Licences 2011

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marinobohs

Wrong Stu. they had to buy out the contracts because (a) players could have sued for breach of contract (completely seperate to Redundancy legislation) and/or (b) failure to reach agreement would have precluded Bohs from getting a licence.

---

All coming from the fact that the club couldn't make the players redundant. You can have a contract and still be made redundant - you get pay according to here. Here it says that "Generally a redundancy situation arises if your job ceases to exist and you are not replaced." If you are replaced, you've been dismissed; different kettle of fish altogether.

What you seem to be trying to argue is that Bohs could have simply laid the players off and compensated them maybe E1,200 tops per person (and nil in many cases), and yet chose to settle for a much larger figure. That makes no sense whatsoever.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

All coming from the fact that the club couldn't make the players redundant. You can have a contract and still be made redundant - you get pay according to here. Here it says that "Generally a redundancy situation arises if your job ceases to exist and you are not replaced." If you are replaced, you've been dismissed; different kettle of fish altogether.

What you seem to be trying to argue is that Bohs could have simply laid the players off and compensated them maybe E1,200 tops per person (and nil in many cases), and yet chose to settle for a much larger figure. That makes no sense whatsoever.

---

It'd the LOI, it goes with the territory :-)

On the being replaced bit, is there a way a football club can designate somebody for a position (for example player x is a right winger), however they are not replaced per se. Is this a possible get out clause or is it just straightforward that a footballer is a footballer?

I would imagine it's as straightforward as a footballer being a footballer. Unless Jason McAteer is filling in the "Position in company" box.

Well since he supposedly filled in his position on a visa application as winger (or some such) he's not the prime example, but surely clubs looking to offload (in the manner that some do in the LOI) it could be an option.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spudulika

Well since he supposedly filled in his position on a visa application as winger (or some such)

---

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:A...nGdxgE4Hbr7ubg

The players' job titles would just be "footballers"; I can't see how they can get around it based on position to be honest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

The players' job titles would just be "footballers"; I can't see how they can get around it based on position to be honest.

---

There's the chance that pros and amateurs are differentiated e.g. a company makes all professional footballers redundant and replaces them with amateurs on expenses.

Yeah, that was raised earlier alright and is a definite possibility. Bohs don't look like they're going the amateur way though.

I suppose you could always let the footballer go and have a new opening as a barman.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

All coming from the fact that the club couldn't make the players redundant. You can have a contract and still be made redundant - you get pay according to here. Here it says that "Generally a redundancy situation arises if your job ceases to exist and you are not replaced." If you are replaced, you've been dismissed; different kettle of fish altogether.

What you seem to be trying to argue is that Bohs could have simply laid the players off and compensated them maybe E1,200 tops per person (and nil in many cases), and yet chose to settle for a much larger figure. That makes no sense whatsoever.

---

try reading points (a) and (b) of my post as why Bohs did not just make players redundant.

Your point begins "generally" hardly definitive now is it ? Usually the case that redundancy is post specific but this has changed recently. Feel free to check out Irish Ferries/SIPTU case and more recently Aer lingus/SIPTU (as part of restructuing) if you need proof, reported on extencively in general media or IRN (Industrial Relations News). Whether it makes sense to you or not these were NOT dismissals and were made in accordance with Redundancy Act despite posts filled immediately.

I read points a and b and countered them.

Have you a link for the rulings you mention?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

I read points a and b and countered them.

Have you a link for the rulings you mention?

---

No you didn't - no reason given as to how Bohs could have got a licence OR preventing court action for breach of contract without reaching agreement with the players. As i explained earlier they were not rulings but agreements reached between the parties (and in the case of Aer Lingus) ratified by Dept Enterprise Trade and Employment.
Details of deals are not published by the Labour Relations Commission but were widely commented on in national media and more recently on foot of the Revenue ruling around tax exemption (in case of Aer Lingus).

I never mentioned licencing. :confused: All I (and Dodge) said is that it's illegal to let someone go and hire someone straight after for a cheaper wage, and that that was demonstrated by virtue of the fact that Bohs didn't do it.

Seeing as you won't provide a link, I've looked up my own. This one here says that "Irish Ferries is allowed to replace its workers with cheaper crews from abroad because Irish labour laws do not apply on the seas." I could easily see a similar argument in the Aer Lingus case. But not in the Bohs case.

The Aer Lingus case was a scam pulled by the airline and union in cahoots and the same scenario will never happen again. http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/...287413411.html

So both of Marino Bohs examples are irelevant anomalies despite his bluster about IRN and the LRC.

Bottom line in all of this is that not only is licencing not working but the strict to the letter interpretation of the rules sees the spirit of the scheme abandoned - a club that has finally come to grips with its structural problems and whom the fans have taken the reins of get thrown out while two utter basket cases who may not see out the season get Premier licences.

KOH

the practice of getting rid of people to replace them with cheaper labour is morally reprehensible but bohs could claim they were all at sea

AFAIR - footballers (professional sports people) do not have the same employment rights as the ordinary Joe / Josephine public.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CSFShels

Derry and Cork formed new clubs. If Galway had decided to do this they could have gotten a First Division licence too most likely.

---

Shame on us for wanting pay creditors.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gufcfan

Shame on us for wanting pay creditors.

---

No1 wants to pay creditors even though everyone should. Don't try imply that Galway are working off some moral obligation. Galway didn't form a new club because there was still hope for the old one. And maybe there still is. Cork pursued every avenue to avoid doing it too. Perhaps Galway should have done what Cork did and have a licence application pending for a new club if the situation arose. Even though the system where creditors can be ditched is rotten to the core.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CSFShels

No1 wants to pay creditors even though everyone should. Don't try imply that Galway are working off some moral obligation.

---

Of course we are. We could have finished the club on a dozen occasions since August and applied for a licence under the name of GUST Coop.

There were a few situations where our direct intervention at the last minute prevented United from being unable to fulfil fixtures and being kicked out of the league.

It would have been simple to sit back and watch the ***** behind the club crash and burn, but we didn't.

re the transfer of monies to the fai for the seamie conneely move to sheffield utd over winter The monies were to be paid to revenue on behalf of gufc on receipt, there was a delay??
how long was delay, why was it delayed

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CSFShels

No1 wants to pay creditors even though everyone should. Don't try imply that Galway are working off some moral obligation. Galway didn't form a new club because there was still hope for the old one. And maybe there still is. Cork pursued every avenue to avoid doing it too. Perhaps Galway should have done what Cork did and have a licence application pending for a new club if the situation arose. Even though the system where creditors can be ditched is rotten to the core.

---

I don't think you quite understand. GUST are trying to claw back some honour/integrity for the club that was lost by the F**K-WITS that were dictating for the last few years, by making sure the creditors get paid what they are owed for a start. If there is to be any future for GUFC, they need to be able to trade with local businesses.

Appeal will be herard early on friday morning