FAI Licensing

**Dr.Nightdub** · 18/01/2006, 8:19 PM

Well in answer to that, I'd guess that most clubs have the same attitude to Revenue Commisioners that they do to genital warts - i.e. avoid at all costs. Whereas Rovers on the other hand, cos of the whole examinership thing, had fairly extensive (and voluntary) contact with the Revenue and might therefore be more au fait with the current situation generally and the Revenue's attitude to that situation.

**higgins** · 18/01/2006, 10:52 PM

Lets turn the question around. Are you in possession of enough information to state unequivocally that Shels have submitted all the required information AND more importantly that the information contained in it is materially true, fair and correct?

I dont feel there is any need to turn the question around

I thought it was a rather simple and straight forward question at the time, maybe not to some of you?

I'll answer your question in the hope it might make you understand where I am coming from, NO I cant say Shels application is correct. I know NOTHING about what is in this seasons application. Thats the reason I wanted to know about it

I dont think I have ever defended shels when I had nothing to back me up so if Shels are in trouble then lets hear why? Aslo I would be 100% behind punishment for Shels or any other club if they didnt get their proper licence. Ive never been slow to come out and say what I felt was wrong at Shels before so I am not going to start now.

My question still remains ,

How can some posters claim they have information when they wont share how they got this information? Not only that but they also cant use the copy and paste button correctly and misquote people to try get their point across.

From where Im sitting it looks like your making it up, please prove otherwise if you can.

**Dodge** · 18/01/2006, 11:03 PM

Originally Posted by higgins

How can some posters claim they have information when they wont share how they got this information? ...From where Im sitting it looks like your making it up, please prove otherwise if you can.

In fairness I know a few things about some Dublin clubs which would lead them getting in trouble. As I don't have any physical proof to back it up I'm not going to risk this site (or anyone else) being sued just to satisfy you.

You can believe what you want.

**Bald Student** · 18/01/2006, 11:12 PM

Originally Posted by Dodge

In fairness I know a few things about some Dublin clubs which would lead them getting in trouble. As I don't have any physical proof to back it up I'm not going to risk this site being sued just to satisfy you.

You can believe what you want.

That's very different to knowing that all 21 other clubs are in difficulty, which is what's being claimed.

**Breifne** · 18/01/2006, 11:18 PM

Originally Posted by Bald Student

That's very different to knowing that all 21 other clubs are in difficulty, which is what's being claimed.

I'm involved with the licence application for Dublin City, and we should have no problem getting our licence. We have been told as much by the licencing department of the FAI. We have submitted everything we were asked on time and in full. The only thing which could stop us getting the licence could be if the licencing department and the first instance committee (which is independent) don't agree on something.

**Roverstillidie** · 19/01/2006, 9:11 AM

Originally Posted by higgins

I'll answer your question in the hope it might make you understand where I am coming from, NO I cant say Shels application is correct. I know NOTHING about what is in this seasons application.
My question still remains ,

How can some posters claim they have information when they wont share how they got this information? Not only that but they also cant use the copy and paste button correctly and misquote people to try get their point across.

From where Im sitting it looks like your making it up, please prove otherwise if you can.

i have no interest in 'proving' anyhing, but at this stage its more than anecdotal that shels are in severe trouble with the taxman. revenue have recently founded an entire unit just to target sports teams, with EL clubs number 1 on the list. players have let it be known that they were getting paid in cash only at shels, and in one case in coin. join the dots.

**OneRedArmy** · 19/01/2006, 9:35 AM

Originally Posted by Bald Student

That's very different to knowing that all 21 other clubs are in difficulty, which is what's being claimed.

Read the thread again, nobody said that.

**ColinR** · 19/01/2006, 9:46 AM

well i think this implies something along them lines

Originally Posted by Roverstillidie

why should we pay our tax on time, in full, and it appears nearly all of the rest not? why should we be the only EL club with the correct tax cert and see the el change the rules for the other 21 clubs?.

**higgins** · 19/01/2006, 9:59 AM

i have no interest in 'proving' anyhing, but at this stage its more than anecdotal that shels are in severe trouble with the taxman. revenue have recently founded an entire unit just to target sports teams, with EL clubs number 1 on the list. players have let it be known that they were getting paid in cash only at shels, and in one case in coin. join the dots.

Is that not just a copy and paste from 2005 ? and 2004 ? and maybe even 2003! ...

Im delighted you are all in on something that Im not, but would you care to post any details as to what you know? I dont think you have to get yourself or anyone on this site in trouble but making wild statements with no attempt to back them up is not doing you any favours.

Dodge, I wasnt talking about your post as you didnt come out and say something without backing it up but others did. Sure we can all make statements without backing them up!

As an EL fan does anyone have any information or is it the usual crap?

**Roverstillidie** · 19/01/2006, 10:13 AM

Originally Posted by ColinR

well i think this implies something along them lines

my understanding is that, yes, we are (well, were a few weeks ago) the only club with a tax cert for 2006. as such, we should be the only club with a licence. but the EL changed the rules to accomodate the other 21 clubs. i dont think thats in dispute

as for the rest of the criteria, im not sure, but i have heard anecdotal stories about most clubs having problems.

its not up to rovers and pats fans to tell higgins whats wrong with the corporate governance at shels....

**Breifne** · 19/01/2006, 10:36 AM

Originally Posted by Roverstillidie

my understanding is that, yes, we are (well, were a few weeks ago) the only club with a tax cert for 2006. as such, we should be the only club with a licence. but the EL changed the rules to accomodate the other 21 clubs. i dont think thats in dispute

as for the rest of the criteria, im not sure, but i have heard anecdotal stories about most clubs having problems.

its not up to rovers and pats fans to tell higgins whats wrong with the corporate governance at shels....

Lets see how you like it:

Lets face it all of the claims of 21 clubs to be in trouble are pretty much anecdotal, (for anecdotal read wishful thinking) on the behalf of a small number of Shamrock Rovers fans who are acting like the perverbial prostitute who got her hymen restored.

Just because you went crawling to the FAI saying we're broke, can you help us, and somehow managed to wipe the slate clean for a measly 4 percent of your debt, doesn't mean you can now occupy the moral high ground. Your club were the worst offenders in this regard in the league twelve months ago.

Imagine if you give someone a hundred euro when they are stuck, they come back and say here's 4 euro, now we are quits. How do you think you would feel. Shamrock Rovers have done more damage to the reputation of the eircom league in the last five years than almost the rest of the clubs combined.

How many investors want to put money into a club, how many sponsors, suppliers or banks are willing to help out clubs. SFA cause they fear they might only get back 4% of what they put in. Who's fault is that. 100% the fault of Shamrock Rovers FC.

I appreciate that it is different management now, and i feel that the 400 club are the right people at the right time, with the right motives, but the public perception hasn't changed yet, this will take time to heal, and i would imagine there are numerous business's out there who will not even consider dealing with an eircom league club again.

Now, i've just insulted your club, but the difference is that everything that is said here can be backed up. Its not particularly nice, and this is all true, imagine when people rant and rave about how crap your club is, especially when the rubbish they are spouting is 100% made up bullsh1t.

**Roverstillidie** · 19/01/2006, 11:11 AM

most of what you say is true. we know rovers was shambolic, hence we overthrew the board and are running the show.

if you think its 'wishful thinking' on our part that there will be licenecing issues for a huge number of clubs, you arent really looking very hard. we dont want to preach, but we are in div 1 because of a points deduction based on a flimsy licence application (which we brought to the el/fai's attention btw). why should we now stand back and shrug our shoulders to other clubs getting away with it?

and you make the examinership option sound like a risk free scam we pulled, as opposed to the only legal option open to the club. and you have no idea how our creditors reacted to their 4% or whatever they individually got. most of the debt was loans from fans who waived it anyway, but dont let facts get in the way. and at what point did we 'crawl' to the FAI? they did nothing to help whatsoever.

a silly rant really. and no, you cant back all of it up, can you?

**thomas** · 19/01/2006, 11:18 AM

Originally Posted by Breifne

Lets see how you like it:

[INDENT]
somehow managed to wipe the slate clean for a measly 4 percent of your debt, doesn't mean you can now occupy the moral high ground.

How many investors want to put money into a club [INDENT]

Now, i've just insulted your club, but the difference is that everything that is said here can be backed up. Its not particularly nice, and this is all true, imagine when people rant and rave about how crap your club is, especially when the rubbish they are spouting is 100% made up bullsh1t.

Rubbish, Rovers settled with creditors with their unanimous agreement. The reason the club was punished was for a balls up with the accounts. It doesn't change the fact that the practices employed by rovers at the time continue to be employed by other clubs now.

As for investors, the fact is rovers were there for free and no one bit the bait. Except the fans, who were facilitated by a major bank if they took term memberships. If no one was interested then, they certainly wont be now that they have to actually pay...

**NY Hoop** · 19/01/2006, 12:06 PM

Originally Posted by Breifne

Shamrock Rovers have done more damage to the reputation of the eircom league in the last five years than almost the rest of the clubs combined.

Ah the CHF with the permanent anti Rovers chip on his shoulder. Quel surprise

The above statement is wrong. In that 5 year period we won games in Europe something you lot will never ever do. Plus there was the whole marneygate affair and ollie going berserk repeatedly.

BTW wasnt going to bring this up but its more than anecdotal evidence that your club are in serious debt. You dont need to be an accountant to know that. A CHF fan slagging off us

KOH

**OneRedArmy** · 19/01/2006, 12:14 PM

Originally Posted by Roverstillidie

my understanding is that, yes, we are (well, were a few weeks ago) the only club with a tax cert for 2006. as such, we should be the only club with a licence. but the EL changed the rules to accomodate the other 21 clubs. i dont think thats in dispute

as for the rest of the criteria, im not sure, but i have heard anecdotal stories about most clubs having problems.

Not strictly true. There's no tax clearance cert in Norn Ireland so Derry City don't need one to be license compliant.

Then again, the Revenue in the North are a "slightly" more active body and freuqently petition for winding up orders against football clubs (including Derry City in the recent past) so that provides a level of assurance.

**pineapple stu** · 19/01/2006, 12:25 PM

Originally Posted by northside hoop

Why would UCD not have a tax cert?

Don't see any reason. Though it was actually one of the reasons we failed last year, as far as I know - that was a screw-up on Revenue's behalf, not ours though. It is true though that Revenue have set up a branch targetting sports clubs after various rumours of cash payments (and let's be honest - it happens everywhere) - be interesting to see what comes out of that.

We also failed last year because our accounts were in the wrong format.

**thomas** · 19/01/2006, 12:44 PM

Originally Posted by OneRedArmy

Not strictly true. There's no tax clearance cert in Norn Ireland so Derry City don't need one to be license compliant.

Then again, the Revenue in the North are a "slightly" more active body and freuqently petition for winding up orders against football clubs (including Derry City in the recent past) so that provides a level of assurance.

Correct, but the license requires tax compliance as of the date of the license, in ireland thats a tax cert, presumably in the UK there is something similar to indicate taxes are up to date.

There is certainly a case for having quaterly tax certs going forward.

**WeAreRovers** · 19/01/2006, 1:45 PM

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

It is true though that Revenue have set up a branch targetting sports clubs after various rumours of cash payments (and let's be honest - it happens everywhere) - be interesting to see what comes out of that.

This is the kernel of the whole thing. We provide payslips every week, P60s and P45s plus we have a PRSA scheme. I'd be (happily) surprised if other clubs did the same.

My point is that it should not be up to me or anyone else to "prove" that Shels or whoever are not tax-compliant or do not fulfill their duties as an employer. The whole process should be as transparent as possible so we can all have confidence in the Licencing system.

The sensitive among you have to remember that we (Rovers) have come to this, admittedly smug sounding, position through an unbelievable amount of pain and hard work. But we have come through it - albeit with relegation to contend with - and now we want other clubs to do the same, FOR THE GOOD OF THE LEAGUE.

KOH

**NY Hoop** · 19/01/2006, 2:15 PM

Originally Posted by northside hoop

The sad thing is the people at other clubs are more concerned with saving face in internet point scoring matches than asking questions of their own clubs, questions that might provide uncomfortable answers if they looked hard enough.

Post of the week.

KOH

**pineapple stu** · 19/01/2006, 2:43 PM

Originally Posted by WeAreRovers

This is the kernel of the whole thing. We provide payslips every week, P60s and P45s plus we have a PRSA scheme. I'd be (happily) surprised if other clubs did the same.

P35s, I assume you mean (although you've been handing out plenty of P45s of late!). For what it's worth, I am aware UCD submit an annual form P35. So the league isn't all bad!

It is a serious problem though - think it's been brought up before how few clubs do P60s, etc.