I take it then your whinging about the FAI helping other clubs but not youz is retracted?
Printable View
I take it then your whinging about the FAI helping other clubs but not youz is retracted?
I presume your talking to me..:confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
LeixlipRed.
The bottom line is that the FAI aren't child-minders.
The clubs who get themselves into financial problems in-turn only have themselves to blame. Fans pointing the finger at the FAI for being in some ways responsible or negligent is ludicrous.
Yes I know that licensing is supposed to stop a lot of the financial shenanigans that used to and still do go on, but the bottom line again is that clubs are responsible for the situation they put themselves in. The FAI can't save a club from itself if it's determined to go down a certain route, and there will always be loop-holes in any licensing system.
Then when clubs end up in financial schtook the FAI are stuck between a rock and a hard place : help keep clubs alive even when they've been run shambolically, or do nothing and effectively let them go to the wall. Neither is a good option to chose, but given the fact that the FAI'S job is football and the bad press the league has had for the last few years, I think they can be forgiven for trying not to let any more clubs hit the wall.
It's possible for the FAI and the clubs to both be in the wrong.
Seems very likely the FAI will end up paying the additional wages for Drogs. IMO probably sets an unwarranted precedent.
What happens to Drogs next season if they need to use the FAI guarantee mid season? :confused:
I'll take my chances with the FAI.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bald Student
Some individual supporters tend to change their opinions as they grow or insist on breaches of the law. Including requesting (criticising when they don't) intervening in clubs' situations when there is a decision already before the High Court.
After edit:
Count, how many steps into the future have you gone? Is it three or four? In an attempt to post something determental about Irish Football.Quote:
Originally Posted by pete;
You are twisting things with that statement.Quote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
You know full well Shels owed the FAI money then and that prize money was withheld.
Every time you're pulled up on something you move to more made up bull.Quote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
Did the FAI pay the transfer fee and Shels don't have to ?
On what basis did the FAI pay that transfer fee ?
Do you seriously think the FAI would have done Ollie a favour like that !!
why is that very likely .what r u basing that on ? you know something i dont ?Quote:
Originally Posted by pete
The cawley issue was well before the meltown at Shels anyway..Quote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
You're only posting about it in every secnd thread as you've run out of othe stuff to have a go at Shels over.
To compare the Shels and Drogheda cases is just silly.
Cork Drogheda and Shamrock Rovers are in the same pot for paying creditors less than 100%.
Shels done exactly what Bray Cobh Harps Athlone and probaly some more done this year in that they couldn't meet the payments through in full for the full season but paid it all back after the league finished.
I'm not saying one is right and one is wrong but it's not fair to compare Shels and Drogheda.
He is probably refering to how the mess was created, not how it was cleaned up.Quote:
Originally Posted by higgins
The Drogs and Shels is very similar in that both clubs chased glory spending money supplied by builders while living beyond their means with a poor support considering their success!
bhs
I do stand to be corrected on this, but the CL money has not gone to the Drogs yet. It goes to the FAI to be distributed. They can use this for their guarantee.
Bear in mind this is the same FAI that 6 years ago told Drogheda United they had 24 hours to pay them €100,000 (when we owed them nothing) or we would be kicked out of the league and we were in far less trouble then than we are now.
In my mind the FAI is actually supporting the league, certainly more than they used to.
If the government can guarantee the banks what in the name of God is wrong with the FAI trying to keep some clubs going.
Lets kick Drogheda, Cork, Cobh, Athlone, Galway, Sligo, Boheminas out of the league. Would the FAI be responsible if they stood by while that happened?
Ya fair play to the fai for what there TRYING to do for us, any other club would get 100% backing but not our twisted ****ing club.
Different though in that in Drogheda's case the builders had an active say in how the money was spent where as with Shels it was jus the Shels board that frittered away the money they raised from a land deal.Quote:
Originally Posted by blackholesun
There's comparisons to other clubs though...
Can I just point out that the last time you accused me of making up bull was over my comment that Shels are still drawing down funds from Tolka and making losses. Both those comments have been subsequently verified in, respectively, the national press (source Shels) and a website run by a Shels fan (extratime).Quote:
Originally Posted by higgins
Have you ever read "The Boy Who Cried Wolf"?
:D :DQuote:
Do you seriously think the FAI would have done Ollie a favour like that !!
Apparently I stand corrected. Makes the FAI seem even more interested in the league.Quote:
Originally Posted by Celdrog
Ok, i will rephrase.Quote:
Originally Posted by ndrog
If Drogs do not have the money & the FAI pay the players does this make them in breach of licencing rules?
Yes. Where is the suggestion that the FAI will be paying wages though?
Its hypothetical now, the players have accepted the deal, no future payments agreed.Quote:
Originally Posted by pete
Fair play to each and every one of them.
That's not what it says here, mentions "unspecified future payments in 2009":
http://www.eleven-a-side.com/eircoml...ws.asp?n=35459
Why would the players not accept the improved offer, with the future payments guaranteed by the FAI, rather than the original offer?.
Oh FFS.
Moderators, PLEASE. Do we need ANOTHER bickering thread?
Drogs website says:
That is not very clear as full & final could still mean payments over the next few months. Given statements after the FAI meeting yesterday that sounds more logical?Quote:
We are pleased to announce that a settlement has been agreed with the players in relation to outstanding monies owed to them by Drogheda United FC. The PFAI has accepted that this offer is in full and final settlement to all players.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Longfordian
Quote:
Originally Posted by pete
The 'full and final' may refer that the parties can't pursue any more money after the agreement and payment schedule agreed today.
On-topic;
FAI are still cool.
Last comment on this as don't want to harp ;) on about it but yes that sounds correct although obviously payments may continue through some of next season.Quote:
Originally Posted by HarpoJoyce
Yep full and final settlement means they can't come back looking for any more than is agreed to be paid under this deal. Doesn't mean it's a once off payment, not that it really matters.
If you've a problem with a post, report it. Easiest way.Quote:
Originally Posted by brianw82
You're wrong again ..Quote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
You said Shels were overspending.
Shels are not overspending!!
I'd explain it to you but if I did you'd ignore the answer and move on to some other crap. Seems like you have a list of tpics there that you just keep running through. Each time they are explained you choose to ignore it.
I've got a lot of unanswered questions on here from you where you just blank the thread when the going gets tough.
You don't think a 2008 loss of pushing E100k when you've as much debt as you do isn't overspending?Quote:
Originally Posted by higgins
The rest of your post is gibberish. The "tough questions" I "avoided" were confirmed in media reports. I don't see any reason to go back on them. Shels continue to overspend (which I define as making a loss) and to draw down on the sale of Tolka. Why you continue to lie about this is a question you seem happy to avoid.
Making a loss isn't my definition of 'Overspending'.Quote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
In a previous post you mentioned that your earlier comments on Shels drawing down were 'previously verified'. But higgins is asking about your comments on 'over-spending'. It's important to get the term right from the beginning otherwise you slander clubs unnecessarily.
Well said HarpoJoyce.
Stu knows we have debts, Stu doesn't know what the figure for those debts were last year or the year before or the year before.
Stu doesn't know what the figure for those debts are now.
Stu doesn't know a lot about Shels yet he seems happy to let on that he does.
How do you know our loss is pushing 100k ?
You've heard a figure of 70 being mentioned and you've rounded up to 100k have you!! Great system Stu.
Fact is you don't know what the total loss was for Shelbourne this year and you don't know what our debts were before and after the current season.
Without thos figures how can you back up what you're saying ?
Now I don't want to be seen to be taking Stus side here but:Quote:
Originally Posted by higgins
If you have existing debt, and then make a loss during the previous season i.e spend more than you earn, How is that not considered Overspending?
Quote:
Fact is you don't know what the total loss was for Shelbourne this year and you don't know what our debts were before and after the current season.
Without thos figures how can you back up what you're saying ?
It'd be easy enough to get hold of previous years' figures from the CRO wouldn't it?. €2.50 to download the accounts if I remember correctly.
I think that whatever way Shels are incorporated or registered, they don't publish those figures.Quote:
Originally Posted by Longfordian
If you think it's easy to get hold of the shels debt figures then be my guest .. :)
Stu assumes that the overall debt has not reduced over recent years.
He has posted that Shels are overspending and yet has no figures for the debts over the last few seasons or the losses made this season.
There was no basis for posting what he posted around 6 months back. Although like the Cawley situation the time has nothing to do with it, he'll link anything together just to confuse things.
Are they not trading as a limited company?. They certainly were at the time of their finanical difficulties, the winding up orders and all that. Accolade Limited. I thought all limited companies had to file accounts at some point?. For the record I don't really care, just curious.
Edit: List of submissions made here. I don't know whether the figures would be on any of these but Shels are definitely trading as Accolade.
http://www.cro.ie/search/submissions...er=106863&BI=C
Yes, Shels are Acolade (and vice versa). I don't know the specifics of why they don't publish those figures, just that they use some exemption. Pineapple Stu can probably be more helpful in that regard.Quote:
Originally Posted by Longfordian
Exactly. You're in debt, you run up a decent sized loss, and that's not overspending? Nonsense.Quote:
Originally Posted by BulmersKid
Shels don't publish accounts.
Shels budgeted to lose a modest 70k going into last season which included servicing debts to a number of creditors going back to our implosion.
Not an unusual or unsound business practice.
The shortfall was then made-up by drawing down from our only asset - Tolka Park. Not an ideal situation - but we're surviving and moving on.
Thanks for backing me up, Fintan.
Servicing creditors has nothing to do with the loss you make; that's solely a cash flow issue.