View Full Version : 2009 Licensing - Where the clubs stand (from Indo)
The Lilywhites
30/01/2009, 5:43 AM
From: http://www.independent.ie/sport/soccer/2009-licensing-where-the-clubs-stand-1620299.html
Bohemians
Recently expressed concern that they may not be able to sign any players for the 2009 season after a rejected budget from the Licensing department. However, Bohemians have exploded back onto the market after the contracted staff, led by manager Pat Fenlon, took a wage cut, while new signings will increase the potential of extra revenue through trophy success and gate receipts and further ease budgetary concerns.
Bray Wanderers
No outstanding issues.
Cork City
Money owed to two players is expected to be paid by tomorrow. Alan Mathews is still owed a significant five-figure sum and the Football Managers Association of Ireland is keeping a close eye on licensing proceedings. "It is money that is due, which has not been paid and I expect it to be dealt with by licensing," said FMAI officer Dermot Keely.
Derry City
No outstanding issues.
Drogheda United
As stated in main article. http://www.independent.ie/sport/other-sports/drogs-back-in-business-after-great-debt-escape-1620404.html
Dundalk
Schedule of re-laying of new synthetic pitch required for License committee, while small fee owed to a former player expected to be paid off by tomorrow.
Galway United
Small issue over owed bonuses to one player expected to be resolved by tomorrow, while previous monies owed to players have been meticulously dealt with.
Shamrock Rovers
No outstanding issues.
Sligo Rovers
Had one budget rejected, but returned to LOI finance director Padraig Smith with a new one, which has been accepted. No other issues.
St Patrick's Athletic
Still in negotiations with certain players over 7.5pc pay-cut. Conclusion expected and required to be reached by tomorrow.
First Division clubs in severe danger of being refused licences:
Athlone Town (owe approx €24,000 wages and negotiations are ongoing), Cobh Ramblers (owe €41,000 wages) and Waterford United.
How come Waterford United are the only ones there without any reason given?
adamd164
30/01/2009, 8:02 AM
Had heard Mathews won't accept just his back wages from examinership period from us - demanding next two years' worth as well.
If that's the case, then it's a dispute for the courts to settle, not the licensing committee. The LC cannot rule that a man was unfairly dismissed - it's not their jurisdiction. They'd actually be impeding due process.
Have to laugh at Keely expressing outrage though - possibly the single person with most to gain if clubs are demoted.
garyderry
30/01/2009, 8:55 AM
Had heard Mathews won't accept just his back wages from examinership period from us - demanding next two years' worth as well.
If that's the case, then it's a dispute for the courts to settle, not the licensing committee. The LC cannot rule that a man was unfairly dismissed - it's not their jurisdiction. They'd actually be impeding due process.
Have to laugh at Keely expressing outrage though - possibly the single person with most to gain if clubs are demoted.
surely the back pay is all the licensing can deal with, if you dont pay that or come up with an agreement you can get a licience?
adamd164
30/01/2009, 8:58 AM
The backpay isn't this 'five figure sum' that the Indo are on about though - that's his wages for the next two years.
Our position is that he was not unfairly dismissed and so that we do not owe him anything other than his backpay for the examinership period.
As I say, the licensing committee can't make rulings on that, it'll be brought before the labour courts. They are legally obliged to remain neutral on it.
He had a contract and was dismissed without warning. He's without doubt entitled to the money he was due to receive.
If you say he wasn't dismissed unfairly, Cork will have to prove that his dismissal was warrented,a dn that they followed all the steps necessary to dismiss him (usually in the shape of warnings or notice)
The backpay isn't this 'five figure sum' that the Indo are on about though - that's his wages for the next two years.
Our position is that he was not unfairly dismissed and so that we do not owe him anything other than his backpay for the examinership period.
As I say, the licensing committee can't make rulings on that, it'll be brought before the labour courts. They are legally obliged to remain neutral on it.
The backpay is a five figure sum 70k. But it seems he wont except that without the rest of the money(nearly 300k) or something like that
charliesboots
30/01/2009, 9:10 AM
The backpay isn't this 'five figure sum' that the Indo are on about though - that's his wages for the next two years.
Our position is that he was not unfairly dismissed and so that we do not owe him anything other than his backpay for the examinership period.
As I say, the licensing committee can't make rulings on that, it'll be brought before the labour courts. They are legally obliged to remain neutral on it.
They are in their ******** - if that was the case then the licensing committee couldn't make a decision on outstanding payments to players unless they were over two years old as there could possibly be a legal case.
Best to have a look at your participation agreement.
adamd164
30/01/2009, 9:14 AM
The backpay is a five figure sum 70k. But it seems he wont except that without the rest of the money(nearly 300k) or something like that
Mother of jesus, but wasn't he on a healthy wage!?:eek:
Anyway, no doubt it'll be an interesting few weeks ahead if the LC are going to try to determine whether or not we had a right to sack him.
Mother of jesus, but wasn't he on a healthy wage!?:eek:
Anyway, no doubt it'll be an interesting few weeks ahead if the LC are going to try to determine whether or not we had a right to sack him.
Id imagine that includes bonuses etc.
70k isnt exact but i think its somewhere in that region
Anyway, no doubt it'll be an interesting few weeks ahead if the LC are going to try to determine whether or not we had a right to sack him.
They'll do no such thing. If you sack him, he's still entitled to the money he's due.
adamd164
30/01/2009, 9:29 AM
You're telling me that if a club claims it sacked an employee with good reason then the licensing committee demand that you still pay everything they would have been due to receive?
So if Jeff Kenna was found to be involved in a major match fixing scandal and Pats sacked him as a result then the licensing committee would force you to pay him the remainder of his contract?
pineapple stu
30/01/2009, 9:32 AM
I think DOdge's point is that (a) there was no such reason and (b) if there were, the proper steps weren't taken.
adamd164
30/01/2009, 9:35 AM
Hold on - that's a circular argument. We are making the claim to the LC that we had good reason to sack him and intend to take it all the way to the courts.
Now on the one hand you're saying the LC won't make a ruling on it, but on the other that we didn't have a good reason?
As for proper steps being taken - do either of you have the foggiest about how it was handled? Of course Mathews will say proper steps weren't taken, same as the club will say they were.
The Lilywhites
30/01/2009, 9:38 AM
How come Waterford United are the only ones there without any reason given?
Simple - because there is no problem at Waterford. I'd expect a statement from the club soon.
Mother of jesus, but wasn't he on a healthy wage!?:eek:
I thought everyone in the league knew that Matthews had a very decent job so it would take a good wage for him to go full time. Cork offered him enough to give up the day job, and now are welching on the agreement, so he's dead right to use every avenue possible, including licencing.
Simple - because there is no problem at Waterford. I'd expect a statement from the club soon.
That's what I presumed.
pineapple stu
30/01/2009, 9:54 AM
Hold on - that's a circular argument. We are making the claim to the LC that we had good reason to sack him and intend to take it all the way to the courts.
Now on the one hand you're saying the LC won't make a ruling on it, but on the other that we didn't have a good reason?
Fair point.
adamd164
30/01/2009, 9:54 AM
I thought everyone in the league knew that Matthews had a very decent job so it would take a good wage for him to go full time. Cork offered him enough to give up the day job, and now are welching on the agreement, so he's dead right to use every avenue possible, including licencing.
Good luck to him.
I know we're confident the LC are gonna grant the license, so people can huff and puff to kingdom come tbh.
I know we're confident the LC are gonna grant the license, so people can huff and puff to kingdom come tbh.
I would expect so. The FAI haven't the balls to properly implement Licencing, as shown by, well every bloody year they've done it!
garyderry
30/01/2009, 10:19 AM
Good luck to him.
I know we're confident the LC are gonna grant the license, so people can huff and puff to kingdom come tbh.
i would assume your fine once you pay the money owed BEFORE he was sacked, thats all the licience can cover. The dispute in the courts cant be touched surely?
Good luck anyway.
A face
30/01/2009, 10:25 AM
I would expect so. The FAI haven't the balls to properly implement Licencing, as shown by, well every bloody year they've done it!
Ah, they are, they just cant enforce rules that aren't in place yet. Just like clubs cant adhere to rules that aren't in place yet either. Thats the way rules work i'm afraid.
i would assume your fine once you pay the money owed BEFORE he was sacked, thats all the licience can cover. The dispute in the courts cant be touched surely?
Good luck anyway.
Yeah, thats about the size of it. And AM or the FMAI was dictate how the monies are paid. Back pay and the two years pay are completely different so AM can make all the noise he wants but i cant see it making any difference.
pcplod
30/01/2009, 10:26 AM
Apparently Cobh will be getting a license aswell now all to be revealed on Sunday to members, we must have a fairygodmother, HAPPY DAYS
razor
30/01/2009, 10:27 AM
I still don't understand the subtle differences between the contract Mathews had with Arkaga pre examinership and the one Coughlan offered and then withdrew.
Would the fact that a contract offer was on the table mean that the previous one was null and void at that time?
Meaning Mathews was contractless?
From talking this over with non football people that know Coughlan, a few have told me they'd be pretty sure Tom would have his homework done legally but I guess only time will tell.
Apparently Cobh will be getting a license aswell now all to be revealed on Sunday to membersI was told earlier in the week that ye'd be heading for the A Championship but thats good to hear.
pcplod
30/01/2009, 10:36 AM
It looked like thats where we were headed but thankfully things are looking up for us and hopefully we can concentrate on the football now instead of other crap going on
tiktok
30/01/2009, 10:41 AM
Mathews was offered every penny he's was owed up to the day his renegotiated contract was withdrawn, if he's refusing to cash a €70k cheque to cover the amount owed due in back wages and bonuses (while he cries to the media that he'll be forced onto the dole) that is completely outside of the clubs control. He's gotten his cheque, he's not cashed it.
Whether he's due compensation for the remaining two years on a contract he'd agreed to re-negotiaite is a matter for the courts, not the licencing committee. If the courts decree that he's due €300k, it only becomes a matter for the licensing committee if we then don't pay it.
He has a cheque for the backpay in his pocket, it'll clear, whether he cashes it or not is his choice, not the clubs, I don't see how the club can be held accountable for an individual not taking the money.
On a completely separate note, is anybody apart from mathews and Keely actually a member of the LMAI, they didn't kick up much of a fuss last year when Rico was in the same position and Mathews was angling for his job.
Sam_Heggy
30/01/2009, 10:47 AM
No mention of Harps? Im disgusted, they don't acknowledge Donegal at all, disgrace.
It doesn't mention who wrote it, ill be writing my letter asap to the indo.
Sorry its been a while and we haven't got an excuse to have a rant about the northwest being ignored in a while :D
Bald Student
30/01/2009, 10:49 AM
No mention of Harps? Im disgusted, they don't acknowledge Donegal at all, disgrace.
It doesn't mention who wrote it, ill be writing my letter asap to the indo.
Sorry its been a while and we haven't got an excuse to have a rant about the northwest being ignored in a while :D
The first division doesn't count, remember?
Sam_Heggy
30/01/2009, 10:50 AM
The first division doesn't count, remember?
Ah jeez, I forgot about that, we'll just write our own articles :p
Oh and btw it was sarcasm, I much prefer they didn't mention us, it must mean we are doing something right (or we have hidden our finances superbly).
A face
30/01/2009, 10:52 AM
On a completely separate note, is anybody apart from mathews and Keely actually a member of the LMAI, they didn't kick up much of a fuss last year when Rico was in the same position and Mathews was angling for his job.
I actually thought the LMAI was a makey-uppy thing used by the papers first day. I dont know did most managers even know it existed :eek:
dcfcsteve
30/01/2009, 11:06 AM
Sorry its been a while and we haven't got an excuse to have a rant about the northwest being ignored in a while :D
Thed North-West wasn't ignored - just the small clubs within it.... :D
garyderry
30/01/2009, 11:07 AM
I still don't understand the subtle differences between the contract Mathews had with Arkaga pre examinership and the one Coughlan offered and then withdrew.
From a licencing perspective one is backpay that there is no disagrement over, the other is clearly for the courts and would refer to future payments mainly anyway. So long as they pay the back pay they will get a premier licience.
razor
30/01/2009, 11:22 AM
on a contract he'd agreed to re-negotiaite is a matter for the courtsSo did the fact that he'd agreed to re-negotiate his Arkaga contract render it null and void or did the fact that we got a new owner (examinership process) do this?
Longfordian
30/01/2009, 11:43 AM
Neither is a legal principle. Your contract is not null and void because you agree to renegotiate it, nor by entering examinership. Simple as that. It's very difficult to prove somebody was justifiably sacked for one and secondly that the proper procedures were complied with, verbal warning, written warning, suspenson, disciplinary proceedings, none of those were carried out by Cork. The majority of employment law cases end in favour of the employee. But as for Licencing if you've paid him his back money, I don't see what they can do about it. I would have given him a draft though as he has no legal obligation to accept a cheque.
tiktok
30/01/2009, 11:59 AM
So did the fact that he'd agreed to re-negotiate his Arkaga contract render it null and void or did the fact that we got a new owner (examinership process) do this?
That's what the courts will decide. Mathews had agreed a new contract, both parties admit this. He didn't sign it and the club withdrew it. That's all we know for a fact. I'd imagine that the fact that he'd only been employed for 10 months could have an impact on how Mathews would bring 'unfair dismissal' proceeding also.
More than a few people heard him state he'd make sure the club didn't get a licence unless he got every penny [while he was still our manager] so it's no surprise really [of course he may well be entitled to the money, but that's not an LC decision].
don ramo
30/01/2009, 12:26 PM
The LC only cares about what employes are owed if matthews is paid hes back pay, there is no problem, he has a cheque so city can forget about it,
now he has to go to the courts to get the remainder of hes contract paid, he had 2 years left on it i believe, he renegotiated a new contract, but untill you sign on the dotted line you current contract is the one thats valid,
think of lads mangers in england get paid there full contract or at least half, did jose get something like 15 million when he was sacked, i think it also matters how long your unemployed, the english FA had to pay sven up untill he got a job,
id say if matthews goes to court hell get at least half, and that the best case,
cheech
30/01/2009, 12:29 PM
Thed North-West wasn't ignored - just the small clubs within it.... :D
Excuse me??
I must have missed whoever rattled that bucket and shouted ****e. :D
dcfcsteve
30/01/2009, 12:59 PM
Excuse me??
I must have missed whoever rattled that bucket and shouted ****e. :D
Woo-hoo - handbags at dawn !
Glad you're finished that school project that was keeping you away so long Cheech.
A face
30/01/2009, 2:00 PM
now he has to go to the courts to get the remainder of hes contract paid, he had 2 years left on it i believe, he renegotiated a new contract, but untill you sign on the dotted line you current contract is the one thats valid,
Nah, Rico had agreed with Arkaga verbally and it was deemed that the new contract had been entered into. Dunno what way it will go but LC cant really say a word about it.
All the huffing and puffing about matthews is destracting from the real joke of the report which is Bohs entry
Bohemians
Recently expressed concern that they may not be able to sign any players for the 2009 season after a rejected budget from the Licensing department. However, Bohemians have exploded back onto the market after the contracted staff, led by manager Pat Fenlon, took a wage cut, while new signings will increase the potential of extra revenue through trophy success and gate receipts and further ease budgetary concerns.
Apparently Bohs are trying to convince the league that last year's double winning side wasn't exciting enough, and this years newly bolstered team will be increasing gate receipts. The bizarre thing is that the Licensing committee may well belive them.
Longfordian
30/01/2009, 2:22 PM
Nah, Rico had agreed with Arkaga verbally and it was deemed that the new contract had been entered into. Dunno what way it will go but LC cant really say a word about it.
A lot depends on whether he started getting paid his new wages or not. Agreed on the second part anyway.
pineapple stu
30/01/2009, 2:29 PM
All the huffing and puffing about matthews is destracting from the real joke of the report which is Bohs entry
Agreed.
Pretty sure reality won't believe them though.
Quite possible that, yet again, when we thought Bohs had screwed things up as much as possible, they screw things up even more as only they know how.
Dalymountrower
30/01/2009, 2:43 PM
All the huffing and puffing about matthews is destracting from the real joke of the report which is Bohs entry
Bohemians
Recently expressed concern that they may not be able to sign any players for the 2009 season after a rejected budget from the Licensing department. However, Bohemians have exploded back onto the market after the contracted staff, led by manager Pat Fenlon, took a wage cut, while new signings will increase the potential of extra revenue through trophy success and gate receipts and further ease budgetary concerns.
Apparently Bohs are trying to convince the league that last year's double winning side wasn't exciting enough, and this years newly bolstered team will be increasing gate receipts. The bizarre thing is that the Licensing committee may well belive them.
Yeah, its a hoot alright. Looks like we`ve already spent our 2009 prizemoney!I reckon the Journo must have attended one of Felim`s liquid lunches.
Longfordian
30/01/2009, 2:47 PM
I love the way they're described as having "exploded back on to the market". You'd swear they'd come up with some signings that have "rocked Irish football" in tabloid parlance.
Jersey Cow
30/01/2009, 2:54 PM
Shelley, Keegan, Byrne, Ndo, Rowe, Matt Gregg....they'd challenge for a place in any side and their wages would also ...in England!!!
Laughable really, wonder is the journo trying to say something without saying anything re Bohs relationship with the FAI??!!!
blue til i die
30/01/2009, 3:08 PM
Waterford United are not in severe danger of failing to be awarded a club licence.
Official Site (http://www.waterford-united.ie/nextpage.php?subaction=showfull&id=1233329356&archive=&start_from=&ucat=1&)
tiktok
30/01/2009, 3:11 PM
Official Site (http://www.waterford-united.ie/nextpage.php?subaction=showfull&id=1233329356&archive=&start_from=&ucat=1&)
That's one ugly website you have there.
blue til i die
30/01/2009, 3:14 PM
That's one ugly website you have there.
you can design us a new one then please :D
A face
30/01/2009, 4:55 PM
That's one ugly website you have there.
If the nav bar on the left was better it might alright.
Scrufil
30/01/2009, 9:28 PM
People in Athlone are trying to work out where the €24,000 figure has come from. I was under the impression that the patron fund had stablised the club and as this was ring-fenced to settle outstanding debts one of which was player's unpaid wages then this would be the first debt to be settled. There will be major rumblings in the Town if it turns out that Athlone Town have failed to pay the players.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.2 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.