Petition to wind up Accolade (Shels) [Archive] - Page 7

DvB

22/03/2006, 8:00 AM

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

Correct! It was actually the night we played Pats in Richmond Park the 8 points were deducted on the basis that our licence had been revoked. They basically took away the points we had gained up to that game, it was purely for that reason we assumed it an 8 points deduction & not some other amount! But at the start of the that season we had a premier Division License!

Koh

thomas

22/03/2006, 8:31 AM

higgins

22/03/2006, 12:08 PM

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

I dont think the newspapers quote Ollie every time he changes his mind!

To take your own phrase
Hello Hello is anybody there

Go read through the posts and I think everyone agrees they agreed on structured payments after that quote.

higgins

22/03/2006, 12:09 PM

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.

How do you know the option to borrow against future income hasnt already been used?

Macy

22/03/2006, 12:30 PM

Longford were in exactly the same position and just about pulled off a deal with the revenue in time.
Lots of clubs have arrangements to pay back arrears. Longford (are you obsessed or what?), Bohs, Pats, Shels, etc etc. Difference is others have obviously met the re-payments (seeing as revenue aren't trying to liquidate them), and have reduced their playing budgets.

pineapple stu

22/03/2006, 12:31 PM

The real question is: Do Accolade T/A Shelbourne FC hold the License or does the Football club hold it?

The reality is that accolade basically just owns the lease on Tolka, the License allows for this set up. It means that the actual football club is not in trouble with revenue and therefore not open to be sanctioned.
Accolade does far more than just hold the lease. It is Shelbourne FC - any bills/correspondence from Shels will have Accolade's name on them, etc. The relationship between the two appears to be the exact same as Branvard Limited and Shamrock Rovers.

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

you win a prize for the most irrelevant post of the month
Actually, it's a very relevant post - it shows why Shels are being petitioned for liquidation while Rovers were merely put into administration. Rovers' fans had long been up in arms about what was happening, ultimately kicked the board out, took over the club and operated strict budgets. That's not happening at Shels, which is why Revenue are taking a more severe stance.

higgins

22/03/2006, 12:50 PM

Actually, it's a very relevant post - it shows why Shels are being petitioned for liquidation while Rovers were merely put into administration. Rovers' fans had long been up in arms about what was happening, ultimately kicked the board out, took over the club and operated strict budgets. That's not happening at Shels, which is why Revenue are taking a more severe stance.

So now your saying the Rovers and Shels cases are the same!!!!! :eek:

Holy devine jaysus, did you not read what makes them different and why each route is different in the previous 15 pages...

You really will jump at anything.

pineapple stu

22/03/2006, 12:54 PM

So now your saying the Rovers and Shels cases are the same!!!!! :eek:
See the bit where I put "Shels are" followed by "while Rovers were"? That indicates a difference. A difference means not the same.

higgins

22/03/2006, 1:03 PM

and you then went on to compare the action taken by both sets of supporters??
If its different then why the comparison, I dont understand your point and seems like your posting for the sake of it at this stage.

As long as its clear your going around comparing two things that are not the same then thats fine.

pineapple stu

22/03/2006, 1:10 PM

If it's different then why the comparison
Because that's why you compare things.:rolleyes:

The point is the difference (or at least, a key difference) between putting a company into liquidation or administration lies in whether it's a viable trading entity or not. Rovers clearly weren't a viable trading entity until the 400 Club took over and made various promises about slashing the budget, etc. Shels clearly aren't a viable trading entity, and have no such recourse at present.

patcorr

22/03/2006, 2:52 PM

So when is all this mess going to be sorted?

A face

22/03/2006, 3:15 PM

So when is all this mess going to be sorted?

I think the next we'll hear anything will be on the 3rd of April. That is when Ollie and the revenue have the next t�te � t�te !!

thomas

23/03/2006, 7:50 AM

Accolade does far more than just hold the lease. It is Shelbourne FC - any bills/correspondence from Shels will have Accolade's name on them, etc. The relationship between the two appears to be the exact same as Branvard Limited and Shamrock Rovers.

Wrong, look at te account and tell me where it shows shels annual wage and PRSI/PAYE bills. They are not there because the football club is separate.

The figure you should look for is about EUR2.0m.

Macy, my point about LTFC limited is the same, the football club (ie players wages etc.) is not run through the company.
The entity holding control of the players holds the License, not LTFC Ltd, nor accolade in shels case.

SeanDrog

23/03/2006, 8:13 AM

I'm certainly no expert but if the above is true then how on earth did his complany build up owed tax to that level if the main costs are under another company?

pineapple stu

23/03/2006, 8:51 AM

Wrong, look at te account and tell me where it shows shels annual wage and PRSI/PAYE bills. They are not there because the football club is separate.
Wrong - they are not there because the company claims an exemption from filing accounts.

Se�n Drog's point is valid too - if Accolade isn't Shels and doesn't pay its wages, how come it owes so much to Revenue?

Shelbourne FC is purely a business name - it doesn't have trade or have any activity, etc. It isn't even a legal entity. Accolade Ltd does all its trading. That's why Shels' headed paper includes the name Accolade Limited.

Dodge

23/03/2006, 10:01 AM

And Accolade pays the wages of at least one Shels player

chippie0001

23/03/2006, 12:19 PM

Wrong, look at te account and tell me where it shows shels annual wage and PRSI/PAYE bills. They are not there because the football club is separate.

The figure you should look for is about EUR2.0m.

Macy, my point about LTFC limited is the same, the football club (ie players wages etc.) is not run through the company.
The entity holding control of the players holds the License, not LTFC Ltd, nor accolade in shels case.

Sorry but you are wrong there. Accolade is the employer of the Shels players and also pays the PAYE/PRSI to the revenue. I have seen at least one former Shels player P60 and its employer name and number is accolade.

Macy

23/03/2006, 12:25 PM

Macy, my point about LTFC limited is the same, the football club (ie players wages etc.) is not run through the company.
The entity holding control of the players holds the License, not LTFC Ltd, nor accolade in shels case.
And as I keep saying, the only reason that is the case because the FAI insist on clubs having a limited company. If it wasn't for that FAI rule, there only would be the club. I can see your point to a certain extent, but it would be wrong to make out that there is anything underhand about us, or necessarily shels, in doing things this way.

Have you evidence to back up this claim about the licence anyway? And was Rovers licence issued to Shamrock Rovers FC or Branvard Ltd last season? As that'd could be the test of your theory in this regard.

pineapple stu

23/03/2006, 12:34 PM

And as I keep saying, the only reason that is the case because the FAI insist on clubs having a limited company.
Do they? Half the clubs in the league don't have an associated limited company.

Schumi

23/03/2006, 1:41 PM

Wrong, look at te account and tell me where it shows shels annual wage and PRSI/PAYE bills. They are not there because the football club is separate.
But Accolade holds a work permit for a Shels player. Is that possible without paying the wages?

Dodge

23/03/2006, 2:05 PM

But Accolade holds a work permit for a Shels player. Is that possible without paying the wages?
Its not possible for anyone else to pay wages except the company who hold the work permit

TonyD

23/03/2006, 9:05 PM

Shelbourne FC is purely a business name - it doesn't have trade or have any activity, etc. It isn't even a legal entity. Accolade Ltd does all its trading. That's why Shels' headed paper includes the name Accolade Limited.

From my knowledge, a company can be registered under one name with the companies office and also have a trading name. It doesn't mean they are two seperate companies.

Billy Lord

23/03/2006, 10:46 PM

Branvard trade as Shamrock Rovers so the licence was given to the one entity. Presumably, Accolade similarly trade as Shelbourne.

thomas

24/03/2006, 8:43 AM

And as I keep saying, the only reason that is the case because the FAI insist on clubs having a limited company. If it wasn't for that FAI rule, there only would be the club. I can see your point to a certain extent, but it would be wrong to make out that there is anything underhand about us, or necessarily shels, in doing things this way.

Have you evidence to back up this claim about the licence anyway? And was Rovers licence issued to Shamrock Rovers FC or Branvard Ltd last season? As that'd could be the test of your theory in this regard.

You're missing the point.

In every other clubs case they ARE either a co-op or company of some form. Ie Branvard Limited T/A SRFC = Rovers. This applies to all clubs Except Longford and Shels where the related companies only hold the clubs assets. The football club part of it remains separate and unincorporated (ie not an actual company or co-op).

Raheny Red

24/03/2006, 2:56 PM

http://www.shelbournefc.ie/news.php?id=293

Should be interesting............hopefully!

Poor Student

24/03/2006, 4:09 PM

I thought he was notoriously paranoid about the internet!

Dodge

24/03/2006, 4:15 PM

Nah, thats Dolan...

I'm sure he;ll answer all questions honestly and there will be no censorship

A face

24/03/2006, 4:30 PM

Nah, thats Dolan...

I'm sure he'll answer all questions honestly and there will be no censorship

Yeah Dolan is a huge advocate of honest question answering and no censorship ... fair play to the fella !! :eek:

77425 :mad:

Dodge

24/03/2006, 4:34 PM

Mixing up my two points there aface, but whatever, never let it be said that I got in the way of a good Dolan jibe

BohDiddley

24/03/2006, 4:39 PM

You're missing the point.

In every other clubs case they ARE either a co-op or company of some form. Ie Branvard Limited T/A SRFC = Rovers. This applies to all clubs Except Longford and Shels where the related companies only hold the clubs assets. The football club part of it remains separate and unincorporated (ie not an actual company or co-op).
Does that make directors of the (not limited) club liable for its debts? :eek:

pineapple stu

26/03/2006, 2:20 PM

From my knowledge, a company can be registered under one name with the companies office and also have a trading name. It doesn't mean they are two separate companies.
That's what I'm saying though...?

...Longford and Shels where the related companies only hold the club's assets.
Longford Town Limited is dormant - two quid share capital and two quid debtors. It doesn't hold the ground or any assets. The company trades as a partnership, as far as I remember (you can download the relevant form RBN1A from the CR website).

Accolade Ltd does far more than hold Shels' assets. Otherwise -

(a) It wouldn't have PAYE issues
(b) It wouldn't have qualified accounts on issues relating to debtors and creditors control (see the Audit Report)
(c) It wouldn't engage a qualified accountant and various volunteers to write up their books (see Audit Report)
(d) Shels' headed paper wouldn't carry Accolade's name
(e) It wouldn't be issuing P60s

DmanDmythDledge

02/04/2006, 6:30 PM

From the Sunday Times:

D-Day paycut to save Shelbourne
Shelbourne owner Ollie Byrne said yesterday that he will present the Revenue Commissioners with a payment of �300,000 at the High Court tomorrow to prevent the club been closed down. 'I have a draft for the entire sum that I will be collecting out of my bank at half-nine or a quater to 10, even though the bank doesn't open till 10,' Byrne told the column. 'I will be heading towards the court with the draft where I will meet our solicitors. The draft will be handed over to an official from the Revenue Commissioners.'

Last month, the Commissioners applied to the court to wind up the company Accolade, which controls the club, because an unpaid bill and a deadline of tomorrow was issued for the matter to be settled.

While Byrne is now complying with the demand he remains angry at what he claims is discrimination shown against his club, particularly in the light of the leniency shown to Shamrock Rovers.

'We have often been in arrears with the Revenue but we worked with a understanding lady who always understood that everything would be honoured. We have been dealing with a different department whom I've had one or two arguments with. I cannot understand how in a situation where one person owes �1.5m to the Revenue, that they're allowed to build up that sum of money and the Revenue is prepared to say they will accept two percent or four per cent, which is what it turned out to be. Ask yourself this: if tax inspectors follow a certain football club could they be in a position to influence an attack on another club?'

Whatever about Byrne's accusations, the affair is hugely embarrassing for the club that has been the msot successful club in the country over the past 10 years, winning four titles in seven years.

soccerc

02/04/2006, 7:05 PM

SHELBOURNE FOOTBALL CLUB

PRESS RELEASE

Statement from Shelbourne FC

Sunday 2th April:
Shelbourne FC wishes to inform their fans, supporters and sponsors that the outstanding arrears in tax due to the Revenue Commissioners, will be paid in full on Monday morning 3rd of April 2006. The club would also like to thank all those who have rallied around the club in the past few weeks during this difficult period.

Shelbourne CEO Ollie Byrne said: “As promised, the tax bill will be discharged in full. It’s unfortunate that we ended up in this position, because it’s difficult enough to survive in Irish football, let alone make the great advances that we have achieved at Tolka Park in the past fifteen years. We need all the help we can get if we are to make the vital break-through at European level that the eircom League is capable of.”

He continued: “Now that this episode is closed, we would like to get back to the real business in hand – which is football. We’re playing our final group match in the Setanta Sports Cup on Monday night against Derry City with an excellent chance of making it to the semi-finals. To help achieve this, we need as much support as possible on the night in Tolka Park. I would like to invite all those who have shown so much interest in the club over the last three weeks, to come along and see what this club is really all about and to enjoy another great night in Irish football.”

ENDS

I think we already know what Shels are all about!

Roverstillidie

02/04/2006, 7:17 PM

the man is unreal.

its rovers fault the revenue went after him after he missed a pre-arranged payment date?

if we had that much clout would we still be working to complete our stadium in the first division?

can he not do a simple thing like pay a bill without slandering SRFC and I assume bohs?

queue shels acolytes to tell us all that olly is right, Rovers and Boyezzz run a conspiracy against shels through the Revenue Commisioners. From there Limerick offices as well no less. :rolleyes:

hoopy

02/04/2006, 7:46 PM

Let's not forget his other court date which, no doubt, will be all Rovers fault as well :eek:

Gareth

02/04/2006, 7:48 PM

I think we already know what Shels are all about!

Good for you.

pineapple stu

02/04/2006, 7:54 PM

Roverstillidie

02/04/2006, 8:02 PM

If Shels are out of the woods (and I'd be delighted for the Shels fans if they were), how do the club plan on avoiding this happening again a couple of months down the line? If the club's losing a million a year, it's going to happen sooner rather than later unless serious cut-backs are made surely?

agreed, the main reason the revenue let us off some of our debt was we radically changed our coporate culture to the extent that the problems were unlikely to happen again.

olly has not made those commitments, but is still comparing the situations.

sfc red

02/04/2006, 8:16 PM

Guess yous are gonna have to resort to porn now lads.

OneRedArmy

03/04/2006, 1:00 AM

Guess yous are gonna have to resort to porn now lads.As the old saying goes "he who laughs last...doesn't get the joke".

Whilst everyone`s aware that Shels fans have a reputation as fawning acolytes who frequently seem happy not to ask the obvious questions & live in blissfull ignorance, are you so naive not to worry about why it got to this stage & what state the clubs finances are in, never mind that all the Shels eggs appear to be in the Dalymount basket?

Also re the previous article & Ollie planning to be in the bank picking up the money BEFORE it opens on Monday, should someone notify the Special Branch? and come to think of it, what a coincidence that there was another large cash-in-transit robbery today....

Student Mullet

03/04/2006, 1:17 AM

Also re the previous article & Ollie planning to be in the bank picking up the money BEFORE it opens on Monday, should someone notify the Special Branch? and come to think of it, what a coincidence that there was another large cash-in-transit robbery today....Whatever about that, I would have tought that if you're picking up a draft worth 300,000 euro, it would be somewhat of a security risk to publicise the exact time, date and location in the national media.

Macy

03/04/2006, 7:29 AM

If the club's losing a million a year, it's going to happen sooner rather than later unless serious cut-backs are made surely?
Speculate to accumulate. He who dares, rodders....

pete

03/04/2006, 10:27 AM

higgins

03/04/2006, 10:45 AM

If Shels are out of the woods (and I'd be delighted for the Shels fans if they were), how do the club plan on avoiding this happening again a couple of months down the line? If the club's losing a million a year, it's going to happen sooner rather than later unless serious cut-backs are made surely?

I would imagine they understand now that the revenue are serious and its not like in the past where it could be put on the long finger.

How do you know we are losing a million A year?

higgins

03/04/2006, 10:49 AM

agreed, the main reason the revenue let us off some of our debt was we radically changed our coporate culture to the extent that the problems were unlikely to happen again.

olly has not made those commitments, but is still comparing the situations.

SOME of your debt!! :)
Thats a great laugh...

Shels have paid their debts and therefore dont need others to 'let us off'. Id imagine things are very very tight at Shels but so far everything has been paid so why the worry.

At least now you all know that shels do have a tax bill and they pay their tax bill. Hopefully the 3578 threads on tax dodging doesnt increase. What other ingenius theory will you lot come up with now?

higgins

03/04/2006, 11:05 AM

So how long before shels will be back in court? 3...6...months?

At the moment Shels are paying off loses from last year & show no sign of cutting their expenses this season so its logical to assume they will rack up further loses this season (CL swopped for Inter Toto)... How will Shels pay their fiuture loses? Will suppliers to slow to do business with them without payment on delivery...?

Curtis Flemming, Glen Fitzpatrick, Kevin Doherty, Alan Cawley, Ger Rowe, Derek Pender, Hussain Yandani, Wes Houlihan ALL GONE

Greg O'Hallaran, Liam Kearney, Sean Dillion. IN

Is that any sign of cutting their expenses? Wesos fee alone pays for any incoming player and it was actually one of, if not the biggest for any EL player ever paid.
We are also in the process of playing in the Setanta Cup, a competition with a 150,000 euro prize. A lot more then we would have had for winning the EL.

The difference this season will be of course the Champions League v Intertoto. Hopefully the loss of the above players in fees and wages goes towards filling that gap. Setanta prize money would also bridge the gap.

When Irish teams lost out in the first round of the champions league they didnt make massive amounts of money so being in the CL is not a cert to make money. In fact there are teams like Deportivo in the 3rd round of the Intertoto this season. Although the competition does not carry prize money for each round its not certain Shels will make less in the Intertoto then Cork Derry or Drogheda. We probably will make less in all honesty but you paint a very bad picture and as you can see its not as bad as you make out.

Not gone the way Shels would have liked but we have sold off and cut back on the playing side of things.

John83

03/04/2006, 11:16 AM

How do you know we are losing a million A year?
He's an accountant and your accounts are publicly available.

pineapple stu

03/04/2006, 12:30 PM

Actually, their accounts aren't publicly available. However, in the thread on groundsharing, an Irish Times article was posted where it said that Bohs lost E720,000 last year, and then noted that Shels officials privately conceded that Shels lost a good E250,000 more than that. I'll find the link now.

Higgins - I don't think those cut-backs amount to over E1m over a year. You got rid of two players who were out on loan anyway, a couple of U-21 players and three first-teamers who have been replaced - not really much in the way of a cut-back, is it?

Edit - here's (http://www.foot.ie/showpost.php?p=448771&postcount=1) the article.