Longford hit by €19,000 building supplies bill [Archive]

Block G Raptor

09/03/2007, 11:42 AM

From this weeks "Phoenix"
Longford Towns Own Goal
Just three years after winning the FAI cup, Brian Fallon Hardware Ltd has just had Judgements of €19,000 registered against club chairman James Hanley, Secretary Francis Murtagh and Longford town Football Club(LTFC)
The Judgements arose from goods supplied to the club 2 years ago for which the club has failed to pay......

(article not reproduced in it's complete form)

RonnieB

09/03/2007, 12:12 PM

Mark Breen

09/03/2007, 12:39 PM

Two ****ing years ago and still to pay, serious questions need to be asked of the board wtf is going on. No programmes (last few games last year due to bill to printers) building materials not paid for for over two years, players unpaid. Things need to be seriously addressed and some communication to the fans would be nice but that doesn't usually happen.

Demotion to the first division (Come join us!!!)

Wait hang on that'll probably happen anyway :p

monkey magic

09/03/2007, 12:46 PM

Two ****ing years ago and still to pay, serious questions need to be asked of the board wtf is going on. No programmes (last few games last year due to bill to printers) building materials not paid for for over two years, players unpaid. Things need to be seriously addressed and some communication to the fans would be nice but that doesn't usually happen.

the printing thing was the most obvious sign of problems - rumour was that a number local printers were owed money therefore, a programme could'nt be arranged.. didnt know bout this though.. hard to know if this is isolated but your have to say thats unlikely:mad:

Dricky

09/03/2007, 1:05 PM

How much of it for Rico's Door? ;-)

Peadar

09/03/2007, 1:07 PM

Rico is a part-time repo man and he was trying to recover some of the building supplies. :D

Maz

09/03/2007, 1:12 PM

Its only a small amount of what is owed out to people I'd say.

Dricky

09/03/2007, 1:15 PM

He's going to try to fit a few windows instead

paul_oshea

09/03/2007, 1:20 PM

delete....

Tis-smeee

09/03/2007, 1:20 PM

He was only trying to escape, they were riding him rock solid at the time

Dodge

09/03/2007, 1:21 PM

Its only a small amount of what is owed out to people I'd say.

Your equivalent to Rovers' dry cleaners and Shels' everything

Bald Student

09/03/2007, 1:55 PM

Lads, I'm confused. Longford have the UEFA license so their wages must have been up to date last November?

WeAreRovers

09/03/2007, 1:58 PM

Lads, I'm confused. Longford have the UEFA license so their wages must have been up to date last November?

:D

Bright new dawn, shiny new league, blah blah blah.

KOH

De Town

09/03/2007, 2:03 PM

Lads, I'm confused. Longford have the UEFA license so their wages must have been up to date last November?

AFAIK, wages have all been paid, its all the other things we're in debt for.

Bald Student

09/03/2007, 2:10 PM

AFAIK, wages have all been paid, its all the other things we're in debt for.Did Paisley not just get released?

Dodge

09/03/2007, 2:13 PM

He did. Longford are saying that all moneys have been paid to players. Paisley said that they had missed enough consecutive payments for him to be released. I don't think it matters that he was subsequently paid. He's expected to sign for Pats and may face them tomorrow evening

Bald Student

09/03/2007, 2:21 PM

cheifo

09/03/2007, 3:05 PM

Good player to get, especially for free.

Longfordian

09/03/2007, 5:44 PM

There were some foolish decisions made, no doubt about it.There's debts going back to the building of Flancare Park.People jumped the gun and built the thing without having all the money in place. It's all being dealt with, at the detriment of our playing budget as it should be. There's a Supporters Trust formed for this purpose,and to date there's 106 members paying €25 a month. Plus sponsorship has increased. That judgement isn't being enforced as a schedule has been agreed as it has with other creditors including the printers, there's a programme tomorrow night, such as it is anyway. We had budgets for players in the last couple of years that were too optimistic and now we've had to scale back. It's going to be a tough year but we'll definitey be the better for it in the long run if people stick with it.

As for Paisley,there's questions to be asked about the make up of the tribunal panel given one particular person's role in the start of the situation.

Sonic

09/03/2007, 6:11 PM

What annoys me most longfordian is you are the one giving the fans this information. The board are telling us nothing!!

A face

10/03/2007, 12:59 AM

As for Paisley,there's questions to be asked about the make up of the tribunal panel given one particular person's role in the start of the situation.

Can you tell us more? pm even?

A face

10/03/2007, 1:19 AM

I should have known

Longfordian

10/03/2007, 1:25 AM

What annoys me most longfordian is you are the one giving the fans this information. The board are telling us nothing!!

I see where you're coming from but 'the board' comes down to two or three people willing to take the flak. I'm not sticking up for everyone blindly and I do feel communication could be better but we do have 100+ members who were entitled to go and find out this information and ask the pertinent questions at the AGM and the Supporters Trust meetings (memebership is common to both) which were held not long ago. Most didn't. Those who did, it won't come as a huge shock to hear about difficulties.It sounds glib but to have a voice just join up and you'll have as much of a say in the club as anyone else! The problems are short term. Long term we've an asset worth multiples of our debts.

pól-dcfc

10/03/2007, 1:43 AM

Long term we've an asset worth multiples of our debts.

*cough* Shels *cough*

max power

10/03/2007, 2:15 AM

pól, not too long ago derry were using noble prize winners to try and cash in for a few quid.

we have lived well beyond our means for a long time and now we must do like, pats, bohs and shels and regroup.

it was awful to see certain players leave and to see a judgement against us, but if it makes people realise that we need help and talk is cheap 9 excuse the pun) then its not all bad.

at the mo the supporters trust will bring in 32k this year for capital project and debt reduction. its a start and a move in the right direction.

Longfordian has long had to be involved with the club and give info here. don't shoot the messenger or the board, 5 or 6 people trying to run a national club with 20 odd employees and limited income.

remember these were the same board when there was no stand in flancare or flancare itself.

no one can place us like shels, we never went full time or silly signings ( money not quality;) ) debts are mainly capital.

also i must mention certain people who hang around the club and say we need to do this and that.........do the work........take praise.........then send in an invoice for full payment:rolleyes: . Longfordian you know who i mean.

as said above, join the supporters trust and make a difference.

i still have to:o

Buffalo Saint

10/03/2007, 7:23 AM

As for Paisley,there's questions to be asked about the make up of the tribunal panel given one particular person's role in the start of the situation.

Would you like to elaborate on this? What question/s would you ask?

A face

10/03/2007, 11:22 AM

How long did Paisley have left on his contract?

RockofGibraltar

10/03/2007, 11:26 AM

1 more season afaik

pete

10/03/2007, 12:11 PM

Has Flancare even been full? Would not maybe 4000 seater stadium have been better idea?

Longfordian

10/03/2007, 2:42 PM

Not entirely sure what you're talking about, but please tell me that Fran Gavin wasn't on the tribunal?

No but his sucessor was

Dodge

10/03/2007, 3:37 PM

So a representative of the PFAI was on the tribunal? Surely the facts decided the case? If he wasn't paid for 2 consecutive weeks, he could leave? Not much to argue is there

Longfordian

10/03/2007, 4:23 PM

The club paid for an operation for him 12 months ago. He deferred wages by agreement 12 months ago. He was happy enough last season.Pats came calling and he decides to break his contract, with help from the PFAI. He complained to the club for the first time, he was paid his money.Our manager gave evidence he'd never once complained to him which is the normal procedure. Why should the PFAI have a representative on the tribunal panel? Longford Town didn't. Why was said representative crowing in the media after the decision was made about what a great victory it was for the PFAI. He should have been impartial if he was going to have a vote. F**k it, it's done now but the club are right to have issues with how it was done

daithi

10/03/2007, 7:34 PM

Who was on the tribunal panel? Is it a secret society?

Martinho II

11/03/2007, 12:06 PM

an absolute disgrace from paisley did! I hope that paisley was in the ground last nite to hear the disgust coming from section o regarding him!

the cheek of him is something else and as for that certain rep on the pfai he is sometin else to mouth off to the media..:mad:

sligoman

11/03/2007, 12:07 PM

Fair play to Paisley. Not paying players their own wages, of course he'd want out. Well done!

A face

11/03/2007, 2:07 PM

So a representative of the PFAI was on the tribunal? Surely the facts decided the case? If he wasn't paid for 2 consecutive weeks, he could leave? Not much to argue is there

Dodge, it was a mutual agreement between the player and the club, and the wages were paid in full as agreed. This was all done even before McGuinness was even appointed to that position. A position which he abused to help Pats tap up a player. He was not impartial as he was involved in the move at every juncture, from start to finish. It would make you wonder, did he even get a little something out of it because if he wasn't at the PFAI then thats what we'd all be thinking.

Dodge

11/03/2007, 7:22 PM

Dodge, it was a mutual agreement between the player and the club, and the wages were paid in full as agreed.
They obviously weren't. McGuinness didn't make the decision on that tribunal on his own

This was all done even before McGuinness was even appointed to that position. A position which he abused to help Pats tap up a player.
How did he help Pats tap him up. pats made an offer to buy him last week, which Longford refused (they actually asked for more money and a player). Pats had gone through the correct channels.

He was not impartial as he was involved in the move at every juncture, from start to finish. It would make you wonder, did he even get a little something out of it because if he wasn't at the PFAI then thats what we'd all be thinking.
I'm saying that just because McGuinness was a PFAI rep doens't mean that Paisley should not have been released. I couldn't tell you whether McGuinness was crooked but these things are based on facts, not opinions so his say would've been limited

A face

11/03/2007, 8:07 PM

I'm saying that just because McGuinness was a PFAI rep doens't mean that Paisley should not have been released. I couldn't tell you whether McGuinness was crooked but these things are based on facts, not opinions so his say would've been limited

Would you agree that he shouldn't have been there in the first place as he is not impartial? or else step down for the PFAI, one or the other.

The club and the player has agreed. It was done and dusted and he was paid in full. The player never opened his mouth about it until he was tapped up.

RonnieB

11/03/2007, 8:27 PM

Pats offered 15k, longford asked then for 20-22 + maguire.

Dodge

11/03/2007, 8:53 PM

The club and the player has agreed. It was done and dusted and he was paid in full. The player never opened his mouth about it until he was tapped up.
He wasn't tapped up!? Pats made an offer for him. He decided he wanted to leave. Longford are the ones who didn't pay him correctly so they have no one to blame but themselves

Longfordian

11/03/2007, 11:21 PM

I'm not trying to argue with you Dodge but evidence was given and accepted at the tribunal that Pats approached Paisley before they approached Longford. Longford were approached by Pat's chairman on deadline day, two to three weeks after Paisley said "I want to go to Pats" to his manager,his reasons were "not about the money, for football reasons". Again, this was direct evidence given to the tribunal and not challenged by Paisley's reps. Tapping happens all the time but it should at least be acknowledged that it happened. Longford and Pats have always had a good relationship as clubs and I'm sure that won't change but ye or at least your manager contacted Paisley before the club were contacted. That is a stone cold fact.