI.

Once again, to correct this as it's been said by a few people already, Rovers were not the only team approached. Pats were also approached, by both the FAI and Rovers board about it. Buckley had a pop at the FAI about this before, and Rovers stated Pats were in the meetings but decided against it due to not seeing the benefit. I've no idea who else were approached, id assume more than just us two though.

Vision of Disorder

Ebbs wrote: »

The reason Limerick were denied was because they weren't giving the profits to the FAI and didn't include the FAI in the process to make them look good.

Limerick were denied specifically because the FAI were afraid that if Messi and co pitched up in Limerick it would hamper future opportunities/ticket sales for them in their own money-spinning bonanzas to pay for their white elephant. They also publically said that they were in talks with Barcelona themselves only for Barcelona to rubbish it and insist Limerick were the only Irish club/body they were talking to at the time.

djpbarry wrote: »

However, it now appears that the FAI were involved in some capacity.

Are you genuinely surprised that the lease-owners and operators of a stadium were involved in the arrangement of a fixture in that stadium?

Ebbs wrote: »

Once again, to correct this as it's been said by a few people already, Rovers were not the only team approached. Pats were also approached…

Then why are Pats saying otherwise?

miroslavklose wrote: »

Are you genuinely surprised that the lease-owners and operators of a stadium were involved in the arrangement of a fixture in that stadium?

Is that what I said? No.

What I did say was that if the fixture came about as a result of Shams using their own initiative to line it up, then (for the third time) fair play to them.

If, however, it was a case of the FAI lining up the friendly and “selecting” Rovers as the LOI “representative”, then that’s a different matter entirely.

That the FAI are involved in some capacity is not surprising, no. What is in question is in what capacity they were involved.

kksaints wrote: »

http://balls.ie/football/hated-team-league-ireland/.Uzw8V3u7jWQ.twitter

Enjoyable article. I would have Billy Dennehy near the top of the list myself.

Some unfair ones in there (Rice and Murray) and would have thought Quigley and Keegan would make the list.

djpbarry wrote: »

Then why are Pats saying otherwise?
Is that what I said? No.

What I did say was that if the fixture came about as a result of Shams using their own initiative to line it up, then (for the third time) fair play to them.

If, however, it was a case of the FAI lining up the friendly and “selecting” Rovers as the LOI “representative”, then that’s a different matter entirely.

That the FAI are involved in some capacity is not surprising, no. What is in question is in what capacity they were involved.

Yes, it's exactly what you said. I don't know what capacity the FAI were involved. If they did line up the fixture, I would think they selected Shamrock Rovers as the team with the most fans is most likely to sell out the stadium, and paying Rovers is going to be an awful lot cheaper than dragging Celtic back.

miroslavklose wrote: »

Yes, it's exactly what you said.

I clearly did not state anywhere that I was "surprised that the lease-owners and operators of a stadium were involved in the arrangement of a fixture in that stadium".

What I did say was that it appears that the FAI may have been involved in floating the idea of staging the fixture in first place - that's the distinction I'm making.

Essentially, it boils down to this: did Shams approach the FAI, or did the FAI approach Shams?

miroslavklose wrote: »

I don't know what capacity the FAI were involved. If they did line up the fixture, I would think they selected Shamrock Rovers as the team with the most fans is most likely to sell out the stadium...

Yeah, Liverpool don't have much of a following in Ireland, so they obviously need a big name like Shams to ensure a sell-out.

djpbarry wrote: »

I clearly did not state anywhere that I was "surprised that the lease-owners and operators of a stadium were involved in the arrangement of a fixture in that stadium".

What I did say was that it appears that the FAI may have been involved in floating the idea of staging the fixture in first place - that's the distinction I'm making.

Essentially, it boils down to this: did Shams approach the FAI, or did the FAI approach Shams?
Yeah, Liverpool don't have much of a following in Ireland, so they obviously need a big name like Shams to ensure a sell-out.

Will I get you a programme and a YNWA half and half scarf from the game?

djpbarry wrote: »

Essentially, it boils down to this: did Shams approach the FAI, or did the FAI approach Shams?

Nobody knows and anybody who assumes anything is doing so out of their own pre-perceived bias. I don't particularly care either way. I suspect Liverpool probably started the ball rolling by sending out feelers for a May fixture and somebody in Ireland started making plans.

Yeah, Liverpool don't have much of a following in Ireland, so they obviously need a big name like Shams to ensure a sell-out.

There's no guarantee the game would sell out on Liverpool's name alone at the prices they're selling it, especially if it was against an opponent with a small following.

uch

miroslavklose wrote: »

Nobody knows and anybody who assumes anything is doing so out of their own pre-perceived bias. I don't particularly care either way. I suspect Liverpool probably started the ball rolling by sending out feelers for a May fixture and somebody in Ireland started making plans.

There's no guarantee the game would sell out on Liverpool's name alone at the prices they're selling it, especially if it was against an opponent with a small following.

I agree with most of what you are saying, but in fairness, if it was Pike Rovers v Liverpool it would still sell out

uch wrote: »

I agree with most of what you are saying, but in fairness, if it was Pike Rovers v Liverpool it would still sell out

Maybe, maybe not. I doubt they could sell tickets for €50 for it.

Ebbs

djpbarry wrote: »

Then why are Pats saying otherwise?
.

Buckley said he was never informed. Pats board were informed and offered a place. Obviously they seen it as a poor business decision and decided against it.

Rovers were not selected to fill seats, increase demand, put up a better game, because they are "the model club".

They were chosen because they have a warrior shop. They are sponsored by warrior. They provide the best base for sales. They have the biggest fan base in the capital.

As for the silly question of did Rovers contact the FAI or visa versa, for the last time it was done by a third party. They wanted Liverpool vs Rovers, they contacted the FAI, they hold the permit for the Aviva and they instigated the majority of this.

People who push this "model club" ****e need to actually read the source quote again. Somebody even linked to it earlier, clearly without reading and understanding why Fran Gavin said it and what it was in relation to.

Madworld

Won't really have time to reply to some of the other posts, til the weekend, but this is really is disgraceful considering their reason for blocking the Limerick - Barca game:

From the FAI statement blocking the Limerick - Barca game.

"6) Under the participation agreement which all clubs signed, the FAI is entitled to enter any commercial agreements which it sees beneficial to the game. The game Limerick FC have referred to would benefit just one club. The FAI is obliged to operate in the interests of the Airtricity League as a whole."

Madworld wrote: »

The FAI is obliged to operate in the interests of the Airtricity League as a whole."

Indeed.

Madworld wrote: »

Won't really have time to reply to some of the other posts, til the weekend, but this is really is disgraceful considering their reason for blocking the Limerick - Barca game:

From the FAI statement blocking the Limerick - Barca game.

Whatever dubious reasons they used for blocking the Barcelona game, that policy is no longer in force. They let Limerick play Manchester City the following year.

Corholio

So we (Cork City) signed Iarfhlaith Davoren this morning. Much needed cover at left back.

Surprised he was still a free agent, how was he at Sligo last year?

The Internet

Corholio wrote: »

So we (Cork City) signed Iarfhlaith Davoren this morning. Much needed cover at left back.

Surprised he was still a free agent, how was he at Sligo last year?

He was solid enough but he never seemed to be too far from making a mistake

I'd imagine it was the cut in the budget for this season that was the reason for him not getting offered a contract because he would definitely have been a better option than Ledwith