Drastic situations call for drastic measures

[superfrank]

only a jackeen has the right to call anyone a bogger...
I'm so happy now....

[Roverstillidie]

Two things. Firstly, as far as I'm concerned it's water under the bridge, and good luck to the new owners, they seem to be doing an alright job so far (anyone who gets on Roddy's bad side is ok by me) with banning the fans responsible for trouble in Derry.

However (secondly :) ) a lot of fans of other teams do feel that Rovers got off lightly with the examinership and a points deduction that doesn't look like relegating them. I can understand you saying that the previous administration are the ones to blame (clearly that's true) but you have to understand that they represented Shamrock Rovers the football club (just as you do now) and it is the club at whom other supporters direct their animosity. As a supporter of a club, you have the luxury of making a distinction between the club as a theoretical entity and the various parts that make up the club. Thus you can love Rovers/Shels whoever but not like the owner/manager/coaches etc. That distinction lessens as you move away from the club, so that to a fan of another team, it is just one single entity, with no discernable change depending on personnel changes.

So what made people angry? Well, it was perceived that Rovers bought their way out of trouble last year with money that was not there. The poaching of a manager from fellow relegation strugglers was viewed by the rest of the league as extremely low, and personally, I thought it was very bad taste. I also think that the FAI/EL/Revenue had a big role to play as it was common knowledge that things weren't kosher, but nothing was fully investigated. (again, kudos to the fans who had pointed this out to no avail).
But the biggest sticking point I think is that other fans can see a situation where a club in less disarray than Rovers were in, are more heavily punished due to a clampdown, increasing standards, whatever you want to call it. Take Waterford for example. If we could write off 96% of our debt and start next year with a similar points deduction then we'd almost probably take it, and I think other clubs would be in a similar boat. The perception remains that the biggest offenders (as yet) got off lightly because it was the league's first case.

there isnt a lot there i would profoundly disagree with. but remember how much of a gamble the whole process was for us, especially when we found out the judge was a gypo :eek: !
my objection is that people claim we somehow cheated by use of the examinership process. it was a: perfectly legal and b: allowed within the rules of the game.
it was the needed and ultimatly sensible thing to do. and it results in rovers being a lean, well run club and the only one in the land paying all its tax obligations.
the issue isnt that the slate should be wiped clean, but that someone in the EL/FAI explain why they repeatedly dismissed the 400 club when they brought the 'issues' to their attention than later decided they were serious enough to deduct 8 points over? nad i dont think it was a light punishment by any stretch.
we were the classic mismanaged club, and we, the fans, dealt with it in a proactive manner for the love of our club, and then get abuse for doing so? :confused:

[bigmac]

the issue isnt that the slate should be wiped clean, but that someone in the EL/FAI explain why they repeatedly dismissed the 400 club when they brought the 'issues' to their attention than later decided they were serious enough to deduct 8 points over?

Completely agree with you here. The FAI/EL have never adequately explained their part in the whole affair. I can see this sort of thing happening again and again as the league seems to have no interest in sorting itself out and ensuring all clubs are run correctly.

We'll agree to disagree on the punishment, I think that any club that goes into liquidation/examinership should be automatically relegated from the premier or be forced to apply for re-election, I don't see the logic behind a points deduction at all.

[ColinR]

it results in rovers being a lean, well run club and the only one in the land paying all its tax obligations.


i have no problem with the whole examinership issue, and as my club was a previously wreckless spender, it would be hypocritical of me to fault rovers for their spending money when you had none policy of previous years.

however, whilst you may now pay taxes, you shouldn't assume that your are the only club to be doing so. whilst there was (and probably still is) a culture of tax evasion in the league, it certainly is not the case with all clubs, not just the present rovers.

[manic da hoop]

A couple of excellent posts there Bigmac, which clearly and articulately outline the point of view of somebody looking at our situation from the outside, as opposed to the blind, jealous rantings of some others posters here. One point though, the points deduction was not for going into examinership, but for the filing of accounts that were simply duplicates of the previous year's. There wasn't actually a specfic punishment handed out for the examiership process. That said, I think I speak for all genuine Rovers fans when I say we would have taken whatever medicine would have been handed to us in order to get ourselves out of the mess we were in. If we were to go back five or six months and be told that it would result in automatic relegation and an application for re-election at the start of next season I, for one, would have taken it.

[Roverstillidie]

We'll agree to disagree on the punishment, I think that any club that goes into liquidation/examinership should be automatically relegated from the premier or be forced to apply for re-election, I don't see the logic behind a points deduction at all.

maybe there should be a rule against it, but there isnt.
what footballing benefit did we get from examinership? none, in fact the whole thing weakened our playing squad dramatically.
maybe you think we abused a loophole, but the rules are the rules, and this move was within them.
and im sure the clubs like waterford in particular, and also shels and cork who dont own their stadiums were very interested observers in the whole affair.

[bigmac]

maybe there should be a rule against it, but there isnt.
what footballing benefit did we get from examinership? none, in fact the whole thing weakened our playing squad dramatically.
maybe you think we abused a loophole, but the rules are the rules, and this move was within them.
and im sure the clubs like waterford in particular, and also shels and cork who dont own their stadiums were very interested observers in the whole affair.

I don't think it was a loophole, as you say, the rules were there and the situation was dealt with within the rules. The main reason I would see for having a prescribed punishment for any team is as a huge deterrent against getting themselves into the situation where an examiner is required. As manic says, the punishment was for not filing accounts properly, which suggests that the league would have done nothing if accounts had been correct. If so, then that would open examinership up as an extremely attractive route for any debt laden club. Imagine if the situation was such that any club could agree to pay 4c in the euro of its debts and start over, with no sanctions at all.

[Roverstillidie]

Imagine if the situation was such that any club could agree to pay 4c in the euro of its debts and start over, with no sanctions at all.

but bigmac, that is exactly the situation! assuming the courts allow you to enter the process and thats what the examiner decides.
but bear in mind your football club is for sale to the highest bidder, whoever that may be.

[bigmac]

but bigmac, that is exactly the situation! assuming the courts allow you to enter the process and thats what the examiner decides.
but bear in mind your football club is for sale to the highest bidder, whoever that may be.

Exactly why i think there should be a punishment. Anyway, our club (and most others) are up for sale anyway, if the price is right. As you say though, there's a certain amount of uncertainty involved in going through the process and I'd rather avoid it to be honest.

[manic da hoop]

Just as a matter of interest, can anyone here tell me just how many threads on this forum have, in one way or another, reverted back to a discussion about Rovers and Examinership?:rolleyes:

[Bald Student]

Just as a matter of interest, can anyone here tell me just how many threads on this forum have, in one way or another, reverted back to a discussion about Rovers and Examinership?:rolleyes:Fewer than have reverted back to either "too many Dublin clubs" or "the Dublin bias". Your only third in the race to be the most repeated topic. You should be looking over your shoulder, "Bray is really in Dublin" is catching up!