Licences 2011

[geezer]

i know at least 100 regulars who are over 30years supporting united rarely missing a game.. The League of Ireland real fans....zapped with a licence technicality and a bad rotten virus

[osarusan]

i know at least 100 regulars who are over 30years supporting united rarely missing a game..

After 30 years, will they not stick around for the A Championship? 1 season there in front of 100 people and you come back up again.

[micls]

Might Waterford consider an appeal? And if they were successful would they then get the premier place?

Monaghan finished ahead in the rankings. Rankings are made after the playoff.

i know at least 100 regulars who are over 30years supporting united rarely missing a game.. The League of Ireland real fans....zapped with a licence technicality and a bad rotten virus

It's not a technicality, it's ye missing the deadline. It's harsh and horrible for the fans but you can't claim the rules haven't been broken, especially if one of the footballing debts wasn't met as claimed above.

Edit: From the GUFC statement: The club will shortly be in possession of a Tax Clearance Certificate and are in the process of settling fully with one remaining football creditor.

This makes it sounds like ye simply didnt get stuff sorted in time

[Ash]

After 30 years, will they not stick around for the A Championship? 1 season there in front of 100 people and you come back up again.

Jaysus, we've had many a game in the 1st Division in front of 100 people and still lived to tell the tale

[jebus]

League needs a side like Galway in it imo, just like sides from other areas like Derry etc to make it a proper league of Ireland.

After a year down in the First I'd assume you realise that there are two Galway clubs playing LoI football at the moment

[harps1954]

Agreement had been reached with both the footballing creditors one of whom was waiting for the cheque that was lodged to his account to clear (he had emailed this to the Fai) and the 2nd wanted to confirm the agreement with his solicitor today.

Not trying to stir things here, but if you knew the player was going to wait until a cheque had cleared, why didn't Galway give him a bank draft - there would have be no waiting on anything to clear then? It doesn't matter that he emailed the FAI saying that he was waiting on the cheque to clear, he was basically saying I'm still owed the money until the bank tells me it's in my account.

Although I feel sorry for Galway, they left it to the very last minute to sort these things out. It's a typical Irish thing though - sure deadlines don't matter. Look what happened Portadown in the Irish League a couple of years ago - there documentation was something like an hour late in being delivered to the IFA and it was just disregarded. Irish people just think "ah sure it'll be alright" when submitting documents with deadlines.

[Dodge]

I thought Galway would win the appeal until i read their statement. Basically said, "look its nearly ready"

[marinobohs]

I thought Galway would win the appeal until i read their statement. Basically said, "look its nearly ready"

I think it depends very much on whether or not the FAI want to give Galway some leeway - letter from Revenue RE delay and correspondance from player concerned (as reported earlierin thread) may allow them some fudge room.
But while that is the solution it is also a problem as many (especially on here) will castigate them for not applying own rules and highlighting how "once again" FAI dont uphold licencing process.

Genuinely wish Galway all the best with appeal though especially for long suffering fans :(

[marinobohs]

Bohs draged the league through the gutter by generating acres of negative publicity for themselves and the league by not honouring the legal playing contracts they had with their players!

These players were left for months on end with no wages including over the christmas period, then had to go down the legal route before being paid off and laid off.

Aren't there strict employment law regulations around laying staff off and then hiring replacement staff later on lower wages to ensure people are not messed around with by employers?

Hhhhmmmm, I am surprised to see so many new signings coming on board so quickly at Bohs following the recent lay offs or is the football industry exempt from these rules?!

At least try and get some facts right - Bohs told players at the end of the season they were no longer able to honour contracts (at the time they wee fully paid to date). Unlike Sporting Fingal most recently (and other clubs previously) Bohs sought to reach agreement with the players rather than walk away. In mid December with less than one months pay owed the players were offered 14 weeks pay (according to their rep) two players initiated court action and attaching pubicity that followed, not the club. Agreement was reached around contract commitments and nobody "laid off". This is much more than Brian Shelley was accorded at a previous club where he is still waiting for wages due in 2005 !
As regards the "employment laws" you refer to I am at a complete loss - club replaces players with cheaper players ????? If that is an "offence" there is not a club in the land not guilty.The fact is, of course, there is nothing illegal about it (nor against any football rules).

Apoligies for the club signing players for 2011 - I appreciate we should have played the season with only four/five players.

Now unless there are some more similar "points of discussion" lets get back to the real issue of Galways predictiment.

[Dodge]

As regards the "employment laws" you refer to I am at a complete loss - club replaces players with cheaper players ????? If that is an "offence" there is not a club in the land not guilty.The fact is, of course, there is nothing illegal about it

just for the record it absolutely is illegal to make a person redundant and then replace them with someone on less money.

For people on contract it might be different, and football is iffy at the best of times.

In the real world though employers can't make someone redundant and replace them with cheaper labour

[pineapple stu]

Yeah, it basically means you've sacked them, and you'd better have a damned good reason for it. That's also why Bohs had to honour the contracts given out - you can't make a footballer redundant because you make a position redundant, not a person.

Obviously once their contract has expired, you can choose not to offer a new contract and get in a cheaper player, but that's a different thing entirely.

[marinobohs]

Yeah, it basically means you've sacked them, and you'd better have a damned good reason for it. That's also why Bohs had to honour the contracts given out - you can't make a footballer redundant because you make a position redundant, not a person.

Obviously once their contract has expired, you can choose not to offer a new contract and get in a cheaper player, but that's a different thing entirely.

posts can be declared redundant if terms and conditions change and new terms are not acceptable to the employee so you can change a players terms under labour law and if it is not acceptable to the player they can seek to be made redundant (either by the employer or via Employment Appeals Tribunal).
As regards Dodge's point, it is NOT illegal - see Irish Ferries and Aer Lingus as two high profile cases where the scenario you say is illegal actually happened - in the latter case the Dept of Enterprise, Trade and Employment (as was) confirmed it was allowable (there are numerous similar cases throughout the country).

Above is in the context of labour law as it currently stands on the matter (Redundancy Payments Acts) matters under contract law are somewhat different.

[de bowez]

Yeah, it basically means you've sacked them, and you'd better have a damned good reason for it. That's also why Bohs had to honour the contracts given out - you can't make a footballer redundant because you make a position redundant, not a person.

Obviously once their contract has expired, you can choose not to offer a new contract and get in a cheaper player, but that's a different thing entirely.

Out of interest how would those laws hold up if all players were replaced with amateurs?

[Ezeikial]

Is the reason not obvious?

Galway owe money to three players.Bohs owe money to none.Simple really!

Yep licensing is about having credit facilities

[Ezeikial]

The committee is independent

In name only. Don't be fooled none of the FAI formed "independent" bodies are

[pineapple stu]

Out of interest how would those laws hold up if all players were replaced with amateurs?
Genuinely don't know. Doesn't usually arise in regular work, but football is different of course.



posts can be declared redundant if terms and conditions change and new terms are not acceptable to the employee so you can change a players terms under labour law and if it is not acceptable to the player they can seek to be made redundant (either by the employer or via Employment Appeals Tribunal).
But you're not making a post redundant by letting one footballer go and hiring another, so that's irrelevant.

[marinobohs]

Genuinely don't know. Doesn't usually arise in regular work, but football is different of course.



But you're not making a post redundant by letting one footballer go and hiring another, so that's irrelevant.

original player is made redundant (in circumstances outlined) as occured to employees in Aer Lingus and Irish Ferries (among many) - ie employment was terminated by way of redundancy - and replaced by new (in some cases same) employee.

Only difference with football players is issues around contract which are seperate to redundancy legislation (most of which apply to all fixed term contracts) and of course the ability to prevent club renewing licence, which is, of course, an FAI rule with no basis in law.

[pineapple stu]

You're ignoring the vital distinction between a post and a person. If Bohs could make footballers redundant, they'd have done that, given them statutory redundancy (nil for less than two years' service) and hired new players. They had to try buy out the contracts because they legally could not make the players redundant.

[marinobohs]

You're ignoring the vital distinction between a post and a person. If Bohs could make footballers redundant, they'd have done that, given them statutory redundancy (nil for less than two years' service) and hired new players. They had to try buy out the contracts because they legally could not make the players redundant.

Wrong Stu. they had to buy out the contracts because (a) players could have sued for breach of contract (completely seperate to Redundancy legislation) and/or (b) failure to reach agreement would have precluded Bohs from getting a licence.

In cases quoted staff were made redundant (under the terms of the Redundancy legislation) and their posts filled at lower terms and conditions - in some cases by the employees declared redundant (especially Aer Lingus) - i think the logic is that the former post(s) are redundant but the new revised posts (with new T&C) are in fact new posts.

This is a realitively new development and the tax free staus of the redundancy payment has been questioned by Revenue in the Aer Lingus case. It does run contrary to the idea that posts and not people are made redundant and has arisen as a result of agreements between employers and trade unions (SIPTU in both cases quoted).

It would be interesting to see what the adjudication would be were these cases appealed to the Employment Appeals Tribunal (the arbitrors of matters under the Redundancy Acts) but at the moment these high profile examples have been used as a benchmark in many other companies.

I am personally aware of one Dublin based LOI club that offered to make staff (non playing) redundant and re hire them on lesser terms (during the close season).

[passerrby]

bloody hell lads galway are in thre **** at least let them have a thread of there own ,

[pineapple stu]

Wrong Stu. they had to buy out the contracts because (a) players could have sued for breach of contract (completely seperate to Redundancy legislation) and/or (b) failure to reach agreement would have precluded Bohs from getting a licence.
All coming from the fact that the club couldn't make the players redundant. You can have a contract and still be made redundant - you get pay according to here (http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/employment/unemployment_and_redundancy/redundancy/redundancy_payments.html). Here (http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/employment/unemployment_and_redundancy/redundancy/redundancy.html) it says that "Generally a redundancy situation arises if your job ceases to exist and you are not replaced." If you are replaced, you've been dismissed; different kettle of fish altogether.

What you seem to be trying to argue is that Bohs could have simply laid the players off and compensated them maybe E1,200 tops per person (and nil in many cases), and yet chose to settle for a much larger figure. That makes no sense whatsoever.

[Spudulika]

All coming from the fact that the club couldn't make the players redundant. You can have a contract and still be made redundant - you get pay according to here (http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/employment/unemployment_and_redundancy/redundancy/redundancy_payments.html). Here (http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/employment/unemployment_and_redundancy/redundancy/redundancy.html) it says that "Generally a redundancy situation arises if your job ceases to exist and you are not replaced." If you are replaced, you've been dismissed; different kettle of fish altogether.

What you seem to be trying to argue is that Bohs could have simply laid the players off and compensated them maybe E1,200 tops per person (and nil in many cases), and yet chose to settle for a much larger figure. That makes no sense whatsoever.

It'd the LOI, it goes with the territory :-)

On the being replaced bit, is there a way a football club can designate somebody for a position (for example player x is a right winger), however they are not replaced per se. Is this a possible get out clause or is it just straightforward that a footballer is a footballer?

[pineapple stu]

I would imagine it's as straightforward as a footballer being a footballer. Unless Jason McAteer is filling in the "Position in company" box.

[Spudulika]

Well since he supposedly filled in his position on a visa application as winger (or some such) he's not the prime example, but surely clubs looking to offload (in the manner that some do in the LOI) it could be an option.

[pineapple stu]

Well since he supposedly filled in his position on a visa application as winger (or some such)
http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSh2wpnaS3ZDU8X0KrEDDyyiyCqgsppU y4t3wbfnGdxgE4Hbr7ubg

The players' job titles would just be "footballers"; I can't see how they can get around it based on position to be honest.

[micls]

The players' job titles would just be "footballers"; I can't see how they can get around it based on position to be honest.
There's the chance that pros and amateurs are differentiated e.g. a company makes all professional footballers redundant and replaces them with amateurs on expenses.

[pineapple stu]

Yeah, that was raised earlier alright and is a definite possibility. Bohs don't look like they're going the amateur way though.

I suppose you could always let the footballer go and have a new opening as a barman.

[marinobohs]

All coming from the fact that the club couldn't make the players redundant. You can have a contract and still be made redundant - you get pay according to here (http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/employment/unemployment_and_redundancy/redundancy/redundancy_payments.html). Here (http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/employment/unemployment_and_redundancy/redundancy/redundancy.html) it says that "Generally a redundancy situation arises if your job ceases to exist and you are not replaced." If you are replaced, you've been dismissed; different kettle of fish altogether.

What you seem to be trying to argue is that Bohs could have simply laid the players off and compensated them maybe E1,200 tops per person (and nil in many cases), and yet chose to settle for a much larger figure. That makes no sense whatsoever.
try reading points (a) and (b) of my post as why Bohs did not just make players redundant.

Your point begins "generally" hardly definitive now is it ? Usually the case that redundancy is post specific but this has changed recently. Feel free to check out Irish Ferries/SIPTU case and more recently Aer lingus/SIPTU (as part of restructuing) if you need proof, reported on extencively in general media or IRN (Industrial Relations News). Whether it makes sense to you or not these were NOT dismissals and were made in accordance with Redundancy Act despite posts filled immediately.

[pineapple stu]

I read points a and b and countered them.

Have you a link for the rulings you mention?

[marinobohs]

I read points a and b and countered them.

Have you a link for the rulings you mention?

No you didn't - no reason given as to how Bohs could have got a licence OR preventing court action for breach of contract without reaching agreement with the players. As i explained earlier they were not rulings but agreements reached between the parties (and in the case of Aer Lingus) ratified by Dept Enterprise Trade and Employment.
Details of deals are not published by the Labour Relations Commission but were widely commented on in national media and more recently on foot of the Revenue ruling around tax exemption (in case of Aer Lingus).

[pineapple stu]

I never mentioned licencing. :confused: All I (and Dodge) said is that it's illegal to let someone go and hire someone straight after for a cheaper wage, and that that was demonstrated by virtue of the fact that Bohs didn't do it.

Seeing as you won't provide a link, I've looked up my own. This one here (http://www.morehod.ru/forum/english-room/topic2068.html) says that "Irish Ferries is allowed to replace its workers with cheaper crews from abroad because Irish labour laws do not apply on the seas." I could easily see a similar argument in the Aer Lingus case. But not in the Bohs case.

[WeAreRovers]

The Aer Lingus case was a scam pulled by the airline and union in cahoots and the same scenario will never happen again. http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/0113/1224287413411.html

So both of Marino Bohs examples are irelevant anomalies despite his bluster about IRN and the LRC.

Bottom line in all of this is that not only is licencing not working but the strict to the letter interpretation of the rules sees the spirit of the scheme abandoned - a club that has finally come to grips with its structural problems and whom the fans have taken the reins of get thrown out while two utter basket cases who may not see out the season get Premier licences.

KOH

[passerrby]

the practice of getting rid of people to replace them with cheaper labour is morally reprehensible but bohs could claim they were all at sea

[tippex]

AFAIR - footballers (professional sports people) do not have the same employment rights as the ordinary Joe / Josephine public.

[gufcfan]

Derry and Cork formed new clubs. If Galway had decided to do this they could have gotten a First Division licence too most likely.
Shame on us for wanting pay creditors.

[CSFShels]

Shame on us for wanting pay creditors.
No1 wants to pay creditors even though everyone should. Don't try imply that Galway are working off some moral obligation. Galway didn't form a new club because there was still hope for the old one. And maybe there still is. Cork pursued every avenue to avoid doing it too. Perhaps Galway should have done what Cork did and have a licence application pending for a new club if the situation arose. Even though the system where creditors can be ditched is rotten to the core.

[gufcfan]

No1 wants to pay creditors even though everyone should. Don't try imply that Galway are working off some moral obligation.
Of course we are. We could have finished the club on a dozen occasions since August and applied for a licence under the name of GUST Coop.

There were a few situations where our direct intervention at the last minute prevented United from being unable to fulfil fixtures and being kicked out of the league.

It would have been simple to sit back and watch the ***** behind the club crash and burn, but we didn't.

[geezer]

re the transfer of monies to the fai for the seamie conneely move to sheffield utd over winter The monies were to be paid to revenue on behalf of gufc on receipt, there was a delay??
how long was delay, why was it delayed

[Square Heir]

No1 wants to pay creditors even though everyone should. Don't try imply that Galway are working off some moral obligation. Galway didn't form a new club because there was still hope for the old one. And maybe there still is. Cork pursued every avenue to avoid doing it too. Perhaps Galway should have done what Cork did and have a licence application pending for a new club if the situation arose. Even though the system where creditors can be ditched is rotten to the core.

I don't think you quite understand. GUST are trying to claw back some honour/integrity for the club that was lost by the F**K-WITS that were dictating for the last few years, by making sure the creditors get paid what they are owed for a start. If there is to be any future for GUFC, they need to be able to trade with local businesses.

[Trainee]

Appeal will be herard early on friday morning

[geezer]

The longford appeal 2006 must be cited as also the possibility of delayed transfer monies from sheffield utd for GUFC defender S Conneely wired through the FAI finance dept and as agreed to be paid to collector general on behalf of club for licencing purposes. there are many people saying prizemonies due to clubs have been delayed over the winter, This is crucial information. A delay in the txfr and the fact that they were working on the clubs behalf with the collector general need to be looked at

[monsexile]

Galway latest via the Mirror via Mons blog
http://monaghanunited.tv/?p=354

[gufcfan]

Galway latest via the Mirror via Mons blog
http://monaghanunited.tv/?p=354
We have appealed...

And the RTÉ article (http://www.rte.ie/sport/soccer/2011/0216/galwayunited.html) that reported it is factually incorrect.

[WoodquayBoy]

Latest from FAI:
"Galway United FC has formally confirmed to the Football Association of Ireland that the club wishes to appeal the decision of the Club Licensing Committee to refuse them a League Licence. The appeal will be heard on Friday morning. Further information will be available following the completion of the appeal process. "

[monsexile]

Cheers. We should rearrange our friendly on Sunday to Friday in Abbotstown

[gufcfan]

Can we pool together our petrol cans etc and help the other out, depending on the outcome of the appeal?

[marinobohs]

The Aer Lingus case was a scam pulled by the airline and union in cahoots and the same scenario will never happen again. http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/0113/1224287413411.html

So both of Marino Bohs examples are irelevant anomalies despite his bluster about IRN and the LRC.

Bottom line in all of this is that not only is licencing not working but the strict to the letter interpretation of the rules sees the spirit of the scheme abandoned - a club that has finally come to grips with its structural problems and whom the fans have taken the reins of get thrown out while two utter basket cases who may not see out the season get Premier licences.

KOH

The article YOU attached shows
(1) staff in Aer Lingus were made redundant and rehired on lower terms (in some case, not all employees returned) where employees did not return they were replaced
(2) this was done with the knowledge of the department of Enterprise, trade and Employment
(3) the concerns raised by Revenue related to tax issues not Redundancy issues.

Thank you for proving that it is NOT illegal to replace a worker in a post made redundant :) which was the point I made (bluster or not). Dont know who you are but I understand the EAT decide on validity of redundancys not some joker on a message board. For the record no such adjudication has taken place todate (except by our hooped "expert" of course)

PS (for slower readers) deal on Aer Lingus and Irish Ferries were brokered under the Labour Relations Commission as I said. The LRC do not publish details of deals so was not able to produce link as requested by P Stu.
IRN reported extensively on the deals and I simply suggested that would be a good place to start if he wanted furthwer information.
Ironic to see shams concern over licencing bearing in mind their historic approach but no doubt a letter to the FAI complaining about the outcome will be forthcoming :)

[pineapple stu]

The article YOU attached shows
The article you attached shows...oh wait - nothing. Cos you've yet to post a single link. Until you provide a single link for what you're talking about, I'm out of this discussion, thanks.

[Dodge]

KOH

So this is what made you break your self imposed exile, eh?

Welcome back ;)

[passinginterest]

The article you attached shows...oh wait - nothing. Cos you've yet to post a single link. Until you provide a single link for what you're talking about, I'm out of this discussion, thanks.

Plenty of information here:
http://www.employmentrights.ie/en/informationforemployers/redundancy/

I think the first line is most relevant:

Redundancy is where an employee’s position ceases to exist and the employee is not replaced.