So by "ongoing", it appears to mean that they asked months ago the FAI said "Yeah, sure it'll be grand; don't worry about it"?
562k is a hell of a lot for a LoI club to lose in one season. Europe wouldn't put a dent in that tbh.
Printable View
So by "ongoing", it appears to mean that they asked months ago the FAI said "Yeah, sure it'll be grand; don't worry about it"?
562k is a hell of a lot for a LoI club to lose in one season. Europe wouldn't put a dent in that tbh.
Looking at the Waterford fans forum, apparently they owe somebody a few quid ... an ex manager, so any argument they have is null and void should they appeal.Quote:
Originally Posted by geysir
No need for a CAS hearing. Jawn Delaney could just ask for an extra team to be allowed in the competition
Power to ask for 5 million compensation in exchange for shutting up about it allQuote:
Originally Posted by Ezeikial
Waterford are no more or less eligible today than they were 6 months ago. If they were told by the FAI that they were eligible then they should take it up with the FAI directly. UEFA are unlikely to change their mind and Waterford will **** away a fortune challenging the decision.
Sounds like Delaney (or someone else at FAI) promised something they couldn’t deliver.
Surely the FAI are wide open for Waterford to seek compensation from them. If they stated that its all good to go for Waterford and that has not been the case then Waterford could have a case to seek compensation related to expenses thay committed to on the basis of 'qualifying' for Europe. They should have known the rules but the FAI ahve more or less said ignore that and we'll sort you out. Waterford's cheerleader and UEFA influence gets cut lose and the picture changes quickly. Any lack of sympathy I have is based on the spin that the Wterford name change was just that a name chage and no more, not a phoenix club that was cutting creditors loose. Im liking this new air of transparency that is suddenly happening (in baby steps) at Abbotstown!
You can't sue the FAI I think - participation agreement.
Though that may be tested if Delaney's gone I guess
I would like to see that tested in the courts regardless of Delaney or not. I was of the opinion that agreeing not to sue, like with those signs on entering a premises at ones own risk dont stack up in a court of law if there is a case to be answered, im sure the same principle applies. Be ironic if it was Waterford challanging the FAI in this regard.Quote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
I'm not sure what they'd have anyway. Anything the FAI "promised" must surely (a) be ultra vires and (b) evidential that Waterford knew a stroke was being pulled
It'd be a long shot probably but the FAI did say that they would be ok for Europe, no sense of maybe on this. It was a committal statement from Gavin that has since been overturned, there could be a case for the minimum earnings for EL qualification. It would probably depend on the reasons behind the FAIs confidence that it would be grand. If they were providing false info....
Well, we only have Power's word for that, don't we?
Well assurances can be sought and assurances can be given. But when the assessment and appeals processes are meant to be independent of administrators they mean feck all squared.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nesta99
Now have the fai managed to actually get out of this relatively unscathed? Or does this hint of outstanding football debt open a can of worms about the domestic licencing process? Did we miss the usual whiff of fudge in the stench of bs?
The FAI informed Waterford and the wider public of their considered opinion that Waterford would get their licence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nesta99
However Gavin did not offer an absolute committal statement.
"We don't see any significant issues around Waterford that would prohibit them from getting a licence"
Gavin should have seen the issues for what they were worth.
The FAI are governing the LOI, Gavin is the person responsible and this was a cut and dried case to a person in that position, especially as Pats had made it known to the FAI of their reservations and preparations for replacing Waterford.
The FAI are being handsomely paid by the clubs to govern the league and in this case they have totally fcked it up.
All confirmed #TechnicalitySaints
Sad to see some Waterford fans buying the spin making us out to be the bad guys. The FAI and JD are to blame for this mess.
Will the Europa League participation windfall be spent on the club, e.g players, remedial work on the shed to stop it caving in, or will the club owner dip his beak in?Quote:
Originally Posted by D24Saint
There's a clause in the contract for League of Ireland clubs. Any Euro prize money that isn't siphoned off by the owners must be pished away on player wages.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dalymountrower
This happens after the FAI get a “bridging loan” to pay the club the money they are due.Quote:
Originally Posted by seand
unfortunately we can’t rely on the corpo to sort our ground out. Its all fan and owner funded.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dalymountrower
in other words 'not done' ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by D24Saint
Quote:
Originally Posted by D24Saint
too easy to blame the FAI for everything.
Whoever Lee Powers legal advisors were on the Waterford Takeover should have received cast iron written assurances from the FAI that this was not an issue as part of the Due Diligence process.
They either did'nt (or they would be simply asking the FAI for a cheque now) or more likely is it would have been raised as an issue by any half competent firm and that Power ignored the advice based on "reassurances" daft approach to business.
People are always looking for someone else to blame, the 3 year rule was well known and Waterford went ahead with the structure knowing that.
But also knwoing that Fingal got an exemption in the past. It changes the perspective on the renaming of Waterford. There probably were as close to cast iron assurances you could get when their man was in charge here and sat on the UEFA board. Would he have dirtied his bib in Europe by pulling a stroke for his own club? Absolutely yes as the man was blinded by his ego! Doesnt make it any easier on Waterford fans. Couldnt give a toss about Lee Power himself as he was chancing his arm and timing let him down.
Fingal was different it was a brand new club so no possibility of old unpaid debts or any other issues.
If i was taking over a football club (Which would entail winning the lotto and a frontal lobotomy happening simultaneously) i would assume that it was an issue and not proceed with the new structure unless i had written reassurances.
If there were no debts or any other issues knocking around re the old Waterford entity Power could have simply taken over that entity, the fact he refused to screams of issues that were known about and ignored.
I don't get why some people keep referring to the Fingal case as a precedent. If I'm not completely mistaken, Fingal was a new club without potential legacy problems from any earlier incarnation (because there was no earlier incarnation), so that was a completely different case in my opinion.
Exactly. The rules were created to stop people from doing exactly what Power did here. If he had started a new club in the middle of nowhere completely unrelated to any other club. Say Dungarvan FC, all new players colours stadium etc and they got into Europe in 2 years then UEFA would give them a pass because they didn't do anything wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by sidewayspasser
But taking over an existing club, wiping the slate/debt etc clean by starting a new holding company and changing the club name is exactly the kind of thing they wanted to discourage.
I think it's pretty well known that, far from "dipping his beak in", the club owner puts substantial money in every year and has done so for a long time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dalymountrower
I presume the FAI signed off on Waterfords budget to grant them a licence. I presume that budget would have included the increased costs plus the extra revenue from Europe which wouldn't have been there the year before.
Its up to individual clubs to deliver on their budgets not the FAI.
If Powers advisers left them open to being thrown out of Europe because of the structure they used for the takeover then i blame them.
If Powers advisers told Power there were risks and he ignored them then he is at fault.
If the Advisers didn't realize there was a 3 year rule he should sue them for Professional Negligence.
When Limerick/Bray don't deliver on their budget and don't pay their players its the clubs owners fault not the FAI.
Bray are going well with bigger crowds and a decent team (against my expectations) is that because of the "atmosphere" created by the FAI or because the new owners are running a better show?
I'm ranting a bit (whats new :) ) but the majority of the problems in the LOI are down to the people running the clubs.
Yes the FAI could help by being more proactive when it comes to the LOI but different clubs operating in the same envioronment are run either well, or ok , or badly.
Nobody knows on here what the exact story is but what we do know is that the FAI/Licencing Committee signed off on Waterfords budget to grant them a licence.
Any substantial increase from the year before will have being or should have been queried by the FAI. If the explanation for the increase was increased prize money due to Europe and the FAI accepted this, then you have to feel a bit sorry for Waterford.
You are correct to say that it is up to the clubs to deliver on their budget but that's not my point here
The FAI accepted Waterfords budget for sure, just like they accept every clubs Budget /Forecast.
I'm sure Corks budget had a bigger forecast for crowds and doubt Bohs had predicted full houses.
The clubs have to take responsibility when they are up or down or miss their estimates.
Waterford put a structure in place that didn't meet with UEFA approval and have now been thrown out of Europa League.
I know who i would blame when the budget isn't hit.
Euro prize money can only go into the following season's budget, as far as I know
The Fingal case gets references due to Wateford/Power presenting his takeover and rebranding the club while addressing any legacy issues of Waterford United. This has truned out to be a spoof. I would hedge my bets that that spoof involved complicit people in the FAI who gave a nod and a wink that all would be ok for Waterford FC. As soon as their champion chancer's involvement in the FAI is suspended, within days Pats were making a righful and successful case and Waterford get binned. That's gonna be a kick where it hurts for one legacy family of Waterford. Its probably a tad cynical at best for me to think and conspiracy like at worst. But Waterford fans aside there is a sense of satisfaction in the wink and nod from a former Waterford boardmember be smashed back in his face as soon as it was possible. Lee Power imo was given the opportunity to cut corners, take risks, take somones word on sorting things out etc and it backfired. Without wanting to cross threads, I think it is very possible that this is all connected to some in the FAI working to oust what they saw was the trouble child bully in Abbotstown, when the child was sent off to play on his own his plaything starts being dismantled including possible flouting of the laws for one of the favourite pets....apologies for the child analogies but it does seem appropriate!Quote:
Originally Posted by sidewayspasser
Waterford qualified for Europe last October so why didn't the FAI check out their eligibility with UEFA then instead of waiting till 6 months later? If the club had been advised a few months ago they would not be eligible people would have accepted it better. The timing of it is very suspicious. It feels like St Pats saw their opportunity following John Delaney's departure.
Lee Power won't take this lying down and the very least the club should get is compensated and a public explanation about what went on after being led astray by FAI assurances. The club knew of the 3 year rule as it was brought up last season and possibly didn't expect to have got to Europe so soon at time of takeover.
Because the point appears to be that the FAI agreed to turn a blind eye to it. And as others have said above, the implication in all that is that Power was complicit.
I've no proof of that of course, but it's the easiest explanation that fits the observable facts
[QUOTE=trevy;1999967]Waterford qualified for Europe last October so why didn't the FAI check out their eligibility with UEFA then instead of waiting till 6 months later? If the club had been advised a few months ago they would not be eligible people would have accepted it better. The timing of it is very suspicious. It feels like St Pats saw their opportunity following John Delaney's departure.
Which if that was the case is evidence if the FAI intervening to bend the rules in favour of Delaney's club.
The bottom line is that Waterford weren't eligible. Fact. If the FAI were looking to pull a fast one to try to get around that, then it's clear where the fault lies.
Why would Waterford be due any compensation ? And who from ? You even state yourself that they knew what the rule was on this.Quote:
Originally Posted by trevy
It looks like Waterford and Delaney conspired to pull a fast one here, and that once Delaney was off the scene the proper rules were applied instead. It may well be that Waterford wouldn't have got into Europe even if Delaney was still around, but the bottom line is that they knew the rule and somehow thought it wouldn't apply to them. They were wrong.
The FAI gave assurances that Waterford should be eligible for Europe and there was no indication there would be a problem till about 10 days ago so they should compensate Waterford for the loss of the UEFA money. The club were aware of the 3 year rule but were told they should be exempt from it. That was clearly wrong and Waterford are paying the price for it.
If there is a court case about this I'm sure we will find out more about what happened.
Why won't you acknowledge the possibility that this was Delaney agreeing with Power that he'd sort ye out and it'd bee grand? If that's the case, it'd surely come out in any court case, which would decide matters on the spot.
Evidently Waterford have left debts unpaid which gave them an unfair advantage in the 2017 First Division. Probably no-one expected ye to qualify this early when Power said he'd come in and flash the cash if some debt could be "cleared", but here we are.
This is entirely Waterford's and the FAI's making. I've every sympathy for Waterford fans.
Exactly. It looks and smells as if shenanigans were afoot on this one.Quote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
Otherwise, why would a UEFA Executive Committee member suggest that a UEFA rule didn't need to apply to the club he 'supported' (though how often was Delaney seen at the RSC ?). Power and Delaney appeared to have a close relationship of some sort. 'If you sup with the devil', and all that.
Keywords "should be eligible", not are eligible...Quote:
Originally Posted by trevy
I agree that is a possibility Pineapple Stu given John Delaney's power in the FAI and UEFA.
Here is a quote from February from Fran Gavin printed in this week's Waterford Today.'We don't see any issues that would prohibit them from getting a licence'.
If something changed in the meantime such as finding the club did not clear all debts from the previous regime that should be made public.
My point is it should never have got to this stage less than 2 months before the draw.