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 "Your correct in saying that the word probably was used incorrectly used in the above post, should have been replaced by the word unquestionably."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

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."

Replying To Meridian:  "Just a point of order here. I understand you have named the 15 for Div 1. These 15 are therefore NOT eligible for Div 6 which you have confirmed. However, if any player outside of the named 15 play even a minute for the Div 1 team they are NO LONGER eligible for Div 6. Am i correct on that or not?"

Replying To lakecounty90:  "https://www.westmeathexaminer.ie/2024/10/22/were-gone-like-soccer-declares-downs-boss-after-shootout/
and the award for sore losers of the year goes to"

Replying To 2maroonjerseys:  "Nail on the head. Lilliput have broken no rules only looking to accommodate both sets of players and supporters."

Replying To mintyfresh:  "At no stage did anyone say they broke rules. You're twisting things again for your own agenda. The main thing here is players are getting games and that is guaranteed. I doubt there are too many if even any parents caught here with sibling's playing on the two different teams and if that is the case I'm sure that should have been organised by team management to avoid a situation like this."

Replying To Thechick:  "Its actually all over the Hogan stand now . What baffles me is if the Downs were definity (everyone knows this seemingly) the better team ,how they didn't win it in normal time in either game is a mystery.
Plus since the Downs players were the only ones running and in turn were too tired to take penos ,how were the Loman's lads able to take them ,none of them were obviously running."

Replying To mintyfresh:  "The bitterness from some here is off the wall. You'd know very few have any input in underage coaching or administration and no doubt are from town clubs where lack of numbers is the furthest thing from a problem to them. What was insane about that amalgamation. Milltown and Ballymore are already joined and have been for years as Millmore Gaels and Maryland/Tang have been amalgamated underage for over 30 years. Just because they are the formation of two senior clubs doesn't mean they struggle any less for numbers at underage than if they were stand alone. Maryland/Tang and Millmore Gaels are neighbouring each other so what's the problem with them amalgamating to ensure football for young lads. That year they so happened to have a group of talented footballers and won a championship. It could very easily happen they get together and have a less talented group that don't win but at least lads are getting football. The bottom line is the county board put in the rule in the planning report at the start of the year about clubs with two teams have to play at the same time. They broke this rule with the under 16 championship debacle and lost out in their appeal so now they have to enforce it. Fairness is entitled to all teams and Maryland/Tang are no different. Young lads aren't been deprived football like has been suggested. If a team enters two teams it is on the premise they have more than enough numbers to field two teams and this should not be an issue when this arises. And there is no case Maryland/Tang are only doing this to get at the county board as has been immaturely stated here too. Some keyboard warriors here need to take a good look at themselves before posting scurrilous rubbish without knowing full facts."

Replying To mintyfresh:  "At no stage did anyone say they broke rules. You're twisting things again for your own agenda. The main thing here is players are getting games and that is guaranteed. I doubt there are too many if even any parents caught here with sibling's playing on the two different teams and if that is the case I'm sure that should have been organised by team management to avoid a situation like this."

Replying To WmeathWarrior:  "The agenda against st, Lomans continues. Had The Downs had won on penalties we can be assured there would not be a word about penalties. This is a once in a generation Lomans team who has the respect and admiration from everyone who appreciates the dedication and commitment of a team like that. I for one am very proud to be associated with them. And had The Downs won, I would be equally as acknowledging to them as winners. They are a fantastic team who pushed the county champions all the way and there will be many more great finals to come from these two teams. We should be grateful."

Replying To Convert2:  "Obviously you did not read the article you reference regards penalties deciding the result. The Downs manager was fair in his comments about both teams and praised Loman's getting over the line. Sportsmanship comes in many guises but tagging a team as sore losers after an epic contest shows a lack of it on your part."

Replying To lakecounty90:  "Jason Daly
David Whelehan
Charlie Drumm
Sam Smith
Joe Moran
Jack ODonoghue
Sam McCartan
Nigel Harte
John Heslin
Shane Allen
Ronan OToole
Ian Martin
Luke Loughlin
Denis Corroon
Danny McCartan"

Replying To Bluelake:  "David Whelan isn't going to to back in with the county at 30, so that one won't be happening. Same goes for Denis Corroon. John Heslin will announce his retirement when Lomans are beaten in Leinster."

Replying To lakecounty90:  "Club team of year. Mind you Whelan and Corroon would still be better options than whats in there"

Replying To lakecounty90:  "Club team of year. Mind you Whelan and Corroon would still be better options than whats in there"