What the FAI thinks of progressive clubs:

[Dodge]

BTW on the "independent" game, its a non runner as all games have to be sanctioned by national federations (ie barcelona won't play in a non UEFA sanctioned game (throuigh the FAI)), add in refs etc and its a complete non runner

[Buile Shuibhne]

RE the possible clash with rugger game at Lansdowne (120 miles away !!!!) what remit do the FAI have to "protect" the interest of rugby ? The same one that will lead to the IRFU cancelling the Munster/Leinster match because it would detract from the SETANTA Cup final (roughly same distance apart) ?


The FAI and the IRFU are jointly funding the construction of the new Lansdowne.

Have the FAI sold all the requisite seats / Vantage scheme to contribute their share?

Do they owe the IRFU anything?

[bluepowers]

hopefully limerick can get this match its huge for the club to succeed in the future ....

[pineapple stu]

What happens if Limerick go ahead and play the game anyway?

[DannyInvincible]

I don't even see why this is an issue. We all like to have a go at the FAI now and again, and it's utterly depressing that third-party commercial agreements (assuming the FAI wouldn't straight out lie about having them in place) with very little to do with Limerick, never mind the prospect of Limerick ever benefiting an ounce from them, would put a spanner in the works, but if these agreements do exist, the game just can't proceed.

Indeed, it sounds like a really lame excuse to prevent a game of such magnitude from taking place, which is probably why they felt the need to provide another pretty lame-sounding excuse regarding Limerick being obliged to retain ownership of the date for league fixtures. As a poster earlier pointed out, it's likely that this is a UEFA rule of some sort and is probably in the participation agreement, up to which Limerick willingly signed. If it's in the participation agreement, then it was a bit daft of Limerick to go ahead and organise this without first consulting the FAI. I think some people are getting ahead of themselves. I have as many reservations about the FAI as the next man, but to believe that they "banned" this game out of spite, jealousy or some anti-Limerick/pro-Dublin bias is tinfoil hat talk. In this instance, I'm sorry to say that it's Limerick's fault for getting everyone's hopes up in the first place.

I do admit, all this assumes that the reasons the FAI gave for refusing to sanction this game are not sly concoctions. I doubt the FAI would have such imagination.

Unless, of course, someone "in the know" knows otherwise... If so, please share you knowledge, O fountain.

[Macy]

Pretty mad that any club would budget for (and be allowed to do so) 100k profit from an unconfirmed friendly at licensing time, as is claimed in the article.
Licencing shown up as total farce, never would've seen that happening.

All those posters that defended Delaney, and the "success" that they claimed the FAI running the league is a couple of months ago should be hanging their heads in shame.

[joeSoap]

What happens if Limerick go ahead and play the game anyway?

Who knows, but as was said earlier, theres no way Barca will agree to play a non-sanctioned game, for insurance purposes alone if nothing else.

[DannyInvincible]

What happens if Limerick go ahead and play the game anyway?

Ha, that's actually a good question. If the punishment was the imposition of a fine, maybe it would be insignificant enough compared to the potential moneys that the game itself would bring in if they went ahead and played it. I'd guess the punishment would be much more severe than this though. Maybe they'd be kicked out of the league or relegated. Still, didn't someone mention something about insurance and that any player who was involved in the game would have to be released from their contracts and re-registered again after? Sounds like a complete legal quagmire.

[marinobohs]

I don't even see why this is an issue. We all like to have a go at the FAI now and again, and it's utterly depressing that third-party commercial agreements (assuming the FAI wouldn't straight out lie about having them in place) with very little to do with Limerick, never mind the prospect of Limerick ever benefiting an ounce from them, would put a spanner in the works, but if these agreements do exist, the game just can't proceed.

Indeed, it sounds like a really lame excuse to prevent a game of such magnitude from taking place, which is probably why they felt the need to provide another pretty lame-sounding excuse regarding Limerick being obliged to retain ownership of the date for league fixtures. As a poster earlier pointed out, it's likely that this is a UEFA rule of some sort and is probably in the participation agreement, up to which Limerick willingly signed. If it's in the participation agreement, then it was a bit daft of Limerick to go ahead and organise this without first consulting the FAI. I think some people are getting ahead of themselves. I have as many reservations about the FAI as the next man, but to believe that they "banned" this game out of spite, jealousy or some anti-Limerick/pro-Dublin bias is tinfoil hat talk. In this instance, I'm sorry to say that it's Limerick's fault for getting everyone's hopes up in the first place.

I do admit, all this assumes that the reasons the FAI gave for refusing to sanction this game are not sly concoctions. I doubt the FAI would have such imagination.

Unless, of course, someone "in the know" knows otherwise... If so, please share you knowledge, O fountain.

The only thing we "know" is the facts before us - that is the respective statements of Limerick and the FAI. Based on that people have surmised that it is yet another balls up by the Abbotstown muppet show.
None of the reasons put forward by the FAI todate are deserving of any credence and until that changes people can only judge them on their own words.

[Alf Honn]

I don't even see why this is an issue. We all like to have a go at the FAI now and again, and it's utterly depressing that third-party commercial agreements (assuming the FAI wouldn't straight out lie about having them in place) with very little to do with Limerick, never mind the prospect of Limerick ever benefiting an ounce from them, would put a spanner in the works, but if these agreements do exist, the game just can't proceed.

Indeed, it sounds like a really lame excuse to prevent a game of such magnitude from taking place, which is probably why they felt the need to provide another pretty lame-sounding excuse regarding Limerick being obliged to retain ownership of the date for league fixtures. As a poster earlier pointed out, it's likely that this is a UEFA rule of some sort and is probably in the participation agreement, up to which Limerick willingly signed. If it's in the participation agreement, then it was a bit daft of Limerick to go ahead and organise this without first consulting the FAI. I think some people are getting ahead of themselves. I have as many reservations about the FAI as the next man, but to believe that they "banned" this game out of spite, jealousy or some anti-Limerick/pro-Dublin bias is tinfoil hat talk. In this instance, I'm sorry to say that it's Limerick's fault for getting everyone's hopes up in the first place.

I do admit, all this assumes that the reasons the FAI gave for refusing to sanction this game are not sly concoctions. I doubt the FAI would have such imagination.

Unless, of course, someone "in the know" knows otherwise... If so, please share you knowledge, O fountain.

---

I do admit, all this assumes that the reasons the FAI gave for refusing to sanction this game are not sly concoctions. I doubt the FAI would have such imagination.

----

The FAI are broke because of non-sales of over-priced Premium tkts and need all their imagination to pay their debts.

It's clear from this that any attempt to take potential earnings away from their coffers is met with the screech of brakes. 'Third party' muck is a smoke-screen.

Football in this country is run on a Nazi basis - with John Delaney as Hitler.

[pineapple stu]

Who knows, but as was said earlier, theres no way Barca will agree to play a non-sanctioned game, for insurance purposes alone if nothing else.
Yeah, that'll probably do it alright.

[Jofspring]

Yes limerick signed a participation agreement. But I'm sure limerick fc, or any other club for that matter never actually thought the FAI would ever prevent a LOI club playing a friendly against a team like barca. If anything it should be the opposite and the FAI should be doing everything in their power to make sure this game goes ahead for the benefit of a LOI club that the likes of the FAI are supposed to be helping to progress, not set back years.

[pineapple stu]

But I'm sure limerick fc, or any other club for that matter never actually thought the FAI would ever prevent a LOI club playing a friendly against a team like barca.
Not quite Barca, but we were stopped from playing Dundee United last year on the date the two clubs had arranged because some other clubs were playing in the League Cup or something. Two changes of date later, we ended up playing on the date we'd initially agreed.

[danthesaint]

Not quite Barca, but we were stopped from playing Dundee United last year on the date the two clubs had arranged because some other clubs were playing in the League Cup or something. Two changes of date later, we ended up playing on the date we'd initially agreed.

dont mean to go off topic, sort off, but does the mean if bohs make it to that round of the champions league, then the Man Ure game could get cancelled?

[dong]

Threads like this just give you that helpless, sick feeling in the pit of your stomach.
Get behind Limerick Delaney, swallow your petty pride get the game played and a much needed (I'm sure) cash injection for Limerick.
It makes you despair, it realy does

[DannyInvincible]

dont mean to go off topic, sort off, but does the mean if bohs make it to that round of the champions league, then the Man Ure game could get cancelled?

Possibly not seeing as it's not a league fixture.

[Munster Saint]

I have a question, what would happen if it went from being a Limerick FC v Barcelona game to being a non FAI affiliated, Limerick Select XI v Barca?

Obviously the "Limerick Select XI" could make a nice donation to Limerick FC for any inconvenience caused...

[pineapple stu]

See post #83.

[DannyInvincible]

Yes limerick signed a participation agreement. But I'm sure limerick fc, or any other club for that matter never actually thought the FAI would ever prevent a LOI club playing a friendly against a team like barca.

But if it's in the participation agreement that such a friendly can't proceed, then you have to think that. You can't just fail to take your licencing agreement into account and go ahead and organise friendlies when you see fit. Limerick should have been aware of this, assuming it's part of the agreement.


If anything it should be the opposite and the FAI should be doing everything in their power to make sure this game goes ahead for the benefit of a LOI club that the likes of the FAI are supposed to be helping to progress, not set back years.

Certainly, the FAI should be looking for some way around their agreements if at all possible. This is too big an opportunity for Limerick to have it collapse due to self-interested agreements the FAI has with third parties who have nothing to do with Limerick. If there's a way around it, the FAI should be looking for it and then provide the go-ahead. I don't hold much hope though. It would require a lot of effort on the FAI's part and would also require the permission of the third party/parties to waive the agreement.

[Munster Saint]

But could the FAI actually refuse to sanction a challenge game between a representative side and a foreign club when it doesn't officially involve the league anymore? The Munster XI are playing Sunderland in Thomond on July 13. There are league games on the 9th, 10th, 11th and 16th of the month with Munster sides involved on at least 3 of those days and yet I assume that's going ahead.

[DannyInvincible]

None of the reasons put forward by the FAI todate are deserving of any credence and until that changes people can only judge them on their own words.

But surely you can't expect them to disregard and fall foul of any legal agreements they already have in place? Sure, questions must be asked as to why the FAI signed up to them in the first place, and the exact details ought to be made known, at least to Limerick - assuming they haven't been already - out of respect for the club, but there's little can be done now. Once the agreements are in place, it's a very valid reason. Not to assume, of course, that the reasons for initially signing the agreements were all that valid or worthy of credence.


The FAI are broke because of non-sales of over-priced Premium tkts and need all their imagination to pay their debts.

It's clear from this that any attempt to take potential earnings away from their coffers is met with the screech of brakes. 'Third party' muck is a smoke-screen.

It's not going to take money away from their coffers though, is it? The FAI have nothing to gain and nothing to lose from this venture of Limerick's, I would have thought. What do you imagine it will cost them? If they were hoping to bring Barcelona to Lansdowne Road, that's a separate issue and the possibility of it going ahead would not have been interfered with given that it appeared talks were already underway and Barcelona were considering it whilst having already agreed to play the game in Thomond Park.

[Jofspring]

But if it's in the participation agreement that such a friendly can't proceed, then you have to think that. You can't just fail to take your licencing agreement into account and go ahead and organise friendlies when you see fit. Limerick should have been aware of this, assuming it's part of the agreement.

I agree Limerick should have taken the agreement into account more, but for now i'll give Limerick FC the benefit of the doubt that they thought the fact it wasn't clashing with any fixtures in Limerick, or the Munster region for that matter, that there might be an exception made for such a big game for the club.




Certainly, the FAI should be looking for some way around their agreements if at all possible. This is too big an opportunity for Limerick to have it collapse due to self-interested agreements the FAI has with third parties who have nothing to do with Limerick. If there's a way around it, the FAI should be looking for it and then provide the go-ahead. I don't hold much hope though. It would require a lot of effort on the FAI's part and would also require the permission of the third party/parties to waive the agreement.

Ya i wouldn't hold much hope either but i really think it should be their job to at least investigate the possibilty of working out a way to get the game played. Otherwise as far as i'm concerned i don't think the FAI are doing their job and it would make me wonder what is the point in them being involved with our league.

[pineapple stu]

But if it's in the participation agreement that such a friendly can't proceed, then you have to think that. You can't just fail to take your licencing agreement into account and go ahead and organise friendlies when you see fit. Limerick should have been aware of this, assuming it's part of the agreement.
That's all well and good if it was the only reason the FAI gave. But then why mention that the FAI are also in talks with Barca over a friendly?

[DannyInvincible]

it should be their job to at least investigate the possibilty of working out a way to get the game played. Otherwise as far as i'm concerned i don't think the FAI are doing their job and it would make me wonder what is the point in them being involved with our league.

No qualms with that.

[DannyInvincible]

That's all well and good if it was the only reason the FAI gave. But then why mention that the FAI are also in talks with Barca over a friendly?

Indeed, I admit that does puzzle me, seeing as it's a separate, if not largely irrelevant, issue for the reasons I gave in post #97. Possibly, it's pure PR; they wanted to lessen the blow of appearing as spoilsports by making it known that if Limerick can't bring Barcelona to Ireland then the FAI will be doing their utmost to make it happen. The FAI saves the day... :rolleyes:

[Magicme]

Or maybe they wanted to get it all out in the open rather than have people accusing them later of cancelling coz they were in talks with them.

[osarusan]

That's all well and good if it was the only reason the FAI gave. But then why mention that the FAI are also in talks with Barca over a friendly?


Exactly. If the FAI really were unable to approve the game due to a third-party commercial agreement, they wouldn't need to mention any other reasons.

But what we've actually got is 2 ludicrous reasons and 1 relatively unclear reason (Fran Gavin refused to go into detail about the nature of the agreement), all of which the FAI hope will add up to 1 credible reason.

I'm under the impression that if the FAI really wanted to, they could easily find a way around this third-party agreement. What confuses me, considering that the Aviva is taken for the only date Barca can possibly make it, is why the FAI are against it.

[DannyInvincible]

Exactly. If the FAI really were unable to approve the game due to a third-party commercial agreement, they wouldn't need to mention any other reasons.

Well, that's just speculation, to be fair. Their deceit is often in the nature of concealing the full truth from the public - it's a more subtle and "safer" form of dishonesty - but would they flat-out lie? I just can't imagine they would do so publicly in the media. It's entirely plausible, however, that they felt people would mock, scoff and laugh at such a reason on its own - which is exactly what would have happened to a much greater degree of disgust than that felt at the minute - so thought it might be best to add a couple more equally pitiful reasons. As it turns out, they're still a laughing stock after giving two reasons and some not-really-relevant statement of intent, but it can't take away from the fact that there are agreements and obligations binding upon all concerned, bar Barcelona, which prevent this match from occurring.

[Alf Honn]

But surely you can't expect them to disregard and fall foul of any legal agreements they already have in place? Sure, questions must be asked as to why the FAI signed up to them in the first place, and the exact details ought to be made known, at least to Limerick - assuming they haven't been already - out of respect for the club, but there's little can be done now. Once the agreements are in place, it's a very valid reason. Not to assume, of course, that the reasons for initially signing the agreements were all that valid or worthy of credence.



It's not going to take money away from their coffers though, is it? The FAI have nothing to gain and nothing to lose from this venture of Limerick's, I would have thought. What do you imagine it will cost them? If they were hoping to bring Barcelona to Lansdowne Road, that's a separate issue and the possibility of it going ahead would not have been interfered with given that it appeared talks were already underway and Barcelona were considering it whilst having already agreed to play the game in Thomond Park.


Have you not read the FAI statement?

For your benefit, here's the munure they've trotted out:

1) As the FAI has already told Limerick FC, their request for authorisation to confirm to FC Barcelona that they would be able to play in Ireland on July 31, was refused because of third party commercial agreements which prevent the Association from doing so.

2) In addition, the FAI has also told Limerick FC that it is in active and ongoing negotiations with FC Barcelona in relation to a visit of Aviva Stadium.

3) Thirdly, the Association told Limerick FC that it was obliged to retain ownership of the July 31 date because of Airtricity League fixtures.

Although the timing of Limerick FC’s proposal means this request cannot be granted, the FAI has already given permission to Limerick FC for a match it applied for involving Sunderland in Thomond Park on July 13. These excuses are, amongst other things, patronising on the people of Limerick.

What they are saying in Point 2 is that, because the FAI are trying to bring Barca to Ireland, it has influenced their decision. What other reason apart from income could be for that?

The FAI and Delaney have done many self-serving acts in the past but denying the people of Munster such a fantastic day at Thomond and the windfall that goes with is has to be the most outrageous.

Perhaps we shouldn't be surprised - after all this is the same Delaney who not that long ago asked FIFA to put us in as an extra team at the World Cup.

[KevB76]

As a poster earlier pointed out, it's likely that this is a UEFA rule of some sort and is probably in the participation agreement, up to which Limerick willingly signed. If it's in the participation agreement......


I agree Limerick should have taken the agreement into account more


Slow down lads, do we know what was in the participation agreement ? No we dont.

However, what we do know is the FAI approved Limerick FC's budget plans which included a big money raising friendly in July.

(btw the Sunderland thing is not Limerick FC, and Limerick FC dont make a cent out of it).

[Macy]

Or maybe they wanted to get it all out in the open rather than have people accusing them later of cancelling coz they were in talks with them.
If the FAI are in no more than "talks" then there should be no impediment to Limerick playing them. Apart from bitterness about Limerick beating them to the agreement.

Even if the FAI have a binding agreement, what does it say about the organisation that it's financial plans are based on pimping out their time in the stadium to foreign clubs who's long term aim is to take money out of Irish football?

[osarusan]

but it can't take away from the fact that there are agreements and obligations binding upon all concerned, bar Barcelona, which prevent this match from occurring.
Without you knowing what the third-party commerical agreement is (and Fran Gavin refused to say what it was), I don't see how you can believe that post.

i just fail to see your logic - which appears to be that the FAI, who are simply unable to allow this game to go ahead because of a third-party contract (and thus have a watertight reason for not approving it) decide to supplement this watertight reason with two farcical reasons which are immediately discredited. And the FAI are doing this to make themselves appear better in the eyes of the domestic footballing public?

[Lim till i die]

The FAI don't want any marquee games going on outside the big white elephant they can't afford to pay for.

Feel free to bring over your Hulls and your Wolves and your Trabzonspors and take a hit on them but a Barcelona?!

By jesus they have a stadium to be paying for!!

That FAI statement is PR spoof

[harps1954]

Slow down lads, do we know what was in the participation agreement ? No we dont.



You can download if from the LOI website here: http://www.airtricityleague.com/index.php/about/press-office/2049-2010-participation-agreement

[DannyInvincible]

Have you not read the FAI statement?

I already read the statement and clearly seem to have interpreted it very differently from yourself, which, I feel, is reasonable enough, given the fact that we don't know the full details of these "third-party agreements". Anything other than that is speculation. None of us are aware of the full facts here. You seem to assert that such agreements don't exist, in spite of what the FAI has claimed, whereas I just don't see the FAI - for all their pettiness, skullduggery and incompetence - outright lying to the public. That's the crux of it, from what I can make out. You seem to believe they are lying to us?


What they are saying in Point 2 is that, because the FAI are trying to bring Barca to Ireland, it has influenced their decision. What other reason apart from income could be for that?

You're assuming it was a decision they were able to make in the absence of claimed pre-existing agreements.

But Barcelona playing a game in Thomond wouldn't necessarily have nullified the prospect of Barcelona playing in Lansdowne as part of some FAI jamboree. This is clear seeing as Barcelona are considering playing a game in Dublin, and had been even when they'd already agreed to play in Limerick.


Slow down lads, do we know what was in the participation agreement ? No we dont.

But if Limerick are "obliged to retain ownership of the July 31 date because of Airtricity League fixtures", then it must be part of some agreement to which Limerick are party. There are no obligations without consent.


Without you knowing what the third-party commerical agreement is (and Fran Gavin refused to say what it was), I don't see how you can believe that post.

i just fail to see your logic - which appears to be that the FAI, who are simply unable to allow this game to go ahead because of a third-party contract (and thus have a watertight reason for not approving it) decide to supplement this watertight reason with two farcical reasons which are immediately discredited. And the FAI are doing this to make themselves appear better in the eyes of the domestic footballing public?

Who knows? I'm resigned to having to speculate on its content, as is everyone else, which makes our individual interpretations of what was said as reasonable or unreasonable ("logical" or "illogical") as the next depending on your own perspective. I'm prepared to take their word for it that there is a third-party agreement in place that prevents this game from taking place because I just can't envisage the FAI officially lying to the public. Benefit of the doubt, good faith, innocent until proven guilty, and all that... If I'm wrong, I'll happily hold my hands up, but I genuinely feel that this is one line the FAI just wouldn't stoop so low to cross. It would be a help though if the nature of the agreement was disclosed, to the satisfaction of Limerick at least.

I'd rather not get bogged down in any further speculation though. I certainly don't disagree with the sentiment of anger here and feel that the FAI should be transparent and explain the exact nature of these "third-party agreements". Likewise, they should be helping Limerick find a solution or way around the apparent obstacles.

[Lim till i die]

You can download if from the LOI website here: http://www.airtricityleague.com/index.php/about/press-office/2049-2010-participation-agreement

I stopped reading around here:




5.5.10 A Committee Member shall be removed / disqualified by the FAI Board if:-

(ii) he becomes of unsound mind;

(v) his conduct generally renders him unfit to hold the office he holds.

[DannyInvincible]

The FAI don't want any marquee games going on outside the big white elephant they can't afford to pay for.

Feel free to bring over your Hulls and your Wolves and your Trabzonspors and take a hit on them but a Barcelona?!

By jesus they have a stadium to be paying for!!

That FAI statement is PR spoof

I'm not convinced by that argument at all. It just doesn't add up. No-one has, so far, been able to convincingly explain how Barcelona playing in Thomond would actually cost the FAI anything that bringing over Hull, Wolves or Trabzonspor wouldn't cost them. Sure, they'll have nothing to gain from it either, but it doesn't mean they'll lose out from it, so why would Limerick drawing a windfall be an issue for them? Unless, of course, Barcelona would have refused to play in Lansdowne due to their agreement with Limerick, but that doesn't appear to be the case seeing as they were already in talks with the FAI and have been considering it since before the FAI failed to sanction the game in Thomond Park. I suppose you could say the negotiations might have hit a snag and Barca were expressing reluctance to visit given they'd already promised a date in Ireland, but, once again, that would just be speculation.

[Mr A]

The participation agreement on friendlies:


Friendly Matches
19.14 No Participant Club can arrange any match without the prior written consent of the League Director. Such
permission granted is for the playing of the match only. Where the televising of the match, either live or
delayed in any form or media outlet is concerned, an application, in writing, for such permission is also
required to be made by the Participant Club to the League Director for his consideration. The Director
shall notify the Participant Club of his decision in writing.
22
19.14.1 Permission for Friendly Matches is given on the strict understanding that the Participant Club is
able to fulfil its competitive fixture schedule.
19.14.2 Entitlements to the FAI for Friendly Matches are outlined in Rule 6 of Schedule Three
(Commercial Rules) of this Participation Agreement.
19.14.3 No Participant Club shall allow its ground to be used for any football related activity within the
Competitive Season without the prior written consent of the League Director.
19.14.4 All applications for friendly matches and / or football related activities must be made in writing
to the League Director at least five (5) days in advance of the fixture/ football related activity.

And some more, the commercial bit referred to above:


6 Tickets and Hospitality
6.1 Participant Clubs shall provide the following tickets and hospitality opportunities to the FAI for all
matches in which Participant Clubs partake within the jurisdiction of the FAI:
6.1.1 One hundred (100) match tickets. This shall include the following:
6.1.2 Twenty five (25) Directors Box matches tickets.
6.1.3 Twenty five (25) VIP Hospitality passes.
6.1.4 Twenty five (25) VIP Car Park passes.
6.1.5 Twenty five (25) Ordinary Car Park passes (i.e. up to 50 car park passes in total).
6.2 Participant Clubs shall provide the FAI and/or League Sponsor, on request, the use of any facilities
available at the ground of the club before and after League matches for hospitality use. The Sponsor
and/or FAI will be responsible for the cost of any catering, or food and beverage costs in connection with
such use.
6.3 Each Participant Club shall fly the National League flag at each League match. The flag shall be issued to all
Clubs by the League Department prior to the commencement of each season.

Not massively illuminating to the issue at hand though!

[pineapple stu]

So there's actually no reason at all not to grant permission, unless Limerick have to play a postponed game on the 31 July and won't be able to play an any single other scheduled league day?

[osarusan]

No-one has, so far, been able to convincingly explain how Barcelona playing in Thomond would actually cost the FAI anything that bringing over Hull, Wolves or Trabzonspor wouldn't cost them. Sure, they'll have nothing to gain from it either, but it doesn't mean they'll lose out from it, so why would Limerick drawing a windfall be an issue for them?
Because if Limerick played them first, it would take the gloss off (and perhaps lead to less than a full house) any subsequent friendly arranged by the FAI.

[Jofspring]

Ya from what i can make out it is saying it must not interfere with a League of Ireland fixture that Limerick are playing in, which this game would not affect. Limerick would be able to fulfil its competitive fixture schedule.

[passinginterest]

What are the odds the FAI are actually negotiating with Barcelona to play Manchester United in their beloved "Aviva" seeing as the League 11 v Man U is fixed at a similar time? That'd be some kick in the face for Limerick.

[PartySaint]

Because if Limerick played them first, it would take the gloss off (and perhaps lead to less than a full house) any subsequent friendly arranged by the FAI.

And it would mean that little Limerick FC would be able to do what the FAI coldnt do and thats get a full house at Thomand Park

[Dunny]

http://limerickfc.ie/main_imgs/news/barcelona_banner1.png

Awful image...

[Jofspring]

http://limerickfc.ie/main_imgs/news/barcelona_banner1.png

Awful image...

It should be on the back page of every paper in the country.

[**FrOsTy**]

Haven't the time nor patience to go through all the pages here but from what I read on page 1 it seems to me that the FAI are afraid that people won't go to thier W*ankfest against Man Utd a few days later.

[DannyInvincible]

I stopped reading around here:

Believe it or not, "unsound mind" is actually a recognised legal term used to describe someone who is not fit for trial. Presumably, it would entail a mental assessment of the individual in question.


Because if Limerick played them first, it would take the gloss off (and perhaps lead to less than a full house) any subsequent friendly arranged by the FAI.

Quite possible, I suppose. But we still can't be entirely sure as to whether the FAI had a choice in the matter or not due to this "third-party commercial agreement" claim, even if they wouldn't really have liked the idea of it going ahead. I wonder who the FAI are lining up as Barca's opponents...

[seand]

It beggars belief. Whatever thoughts I had of going to the Algeria/Paraguay games have gone out the window and I will let the FAI know why... for all the good it'll do.

[D.24saint]

It beggars belief. Whatever thoughts I had of going to the Algeria/Paraguay games have gone out the window and I will let the FAI know why... for all the good it'll do.

your spot on all LOI fans should boycott those games out of solidarity plus I dont fancy giving money to Johnny Boy and his henchmen

[KevB76]

You can download if from the LOI website here: http://www.airtricityleague.com/index.php/about/press-office/2049-2010-participation-agreement

Thanks.

A quick scan through reveals;

3. Commercial Contracts
3.6 Where there is a conflict between an FAI contract and a new commercial contract entered into by a club then the FAI contract shall prevail
3.7 The FAI may inform participant clubs of the relevant terms and obligations of commercial contracts entered into by the FAI which may have an effect on new commercial contracts proposed to be entereed into by a club

Sounds to me they're using 3.6 as a reason, but this begs the question why dont they comply with 3.7 and tell the club what the exact conflict is.