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
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

LOI: League of Ireland Fixtures (Week 4), March 28-30, 2014

13»

Comments

  • #102
    dfx-
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 15,694 Mod ✭✭✭✭dfx-


    oldyouth wrote: »
    Totally agree. Given that they play the home fixtures on Sunday, they are able to use the full 3+1 compliment of A squad players. We play the B team at Ferrycarrig next Friday, so no doubt they will all take all the good players to Cork for their A team match the same night. Doesn't seem fair

    didn't seem to bother Harps a couple of weeks ago. Anyone looking for promotion really have no excuse at the moment to not beat a recently put together side.


  • #103
    CSF
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,566 ✭✭✭✭CSF


    dfx- wrote: »
    didn't seem to bother Harps a couple of weeks ago. Anyone looking for promotion really have no excuse

    What first team players played against Harps a few weeks ago?


  • #104
    dan1895
    Registered Users Posts: 4,597 ✭✭✭dan1895


    It's boll*x really. I don't think a player should be allowed in both squads over the same weekend.


  • #105
    CSF
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,566 ✭✭✭✭CSF


    dan1895 wrote: »
    It's boll*x really. I don't think a player should be allowed in both squads over the same weekend.

    Of course not, it's an absolute shambles and this 'oh you should beat us anyway if you are so good' bollox is strawmannery at its finest. I'm angry Tony.


  • #106
    dfx-
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 15,694 Mod ✭✭✭✭dfx-


    CSF wrote: »
    What first team players played against Harps a few weeks ago?

    None. Shep might not play either.

    I would tend to agree that players shouldn't really play twice in a weekend, but other than that..


  • #107
    CSF
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,566 ✭✭✭✭CSF


    dfx- wrote: »
    None. Sheppard might not play either.

    I would tend to agree that players shouldn't really play twice in a weekend, but other than that..

    There should be separate squads like in every other country that does this. The fact that a team could have to play against Finn or McPhail on any given weekend if they need match fitness is an absolute shambles and indicative of football in this country. I wouldn't go as far as to wish injuries on players but it would certainly teach Rovers a lesson if they were to start losing first-teamers in these games that are essentially meaningless to them.


  • #108
    overshoot
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,224 ✭✭✭overshoot


    CSF wrote: »
    What first team players played against Harps a few weeks ago?

    None, there was a setanta game on the Monday, I think this is the first time they have involved senior squad members. Its now we will start to see this ****... Or hopefully they just wanna piss of shels!


  • #109
    CSF
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,566 ✭✭✭✭CSF


    overshoot wrote: »
    None, there was a setanta game on the Monday, I think this is the first time they have involved senior squad members. Its now we will start to see this ****... Or hopefully they just wanna piss of shels!

    Most likely the first one.


  • #110
    dundalkfc10
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,719 ✭✭✭dundalkfc10


    And now people will start to see the unfair advantage this will give Rovers. Will prob mean them finishing 4th instead of 5th


  • #111
    overshoot
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,224 ✭✭✭overshoot


    CSF wrote: »
    Most likely the first one.
    yea id imagine unless they are involved in some midweek game this full steam ahead for the +3 rule, absolute joke should be 18 pissed off clubs. they should have 2 squads and be done, make any changes in the transfer window like every other club.
    (altho im semi grateful we dodged a bullet!)


  • Advertisement
  • #112
    dfx-
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 15,694 Mod ✭✭✭✭dfx-


    bayly and cornwall are the other two apparently today, bayly will obviously run riot being so much better than FD standard...


  • #113
    Gavin "shels"
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,965 ✭✭✭✭Gavin "shels"


    Not sure if it's been mentioned, but can one of the Rovers fans on here grab the megaphone off the muppet that has it in Tallaght and shove it right up his jacksie!


  • #114
    CSF
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,566 ✭✭✭✭CSF


    dfx- wrote: »
    bayly and cornwall are the other two apparently today, bayly will obviously run riot being so much better than FD standard...

    Again, strawman argument. Bayly is clearly better than the alternative or else it would be the alternative that would be in the first team squad. I get that you're a Rovers fan and all, but you should really learn not to argue the unarguable just because it relates to Rovers.


  • #115
    AgileMyth
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,761 ✭✭✭AgileMyth


    Gavin shels wrote: »
    Not sure if it's been mentioned, but can one of the Rovers fans on here grab the megaphone off the muppet that has it in Tallaght and shove it right up his jacksie!
    If one of the Pats fans could do likewise with the lad with the bell we'd be sorted.


  • #116
    dundalkfc10
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,719 ✭✭✭dundalkfc10


    AgileMyth wrote: »
    If one of the Pats fans could do likewise with the lad with the bell we'd be sorted.

    Always wondered, what is the story with the bell anyway?


  • #117
    Amirani
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 12,535 Mod ✭✭✭✭Amirani


    Is there any other countries that have a similar model for B teams? Today's situation seems bizzare.


  • #118
    CSF
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,566 ✭✭✭✭CSF


    NiallSparky wrote: »
    Is there any other countries that have a similar model for B teams? Today's situation seems bizzare.

    Nope, can't help but feel a bit robbed of 2 points in the circumstances.


  • #119
    dreamers75
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,558 ✭✭✭✭dreamers75


    dundalkfc10 wrote: »
    Always wondered, what is the story with the bell anyway?

    I hate that ****ing bell!!!


  • #120
    miroslavklose
    Registered Users Posts: 354 ✭✭miroslavklose


    Mr.Crinklewood wrote: »
    What was the chant?
    It was something that (sort of) rhymes with Keano and isn't complimentary.
    CSF wrote: »
    Karl Sheppard allowed play Friday night against Sligo and now in the squad today against us. What a jokeshop of a league this is. Only the FAI/Rovers could take a great idea that has worked numerous countries across Europe and turn it into a bad thing.
    As far as I understand it, those are the three designated senior players who can drop down now, nobody else can.


  • Advertisement
  • #121
    dfx-
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 15,694 Mod ✭✭✭✭dfx-


    CSF wrote: »
    Again, strawman argument. Bayly is clearly better than the alternative or else it would be the alternative that would be in the first team squad. I get that you're a Rovers fan and all, but you should really learn not to argue the unarguable just because it relates to Rovers.

    Yeah, but 'they shouldn't be allowed play clearly better players' is an equally nonsense argument. I wonder has anyone in La Liga tried that to get out of playing Iniesta. "He's clearly better than any alternative, so he shouldn't play".

    Coombes, Purdy in particular and Lyons were the picks. Keeper was poor.


  • #122
    Hard Worker
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,170 ✭✭✭Hard Worker


    I couldn't believe how unfit the shels players were. Players walking around knackered. Others, at times, bent over with hands on knees trying to recover.


  • #123
    Lovely Bloke
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,748 ✭✭✭✭Lovely Bloke


    Part time amateur players being less fit than full time professionals shocker.


  • #124
    dan1895
    Registered Users Posts: 4,597 ✭✭✭dan1895


    A lot of those Shels players have a full u19's season behind them too.


  • #125
    CSF
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,566 ✭✭✭✭CSF


    dfx- wrote: »
    Yeah, but 'they shouldn't be allowed play clearly better players' is an equally nonsense argument. I wonder has anyone in La Liga tried that to get out of playing Iniesta. "He's clearly better than any alternative, so he shouldn't play".

    Coombes, Purdy in particular and Lyons were the picks. Keeper was poor.

    That's clearly not the argument. If Bayly is with the B team every week, fine. You can have the greatest players you want in the B team. But being able to transfer in your players from the first team into the second team with no notice required isn't even allowed at under 9s level, never mind the highest and 2nd highest levels of football in this country. You really really like straw.


  • #126
    anncoates
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,925 ✭✭✭✭anncoates


    Any 80k that annoys Shels so much is money well spent.


  • Advertisement
  • #127
    geeky
    Registered Users Posts: 2,380 ✭✭✭geeky


    I'm a Rovers fan and I agree it's a bit of a nonsense having players dropping in and out of the 'B' team.

    When the deal was announced, it was said that there'd be a limit on players moving between the different teams (3, I think), and that was fair. If no transfers were allowed at all, Rovers would be naturally hesitant about giving a potentially promising player a run-out with the 'B's, because doing so would rule him out of first-team contention for the season - so you'd just end up with the dross in the 'b' team. But I doubt giving Bayly a run-out was what the FAI had in mind.


  • #128
    CSF
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,566 ✭✭✭✭CSF


    geeky wrote: »
    I'm a Rovers fan and I agree it's a bit of a nonsense having players dropping in and out of the 'B' team.

    When the deal was announced, it was said that there'd be a limit on players moving between the different teams (3, I think), and that was fair. If no transfers were allowed at all, Rovers would be naturally hesitant about giving a potentially promising player a run-out with the 'B's, because doing so would rule him out of first-team contention for the season - so you'd just end up with the dross in the 'b' team. But I doubt giving Bayly a run-out was what the FAI had in mind.

    I don't think anyone would have had too much of an issue with players moving up, because every team in the Premier Division has this option from their Under 19s etc. No unfair advantage there. But the opposite direction is just ridiculous. The whole thing has been made a complete mess of and the FAI need to sort it out at the end of the season.


  • #129
    dfx-
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 15,694 Mod ✭✭✭✭dfx-


    geeky wrote: »
    I'm a Rovers fan and I agree it's a bit of a nonsense having players dropping in and out of the 'B' team.

    When the deal was announced, it was said that there'd be a limit on players moving between the different teams (3, I think), and that was fair. If no transfers were allowed at all, Rovers would be naturally hesitant about giving a potentially promising player a run-out with the 'B's, because doing so would rule him out of first-team contention for the season - so you'd just end up with the dross in the 'b' team. But I doubt giving Bayly a run-out was what the FAI had in mind.

    I don't want to know what the FAI had in mind except the league fee and an eighth team, but...

    It's not about giving Bayly a run out for Rovers. You can see the improvement in Coombes having Bayly beside him and in Lyons having Shep beside him compared to the Harps game - helpful to their development and perhaps a more true reflection of their capability. Which should be Rovers' goal*.

    *And to annoy Shels.


  • #130
    smackbunnybaby
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,335 ✭✭✭smackbunnybaby


    How have the FAI managed to get an existing european model wrong?

    You are registered to either an 'A Team' or a 'B Team' at the start of the season.

    That is your base team.

    1. Players in B can play up and go back down.
    2. Players in A can't play down.
    3. Players can't play for the two teams in the same match week.


  • #131
    oldyouth
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,754 ✭✭✭oldyouth


    smackbunnybaby wrote: »
    How have the FAI managed to get an existing european model wrong?
    .

    I think you have your answer ;)


  • Advertisement
  • #132
    Gavin "shels"
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,965 ✭✭✭✭Gavin "shels"


    dfx- wrote: »

    It's not about giving Bayly a run out for Rovers. You can see the improvement in Coombes having Bayly beside him and in Lyons having Shep beside him compared to the Harps game - helpful to their development and perhaps a more true reflection of their capability. Which should be Rovers' goal*.

    *And to annoy Shels.

    Having Bayly beside him is far from good.....


Advertisement