Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Armstrong 2019/20 season

1235789

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 98 ✭✭Danville


    15/02/2020
    Kilkenny 6 St Benildus 2


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,297 ✭✭✭sodacat11


    Gonzaga B v Blanchardstown score?


  • Registered Users Posts: 285 ✭✭checknraise


    4.5 Gonzaga B 3.5 Blanchardstown


  • Registered Users Posts: 382 ✭✭macelligott


    R8. Elm Mount 4-4 Gonzaga A
    Elm mount needed to win the match in order to put Gonzaga under any pressure.


  • Registered Users Posts: 290 ✭✭Rathminor


    Final score:
    Rathmines 3.5 Dublin 4.5


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 27 VanMorrison


    So what's all this shifty business on the League website with the Gonzaga A v Bray fixture being moved from Sat 29 Feb to Sat 07 March in the last few days.

    The Gonzos could have asked at the start of the season for a fixture change because of a 4NCL clash but they didn't. I understand Bray haven't consented to a fixture change. After all Bray didn't accommodate Elm Mount when their board 1 wasn't available in the clash earlier in the season.

    It looks like the Gonzos real problem might be the absence of non-Gonzo Armstrong players (like those who play for Balbriggan who play Armstrong on Sat 28 Feb) in their 4NCL team.

    Since Bray didn't consent to any change can the League Controller change the fixture back to its original form, stop lying to the chess public this way, stop being manipulated by the Gonzaga controlled ICU and LCU, and then just resign his position.

    It really does look like Gonzaga CC are trying to fiddle the title out of Elm Mount and Kilkenny. A fair contest, that's all we ask for.


  • Registered Users Posts: 222 ✭✭spidersweb


    So what's all this shifty business on the League website with the Gonzaga A v Bray fixture being moved from Sat 29 Feb to Sat 07 March in the last few days.

    The Gonzos could have asked at the start of the season for a fixture change because of a 4NCL clash but they didn't. I understand Bray haven't consented to a fixture change. After all Bray didn't accommodate Elm Mount when their board 1 wasn't available in the clash earlier in the season.

    It looks like the Gonzos real problem might be the absence of non-Gonzo Armstrong players (like those who play for Balbriggan who play Armstrong on Sat 28 Feb) in their 4NCL team.

    Since Bray didn't consent to any change can the League Controller change the fixture back to its original form, stop lying to the chess public this way, stop being manipulated by the Gonzaga controlled ICU and LCU, and then just resign his position.

    It really does look like Gonzaga CC are trying to fiddle the title out of Elm Mount and Kilkenny. A fair contest, that's all we ask for.


    Not sure if this is the correct version of developments so have to wonder what are the facts exactly. Though there are serious questions here alright.

    Little bird tells me that despite the fact that there is a Match due on Feb 29th between Gonzaga V Bray in Gonzaga, it seems that within the last few days, the Armstrong controller has taken it upon himself to just change the fixtures, without the agreement of Bray (open to correction on this point) and just told Bray that following communications from Gonzaga he has decided that as

    " Gonzaga have a problem with their venue for the next round of the League on the 29 Feb. As this is a home match for them I am moving the game back by a week to 7 March. Gonzaga are happy to see if any of their players would be happy to play their game in Bray or another Dublin Venue. They will also look at mid week as well"

    Without the agreement of Bray it seems this was another further response

    "Gonzaga have asked for a postponement due to non availability of the school on the day in question."

    "Gonzaga are happy to have some of the games played in Bray if that suits, but as this is a home venue for them they have the right to play all the games in Gonzaga."

    All this begs a very simple question then.

    Why not just have the match take place in a different venue, either in Bray or another venue decided by either Gonzaga or the controller. On the scheduled date of Feb 29?

    What is the problem with that?

    Bray apparently cannot field a team now and so a 8-0 default for Gonzaga is now looking likely if not unavoidable.

    Congrats Gonzaga! So good they don't even need to turn up to win it this year in some matches. Which seems a pity as Elm Mount and Kilkenny looked like they were in with a serious chance and at least were set to give them a run for their money in what would have been an exciting last few rounds.

    Armstrong controller clearly has other ideas it seems and appears content for Gonzaga to be helped out as much as possible, regardless of logic and fairness.

    Simple thing to just play according to the fixtures, but a change of venue in either Bray (assuming they were/are agreeable?- Not clear if this is/was the case) or a venue choosen by the controller or Gonzaga would be fine?

    Unless of course the reason given (problem with the venue) is NOT actually the reason why Gonzaga have been able to ask for change of the fixtures only weeks before a scheduled match and given this.

    As none of us knows the exact facts and are assuming certain things it would be good if there was clarity to dampen down the speculation and bad feeling this leaves.

    Could all be a case of misunderstanding and or being misinformed here, but it seems like Gonzaga have just bagged an 8-0 default with a bold gambit of trying to get the schedule changed just weeks before a match they would surely win anyway, but they might have had to face a few surprises and tougher more complete Bray team than all the season in this match

    Hard luck Elm Mount and Kilkenny , it would have been interesting to see a close contest without favoritism and fixture changes like this.


  • Registered Users Posts: 222 ✭✭spidersweb


    R8. Elm Mount 4-4 Gonzaga A
    Elm mount needed to win the match in order to put Gonzaga under any pressure.
    A win needed to put them under pressure yes, but not necessarily to still win. Until that is Gonazaga were able to get a change to the fixtures because apparently they had a problem with their venue and instead of playing in the venue of the opposing team or another venue of their choice, they now seem to have secured an 8-0 default against Bray, who cannot get a team for the new imposed and not agreed changed fixture.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,297 ✭✭✭sodacat11


    It is hard to imagine what set of circumstances could render a school as big as Gonzaga unavalable for a chess match. Surely a little room could be found somewhere to accommodate eight small chess boards. If clubs want to give priority to the 4 NCL over their domestic league then so be it but it is not reasonable to inconvenience other clubs for that reason.


  • Registered Users Posts: 265 ✭✭zeitnot


    If it does end up with the outcome of Bray/Greystones defaulting the entire match, what would happen then?

    The league has a rule (5.5) that calls for a playoff match in some circumstances when defaults affect the outcome. In this case if Elm Mount finish ahead of Gonzaga A if all games by either against Bray/Greystones are eliminated, then there's a playoff match at Gonzaga that Elm Mount have to win. Since Elm Mount did not do all that well against Bray/Greystones (a 4.5-3.5 loss), this might be a good deal for them. (Kilkenny beat Bray/Greystones 6-2, so it's more mixed for them.)

    Still messy for the league, of course.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 290 ✭✭Rathminor


    sodacat11 wrote: »
    It is hard to imagine what set of circumstances could render a school as big as Gonzaga unavalable for a chess match. Surely a little room could be found somewhere to accommodate eight small chess boards. If clubs want to give priority to the 4 NCL over their domestic league then so be it but it is not reasonable to inconvenience other clubs for that reason.

    I see that both Blanchardstown and Dublin are playing home Armstrong matches on the 29th.
    If Gonzaga’s school is unavailable on the 29th is there scope to play the Gonzaga v Bray match alongside one of the other two Armstrong matches that are taking place on the 29th?
    It does look as though the best solution would be to play the fixture in an alternate venue on the 29th, rather than distort the conclusion of the league with an 8-0 walkover that could yet be avoided.


  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 7,117 Mod ✭✭✭✭cdeb


    zeitnot wrote: »
    If it does end up with the outcome of Bray/Greystones defaulting the entire match, what would happen then?
    Bray would be relegated too of course.

    I see spidersweb though saying Gonzaga have apparently suggested playing some matches in Bray if required, which seems quite reasonable. It's hardly likely Bray - a big club with plenty of players available - will default 8-0 in that instance surely?


  • Registered Users Posts: 27 VanMorrison


    cdeb wrote: »
    Bray would be relegated too of course.

    I see spidersweb though saying Gonzaga have apparently suggested playing some matches in Bray if required, which seems quite reasonable. It's hardly likely Bray - a big club with plenty of players available - will default 8-0 in that instance surely?


    Gonzaga originally suggested, through their surrogate the League Controller, that some of the postponed games be played at Bray but not on Sat 29 Feb. That detail matters.


    The 'can't book a room at Gonzaga' nonsense only came after Bray refused to move the match (or at least some games) from Sat 29 Feb. That came after the League Controller claimed the Gonzaga Captain told him both Captains had agreed to postpone the fixture by one week. Either the Gonzaga Captain lied to the League Controller or the League Controller lied to the Bray Captain.


    Gonzaga never suggested all 8 games be played at Bray (or anywhere else) on Sat 29 Feb, which is what you would do if you if you had simply lost your venue.


    Now we find the League Controller doing Gonzaga's bidding and declaring the match postponed, against the League rules, the wishes of the Bray Captain and team, and the fair play other teams expect. And of course there is the heavy handed threat that Bray will default 8-0 if they don't agreed to the dictatorial conduct of the League Controller.


    The League Controller should publish all his email exchanges with both Captains and then resign.


    If Gonzaga can't field a team on 29 Feb that's tough on them.


  • Registered Users Posts: 222 ✭✭spidersweb


    I see the 4 NCL mentioned a couple of times but I don't understand that. The 4 NCL has nothing to do with the Armstrong Cup and is totally irrelevant anyway.

    The reason for a change of fixture was/is a problem with the venue. IF that is the case and there is not some slight of hand or funny business going on, then that is an issue that could be dealt with. A few suggestions have been made that make lots of sense, and would presumably solve the entire problem.

    As for Bray agreeing or not to play some games to help out Gonzaga, well that would of course have had to be IN ADVANCE of Feb the 29th, though again IF the issue was about the venue, Bray would have been correct to not make such individual arrangements if they just wanted to keep things really simple.

    As for the fanciful and naive notion that "It's hardly likely Bray - a big club with plenty of players available - will default 8-0 in that instance surely?" well, that seems to show how little is known and understood about the huge difficiculties of being able to field teams and real possibility that Bray may well be defauting a lot more than just the 8-0 against Gonzaga such is the dissarray and despondency now. Just too much hassle.

    Sat 29 Feb

    Round 9 Div 5 BEA Cup South Gonzaga Curragh


    This seems odd too. Venue problem is the reason given for the change of fixture so how to explain this?

    Just play on the orginal date surely.


  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 7,117 Mod ✭✭✭✭cdeb


    spidersweb wrote: »
    As for the fanciful and naive notion that "It's hardly likely Bray - a big club with plenty of players available - will default 8-0 in that instance surely?" well, that seems to show how little is known and understood about the huge difficiculties of being able to field teams and real possibility that Bray may well be defauting a lot more than just the 8-0 against Gonzaga such is the dissarray and despondency now. Just too much hassle.
    I'm captaining teams for 15 years now; I know a little bit about getting a team out.

    There was a similar issue in the Heidenfeld this season where Malahide asked for one of our games to be moved back a week because their new venue couldn't host as many games as their old one. We said three players couldn't move because we were off to the European Cup, and they were kept on the same date, but we got the other five moved and got on with things.

    It's not an ideal situation for sure, but if Bray scratch the match 8-0, they'd only have themselves to blame tbh. That's a smokescreen of an issue


  • Registered Users Posts: 222 ✭✭spidersweb


    cdeb wrote: »
    I'm captaining teams for 15 years now; I know a little bit about getting a team out.

    There was a similar issue in the Heidenfeld this season where Malahide asked for one of our games to be moved back a week because their new venue couldn't host as many games as their old one. We said three players couldn't move because we were off to the European Cup, and they were kept on the same date, but we got the other five moved and got on with things.

    It's not an ideal situation for sure, but if Bray scratch the match 8-0, they'd only have themselves to blame tbh. That's a smokescreen of an issue

    I was referring to you knowing next to nothing about Bray fielding a team and the difficulty it has, not whatever experience and knowledge you may have generally and with your own club.

    What each club decides to do when asked for a change in the fixture is up to each club. In the case of Bray, having been burned by being too nice and accommodating before and having serious problems fielding a team - as can be seen by anybody just looking at the record. The choice to simply play according to the fixtures, as was the case with Elm Mount, is straightforward.

    If Bray have not consented to a change of the fixture and can't get a team now then the 8-0 default is not a smokescreen, it would be a reality and it seems odd that you seem so keen now to blame Bray.

    It is so obvious that the match should be played on the 29 at an alternative venue if need be. Some games maybe could be played IN ADVANCE during the week if possible too. But forcing a team to be subject to the change of fixtures with such short notice is, in the circumstances here, really strange and unfair. Not only to just Bray either.


  • Registered Users Posts: 27 VanMorrison


    cdeb wrote: »
    I'm captaining teams for 15 years now; I know a little bit about getting a team out.

    There was a similar issue in the Heidenfeld this season where Malahide asked for one of our games to be moved back a week because their new venue couldn't host as many games as their old one. We said three players couldn't move because we were off to the European Cup, and they were kept on the same date, but we got the other five moved and got on with things.

    It's not an ideal situation for sure, but if Bray scratch the match 8-0, they'd only have themselves to blame tbh. That's a smokescreen of an issue


    Are you Gonzaga CC in disguise, cdeb? Your 15 years of bluster don't impress me.



    The rules are clear. The League Controller is ignoring the rules. He has no power to change the fixture. Gonzaga have been caught changing their reasons for changing the fixture.



    I don't see that Bray will scratch 8-0 if they don't/can't play on a date set by Gonzaga and the League Controller. I think it's more likely Gonzaga will scratch 8-0 if they don't play on the assigned date, Sat 29th Feb. I think most of the other Armstrong teams will see it that way.



    The League Controller won't be in the job for long. He's an obvious idiot and Gonzo flunkie. Gonzaga CC are a crew of cheats. If it isn't some kid in the bogs reading moves off a smart phone, its flogging the rules about playing players up from the second team. Previously I didn't care if the Gonzos won the Armstrong, now I hope they lose it now.


  • Registered Users Posts: 25 undisputed


    spidersweb wrote: »


    Round 9 Div 5 BEA Cup South Gonzaga Curragh[/B]

    This seems odd too. Venue problem is the reason given for the change of fixture so how to explain this?

    Just play on the orginal date surely.

    Right. So there are rooms available it seems :rolleyes:


  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 7,117 Mod ✭✭✭✭cdeb


    spidersweb wrote: »
    I was referring to you knowing next to nothing about Bray fielding a team and the difficulty it has, not whatever experience and knowledge you may have generally and with your own club.
    If a week's delay means a club the size of Bray can't find anyone to play, then ye deserve to be relegated tbh.

    It does seem that Bray have a bit of a legitimate grievance, but hyperbole won't help a rational discussion of it.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,863 ✭✭✭mikhail


    If Bray have an issue with the controller's decision (and if it's been described accurately here, they seem to me to have a reasonable grievance), they can appeal it to the LCU committee, and there's further recourse to the AGM. Those would seem like more sensible approaches than online name-calling.

    The leagues controller has a thankless and laborious job, essential to our pastime and paid absolutely nothing, so this attitude and abuse directed at him stinks, as does the presumption he's done something maliciously.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 222 ✭✭spidersweb


    mikhail wrote: »
    If Bray have an issue with the controller's decision (and if it's been described accurately here, they seem to me to have a reasonable grievance), they can appeal it to the LCU committee, and there's further recourse to the AGM. Those would seem like more sensible approaches than online name-calling.

    The leagues controller has a thankless and laborious job, essential to our pastime and paid absolutely nothing, so this attitude and abuse directed at him stinks, as does the presumption he's done something maliciously.
    Seems to be some odd misunderstanding here in which some of the comments by Van Morrison are somehow conflated with and or associated with the position Bray were forced into and any grievance therein. Details of which none of us know apparently.

    I have no idea who or what Van represents and I doubt he is speaking on behalf of anybody from Bray (nor am I), and further think his tone and choice of some words and assertions are, well questionable, or indeed over the top, hyperbolic even. There has been zero name calling from me, that is clear.

    Van the man may know more than me so I can not dismiss his main allegations and can only point back to the fact that I already expressed the view that calm and logical examination of the issues is best. He has made perfectly good and valid points too. While I have at no point claimed to be acting on behalf of Bray either.

    The whiff of something stinking in terms of the conduct of somebody involved with the decision made is not unreasonable if as is suggested lies were told or unfair choices made for the wrong reasons. It is a problem with the venue or it is something else. Which is it then?

    My sense of things is that it is more a case of disappointment.despondency,frustration and incredulity that is the main driver of the Bray position and the fact that having made arrangements for the 29th everything is now up in the air and as can be seen from the last match they played. Just getting to field a team is incredibly difficult- some of that is just bad luck in terms of the timing and coincidence, but the effect is the same.

    I am not privy to what course of action is being taken by Bray and would not suggest anybody to rely on anything I post here. I might be right and informed well enough on some of the issues but people should go by the facts as we know them first and foremost.

    As I have stressed from the outset I do not know or understand how and why the match can not be played on the scheduled date and have yet to see any good reason for changing the fixtures with just weeks notice.

    I would guess we will have to see how things play out before any of us knows the full story or true picture. Nothing at all wrong with offering a view in response to comments made by anybody.


  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 7,117 Mod ✭✭✭✭cdeb


    Trinity have 4 players v St Benildus, which will probably see us safe from relegation.

    That's despite agreeing to postpone two games to next week - so they've 3 players tonight for 6 boards and 1 next week for 2 boards.

    Their Ennis have already folded mid-season. Looks like the club could be on the way out unfortunately


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,297 ✭✭✭sodacat11


    cdeb wrote: »
    Trinity have 4 players v St Benildus, which will probably see us safe from relegation.

    That's despite agreeing to postpone two games to next week - so they've 3 players tonight for 6 boards and 1 next week for 2 boards.

    Their Ennis have already folded mid-season. Looks like the club could be on the way out unfortunately
    I don't know why you say "unfortunately", I think that most people will be glad to see the back of them as they always seem to have problems fulfilling fixtures. Hopefully their players will all join other clubs next season.


  • Registered Users Posts: 25 undisputed


    cdeb wrote: »
    . Looks like the club could be on the way out unfortunately

    Fortunately. Finally!!!


  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 7,117 Mod ✭✭✭✭cdeb


    Finished 6-1 to St Benildus; last board next week


  • Registered Users Posts: 222 ✭✭spidersweb


    spidersweb wrote: »
    . Nothing at all wrong with offering a view in response to comments made by anybody.
    So the Van Morrison posts at least have circumstantial evidence of being true, at least about some things?


    Funny coincidence to see 4 Gonzaga Armstrong players playing chess today, but not in their Rd 9 match against Bray.


    Barbican 4NCL 2 2180 Gonzaga 2315
    181 w Rogers, Jonathan W f 2335 - Collins, Sam E. i 2450
    182 b French, Max 2188 - Kanyamarala, Tarun f 2349
    183 w Navarro Cia, Miguel f 2259 - Kanyamarala, Trisha wf 2299
    184 b O'Toole, George E 2252 - Delaney, Killian 2287
    185 w Leon Cazares, Gustavo 2084 - Wall, Gavin i 2324
    186 b Makepeace, Philip J 2066 - Hajbok, Robert f 2353
    187 w Brett, Andrew R 2079 - Murray, David 2145
    188 b Bridgeman, Niamh w 1665 - Freeman, Gordon 2088

    The case and allegations made by, Van the man, looking more credible now surely?

    Today sees a 8-0 default for Bray now?

    Or this result set aside and discarded as null and void? If that costs Gonzaga in the final standings then that is the fault entirely of whomever was acting on behalf of Gonzaga in this stunt, of trying to pull a fast one- if indeed that was the case.

    The controller for the Armstrong, Gerard Smith made the decisions here.

    Along the lines of, if not exactly the following:

    Feb 20 (9 days before the match)

    "Gonzaga have a problem with their venue for the next round of the League on the 29 Feb. As this is a home match for them I am moving the game back by a week to 7 March."

    Feb 21 (8 days before the match)

    "Gonzaga have asked for a postponement due to non availability of the school on the day in question. They have ( their words) being trying to contact Bray for a number of weeks to highlight this issue. I have moved the game to the 7th March to give more time to arrive at a mutual agreed playing schedule. If that week does not suit we can look at the 14th or the 28th as a last resort."

    Feb 25 (4 days before the match)

    "The decision is made that the match is not going ahead on the 29th. You need to agree with Gonzaga on dates and times that suit.

    As I said before, when a club asks for a re fixture due to unavailability of premises I will always grant it, as its their home match
    ."

    So, he is is either telling lies ( the default assumption being this is not the case), or he was lied to, and the reason he gave to Bray for dictating a change of fixtures, just weeks before the match date was based on false and misleading information?

    In which case, Gonzaga should not be allowed to get away with this sort of thing with impunity. The fixtures have been known for a very long time and it is only (days) weeks before the Rd9 match that an apparent request to change the date of this match was made. The reason given being a problem with the venue (apparently) although another Match on the same date with another Gonzaga team is going ahead no problem at this same venue? What the heck is gong here?

    Problem is the venue or it is not? Sat 29 Feb 20 Gonzaga Curragh went ahead no problem?


    Further assumption is that Bray appealed the decision of the Armstrong controller Gerard Smith to the League controller Luke Hayden and seemingly the controller just backed up the decision made.

    Feb 25 ( 4 days before the match)

    "I have discussed this with Gerry several times. I have to agree with his logic."

    This despite there being now concerns and outright suggestions of something untoward going on, and at least a real potential for bias, partiality, if not a conflict of interest.

    This comes about because there has been the suggestion and indeed outright allegation that the real reason why Gonzaga wanted to change the fixture is because, as it happens, they have a composite team playing in another League, in another country (4 NCL) and that in addition to some of their Armstrong players being regular players for this team in this event, two of the players who play for that team in that League, in that country also play in the Armstrong team of guess which club?

    Yes, the same club and team as the Armstrong controller, Gerard Smith who decided to change the fixtures and dictate this change to Bray on the basis that there was a problem with the venue for Gonzaga.

    No mention of other considerations problems that is on the record (I think/assume- do not know this as a fact), aside from the suggestions in the air (unverified) that with a nod and a wink the real reason was to try accommodate Gonzaga in every way possible, because of their having another team in that other League, in that other country (4 NCL) and having a match on the same date as an Armstrong cup match.

    This begs many questions, like, IF this really is what was going on then both the Armstrong Cup fixtures and indeed, as it happens, the 4NCL fixtures, were known many months in advance of today's match fixture between Gonzaga A and Bray.

    If plenty of notice had been given to Bray of a request to change the match date then maybe that could have been considered with a view to having the match/games played IN ADVANCE of the Feb 29th fixture (today).

    However other clubs like Kilkenny and Elm Mount were given no such option as Bray have such difficulty fielding a team they need to keep it simple and consistent and in the case of the match with Elm Mount that saw a narrow win for Bray, but against Kilkenny a bad loss, as they were just too good on the day.

    Point being that this is the rough and turmoil of a sporting contest. Teams try their best and see how it goes. Both Kilkenny and Elm Mount are serious contenders to win the Armstrong, fair and square, taking the good with the bad, while it seems Gonzaga A are to be helped and facilitated as much as possible? Ironic considering they are the strongest team on paper.

    The truth is that Gonzaga are strong enough in depth that they could easily field a second, or third strength team, and still be competitive, and while they would be favorites against Bray if things had gone as they should have. Bray were in a position to field their strongest team all season today, but that was blown away when this forced fixture change was imposed on Bray.

    The issue for Bray being the date and not the venue, which Bray could have helped with by providing their venue or agreeing to play at another venue of the choice of Gonzaga or the controller.

    These changes of fixture situations are messy and very discouraging for people wanting to play League chess. But they are infuriating when shrouded in what seems like utter baloney too.

    It will be very interesting to see what happens today with the Balbriggan V Kilkenny match. What are the chances that the top two boards have been arranged for a different date?

    If they have played the games IN ADVANCE of today then fair play to both teams/clubs for being able to agree and accommodate each other, but if it is the case that there are deferrals then I don't think this right or good practice- if even allowed according the LG rules?

    The thing is, that no club or vested interests should be accommodated to the extent seems to have been the case here. It is unfair not only in this instance to Bray but especially to Elm Mount and Kilkenny who were given no special help or accommodations and had a fighting chance to win the Armstrong fair and square.

    While as regards the way the Armstrong controller and the League controller have conducted themselves in relation to this matter?

    Well the truth is that is not yet known and I am making a serious of assumptions and engaging in conjecture plus speculation based on bits of information and facts so I am not claiming to have the full story or correct conclusions.

    The fact that we should always be grateful and appreciative of the immense work done by the likes of Armstrong Cup controller Gerard Smith and League controller Luke Hayden does not mean we cannot question or be critical of decisions made in respect of their LCU roles.

    At the least they must be doing a lot more good than wrong and we should indeed never lose sight of that. Still, they can't have it every way and have to take the rough with the smooth, though I would agree that some of the comments made by Van the man are just not fair or appropriate.

    We have to wait and see what facts emerge and how or what appeals, complaints are made before jumping to conclusions, but on the face of things based on some facts and plenty of circumstantial evidence and suggestions there is cause for concern disappointment and frustration.

    Who really wants to see Bray awarded an 8-0 default, or be subject to an 8-0 default, or having the entire match null and void, as was done for example with one game "re-arranged" between Dublin and the Armstrong Controllers team, Balbriggan for example.

    We want games played and rules observed across the board for everyone, in both spirit and practice surely? Every effort should be made to have changes agreed and acted out IN ADVANCE of set fixtures, not messy arrangements that are detrimental to the health of our Leagues.


  • Registered Users Posts: 382 ✭✭macelligott


    December 7th Balbriggan v Elm Mount. The home venue was not available because of Christmas parties. So the match was moved to Elm Mount with the agreement of Balbriggan.


  • Registered Users Posts: 222 ✭✭spidersweb


    December 7th Balbriggan v Elm Mount. The home venue was not available because of Christmas parties. So the match was moved to Elm Mount with the agreement of Balbriggan.


    Very interesting and how many people would have known that? I certainly didn't and it always seemed odd to me that a default position would be to change a fixture as opposed to just changing a venue.

    However, this gets to the crux of the matter, and the source of the main grievance. Was the reason given, and choice made, genuine or not? On the face of it, it seems not unreasonable to be very skeptical or even furious at the possibility of it not being genuine or impartial at all.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,297 ✭✭✭sodacat11


    Anyone who believes that Gonzaga College was "unavailable" today probably also believes in the Tooth Fairy. I wrote once about the sense of entitlement that Gonzaga had and I got slammed for it but this is just yet another example of what I was talking about. I think that Bray should be awarded an 8-0 win as it is crystal clear to everyone that the 4NCL is the real reason that Gonzaga couldn't field a team today. As Spidersweb says Gonzaga have enough strength in depth to field a strong team but of course they wouldn't do that because they feel "entitled" to win the Armstrong yet again. The whole thing stinks to high heaven.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 222 ✭✭spidersweb


    sodacat11 wrote: »
    Anyone who believes that Gonzaga College was "unavailable" today probably also believes in the Tooth Fairy. I wrote once about the sense of entitlement that Gonzaga had and I got slammed for it but this is just yet another example of what I was talking about. I think that Bray should be awarded an 8-0 win as it is crystal clear to everyone that the 4NCL is the real reason that Gonzaga couldn't field a team today. As Spidersweb says Gonzaga have enough strength in depth to field a strong team but of course they wouldn't do that because they feel "entitled" to win the Armstrong yet again. The whole thing stinks to high heaven.



    While I never believed in the tooth fairy I confess I indulged the possibility.


    I was wrong, very wrong.


Advertisement