gufct
02/06/2004, 9:09 AM
the only time i have questioned anything in relation to the man from Del Monte and Pancho Villa is when i have solid facts to back up what i questioned a lot of these cannot be put in print due to their tendency to threaten to sue anyone that takes them on but you may have noticed lately that the papers are prepared to take on a sytem that is corrupt to the core and in a worst ate now than it ever was.
The only hope of our league progressing and regaining the trust and confidence of the Business Community,The Government and more importantly the Irish People was the UEFA Licencing system but has been completely undermined by the FAI.
A-Licences
June 2 2004 at 7:07 AM Stephen (no login)
from IP address 217.137.166.12
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From today's Irish Indo
UEFA licence saga lands FAI in another mess
Wednesday June 2nd 2004
LAST Friday, Shelbourne, Bohemians, Longford Town and Cork City received their UEFA Club Licence from the FAI - a pre-requisite to participate in next season's European club competitions.
The four clubs involved seemed utterly unsurprised by the good news - such was the FAI's gleeful desire to hurriedly inform the media, one of the club secretaries heard the news only when this writer told him, fully three hours after the media had been informed.
The glad tidings should have produced a swelling in the chests of soccer fans throughout the country but, unfortunately, this is Irish soccer we are talking about and, ever since the decision was announced, there has been the whiff of discord in the air at the manner in which the licenses were awarded.
Given that UEFA club licensing is arguably the most important issue on FAI chief executive Fran Rooney's table, his leadership and decisiveness will be crucial in determining whether the integrity of the process is upheld.
Last Saturday, Rooney told this newspaper that he would welcome an UEFA investigation into the award of the licences. "We have nothing to hide," he said.
If that is the case, then perhaps the answers to a few questions would contribute to the spirit of transparency and openness we were all promised by Genesis.
One presumed that the First Instance Licensing Committee, who have been involved in the process since the very beginning, would have been the body charged with the responsibility to hear the four licence applications. Why were they not?
If it is true that the chairman of the First Instance Licensing Committee (and his Appeals Committee counterpart) discovered at an UEFA workshop that circumstances had changed and that the Appeals Committee should be the body to hear the initial applications, why was there no evidence produced to support this contention?
Is there any evidence to support this assertion?
Since the deadline for entry to UEFA competitions was May 31, why was the Appeals Committee then told that a meeting last Thursday was purely for "communication purposes" and not to deliver any swingeing verdicts about licences?
Given the above, why was there a sudden shift in emphasis, with a meeting being held at 7am on Friday purely to discuss the award of licences?
When a member of the committee said that he/she would be unable to attend Friday's re-scheduled meeting but would participate via a conference call so that the meeting would have a quorum, why was this important request denied?
When a new committee member was co-opted on Friday morning, did the other members not realise that they were acting contrary to their manual, which forbids them from co-opting a new member without sanction from an FAI Board of Management meeting?
Is it true that a member of the FAI Board of Management member rang his colleagues on Friday night to ask them to ratify the decision to co-opt the new committee member, even though the decision had already been made?
Would the co-opted member have had sufficient time - in the less than 24 hours available - to sift through the four applications and garner sufficient knowledge of the exhaustive manual in order to deliver an informed decision?
If one of the four clubs had their licence application turned down by the Appeals Committee, to whom would they appeal? The Appeals Committee again?
Will the Licensing Committee now step in and revoke the awards, as is their right, in the event that the four clubs have not fulfilled all the criteria?
And, for the clubs involved, whom we hope carry the flag in European competition this summer, a few questions.
Do they know that it is they who will suffer if their licences were awarded incorrectly, with expulsion from this and forthcoming competitions a real possibility?
Do they - and the other 18 league clubs - also know that the grants which have yet to be released by the government will remain in cold storage until UEFA decide whether or not to investigate this issue?
Could the clubs concerned possibly outline the dramatic improvements they have made since first being denied the licence in February?
These questions are aimed at eliminating the secrecy which has shrouded this issue, causing Derry City, for one, to threaten legal action. And, if their attitude is so risible, as claimed by some, why don't the FAI come clean and eradicate the opaque nature of last week's deliberations?
The clubs will be the ones to suffer if the integrity of the licensing process was, deliberately or not, impugned to any degree. They deserve an answer. As do a government who are keeping a close eye on the FAI's recent actions.
If Rooney ever had a chance to demonstrate the vision and commitment he has so often promised to deliver since Genesis, then this is a timely opportunity to lift the veil of secrecy and uphold the honour of the licensing system.
The only hope of our league progressing and regaining the trust and confidence of the Business Community,The Government and more importantly the Irish People was the UEFA Licencing system but has been completely undermined by the FAI.
A-Licences
June 2 2004 at 7:07 AM Stephen (no login)
from IP address 217.137.166.12
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From today's Irish Indo
UEFA licence saga lands FAI in another mess
Wednesday June 2nd 2004
LAST Friday, Shelbourne, Bohemians, Longford Town and Cork City received their UEFA Club Licence from the FAI - a pre-requisite to participate in next season's European club competitions.
The four clubs involved seemed utterly unsurprised by the good news - such was the FAI's gleeful desire to hurriedly inform the media, one of the club secretaries heard the news only when this writer told him, fully three hours after the media had been informed.
The glad tidings should have produced a swelling in the chests of soccer fans throughout the country but, unfortunately, this is Irish soccer we are talking about and, ever since the decision was announced, there has been the whiff of discord in the air at the manner in which the licenses were awarded.
Given that UEFA club licensing is arguably the most important issue on FAI chief executive Fran Rooney's table, his leadership and decisiveness will be crucial in determining whether the integrity of the process is upheld.
Last Saturday, Rooney told this newspaper that he would welcome an UEFA investigation into the award of the licences. "We have nothing to hide," he said.
If that is the case, then perhaps the answers to a few questions would contribute to the spirit of transparency and openness we were all promised by Genesis.
One presumed that the First Instance Licensing Committee, who have been involved in the process since the very beginning, would have been the body charged with the responsibility to hear the four licence applications. Why were they not?
If it is true that the chairman of the First Instance Licensing Committee (and his Appeals Committee counterpart) discovered at an UEFA workshop that circumstances had changed and that the Appeals Committee should be the body to hear the initial applications, why was there no evidence produced to support this contention?
Is there any evidence to support this assertion?
Since the deadline for entry to UEFA competitions was May 31, why was the Appeals Committee then told that a meeting last Thursday was purely for "communication purposes" and not to deliver any swingeing verdicts about licences?
Given the above, why was there a sudden shift in emphasis, with a meeting being held at 7am on Friday purely to discuss the award of licences?
When a member of the committee said that he/she would be unable to attend Friday's re-scheduled meeting but would participate via a conference call so that the meeting would have a quorum, why was this important request denied?
When a new committee member was co-opted on Friday morning, did the other members not realise that they were acting contrary to their manual, which forbids them from co-opting a new member without sanction from an FAI Board of Management meeting?
Is it true that a member of the FAI Board of Management member rang his colleagues on Friday night to ask them to ratify the decision to co-opt the new committee member, even though the decision had already been made?
Would the co-opted member have had sufficient time - in the less than 24 hours available - to sift through the four applications and garner sufficient knowledge of the exhaustive manual in order to deliver an informed decision?
If one of the four clubs had their licence application turned down by the Appeals Committee, to whom would they appeal? The Appeals Committee again?
Will the Licensing Committee now step in and revoke the awards, as is their right, in the event that the four clubs have not fulfilled all the criteria?
And, for the clubs involved, whom we hope carry the flag in European competition this summer, a few questions.
Do they know that it is they who will suffer if their licences were awarded incorrectly, with expulsion from this and forthcoming competitions a real possibility?
Do they - and the other 18 league clubs - also know that the grants which have yet to be released by the government will remain in cold storage until UEFA decide whether or not to investigate this issue?
Could the clubs concerned possibly outline the dramatic improvements they have made since first being denied the licence in February?
These questions are aimed at eliminating the secrecy which has shrouded this issue, causing Derry City, for one, to threaten legal action. And, if their attitude is so risible, as claimed by some, why don't the FAI come clean and eradicate the opaque nature of last week's deliberations?
The clubs will be the ones to suffer if the integrity of the licensing process was, deliberately or not, impugned to any degree. They deserve an answer. As do a government who are keeping a close eye on the FAI's recent actions.
If Rooney ever had a chance to demonstrate the vision and commitment he has so often promised to deliver since Genesis, then this is a timely opportunity to lift the veil of secrecy and uphold the honour of the licensing system.