View Full Version : FAI Licensing
Breifne
19/01/2006, 10:36 AM
my understanding is that, yes, we are (well, were a few weeks ago) the only club with a tax cert for 2006. as such, we should be the only club with a licence. but the EL changed the rules to accomodate the other 21 clubs. i dont think thats in dispute
as for the rest of the criteria, im not sure, but i have heard anecdotal stories about most clubs having problems.
its not up to rovers and pats fans to tell higgins whats wrong with the corporate governance at shels....
Lets see how you like it:
Lets face it all of the claims of 21 clubs to be in trouble are pretty much anecdotal, (for anecdotal read wishful thinking) on the behalf of a small number of Shamrock Rovers fans who are acting like the perverbial prostitute who got her hymen restored.
Just because you went crawling to the FAI saying we're broke, can you help us, and somehow managed to wipe the slate clean for a measly 4 percent of your debt, doesn't mean you can now occupy the moral high ground. Your club were the worst offenders in this regard in the league twelve months ago.
Imagine if you give someone a hundred euro when they are stuck, they come back and say here's 4 euro, now we are quits. How do you think you would feel. Shamrock Rovers have done more damage to the reputation of the eircom league in the last five years than almost the rest of the clubs combined.
How many investors want to put money into a club, how many sponsors, suppliers or banks are willing to help out clubs. SFA cause they fear they might only get back 4% of what they put in. Who's fault is that. 100% the fault of Shamrock Rovers FC.
I appreciate that it is different management now, and i feel that the 400 club are the right people at the right time, with the right motives, but the public perception hasn't changed yet, this will take time to heal, and i would imagine there are numerous business's out there who will not even consider dealing with an eircom league club again.
Now, i've just insulted your club, but the difference is that everything that is said here can be backed up. Its not particularly nice, and this is all true, imagine when people rant and rave about how crap your club is, especially when the rubbish they are spouting is 100% made up bullsh1t.
Roverstillidie
19/01/2006, 11:11 AM
most of what you say is true. we know rovers was shambolic, hence we overthrew the board and are running the show.
if you think its 'wishful thinking' on our part that there will be licenecing issues for a huge number of clubs, you arent really looking very hard. we dont want to preach, but we are in div 1 because of a points deduction based on a flimsy licence application (which we brought to the el/fai's attention btw). why should we now stand back and shrug our shoulders to other clubs getting away with it?
and you make the examinership option sound like a risk free scam we pulled, as opposed to the only legal option open to the club. and you have no idea how our creditors reacted to their 4% or whatever they individually got. most of the debt was loans from fans who waived it anyway, but dont let facts get in the way. and at what point did we 'crawl' to the FAI? they did nothing to help whatsoever.
a silly rant really. and no, you cant back all of it up, can you?
thomas
19/01/2006, 11:18 AM
Lets see how you like it:
[INDENT]
somehow managed to wipe the slate clean for a measly 4 percent of your debt, doesn't mean you can now occupy the moral high ground.
How many investors want to put money into a club [INDENT]
Now, i've just insulted your club, but the difference is that everything that is said here can be backed up. Its not particularly nice, and this is all true, imagine when people rant and rave about how crap your club is, especially when the rubbish they are spouting is 100% made up bullsh1t.
Rubbish, Rovers settled with creditors with their unanimous agreement. The reason the club was punished was for a balls up with the accounts. It doesn't change the fact that the practices employed by rovers at the time continue to be employed by other clubs now.
As for investors, the fact is rovers were there for free and no one bit the bait. Except the fans, who were facilitated by a major bank if they took term memberships. If no one was interested then, they certainly wont be now that they have to actually pay...
NY Hoop
19/01/2006, 12:06 PM
Shamrock Rovers have done more damage to the reputation of the eircom league in the last five years than almost the rest of the clubs combined.
Ah the CHF with the permanent anti Rovers chip on his shoulder. Quel surprise:rolleyes:
The above statement is wrong. In that 5 year period we won games in Europe something you lot will never ever do. Plus there was the whole marneygate affair and ollie going berserk repeatedly.
BTW wasnt going to bring this up but its more than anecdotal evidence that your club are in serious debt. You dont need to be an accountant to know that. A CHF fan slagging off us:D
KOH
OneRedArmy
19/01/2006, 12:14 PM
my understanding is that, yes, we are (well, were a few weeks ago) the only club with a tax cert for 2006. as such, we should be the only club with a licence. but the EL changed the rules to accomodate the other 21 clubs. i dont think thats in dispute
as for the rest of the criteria, im not sure, but i have heard anecdotal stories about most clubs having problems.
Not strictly true. There's no tax clearance cert in Norn Ireland so Derry City don't need one to be license compliant.
Then again, the Revenue in the North are a "slightly" more active body and freuqently petition for winding up orders against football clubs (including Derry City in the recent past) so that provides a level of assurance.
pineapple stu
19/01/2006, 12:25 PM
Why would UCD not have a tax cert?
Don't see any reason. Though it was actually one of the reasons we failed last year, as far as I know - that was a screw-up on Revenue's behalf, not ours though. It is true though that Revenue have set up a branch targetting sports clubs after various rumours of cash payments (and let's be honest - it happens everywhere) - be interesting to see what comes out of that.
We also failed last year because our accounts were in the wrong format.
thomas
19/01/2006, 12:44 PM
Not strictly true. There's no tax clearance cert in Norn Ireland so Derry City don't need one to be license compliant.
Then again, the Revenue in the North are a "slightly" more active body and freuqently petition for winding up orders against football clubs (including Derry City in the recent past) so that provides a level of assurance.
Correct, but the license requires tax compliance as of the date of the license, in ireland thats a tax cert, presumably in the UK there is something similar to indicate taxes are up to date.
There is certainly a case for having quaterly tax certs going forward.
WeAreRovers
19/01/2006, 1:45 PM
It is true though that Revenue have set up a branch targetting sports clubs after various rumours of cash payments (and let's be honest - it happens everywhere) - be interesting to see what comes out of that.
This is the kernel of the whole thing. We provide payslips every week, P60s and P45s plus we have a PRSA scheme. I'd be (happily) surprised if other clubs did the same.
My point is that it should not be up to me or anyone else to "prove" that Shels or whoever are not tax-compliant or do not fulfill their duties as an employer. The whole process should be as transparent as possible so we can all have confidence in the Licencing system.
The sensitive among you have to remember that we (Rovers) have come to this, admittedly smug sounding, position through an unbelievable amount of pain and hard work. But we have come through it - albeit with relegation to contend with - and now we want other clubs to do the same, FOR THE GOOD OF THE LEAGUE.
KOH
NY Hoop
19/01/2006, 2:15 PM
The sad thing is the people at other clubs are more concerned with saving face in internet point scoring matches than asking questions of their own clubs, questions that might provide uncomfortable answers if they looked hard enough.
Post of the week.
KOH
pineapple stu
19/01/2006, 2:43 PM
This is the kernel of the whole thing. We provide payslips every week, P60s and P45s plus we have a PRSA scheme. I'd be (happily) surprised if other clubs did the same.
P35s, I assume you mean (although you've been handing out plenty of P45s of late!). For what it's worth, I am aware UCD submit an annual form P35. So the league isn't all bad!:) It is a serious problem though - think it's been brought up before how few clubs do P60s, etc.
WeAreRovers
19/01/2006, 2:52 PM
P35s, I assume you mean (although you've been handing out plenty of P45s of late!). For what it's worth, I am aware UCD submit an annual form P35. So the league isn't all bad!:) It is a serious problem though - think it's been brought up before how few clubs do P60s, etc.
I did mean P45s, apparently we had to re-order them, we were using so many. Roddy's was framed and signed by all 470 of us. ;)
We do of course submit a P35 but it was the individual P60s etc that I meant. The days of calling players independent contractors are over.
From what we've been told, the practice of issuing weekly payslips and P60s is almost non-existent in this league. Again, that has to change and clubs who are run well should not be penalised by the actions of others.*
KOH
* Yes, I'm well aware that Rovers were one of the worst offenders in this regard.
The sad thing is the people at other clubs are more concerned with saving face in internet point scoring matches than asking questions of their own clubs, questions that might provide uncomfortable answers if they looked hard enough.
In fairness, its an internet forum, I'd much prefer to try and score points of other fans that discuss the ins and outs of Pats' shambolic finances here. Never ever belive what you read on these things (except the sales figures for Pats' jersies, obviously)
The sensitive among you have to remember that we (Rovers) have come to this, admittedly smug sounding, position through an unbelievable amount of pain and hard work. But we have come through it - albeit with relegation to contend with - and now we want other clubs to do the same, FOR THE GOOD OF THE LEAGUE.
No, you want it to be a level playing field, not for the good of the league but for the good of Rovers (and why shouldn't you?)
**** the league is my opinion...
NY Hoop
19/01/2006, 3:22 PM
No, you want it to be a level playing field, not for the good of the league but for the good of Rovers (and why shouldn't you?)
**** the league is my opinion...
Why bother even having a league then ffs??
A vibrant league means more publicity, money and better results in Europe. I too want the league overall to be healthy. Cant for the life of me understand people who dont:rolleyes:
KOH
Of course I want the league to be healthy BUT my first priority (and I suspect WAR's) is my club. If Pats are in ths ****s (which we are) I don't want anyone else doing well. I
thomas
19/01/2006, 4:28 PM
Well to kick it off, pats a have a €0.5m hole and are trying to use grant money to pay it off....
WeAreRovers
19/01/2006, 4:55 PM
Of course I want the league to be healthy BUT my first priority (and I suspect WAR's) is my club. If Pats are in ths ****s (which we are) I don't want anyone else doing well. I
Nah, I couldn't give a **** about Pats. ;)
KOH
Just for the record, Harps have issued payslips and proper P60's to all players for several years now.
Dr.Nightdub
19/01/2006, 9:29 PM
Well to kick it off, pats a have a €0.5m hole and are trying to use grant money to pay it off....
I just KNEW you couldn't give up on anger camps and muck-flinging for ever!
However, it's true that we did have several holes but we've been busy plugging them - through legit means. Our bank overdraft was cleared last year and a VERY large wad paid to the Revenue. I dunno if it cleared the backlog entirely so I won't claim we're entirely out of the woods but I'd imagine it should put us well down the Revenue's hit-list.
Nice try though. Now, back to pointing at Shels... ;)
thomas
20/01/2006, 9:07 AM
I just KNEW you couldn't give up on anger camps and muck-flinging for ever!
However, it's true that we did have several holes but we've been busy plugging them - through legit means. Our bank overdraft was cleared last year and a VERY large wad paid to the Revenue. I dunno if it cleared the backlog entirely so I won't claim we're entirely out of the woods but I'd imagine it should put us well down the Revenue's hit-list.
Nice try though. Now, back to pointing at Shels... ;)
Violence Camps! Ah, back in the day...
It does show that rovers are/were not the only serial abusers though. T'was yourself who first mentioned this stuff so its hardly having a pop just repeating it.
Directly on point, Rovers means of plugging holes were just as legit as any other legal mechanism of clearing debt.
Schumi
20/01/2006, 12:40 PM
It does show that rovers are/were not the only serial abusers though.
I don't think anyone ever thought that they were. They just seemed to be worse at it than anyone else!
pineapple stu
20/01/2006, 12:43 PM
However, it's true that we did have several holes but we've been busy plugging them - through legit means.
Wasn't it Pat's who were paying off debts with capital grants a few years back? I think it was one of Brendan Dillon's many questions to the FAI which they failed completely to answer.
Ronnie
20/01/2006, 1:13 PM
So is today the day. Very little press about it.
So is today the day. Very little press about it.
next monday is the day of annoucements. Whats the odds that everyone will fail over small issues again and have to pay the charges for rechecking them again ?
Wasn't it Pat's who were paying off debts with capital grants a few years back? I think it was one of Brendan Dillon's many questions to the FAI which they failed completely to answer.
No. We got a loan from the FAI to pay back some wages but we paid that loan back within 3 months. It was nothing to do with any grant
pineapple stu
20/01/2006, 2:24 PM
Hmmm...There was something dodgy about the transaction...was only talking about it with someone there the other day. Still, it's in the past now.
Well it was also a pay off for not going to court over the 15 points thing too so yeah, unbelieveably dodgy.
pineapple stu
20/01/2006, 6:49 PM
I've read that post over and over and I can't decide if you're being sarcastic or not! Must refer back to your tone in the jerseys thread... :p
Dr.Nightdub
20/01/2006, 8:31 PM
Stu, seriously, this is way beyond jersey sales figures, we were very VERY strongly "encouraged" to drop the court action over the points deduction.
If you remember, Roy Dooney's review of ALL clubs' registrations was leaked to the Herald but with the relevant teams' and players' names disguised as "Team A", "Player B", etc. Pats knew what was in the Herald was genuine, they even knew whose copy of the report had been leaked but unfortunately for us, Dooney got shafted and the report never saw the light of day. Parallel to that, we'd done our own trawl through the FAI files and there were anomalies as bad as ours all over the shop.
The club reckoned they'd good grounds for a court action but that it wasn't waterproof. If we'd gone the whole hog, lost and then had to pay the FAI's legal costs as well, we'd have gone bankrupt. Don't forget the levels of paranoia were through the roof at that point and in that (admittedly fuzzy) light an FAI stitch-up of some sort was entirely plausible.
So they basically made us an offer that we couldn't afford to refuse: lie down and be bought off or be ****ed entirely.
Dodge will remember the meeting where a very grey-faced Pats official put the alternatives to the Independent Saints committee. It wasn't exactly Michael Collins trying to sell the Treaty to the Dail but it wasn't far off.
Well, If Im right, today is judgement day. Anybody know what time the annoucements are due? I hear sligo used a red biro again !!!:eek: :D only kidding
pineapple stu
23/01/2006, 7:38 PM
The UEFA Licencing board are due to meet this week (i.e. the week beginning 23rd January)
Terry
30/01/2006, 11:19 AM
I take it now that everybody will just be handed a licence to see them through this year, and it will be taken more seriously for the following season?:rolleyes:
Bald Student
30/01/2006, 11:38 AM
it will be taken more seriously for the following season?:rolleyes:When have we heard that before?
Roverstillidie
30/01/2006, 12:07 PM
why should we allow that to happen?
Breifne
30/01/2006, 12:48 PM
I take it now that everybody will just be handed a licence to see them through this year, and it will be taken more seriously for the following season?:rolleyes:
No i don't think it does mean that at all. I have to complement the FAI somewhat on their efforts on the licence this season. The level of feedback and support has been excellent compared to previous years. I still feel that they are feeling they're way around the scheme, which is a little surprising after three seasons, but I feel that the scheme is beginning to kick start itself.
CollegeTillIDie
02/02/2006, 6:36 AM
Of course I want the league to be healthy BUT my first priority (and I suspect WAR's) is my club. If Pats are in ths ****s (which we are) I don't want anyone else doing well. I
Ah that reminds me what did Brendan Behan say about the begrudgers?:D
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.2 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.