Well its Waterford at home! 'Shadow of a Gunman' they are fascinating posters as WH has said.
Printable View
Well its Waterford at home! 'Shadow of a Gunman' they are fascinating posters as WH has said.
look closer though. it is election campaign for CnaG
Brendan White reporting on twitter that the case has been adjourned for two weeks. No further explanation offered as of yet.
Two weeks isn't much of an adjournment- do the friendlies with Man Utd and Crystal Palace fall before then?
The Man U one does, but not the Palace one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr A
Apparently the reason for the adjournment was that Waterford United changed legal teams and requested further time. Make of that what you will.
Going ten at the back, holding out for extra time and hoping to nick it on the break...Quote:
Originally Posted by gormacha
Seems odd to change your legal team so late in the day, hard to know what to think of that.
I think Waterford will come out ok in the end though.
Seems to me that Waterford have a great legal advisor who has every trick in the book to stall a case or hearing. Buying time so friendlies bring in funds to cover the cost needed to meet the winding up petition. The changed legal team is probably a pal of the current people and will provide the paperwork to make the adjournment justified and above board.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr A
Saw over on twitter that the judge has said no more adjournments. Either an agreement is made in the next two weeks or the club will be wound up.
So after it being said the club are talking to Henderson re payment it seems they actually still haven't talked to him or at least made much of an effort to come to an agreement about it. I think Henderson should dig his heels in and not budge from what he is owed. A reasonable payment scheme should just be put in place. I know if I was him I'd be sick as a dog seeing players signing without getting a penny myself.
Hopefully it just gets sorted now ASAP and both parties can move on.
Simple delaying tactic until after the Man U under 16s game where Hendo will be handed a lovely big bag of dirty cash.
Waterford will then limp along until the end of the season before being put in a new top flight next year. Following this, as history has taught us, everything will then be wonderful forever.
YOU HEARD IT HERE FIRST.
For once, I hope you are right. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Lim till i die
IMO, We're F***ED, Up Sh*t Creek without a paddle, Sh*gged.
My gut feeling is that a long tradition of over 80 years of LOI Football in Waterford has a mere week left.
and this doesn't help - http://www.rte.ie/news/2013/0720/463651-fai-agm/
pay your bills
Oh and by the way, just want to point out to ye, that the case Gary Dunphy took against the club was appealed and won, seen a few posts a few pages back bringing that into it.
surely ye raised alot from the Man Utd game?
Retweeting people giving out about the FAI will probably cost them some more money. The FAI don't respond well to that type of thing by all accounts.
An arrangement that had been in place for the last ten years and was ok'd by the FAI so Waterford did nothing wrong. How many other clubs have similar arrangements in relation to the affiliation fees?Quote:
Originally Posted by Longfordian
This part in the article explains why we were singled out rather unfairly.
http://www.irishtimes.com/sport/socc...-agm-1.1470487
Quote:
The highly unusual move to not have a press conference, meanwhile, followed an earlier refusal to allow FAI Council member Paul Cooke represent Waterford United at the meeting on the basis that the club has not paid its affiliation fees to the association.
Cooke, who has been critical of the way in which the issue of the association’s finances has been handled and who was recently been disciplined by the organisation after appearing on an RTE Primetime programme that dealt with the topic, suggested it was normal practice to agree to have such fees deducted from money due to clubs from the association.
What was the agreement?
The Irish Times article gives a glimpse of the rotten essence of the FAIQuote:
Originally Posted by Partizan
I know we've had the same arrangement in years gone by I don't know about now. Don't get me wrong I wasn't criticising Waterford over this just saying that the FAI could use the tweet as a further stick to beat you with. They're a sensitive bunch.Quote:
Originally Posted by Partizan
Waterford didn't win anything. The PFAI said that Dunphy didn't have to pay his own bills. They were 100% correct.Quote:
Originally Posted by **FrOsTy**
The fact that Waterford couldn't prove their insurance covered him for months isn't a "win" for them
If Waterford are looking for favours from the FAI, you'd think they'd be a little bit cuter than to start trying to question them about finances at the AGM. You could say fair play to them for having a bit of a backbone, but their dealings with Henderson suggest that praise isn't wholly merited either
I don't see why the narrative of "win/lose" is appropriate at all in these type of circumstances. I don't like commenting on cases in which none of us have anything near the full details, but if we look at these types of cases generally, what happened could be seen to vindicate all parties.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dodge
Imagine this scenario: A player gets injured. He believes he's not responsible for paying for his treatment. His union agrees with him and advocates for him.
His employer tries to get their insurers to pay. The insurers contest their liability. The employers counter-contest this, as is their right. All parties are acting without malice, and in defence of their own position.
Eventually, the insurers concede liability. The employers put the wheels in motion. The player gets his treatment.
I can't say for sure if this applied in Gary Dunphy's case, but it would be a familiar enough pattern of organisational behaviour. It's not ideal, but it seems perfectly rational behaviour by all parties, and little need for a villain/victim story-line.
Dodge, what favours are Waterford looking for? And yes, there may be a bit of pot calling the kettle black with regard to finances, but they surely have the right to ask such questions of the organisation that is supposed to police their own financial probity?
maybe on the end result, but even that contradicted (somewhat) Waterford's statement in response to the PFAI's 1st one. It was a mess, and that's why I#d be uncomfortable with notions of Waterford "winning"Quote:
Originally Posted by gormacha
The paying of affiliation fees from future "prize" money according to some here. That some also do it, doesn't mean that it's not a favour IMOQuote:
Dodge, what favours are Waterford looking for?
Absolutely, but in real-politik they know that asking those questions may have negative knock-ons for them. Such as a tightening up of the affiliation fee loopholeQuote:
And yes, there may be a bit of pot calling the kettle black with regard to finances, but they surely have the right to ask such questions of the organisation that is supposed to police their own financial probity?
I agree with Dodge on the real-politik of the situation. That said, I'd say fair play to Paul Cooke for being the only insider to at least attempt to ask questions about the FAI's finances - just unfortunate that Waterford United's relationship with the FAI is in such a precarious state at the moment.
In some ways, I think it's better to view the ban from the AGM as separate to the club's current woes. Paul Cooke is our FAI representative, but not a member of our management committee. To all intents and purposes, he's 'our man in Dublin', but largely separate from the running of the club. His background as current chief executive of the Sunday Business Post and former managing director of the Irish Daily Star have obviously influenced his natural journalistic motivation for quizzing the head honchos rather than acting on behalf of Waterford United.
We weren't the only club who hadn't paid their affiliation fees (and this seems common policy for many clubs to offset them against money coming back from the FAI), but we were the only ones whose representative was on disrepute charges for not towing the FAI line on finances. Given the refusal to answer any questions from the media either at the AGM, I saw it more as Paul being banned than Waterford United.
However, the ban is an indication of how damaged the club's relationship with the FAI (including ex-Waterford directors John Delaney and, seemingly, Milo Corcoran) has become. That's a worrying case others have to answer for.
Teenager Jack Doherty joins Ipswich Town on two-year deal
Teenage winger Jack Doherty has signed a two-year deal with Championship side Ipswich Town.
The 18-year-old joins the Tractor Boys from Irish outfit Waterford United after impressing on trial with Mick McCarthy's side. A statement on the Ipswich's official website said that the paperwork would be finalised tomorrow, with Doherty travelling to tonight's friendly at Colchester and watching from the dugout.
Any money here for Waterford to help pay their debts?
Doherty is Ipswich's ninth signing of the summer.
Presume they'll get some compensation but it wouldn't be huge. Still, it all helps.
Speaking to a relative of Dohertys last night. He me told the fee was 50k, with the United and Palace profits on top of that they should be able to Henderson out in 5 days time.
Waterford have offered Stephen Henderson €50,000 as a final offer.Quote:
Originally Posted by cufc champions
http://www.wlrfm.com/news-and-sport/...wlrfmnews.html
So they have offered exactly what it is believed the courts said he was owed. I'm sure he'll snap their hands off for it.
They havent offered him his costs, but apparently his wife is his representitive in court they are looking for her fee to be waived.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jofspring
Jesus if his wife is his representative then it should be just waived and done with.
I totally disagree. She represented him as a professional. She is entitled to payment for her work. He should tell Waterford to bugger off and pursue the winding up order. They have no right to make a final offer on their terms.
Beat FM are reporting Henderson has rejected the offer.Quote:
Originally Posted by GCdfc
Plenty of horsetrading to be done so.
Seems the wife just happens to work in a solicitors office part time! She is not a solicitor or a barrister - so has nothing to do with the costsQuote:
Originally Posted by Jofspring
For a non-professional she's running rings around Waterford. Maybe that's the reason they changed legal teams last week.Quote:
Originally Posted by DRDoc
What's all this "save Waterford United" craic on Twitter about? "Only 6 hours to save the club", do they not have the money to pay Henderson or what?
It would seem they don't. That €50,000 offered was apparentlyQuote:
Originally Posted by Longfordian
€20,000 from the Jack Doherty deal, €15,000 in February 2014 which they receive from the FAI and a further €15,000 the following February.
Taking into account his legal fees on top of that, you can see why he rejected the offer. Seems to be a big drive on Twitter and elsewhere to get as many bums on seats as possible in the RSC tonight, would be great to see a big crowd there, unlikely though.
Either they do and they're playing the most idiotic game of silly buggers, or they don't and we're screwed. Whichever is true, it's bad.Quote:
Originally Posted by Longfordian
Absolutely spot on.Quote:
Originally Posted by deiseach
I'm less than hopeful. Dark days indeed.
gormacha, what kind of contract was given to Stephen Henderson when he became manager? I'm guessing the current figure being demanded by Henderson includes legal fees, damages, vexatious yadda yadda. But the original amount must have been large enough that the club thought it was worth taking a chance on not having to pay it. Which makes me think that it was a contract they never could have paid on First Division revenue in the first place . . .