Petition to wind up Accolade (Shels)

[The Sheliban]

I think thats a very optimistic way to view all this. Its clear Shels were already not paying the taxman which is why a repayment lan was negotiated. To continue your analogy its like having back ESB bills, so agree to a repayment plan, you've not defaulted on that plan so the ESB telling you pay up now or they'll cut you off.

As you suggest i think the taxman has lost patience so will be hard to make deals in good faith in future.

If Accolade was to be closed i think this invalidates the contracts of current players so they become free agents. The Shels FC rights would be taken by the taxman and other creditors who could choose to sell off to new company (Ollie would not be allowed involvement in that). In such a scenario you would lose a lot of goodwill amoung the business community plus probably get points deduction like Rovers. Its not a decision clubs make lightly.

I think the real danger is that other creditors will now see the headlines and get jumpy, and this might cause us problems. I imagine Ollie will be on the blower a lot this week!

[monkey magic]

the thing thats going round my head all weekend is just where is he gonna get the 300,000 needed before april 3rd?? am i right in saying he has to pay it off in full before the court date in order to avoid the hearing??

[Student Mullet]

I use the comparison as people are stating shels are overspending and therefore its a form of cheating and driving up wages, my answer to them is that its not cheating and its all legal as long as all debts are eventually paid.I agree with you there Higgins but I would make two exceptions. A club which builds up debts which it has no prospect of ever paying is cheating, like Rovers did but that's not the case for Shels.

The other exception is building up non capital debts and paying for them by selling your ground. I know legally no other club or fan has an interest in Tolka but I do think that selling it to cover wage related debts is cheating the Irish sporting public.

[higgins]

Ollie did say he would pay the tax man no more money. My take on that was he was trying to force somebody to take notice and maybe he went through with this for a little while but he came around! I'm full sure he was made see the errors of his ways and this is not as a result. People have said shels agreed on a series of repayments in the last few months so this would have been well after his previous comments.

As for comparison with not paying your bills until final notice, that’s par for the course with Ollie from the little bit I know so in all honesty I would think he got caught out with revenue and his embarrassed comment is true.

Shels had the same amount of debt last week as they do now but the difference is they have a wind up order out for them.

My money would be on Ollie paying the debts due to his bluff being called and things go on as normal with a club who are professional on the pitch and amateur off it. Not a scenario I am overly happy with but Shels will be in business after April 3rd.

Also why do people with nothing interesting to say or have anything to add to this debate continue to post?
Can you not just set up an "Ollie Byrne ruined my life" thread and leave this one?

[higgins]

The other exception is building up non capital debts and paying for them by selling your ground. I know legally no other club or fan has an interest in Tolka but I do think that selling it to cover wage related debts is cheating the Irish sporting public.

Its no different to the small businessman who remortages his house to keep his business going? so now nobody can sell their grounds? Did arsenal donate Highbury to cancer research!!

You point goes against everything all other people have posted. They all say that due to shels having an asset they cant go the rovers route and yet you say the complete opposite.

Just like any other shels threads really when posters contradict each other and yet still make shels out to be the bad guys.

[A face]

any group of football devotees that has lasted so far in this GAA/EPL-saturated environment deserves a medal.

Not a league medal though, i mean ... they did bottle it last year after all !! :)

[pete]

Also why do people with nothing interesting to say or have anything to add to this debate continue to post?
Can you not just set up an "Ollie Byrne ruined my life" thread and leave this one?

I agree with your sentiment but i think the debate is fairly reasonable here...

[A face]

Can you not just set up an "Ollie Byrne ruined my life" thread and leave this one?

Are there any Ollie Byrne support groups out there, we could set up a subforum ?? :eek: :p

[Student Mullet]

so now nobody can sell their grounds? Did arsenal donate Highbury to cancer research!!No, I've no problem with a club selling their ground if the money is reinvested in another ground or in another capital asset e.g. training facilities. I presume that's what arsenal are doing but I don't actually know anytthing about them. Closer to home, Harps and Drogheda are both doing this and I've no problem with that. (Funnily enough, Belfield Park is going towards cancer research!).

The difference, if news reports over the weekend are correct (and I don't know if they are) is that Shels are selling the ground to cover existing debts without any concrete plans for a new ground. It's using capital money for current expenditure which solves short term problems but leaves you worse off in the long run. Basically the sporting public has lost a city centre stadium and gained ten years of success for one of our clubs. I don't consider that to be a good swap.



You point goes against everything all other people have posted. They all say that due to shels having an asset they cant go the rovers route and yet you say the complete opposite.

Just like any other shels threads really when posters contradict each other and yet still make shels out to be the bad guys.I didn't say that Shels can go down the Rovers route so I don't think I contradicted anyone there but, on the general point, we're all seperate people here so there will be contradictions. Non-Shels fans aren't one homogenous group.

[Strabane_Harp]

That would have no effect on Shels as they are under no obligation to publish accounts and there for would simply lie about their income so they could "legally" pay the players more.


And here we have the problem, clubs to gain a licence i think should have to publicly declare their accounts, clubs unable to do this or who are found to have misled the league should be banned from the league for a year

[Mr_T]

They're still paying off the debts of the last time. I'm really not having a go at Harps at all, but they've played the overspend game too. Fair play for them getting their house in order, especially with pressure being put on by some of their managers in the press.

I know your not having a go at Harps Macy but in fairness the difference between us and others at the minute is that we learned from our mistakes.

We came up in '95 and spent silly money on players to acheve a 4th place finish and a cup final defeat. We went back down in debt to the neck and rebuilt from scratch - with NO help from the FAI or eircom LEague to assist us in brokering deals with the tax man. We got our affairs in order, were the first club in the country to have a current tax clearance cert (several years ago when most clubs didn't know what a TCC was), have paid our tax & PRSI monthly and on time for years now, have cleared most of the back tax with the remainder being indefinately frozen pending our continued good behaviour, produce audited accounts within a month of the year end etc. (Won't go on or I'll start to sound like some Rovers fans, who having discovered the virtues of this kind of stuff very recently now think they invented it :D )

We came back up last year and unfortunately found that the Premier division had gotten ten times worse, that clubs were spending crazy budgets on wages and doing exactly what we did the last time only in multiples. We were on the wrong side of a very un-level playing field. But not many people would have listened if you'd made this case before this Shels affair has brought some of the reality to light.

The whole house of cards is ready to come tumbling down, and as you say some clubs seem to be getting the message and cutting budgets to suit their incomings (a bold departure for Irish football) however its a long way to go, and the dodgy dealings regarding tax and PRSI on players wages that have been widespread are what will really threaten the existance of some clubs when the taxman comes looking for his lost loot.

I really think that when this era of domestic football is being recalled in 10 or 20 years time we'll not be marvelling at the progress made by full time clubs, it will be recalled as the period where spending went crazy, financial responsability went out the window and several clubs went to the wall. Hopefully the latter will be averted but its a bleak outlook for many at the minute.

[paudie]

I want Shels to survive -- just.
The club is part and parcel of Irish football history, and any group of football devotees that has lasted so far in this GAA/EPL-saturated environment deserves a medal. We could debate at length Shels' and Ollie's services and disservices to football, but I don't think we'd get anywhere. Regardless of who it may be, the fact that a leading, top-flight club is so close to oblivion has to be of concern to anyone who loves Irish football. I'm sure the enemies of Irish football, like those who tried to get their hands on Tallaght, are delighted.
I actually find it hard to say that. As I mentioned before, sympathy doesn't come easy for those who used bogus financial muscle for squad-wrecking spending sprees so they could lord it over the rest. Losing Glen Crowe has cost BFC a lot. Taking him away from Bohs has cost Shels rather more.
Much as I want to them to survive, I certainly do not want them limping into Dalymount. Using Bohs to prop them up is, as the FAI now must have heard loud and clear from Bohs support, not an option.

Excellent post.

I certainly hope Shels do survive.

Though hopefully they will continue without Ollie, who for all his love of the club is a embarresment to the league as a whole.

It's quite likely that Shels will make an arrangement with the Revenue either before or after April 3rd. It will probably involve making a lump sum payment and monthly payments to clear the rest over X years. PLUS keeping future payments up to date.

If the Revenue have their info right they'll have their eyes on Shels CL money (€200,000?)from the 05/06 season (isn't this only paid to clubs after the final) plus their Setanta Cup money (€40,000?).

No matter what the future doesn't look great for Shels with the Tolka lease sold and Bohs now likely to run a mile from ground sharing.

A points deduction is not definite though, unless their licence application was dodgy in some way. Owing money to the Revenue isn't grouns for points deduction, especially if you come to an agreement with them to pay.

[Mr A]

While there may be CL and Setanta money etc coming to Shels its still a strange time of year to hit trouble. Season ticket money, sponsor money and lots of other stuff comes in at the very start of the season - hence most clubs only hit bother later in the season when all this is used and gates etc aren't covering the shortfall. I'm guessing that Shels problems came during the off-season when income is minimal, and it could well be that the cash flow has since then changed for the better due to the new season. However if Shels are continuing to spend way beyond their means it could be that surviving this winding up order (and they most probably will) might only be shunting the problem further down the line- plus Shels absolutely must keep their taxes up to date from now on as well as paying back the debts already accumulated. To me it seems there must be serious cutbacks at Shels sooner rather than later, unless they really plan to sell their main asset to cover current expenditure (they may be forced to I guess) but to make the decision without being forced would be one of the all time stupid decisions in Irish football history, and as we all know that's a pretty big statement.

[pineapple stu]

It's quite likely that Shels will make an arrangement with the Revenue either before or after April 3rd. It will probably involve making a lump sum payment and monthly payments to clear the rest over X years. PLUS keeping future payments up to date.
Problem is, that's what Shels have in place already, according to reports (21 monthly payments @ E12k each). The Revenue aren't going to keep making the same arrangement if it keeps getting broken. They're going to cut their losses, put the company into liquidation and hope to get some of their money at least.

[Student Mullet]

Problem is, that's what Shels have in place already, according to reports (21 monthly payments @ E12k each). The Revenue aren't going to keep making the same arrangement if it keeps getting broken. They're going to cut their losses, put the company into liquidation and hope to get some of their money at least.I doubt it Pineapple, Shels problems are liquidity, not solvency. The Revenue will get all their money and don't need to cut their losses.

[CharlesThompson]

Well they cut their losses with Rovers.

For me I don't want Shels to go under. I would be very happy with a lot of pain for them though. I have no problem sounding bitter about this, but what has been said already regarding their dismantling of a successful Bohs side with money that they didn't really have - as proved here - was vindictive and spiteful. I would assume that the money Oily is gathering to pay the tax man presently is money that Shels need either from the sale of their lease and/or deferred wages (this is only specultation), but it has to come from somewhere. I seriously doubt that Oily has merely 'forgotten the dates' or whatever excuse he's used, but I have no doubt that Oily has more than enough schemes tucked inside is y-fronts to pull Shels out of this.

[Mr A]

what has been said already regarding their dismantling of a successful Bohs side with money that they didn't really have

In fairness, I'm not sure Bohs really had the money to pay that team either!

[Macy]

I know your not having a go at Harps Macy but in fairness the difference between us and others at the minute is that we learned from our mistakes.
And you know I've been vocal in support of that stance the whole time, and the same with Rovers new regime. I really hope that's the way we're heading in Longford too, not before time.

[Macy]

It's quite likely that Shels will make an arrangement with the Revenue either before or after April 3rd. It will probably involve making a lump sum payment and monthly payments to clear the rest over X years. PLUS keeping future payments up to date.
But it's this arrangement that Shels appear to be defaulting on - if the timescale compared to the other Dublin clubs is to be believed?

Edit - didn't see Pineapple's response, basically the same point.

[rerun]

I think it's obvious how this is going to end. Shels will use whatever money they have from leaving Tolka to pay the Revenue and then the FAI will arrange for them to have a half share of Dalymount.

[CharlesThompson]

In fairness, I'm not sure Bohs really had the money to pay that team either!

Yes and to be fair to you, Bohs started down this very same road. It still doesn't take from the fact that players we had were offered renewals to their contracts which were accepted in some cases and then mysteriously rejected by Shels bound players.

Although we seem to be slightly more prudent when it comes to our expenditure nowadays, we have a had a big wake up call in the last two years and it's good to see a majority of the supporters accept the fact that we cannot hand out the ridiculous contracts now we had been handing out. This is not to say that I think we are getting value for the large amount of money we are currently spending on a squad that has brought us no points and no goals so far this season.

Where I am slightly smug with relation to Shels, it's because I hate Oily Byrne. He has always been the first one to throw a dig in when any other team was down. What goes around comes around and it's nice to see Oily squirm for a bit.

[Magicme]

that Oily has more than enough schemes tucked inside is y-fronts to pull Shels out of this.

holy ****...talk about putting a girl off her brekkie.

[paudie]

Problem is, that's what Shels have in place already, according to reports (21 monthly payments @ E12k each). The Revenue aren't going to keep making the same arrangement if it keeps getting broken. They're going to cut their losses, put the company into liquidation and hope to get some of their money at least.

I Didn't know that Shels already had a monthly payment scheme already in place.

However if Ollie can convince them that the missed payment was a one off they will probably go into a new payment arrangment with him.

Probably with larger monthly payments and/or a big lump sum payment to start with.

As I said above the Revenue may like the look of the CL and setanta money due to Shels shortly.

The fact that Shels liquidity problems emerge at the same time as the FAI are pushing for the Dalymount groundshare is a huge coincidence, don't you think?

[harpskid]

, unless they really plan to sell their main asset to cover current expenditure (they may be forced to I guess)

And they don't own Tolka Park, do they? That'd mean that their main asset would be their staff then so.

Any latest from Drumcondra on this, or has Ollie told ye not to say anything?

[Philo]

The fact that Shels liquidity problems emerge at the same time as the FAI are pushing for the Dalymount groundshare is a huge coincidence, don't you think?

This is a source of sheer embarrassment for the FAI. Delaney was pushing Shels into Dalyer as the stronger team on and off the pitch. Now after all the positive publicity afforded to Shels, it's blown up in Delaney's face as Ollie's business practices are exposed and the fraudulent nature of the Shels operation is finally uncovered.

The FAI did not plan it this way and now it becomes obvious to the world and his dog that Bohs do not need to be bailed out by Shels and the FAI mercifully stealing half our stadium.

BTW, watching eL Weekly last night and I'd have been amazed if there were even 1,000 of the mugs in Tolka for the Longford game. I suspect Shels' attendances last term were bumped slightly to legitimise the money they were spending by giving the impression of a higher income.

[CharlesThompson]

There main asset is their lease on Tolka Park. Depending on what story you read it is worth anything between €10m - €30m to them.

The statement they said was going to be released on Friday must be next Friday so. You'd think that a couple of days would be enough to make some story up though.

[Juz the Hoop]

I have to say some shels fans view on this is amazing and the amount of times they have tried to change subjects and go off thread is priceless. (here re attndences and on shels wed going on about mario rosenstocks impression of Jose Mourihno).

Also some of them are deflecting away by bringing up our examinership.

To me its this simple. Shels/Ollie(he is shels AFAIK)/Accolade got the tax cleareance cert on the basis of an agreement with the revenue in relation to payment of taxes due from previoue periods. If he didnt get this TCC then Shels/Ollie/Accolade wouldnt have got the licence. Since now SHels/Ollie/Accolade are being taken to court by the revenue on a winding up order as they have renaged on this agreement then IMO the tax clearence cert should become invalid thus meaning a breach of licencing rules and a punishment should ensue.

in a way I hope shels get out of this mess from a footballing club viewpoint as my mams family were huge shels people down through the years but in saying that they shouldnt be allowed get off scott free.

No one has mentioned how shels players must be feeling. I know if my job werent paying my taxes id be worried

KOH

JUZ

[Mr_T]

Just a point regarding liocensing which is very pertinent to the Shels affair and Juz's post above.

FAI Licenses are being handled very differently this year, with clubs having to provide monthly returns of their income and expenditure (and even explain any major deviation from their original budget), progress on Infrastruture Development Plans and other information each month.

The monthly reviews and progress monitoring can result in fresh sanctions each month. Clubs may be fined for example if they have not carried out (by a deadline set down in the original license grant) infrastructure improvements on Category A items which they were told to do when the license was awarded. Ongoing failure to comply with conditions of the license such as fixing minor things in the ground, will result in further sanction.

Club licenses are effectively reviewed every month so if Shels lose their TCC indefinately they very definately would be subject to sanction under licensing.

[pineapple stu]

I thought I heard somewhere there was a meeting of the First Instance Committee scheduled for last night (don't know if that's the name of the body?)

[higgins]

BTW, watching eL Weekly last night and I'd have been amazed if there were even 1,000 of the mugs in Tolka for the Longford game. I suspect Shels' attendances last term were bumped slightly to legitimise the money they were spending by giving the impression of a higher income.

Sorry about this but who or what figure was bumped up? and why does it matter in this thread!!

Who runs the thread on crowd numbers?
Go post there and you will see the figure quoted by shels fans have been always fair in my opinion

On the Longford game 1000 is well above what was there...
St Patricks night ?????? What were they thinking
500 would be closer!

[higgins]

Since now SHels/Ollie/Accolade are being taken to court by the revenue on a winding up order as they have renaged on this agreement then IMO the tax clearence cert should become invalid thus meaning a breach of licencing rules and a punishment should ensue.


Thats only what you think should happen..
Do you know of any rule Shels have broken by being issued a 'Winding up' notice?

I am not 100% clear they broke any rules so far but could well be wrong.

Its no use trying to complicate the issue even further

[Mr_T]

I thought I heard somewhere there was a meeting of the First Instance Committee scheduled for last night (don't know if that's the name of the body?)

The committee met last monday (13th March) so won't meet again for another month or so.

[Juz the Hoop]

Thats only what you think should happen..
Do you know of any rule Shels have broken by being issued a 'Winding up' notice?

I am not 100% clear they broke any rules so far but could well be wrong.

Its no use trying to complicate the issue even further

Im not trying to complicate it at all. If anything I thought I explained it quite clearly.

There is no way on earth that with that debt the revenue would have issued a tax clearence cert. What they would (and reading between the lines it seemed they did) do is come to a signed agreement and a payment schedule with Shels/Ollie/Accolade to clear the debt that has built up (that doesnt take into account present payment of taxes). Shels/Ollie/Accolade have obviously not ahered to this hence the order served on them.

I am not 100% on the Licencing but surely if the Licence was given on receipt of a tax clearance cert (which all clubs have to have) then with this order being served then that TCC has to be invalid. That doesnt even take into account Mr T's post about monthly checks which i had heard but forgot.

Ollie has been a stickler for the rule book in the past will he do so now?

KOH

JUZ

[CharlesThompson]

I think you're right on everything there Juz except that the TCC can't be invalid until 3rd April when Ollie has his day in court. If - as i guess is going to happen - Ollie comes up with the readys between now and then (in full) then they will retain their TCC.

[pete]

I am not 100% on the Licencing but surely if the Licence was given on receipt of a tax clearance cert (which all clubs have to have) then with this order being served then that TCC has to be invalid. That doesnt even take into account Mr T's post about monthly checks which i had heard but forgot.

As Shels have not made a statement all we can do is speculate...

As you mentioned above the clubs now have to provide monthly financial statements based on their submitted budgets & plans for the year. We can only expect that the monthly payments to the revenue were included in Shels yearly plan & that the FAI would have expected to see (12k i think) outgoing in Shels monthly statements. Several questions remain - did the FAI notice that no 12k payment to the revenue in latest monthly statement? did shels even include this latest change in their accounts...? Shels have technically changed their agreed budget not so what are the sanctions for this?

[pineapple stu]

Do you know of any rule Shels have broken by being issued a 'Winding up' notice?
Article 9.3 of UEFA Licencing states that no club which owes outstanding moneys to Revenue can get a licence. A proviso is in place that if there is an agreement in place between the club and Revenue to pay the tax off, that's OK. Shels don't have one now.

[higgins]

I am not 100% on the Licencing but surely if the Licence was given on receipt of a tax clearance cert (which all clubs have to have) then with this order being served then that TCC has to be invalid

BUT SURELY ???

My point is that you dont know this and you are complicating the issue by adding it in.
IF the TCC has been revoked by revenue then I am 100% behind the enforcment of the rule in the licencing manual that deals with a revoked TCC.

My problem is your putting it out there that shels should be punished and you are not fully sure what rule has been broken.


Article 9.3 of UEFA Licencing states that no club which owes outstanding moneys to Revenue can get a licence. A proviso is in place that if there is an agreement in place between the club and Revenue to pay the tax off, that's OK. Shels don't have one now

Again do you know if this agreement has been broken or have they been giving a deadline of April to get back on track?
Can you go look up a few more articles there Stu and see what happens when revenue asked a company to wind up as your above 9.3 is very unclear. You have mentioned a provision without giving details and you have mentioned an agreement without the exact details.

Again if Shels have broken a rule and you can point it out Im behind the punishment but its unclear what your saying?

Just to add in Im as confused as the rest of you over this one but nobody is posting anything concrete. If it turns out one or two of you are right then so be it.

[Sam Savic]

The agreement between Accolade and Revenue, which was overseen by FAI officials, has been breached. That is why Revenue have gone to the High Court. The Revenue may accept what Ollie has to say on Apr 3rd and everything will be hunky dory. However, they may not.
Also, you never know who else might turn up in court looking for money. The judge may not be as nice as the Gypo judge that Rovers got. He may not have a clue about the Eircom League. He may come down heavy on Ollie. He might want to make an example of Accolade.
Worrying times ahead for Shels, however, I think the hooligan will somehow get out of this.
Either way, Accolade will have a hefty legal bill plus Revenue interest to pay.

[hoopy]

It really is a shame that the court date isn't April 1st

[Bald Student]

Article 9.3 of UEFA Licencing states that no club which owes outstanding moneys to Revenue can get a licence. A proviso is in place that if there is an agreement in place between the club and Revenue to pay the tax off, that's OK. Shels don't have one now.

There's also a provision for if the issue is before the courts:

Alternative 3: Proceedings have been
opened with the competent body
according to national legislation or
proceedings have been opened with the
FAI, UEFA or FIFA with regard to these
overdue payables.



Can you go look up a few more articles there Stu and see what happens when revenue asked a company to wind up as your above 9.3 is very unclear. You have mentioned a provision without giving details and you have mentioned an agreement without the exact details.
If Shels missed a repayment and the revenue don't agree a new schedule, Shels' license is revoked. If the revenue agree a new repayment scheme, no rule was broken (that I can see) so no punishment should be given.



A Licence will not be granted in the following instances:

...

• If the Licence Applicant has failed to prove they have had no overdue payables
towards employees, including any social charges and taxes (FIN 1.03).

[pineapple stu]

Again do you know if this agreement has been broken or have they been giving a deadline of April to get back on track?
Can you go look up a few more articles there Stu and see what happens when revenue asked a company to wind up as your above 9.3 is very unclear. You have mentioned a provision without giving details and you have mentioned an agreement without the exact details.

Again if Shels have broken a rule and you can point it out Im behind the punishment but it's unclear what your saying?
Now if you really wanted to know about things, you'd have looked up the Licencing manual yourself! It's downloadable from the FAI website.

Shels have quite clearly broken the agreement with Revenue. Not even Ollie's denying that. As a qualified accountant, I'll tell you now that Revenue do not issue reminders through public newspaper notices that the company is to be wound up. Shels agreed to make 21 monthly payments of E12k each to discharge back tax. Evidently they've missed one - or more - payments. This is more than likely due to the payment bouncing because the mney wasn't there in Shels' account. It's actually a bit harsh for Revenue to seek a winding up order against someone for missing one - or even two - DD payments (I've seen companies do it before), so I'd say there's some history there as well and basically Revenue are sick of Shels by now.

With regards the manual, I refer you in particular to point FIN 1.03 on page 103 of the manual which states (my comments in round brackets) -


The licence applicant must prove that it has no payables overdue (i.e. having your January PAYE outstanding on the 1st of February doesn't count, but having it outstanding on the 20th February does count as the Revenue deadline for payment is the 19th) arising from contractual agreements with its employees (i.e. PAYE/PRSI)...up to the 30th November (this is the case with Shels as they have agreed a 21-month DD agreement to pay back tax of E300k, so it must go back further than November 2005). A payable is overdue when it should have been settled in the past according to a contractual agreement. Should [this be the case], this may not lead to the refusal of the licence if the licence applicant is able to prove at the national submission date that -
Alternative 1 - The licence applicant has paid the overdue payables (obviously not the case here).
Alternative 2 - The licence applicant has concluded a written agreement with the creditor to extend the deadline of the payment of these overdue payables (this is presumably how Shels got the licence originally; however, as they have since defaulted on the agreement, it becomes void and so they now fall down here as well).
Alternative 3 - Proceedings have been opened with the competent body according to national legislation (Revenue, presumably; this isn't the case as Revenue have clearly not opened proceedings with Shels, but have opened them with the High Court) or with the FAI, UEFA or FIFA (the FAI have said they're not going to help out, and Shels would get a similar answer from UEFA and FIFA obviously)

This is an A Licencing requirement, which means that -

Non-fulfillment of the criteria will result in the licence applicant being refused a licence and the club may not be granted admission to the FAI National League Premier Division and UEFA Club competitions.
Clear enough for you now? ;)

Edit - Good man BS! Always able to use 1 word instead of 20! :)

[Bald Student]

Alternative 3 - Proceedings have been opened with the competent body according to national legislation (Revenue, presumably; this isn't the case as Revenue have clearly not opened proceedings with Shels, but have opened them with the High Court) or with the FAI, UEFA or FIFA (the FAI have said they're not going to help out, and Shels would get a similar answer from UEFA and FIFA obviously)I interpereted 'competent body according to national legislation' to be the high court. I'm not a legal eagle so I could be wrong but it seems to me that Shels are surviving under alternative 3 until April.

[pineapple stu]

Yeah, I'm unsure about that too. But surely Rovers were in proceedings with the same competent body, yet they were docked 8 points? I haven't seen anywhere that refers to administration at all, so I was working on the notion that the competent body was Revenue, and once it moved beyond them (i.e. the High Court), the licence was invalid.

Shels are surviving because there's no meeting of the First Instance committee for another month. Thre may be other reasons, but that one will override them for now anyway.

[sidcon]

lads just to clarify something and this is for you Shels supporters. The money is on the way you will be paid your champions league money in excatly 58 days time Ollie mearly has to go the bank and ask for a short term loan to pay the tax man.:eek: So anyone getting hyped up should relax a bit as much as it kills me :mad: to say it shels have quite a bit of money on its way for its 2 games it won last year in the competition, and not even counting the games they played in.

[anto eile]

1: Shels have not refused to pay anybody as of yet so your jumping in a bit early with the cheating comments.

2: Its not against the law to overspend! .

hello hello,is there anybody home????
1: ollie is quoted in the papers saying he refuses to pay any more tax.
2: its not good business practice to overspend.and besides ,it is illegal to overspend while insolvent.so if shels are spendnig cash they havent got,then they will be in trouble for it..oh look they are in trouble

[anto eile]

You have to remember that most football fans are not as active as you people on here. Most just turn up to games, watch the football and go home. People's lives are complicated enough :D

you win a prize for the most irrelevant post of the month

can you just stop posting here and let the adults do the debating?

[anto eile]

There main asset is their lease on Tolka Park. Depending on what story you read it is worth anything between €10m - €30m to them.

.

according to the newspaper (sunday business post i think) from a couple of months ago, shels get one third of the money from tolka, meaning shels will get E7M. i was surprised at the low number.but the sunday business post is not often wrong when commenting on EL clubs business. its been right about Rovers when our problems were in the news last year,and has consistently had accurate articles on bohs over the last couple of years,the most recent no more than a month ago

[dcfcsteve]

Now if you really wanted to know about things, you'd have looked up the Licencing manual yourself! It's downloadable from the FAI website.

Shels have quite clearly broken the agreement with Revenue. Not even Ollie's denying that. As a qualified accountant, I'll tell you now that Revenue do not issue reminders through public newspaper notices that the company is to be wound up. Shels agreed to make 21 monthly payments of E12k each to discharge back tax. Evidently they've missed one - or more - payments. This is more than likely due to the payment bouncing because the mney wasn't there in Shels' account. It's actually a bit harsh for Revenue to seek a winding up order against someone for missing one - or even two - DD payments (I've seen companies do it before), so I'd say there's some history there as well and basically Revenue are sick of Shels by now.

With regards the manual, I refer you in particular to point FIN 1.03 on page 103 of the manual which states (my comments in round brackets) -



This is an A Licencing requirement, which means that -

Originally Posted by UEFA Licencing Manual, para 1.6, page 3)
Non-fulfillment of the criteria will result in the licence applicant being refused a licence and the club may not be granted admission to the FAI National League Premier Division and UEFA Club competitions.

Clear enough for you now? ;)

Edit - Good man BS! Always able to use 1 word instead of 20! :)

The Licensing rules seem to deal with a club's pursuit of a license at the point of application. It could feasibly arise that someone would meet the criteria for a license at the time of application, but then at some later point no longer meet that criteria.

Does the manual stipulate that a license can be revoked, once granted ? And does it state that it can be done if you no longer meet the requirements you apparently did/should have met at the time of application ? I wouldn't be surpirsed if there was a huge loophole here - and that once you got a license for a season that was that.

[Student Mullet]

The FAI Club Licensing Committee has the power to withdraw any licence or
apply any sanction during a season if the Licensee:
o no longer satisfies any single criteria for issuing the licence;
o violates any of its obligations, duties, confirmations or
undertakings under the FAI Club Licensing Manual, Contract or
Confidentiality Agreement
o Is involved in a bankruptcy, receivership, examinership or
liquidation process, or is struck off the Companies' Register
The withdrawal of a licence or imposition of a sanction is not mandatory and the
FAI Licensing Committee will have discretion to exercise this power or not.The message you have entered is too short. Please lengthen your message to at least 5 characters.

[Dodge]

Don't know if it states it or not, but Rovers had their license revoked last season