Printable View
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It was actually the night we played Pats in Richmond Park the 8 points were deducted on the basis that our licence had been revoked.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!Quote:
Originally Posted by Dodge
Koh
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.
Longford were in exactly the same position and just about pulled off a deal with the revenue in time.
Its yet another loophole that showed up as a get out for these two clubs who dont have to submit the accounts of their day to day operations to the CRO as they are not incorporated. Therefore, unless the revenue audits them they can get away with paying ZERO PAYE / PRSI.
I dont think the newspapers quote Ollie every time he changes his mind!Quote:
Originally Posted by anto eile
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.
How do you know the option to borrow against future income hasnt already been used?Quote:
Originally Posted by sidcon
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by thomas
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by thomas
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by anto eile
So now your saying the Rovers and Shels cases are the same!!!!! :eek:Quote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
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.
See the bit where I put "Shels are" followed by "while Rovers were"? That indicates a difference. A difference means not the same.Quote:
Originally Posted by higgins
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.
Because that's why you compare things.:rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by higgins
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.
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 tête à tête !!Quote:
Originally Posted by patcorr
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
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.
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?
Wrong - they are not there because the company claims an exemption from filing accounts.Quote:
Originally Posted by thomas
Seán 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.
And Accolade pays the wages of at least one Shels player
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by thomas
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by thomas
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.
Do they? Half the clubs in the league don't have an associated limited company.Quote:
Originally Posted by Macy
But Accolade holds a work permit for a Shels player. Is that possible without paying the wages?Quote:
Originally Posted by thomas