15,000+ Friendlies - Third Party

[A face]

Ref: FAI issue statement on Limerick v Barcelona clash (http://www.rte.ie/sport/soccer/2010/0517/limerick.html)
FAI's position on the fixture is that third party agreements mean it cannot sanction games in stadia with capacities over 15,000

Just a thread to find out the particulars of this agreement, aside from the Limerick v Barca debacle. Who is this third party and why are they involved? Why cant the FAI organise these games or leave the clubs do it. If the FAI actually cant organise these games it would be fairly alarming to say the least, given the business that they are in.

How long is this thrid party due to operate? How many friendlies have the organised in the past?

[OneRedArmy]

Ref: FAI issue statement on Limerick v Barcelona clash (http://www.rte.ie/sport/soccer/2010/0517/limerick.html)

Just a thread to find out the particulars of this agreement, aside from the Limerick v Barca debacle. Who is this third party and why are they involved? Why cant the FAI organise these games or leave the clubs do it. If the FAI actually cant organise these games it would be fairly alarming to say the least, given the business that they are in.

How long is this thrid party due to operate? How many friendlies have the organised in the past?I honestly think you're missing the point.

Its hardly news for sporting bodies to hire an agency to do their negotiating. It happens everywhere.

[Rasher]

I honestly think you're missing the point.

Its hardly news for sporting bodies to hire an agency to do their negotiating. It happens everywhere.

And is it usual for them to keep the details secret from clubs whose interest they are supposed to be safeguarding?

[holidaysong]

If an Irish club draw a big name in Europe (Liverpool for example) and wish to play it in Landsdowne, does this now mean it would have to be up to this third party to sanction it and not the FAI or are only friendly matches affected?

[Macy]

I honestly think you're missing the point.

Its hardly news for sporting bodies to hire an agency to do their negotiating. It happens everywhere.
For the whole league, without agreement (or even notifying) the member clubs?

Unlikely as it is, what happens if a club makes the group stages of european competition and wants to use the RDS for example. Will they be forced to restrict capacity?

It's also a disincentive for them to grow the league (which should be their priority, not paying off a stadium) - they're putting a cap on how big clubs can grow. Would a club that became super successful, would the FAI limit them to 15k capacity?

[Dodge]

Its hardly news for sporting bodies to hire an agency to do their negotiating. It happens everywhere.

I don't have a problem with the FAI hiring a body to negotiate international friendlies, but they've signed a deal that precludes any Irish teams from signing a similar deal (without telling them)

[**FrOsTy**]

From reading the statement released last night by the FAI it seems to me that the reason they cancelled the Limerick - Barca friendly was because it would not benift the league as a whole!

Meaning that Limerick would be gaining an unfair advantage over the rest of the country because of this fundraiser.

Basically, clubs can't fundraiser on there own without the permission of the FAI. What's the point in supporters clubs or fundraising within clubs as this should also be not allowed under this reasoning. If the FAI don't want clubs gaining unfair financial advantage then shouldn't league position monies and cup winning monies be stopped as this is unfair to bray, drogs, shels, waterford mervue salthill limerick etc etc as they aren't going to win the cups.

It seems the only time you can do all this is when your club is on its knees and saying its prayers when the mighty FAI come out of the fog and GET YOU a glamour tie v Celtic.

Shambolic excuse from a Shambolic Organisation.

[OneRedArmy]

And is it usual for them to keep the details secret from clubs whose interest they are supposed to be safeguarding?


For the whole league, without agreement (or even notifying) the member clubs?

Unlikely as it is, what happens if a club makes the group stages of european competition and wants to use the RDS for example. Will they be forced to restrict capacity?

It's also a disincentive for them to grow the league (which should be their priority, not paying off a stadium) - they're putting a cap on how big clubs can grow. Would a club that became super successful, would the FAI limit them to 15k capacity?


I don't have a problem with the FAI hiring a body to negotiate international friendlies, but they've signed a deal that precludes any Irish teams from signing a similar deal (without telling them)All valid points, but the OP focused on the fact the FAI have outsourced their negotiations, which I don't believe is either here nor there.

The valid points, IMO, are being discussed in the other thread. Namely the FAI, by the back door, using the Participation Agreement to turn domestic football into a franchise system.

[Dodge]

I think a participation agreement is defintiely a good thing, but full disclosure to the clubs should be a given

I think its astonishing the FAI can admit (in todays Irish times) that their friendly v Man U is outside the scope fo the agreement but its allowed..

[MariborKev]

Exactly.

We have found out that

a) The FAI has an agency organising friendlies
b) Clubs signed up to this when they signed the participation agreement
c) They were never told
d) The LOI never informed Limerick of this when refusing the fixtures

Good thing they have an ex Ryanair head of Communications, ye need a quare brass neck to spin this.

[pineapple stu]

d) The LOI never informed Limerick of this when refusing the fixtures
e) The FAI never informed Limerick of this when Limerick submitted a budget showing E100k from a mid-season friendly.

[Jofspring]

e) The FAI never informed Limerick of this when Limerick submitted a budget showing E100k from a mid-season friendly.

f) The Man U match for some reason although being a friendly above the capacity of 15,000 and the possiblity of clashing with fixtures, is exempt from the "third party agreement"

[SkStu]

it would be interesting to see what other jurisdictions have similar arrangements with such agencies and how many of those have agreed to terms which impose similarly limiting restrictions on their league clubs? My guess would be none.

All the FAI see is the money for themselves - screw this talk of redirecting funds into the game, its waffle. They are broke and would sign their grannies lives away for some cash. Is it any surprise that the LOI clubs are the ones that suffer? Not for me. We're the easy victim because no-one really cares. What a scummy f*cking coward.

[Dalymountrower]

Kentaro, in response to an e-mail I sent them, have stated that they are not the "third party" referred to by the FAI. Delaney will have to come up with some Bertiesque explanation now...group of Manchester Businessmen anyone?

[Mr A]

One small point is that the FAI making money is not a bad thing- at the end of the day they run Irish football and it takes a hell of a lot of money to do that. And although the figures may be disputed, they do spend a fair bit on the LOI. If the FAI get into major financial bother Irish football, and indeed our own clubs will suffer because of this. Certainly the people I've met from the FAI working on league matters have struck me as people doing their level best for the LOI often in difficult circumstances and we'd be worse off without them.

The handling of this has been poor though, and doesn't really seem to make any real sense to me. People working for Irish football, be it within the FAI, the clubs or the LOI generally must be wondering how what should have been a very good week for the FAI could have turned into such a PR nightmare and feeling pretty damn demoralized.

My own suspicion is that nobody thought the 15,000 clause would be an issue since no LOI club comes close to that capacity anyway, and even outside of football there are very few venues that do.

[A face]

All valid points, but the OP focused on the fact the FAI have outsourced their negotiations, which I don't believe is either here nor there.

The valid points, IMO, are being discussed in the other thread. Namely the FAI, by the back door, using the Participation Agreement to turn domestic football into a franchise system.

ORA, i know i asked about the outsourcing but the post was about the whole issue in general. I have no problem with it either if its all above board, if it takes the head ache out of it then so be it. I would ask, as i have done is why wouldn't the organise the games themselves, its the business they are in afterall ..... that said, if there are benefits to outsourcing then then theres no debate.

But why all the cloak and dagger??

The thread is to debate all aspects of an issue that we are only familiar with for the last two days.

[A face]

www.kentarogroup.com (http://www.kentarogroup.com/index.php?id=72)

How long has this been outsourced already?
How long was the contract / agreement sign up for?

[Jofspring]

Kentaro, in response to an e-mail I sent them, have stated that they are not the "third party" referred to by the FAI. Delaney will have to come up with some Bertiesque explanation now...group of Manchester Businessmen anyone?

So does that mean the FAI have contracts with two seperate companies to set up friendlies not one? Lie, after Lie, after Lie it seems.

To follow on from what Mr. A was saying, i have no doubt there is very good people that are working very hard for the FAI and it's not these people anybody wants to answer questions. Its the few people in charge that have questions to answer and i feel should let more competent people take the reins.

[TonyD]

Lie, after Lie, after Lie it seems.
.

That's my suspicion tbh. How can we be sure this "3rd party" actually exists ? The capacity for these games started out at 20,000, when someone asked the very pertinent question, "Can't the game simply be sanctioned with a capacity in Thomond of 19,500 ?" it suddenly comes down to "stadia with a capacity of more than 15,000. What if Limerick move the game to say, Turners Cross, with capacity of 9,000 (or whatever it holds / Could it go ahead then ? The whole thing stinks worse than a bin of rotting fish and sour milk.

[MariborKev]

Jees,

If only Derry got a big name friendly and took it to Belfast. That'd set the cat amongst the pigeons.

[fieldofmarkets]

ha ha, please let that happen

[DannyInvincible]

My own suspicion is that nobody thought the 15,000 clause would be an issue since no LOI club comes close to that capacity anyway, and even outside of football there are very few venues that do.

You make generally reasonable points, but in that case, why include the clause at all if nobody would have suspected it would have been an issue anyway? It's there for some reason, assuming this third-party does exist, such is the current level of scepticism.

Out of interest, how would a club go about finding out the identity of this alleged third party? Presumably the participation agreement signed away any legal rights of knowledge or enquiry they might have had? Maybe that's not the case at all, but if it is, it effectively gives the FAI the freedom and protection to claim what they like.

[SkStu]

Danny, the PA states that the FAI may disclose details of any agreements or commercial contracts entered into. It is mentioned earlier in the thread.

[DannyInvincible]

Ah yes, sorry. I'd actually encountered that and written about it in that other beast but it slipped my mind. My head's gone to mush. :(

The thing with that is that it does seemingly give the FAI the right to disclose details if they so wish. There's no obligation there. They may, or may not, reveal the details. And, due to the wording there in what is a legal agreement (?), I can't see how a club might take them to court to demand the release of the details. In effect, the participation agreement does amount to the clubs signing away any right to some knowledge of secretive agreements that are directly impinging on them. As a result, it appears the FAI can lie about the existence of all the fabricated third-party agreements they like.

In the meantime, I was reading about Thomond Park and, while it has a standard capacity of 26,500 (seated and terracing), when used for all-seated affair, the official (?) capacity is lowered to 15,100. For some reason, I just assumed it had a capacity around the 25,000-30,000 mark. I don't know why. Ignorance probably. Anyway, maybe that's been highlighted somewhere else as well, but the 15,000 figure mentioned by the FAI seems all the more "convenient" now then; that's if it was merely some coincidence that nobody truly thought would ever come into question. In saying that, presumably Limerick could have sold 14,999 tickets to escape the clause if it was financially viable for them or was there talk that the figure related to official capacity of a venue as opposed to the number of tickets sold?

[Schumi]

I presume Limerick would have used the terraced capacity for the friendly.

[Ezeikial]

The thing with that is that it does seemingly give the FAI the right to disclose details if they so wish. There's no obligation there. They may, or may not, reveal the details. And, due to the wording there in what is a legal agreement (?), I can't see how a club might take them to court to demand the release of the details.

I have no doubt that there would be plenty of legal opinions on this and would not rule out a court ordering its declaration to the offended / affect party.

From what I hear today from the Limerick camp there is a strong appetite to pursue this further. There may well be interesting times ahead, but it is a dangerous game for Limerick to take on the FAI.

Conversely Limerick could well be in a strong position to haggle out an "off the record" sweet deal with the FAI if they believe Limerick are determined to follow through on this - the FAI simply could not carry any embarressment in a court action

[Jofspring]

I really hope Limerick seek as much leagal advice as possible and make sure they have a serious case before going near the courts with the FAI. Last thing Limerick need is for this come back at them.

[fieldofmarkets]

Limerick need to be strong here, get the legal advice and establish their basis for an action....its got to be there in numerous ways. Through the details/interpretations of the PA and the 3rd party agreement or even in the way the FAI handled the refusal and reasons given. The FAI are possibly also in breach of their raison d'etre (to promote and foster the game in all of Ireland) which must form part of the PA.

Other parties also need to challenge based on anti-competition laws. The Limerick Chamber of Commerce (or any other regional authority) or the GAA (as their stadia are now excluded...how does that look after they opened their doors to the FAI). Its perfectly ok for the FAI to enter into exclusive agreements with 3rd parties wrt fixing their games. It is not acceptable for them to use their self-imposed monopoly position to veto other commercial enterprises (in this case a club organised glamour friendly) in order to benefit their own commercial arrangement.

Now I must wonder if all the PA is, is an attempt to ringfence this position...rather than to 'benefit the league'.

The FAI or Aviva cannot afford the negative publicity of seeing a case go to court....especially from a little club like Limerick. I don't see that Limerick have much to loose, I suspect the club does not have the resources to get to or to develop The Markets Field, not without a Thomond Park revenue stream anyway. If we get refused a license next year from the 1st division through spite...another club can come in.

I manage an organisation...I will be writing to the FAI to let them know I will not choose their Aviva or games for our corporate entertainment. I will also write to Aviva letting them know I will not consider their insurance.....will do nothing I know, but at least I will have voted with my 2 feet.

[KevB76]

Conversely Limerick could well be in a strong position to haggle out an "off the record" sweet deal with the FAI if they believe Limerick are determined to follow through on this - the FAI simply could not carry any embarressment in a court action

I would speculate that any such "off the record" sweet deal with the FAI is not worth the paper its written on.

[Dodge]

I would speculate that any such "off the record" sweet deal with the FAI is not worth the paper its written on.

Plenty of clubs have benefitted from similar

[osarusan]

I would speculate that any such "off the record" sweet deal with the FAI is not worth the paper its written on.
The important elements of a deal won't be written down on any paper.

Here's a plausible (not probable, but plausible) chain of events, based on the possibility that the FAI have no third-party agreement.


FAI don't have a third-party agreement, and realise this would come out in court and lead to a few resignations.

FAI and Limerick hold informal talks in which Limerick agree not to seek any big-name friendlies for the next five years.

FAI release a press statement saying that after considering the matter and listening to the clubs (because the FAI care), they've decided to scrap the 15,000 capacity restriction, and their commercial partner has willingly agreed to it. Limerick, as a result, are happy to drop their legal case.

In a completely unrelated development, the FAI can announce that Limerick are now eligible for a substantial financial grant, which, amazingly, but most importantly, coincidentally, just happens to be the amount needed to meet the asking price for The Markets Field.

Limerick and the FAI walk away arm in arm to begin the process of working together and building the strong and healthy club in Limerick that both have wanted for so very long.

And, apart from Daniel McDonnell, they all live happily ever after.

[Charlie Darwin]

It all depends on what agreement the clubs have signed up to with the FAI. If they've given the FAI full discretion over whether to approve a friendly, it doesn't matter whether there's a third party agreement or not.

[shantykelly]

only if you lie about the existence of said thrid party - if they admit there isn't one (speculating!), then they would have to further explain the decision not to sanction the friendly against barcalona.

[Charlie Darwin]

They wouldn't have to legally. In order to maintain support, they would.