Waterford winding up order

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by **FrOsTy**

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.

---

Waterford didn't win anything. The PFAI said that Dunphy didn't have to pay his own bills. They were 100% correct.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dodge

Waterford didn't win anything. The PFAI said that Dunphy didn't have to pay his own bills. They were 100% correct.

The fact that Waterford couldn't prove their insurance covered him for months isn't a "win" for them

---

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.

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gormacha

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.

---

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:

---

Dodge, what favours are Waterford looking for?

---

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 IMO

Quote:

---

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?

---

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 loophole

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cufc champions

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jofspring

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GCdfc

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.

Plenty of horsetrading to be done so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jofspring

Jesus if his wife is his representative then it should be just waived and done with.

---

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 costs

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DRDoc

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 costs

---

For a non-professional she's running rings around Waterford. Maybe that's the reason they changed legal teams last week.

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Longfordian

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 apparently
€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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Longfordian

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?

---

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 deiseach

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.

---

Absolutely spot on.

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 . . .