Boston College v Georgia Tech @ Aviva Stadium 2016

TOss Sweep

csirl wrote: »

TOss Sweep wrote: »

They have no money to pay legal fees. Do you honestly believe thye will come after a few hundred peoe on a message board and try sue them over what could be considered opinion and not fact. Laughable at best. They would stand aome chance against the indo but regular Joes on a message board yeah right.
.

Doubt it very much.

Is everyone posting here a regular Joe? Any PR company "bots" with multiple accounts?

Boards don't allow bots or multiple accounts and if you are implying I am you are way off.

helimachoptor

csirl wrote: »

Doubt it very much.

Is everyone posting here a regular Joe? Any PR company "bots" with multiple accounts?

No all regular posters, no hidden agenda, Jamarcus included.

Frankly the chat on here about AF doesn't warrant anyone coming to try and steer/bash/promote something, the number of fans is too small

JaMarcusHustle

Patww79 wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Well he only signed up to Boards this week and has posted nothing other than defensive arguments on IAFA's side. He has categorically denied IAEL claims that no one without inside information could deny, and even knew that the Independent removed/amended their week old article. All this in the same week a poster with a very similar posting style was laughed out of r/cfb for being an IAFA shill, and then ran to r/Ireland to post the same arguments - with a lot of crossover as to what he has posted here. For example:

Both are aware of the DTTS involvement and critical of them in their arguments (bonus points for appropriate capitalisation of initials!):

Reddit Guy wrote:

However, note that the Department of Transport, Tourism, and Sport has given money to IAEL to facilitate putting on the event, because it will be good for the Irish economy.

csirl on Boards wrote:

Also, IAFA informed the Department of Transport, Tourism & Sport about the insurance issues 9 months ago and gave it more or less monthly updates since then. This problem probably could have been solved by the Department a few months ago, but they ignored the warnings.

Both are remarkably efficient when using acronyms, making sure to fully highlight the name of the company involved at the first use of the acronym in their arguments:

Reddit Guy wrote:

In Ireland, the event is being put on by the IAEL (Irish American Events Ltd), a promotion company.

csirl on Boards wrote:

The organisers – Irish American Events Limited (IAEL) have engaged in a dirty tricks media campaign aimed at putting pressure on IAFA or on the Government to put pressure on IAFA.

Both have compared it to the Garth Brooks fiasco, despite little similarity.

Reddit Guy wrote:

We had a similar scandal about a Garth Brooks concert series, which is why I am motivated to write this

csirl on Boards wrote:

Yes, the Government may not want to stop them because it doesn’t want another Garth Brooks scenario.

Both play their argument off as a concern over health and safety.

Reddit Guy wrote:

The issue is that IAEL aren't meeting health and safety standards for the event(s).

csirl on Boards wrote:

While the Government cant stop it, do you think they would have chosen to grant aid Irish American Events Limited over GAA if they knew that they wouldn't' comply with the basic safety requirements of a Sport Ireland National Governing Body?

Both refer to National Governing Bodies as NGB.

Reddit Guy wrote:

That not to mention that now all NGBs are ****ed since nobody has to comply with regulations. We pay for those NGBs.

csirl on Boards wrote:

IAEL approached IAFA and asked to apply for sanction. As the NGB IAFA must facilitate.

As soon as I read his post yesterday I knew he was the same guy posting on Reddit denying up and down that he was connected to the IAFA. It took me 10 minutes to find some similar posting styles and habits. I've already outed one serial liar and duplicate account user on Boards this year, I can't be arsed putting much more effort into outing another.

Can JaMarcusHustle declare his connection with the game? No hidden agendas.

No connection whatsoever, though I will now take a little bit extra pleasure sitting in the stands knowing there are some IAFA members with their feathers rustled over this.

I don't disagree with IAFA's argument - I really don't have enough knowledge of the situation to take either side. Both sides' have embarrassed themselves with their press releases, but I find the IAFA's releases (along with their shill's comments) to be petty in alluding to a false threat that the game could be cancelled.

csirl

No connection whatsoever, though I will now take a little bit extra pleasure sitting in the stands knowing there are some IAFA members with their feathers rustled over this.

Why are you taking pleasure in this if you don't have a vested interest? Why do you care? I care about this a lot because Im a IAFA member. I have a clear vested interest. Why do you? Whats yours. No hidden agendas mod.

No, Im not the guy in reddit or whatever that other thing is. Can you post a link? Would be interested in reading it.

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.

csirl

To move the discussion on. What's going to happen after the game? I dont mean between IAFA and IAEL. More in terms of the impact on the sporting sector.

Government wants to deal with H&S in sport following the MMA tragedy. Lot of sounds about stricter National Governing Body regulation of events.

FAI has threatened to go legal on non FAI events e.g.that Barca game in Limerick. Will promoters start ignoring FAI?

This clearly weakens the Sport Ireland regulatory system. John Treacy happy?

What impact will this event have on these issues? What impact will the response to MMA have on games in Aviva?

JaMarcusHustle

Do the IAFA charge a fee to sanction games? If yes (and I already know the answer is yes), how much would the fee have been for this game?

TOss Sweep

Patww79 wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

What resentment towards IAFA members. Not every IAFA or IAFL member has control of the actions of a few as much as some think they do. I have played and coached in the IAFL for close to 11 years and I have a lot of friends still involved with the sport and many of which disagree with the sh1t going on right now. There is a divide and some wont admit there is.

Do I resent ALL IAFA folk? No that is just plain stupid to even suggest that anyone on here resents all IAFA members. The problem is here that both the IAFA and IAEL have not been as transparent as both sides believe and it is 100% clear they are both posting what they feel will make them look good on their websites via statements. What we don't see is all the crap in the background.

The question was originally do the IAFA have the right to sanction the game and as usual their power becomes fruitless because once again an event goes ahead with the sports counsel and corresponding sport governing body powerless to stop it.

Is that right? No its not but it has happened before and will happen again until the government and tourism board and every sector of the government get on board to the rules they set out in the first place.

davetherave

5.7. The following sanction fees shall apply:
(i) Games between IAFA members and certain overseas teams (see below), where there are no commercial parties involved and the game is not part of a tour put together by a travel agent or other third party: €100.

Overseas teams must be members of their countries recognised National American football
Federation, the NCAA, NFHS or AFA.

(ii) Third party/commercial income generating events (base = 2015 prices):
The fees will include legal (to a certain limit), administrative, basic compliance and risk costs to the IAFA. Fees will be graduated based on (i) the number of seats in the proposed venue and/or (ii) the ticketed or paying attendance (whichever is higher).
A. < 2,000 = €2,000*
B. 2,000 to 9,999 = €4,000*
C. 10,000 to 19,999 = €6,000**
D. 20,000 to 29,999 = €8,000**
E. 30,000 or more = €10,000**
* If legal costs are in excess of 50%, the applicant pays the balance (vouched).
** If legal costs are in excess of 33%, the applicant pays the balance (vouched).

Fees will be indexed linked annually using an appropriate Irish Government pricing index.
Applicants must also take responsibility for all other extraordinary compliance costs incurred by the IAFA relating to their event.

Dec4

Anyone know the discount code/password for €10 OFF tickets on Ticketmaster?
TIA

TOss Sweep

BY the way CSIRL I am almost sure I know who you are and if I am right you have direct involvement of the IAFA .

JaMarcusHustle

So am I right in saying IAFA would have been owed over 10,000 Euro by IAEL before they would sanction it?

csirl

JaMarcusHustle wrote: »

Do the IAFA charge a fee to sanction games? If yes (and I already know the answer is yes), how much would the fee have been for this game?

The fee was waived for this game. See the correspondence on the IAFA website.

JaMarcusHustle

csirl wrote:

The fee was waived for this game. See the correspondence on the IAFA website.

What money do IAEL owe then? I thought one of the articles stated that IAFA were seeking money owed to ye?

davetherave

TOss Sweep wrote: »

BY the way CSIRL I am almost sure I know who you are and if I am right you have direct involvement of the IAFA .

Yeah, I'd have a fairly educated guess if I had to make one.




My understanding is that it was the legal fees that IAFA paid on behalf of IAEL that they were after.

Regrettably, following receipt of the decision not to sanction the events, IAEL declined to pay the invoices relating to the vouched legal costs incurred in relation to their applications. The IAFA statement of 24th August on the IAFA website contains a picture of the declaration executed by Mr. Sean Gallagher, the Agent of IAEL, which is also replicated below

TOss Sweep

What I don't get here if the IAFA are fully confident that the money is owed by the IAEL why are they not taking legal action against them rather than being childish like the IAEL and posting proof online and going back and forward with each other making statements. According to the document you have provided the IAEL owe the legal fees so why is it being discussed online rather than being handled in court. CSIRL as an IAFA board member I am sure you can answer that one.

All these threats of cancelling the game and no mention of a legal case where they get their money back. Makes no sense.

Bateman

TOss Sweep wrote: »

What I don't get here if the IAFA are fully confident that the money is owed by the IAEL why are they not taking legal action against them rather than being childish like the IAEL and posting proof online and going back and forward with each other making statements. According to the document you have provided the IAEL owe the legal fees so why is it being discussed online rather than being handled in court. CSIRL as an IAFA board member I am sure you can answer that one.

All these threats of cancelling the game and no mention of a legal case where they get their money back. Makes no sense.

Bit, more, chew…

leinsterdude

anyone know if it actually starts at 12:30, or later, seems very early...

leinsterdude

sorry also it is likely to be full ?

helimachoptor

12:30, not likely to be full

Beefy78

I bought my ticket yesterday, it won't be full but there's a decent number of tickets sold. Looks likely to be 75% full at least.

mooreman09

So who'll win the game then...... When everyone's finished being a bitch.

Knex*

Yeah, my knowledge of college ball is limited. Only really ever scrub up on it prior to the draft. Anyone, or anything, that we should be keeping an eye on for this game?

eagle eye

Jamarcus you do realise that there are lots of people in the world with similar posting styles? There are even different people with almost identical views on the same subject who talk and write the same way.

You started something before about a user in this forum and you were wrong but it appears you have bullied him off the board. Here you go again with the same stuff. They do look similar but it doesn't mean it's the same person.

jack presley

mooreman09 wrote: »

So who'll win the game then...... When everyone's finished being a bitch.

I'm cheering for BC (as I'm sitting where their fans are apparently) but I was hoping for Navy and UCF wins too and look where that got me.

GT are ranked slightly higher but in all honesty, before a ball is snapped that should be taken with a pinch of salt.

Just give me a close game with a finish like the last one and I'll be happy!

JaMarcusHustle

I wasnt wrong. Unless you believed his story that his stalker ex created multiple accounts and copied his posting style and thanks all his posts to make it look like he had multiple accounts as an act of revenge.

Funnily enough, if I was wrong, then I'm sure it's just a mad coincidence that half a dozen accounts magically stopped posting at the same time.

An act of solidarity, I'm sure.

But if you believed that, then send me a PM because I've also got some magic beans I'm looking to offload

helimachoptor

Lads, no more talking of mult accounts.

Blut2

Paddypower have it as:

Georgia Tech (-3.0) @ 1.95

Boston College (+3.0) @ 1.86

So should be quite a close game according them anyway.

Knex*

Can we just talk about the game. Its a great occasion to be able to watch some proper American Football in our home country. We can get into the politics behind it and all the semantics next week.

Enjoy Saturday first and foremost.

Beefy78

I'm looking forward to it, its my first ever visit to the Aviva despite living round the corner. I'm sitting in the Gods but I don't think that's a bad thing in American Football.

I'm taking a half day on Friday to take in at least one and hopefully two of the High School games too. Hopefully the weather holds up.