Printable View
Thats only what you think should happen..Quote:
Originally Posted by Juz the Hoop
Do you know of any rule Shels have broken by being issued a 'Winding up' notice?
I am not 100% clear they broke any rules so far but could well be wrong.
Its no use trying to complicate the issue even further
The committee met last monday (13th March) so won't meet again for another month or so.Quote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
Im not trying to complicate it at all. If anything I thought I explained it quite clearly.Quote:
Originally Posted by higgins
There is no way on earth that with that debt the revenue would have issued a tax clearence cert. What they would (and reading between the lines it seemed they did) do is come to a signed agreement and a payment schedule with Shels/Ollie/Accolade to clear the debt that has built up (that doesnt take into account present payment of taxes). Shels/Ollie/Accolade have obviously not ahered to this hence the order served on them.
I am not 100% on the Licencing but surely if the Licence was given on receipt of a tax clearance cert (which all clubs have to have) then with this order being served then that TCC has to be invalid. That doesnt even take into account Mr T's post about monthly checks which i had heard but forgot.
Ollie has been a stickler for the rule book in the past will he do so now?
KOH
JUZ
I think you're right on everything there Juz except that the TCC can't be invalid until 3rd April when Ollie has his day in court. If - as i guess is going to happen - Ollie comes up with the readys between now and then (in full) then they will retain their TCC.
As Shels have not made a statement all we can do is speculate...Quote:
Originally Posted by Juz the Hoop
As you mentioned above the clubs now have to provide monthly financial statements based on their submitted budgets & plans for the year. We can only expect that the monthly payments to the revenue were included in Shels yearly plan & that the FAI would have expected to see (12k i think) outgoing in Shels monthly statements. Several questions remain - did the FAI notice that no 12k payment to the revenue in latest monthly statement? did shels even include this latest change in their accounts...? Shels have technically changed their agreed budget not so what are the sanctions for this?
Article 9.3 of UEFA Licencing states that no club which owes outstanding moneys to Revenue can get a licence. A proviso is in place that if there is an agreement in place between the club and Revenue to pay the tax off, that's OK. Shels don't have one now.Quote:
Originally Posted by higgins
BUT SURELY ???Quote:
I am not 100% on the Licencing but surely if the Licence was given on receipt of a tax clearance cert (which all clubs have to have) then with this order being served then that TCC has to be invalid
My point is that you dont know this and you are complicating the issue by adding it in.
IF the TCC has been revoked by revenue then I am 100% behind the enforcment of the rule in the licencing manual that deals with a revoked TCC.
My problem is your putting it out there that shels should be punished and you are not fully sure what rule has been broken.
Again do you know if this agreement has been broken or have they been giving a deadline of April to get back on track?Quote:
Article 9.3 of UEFA Licencing states that no club which owes outstanding moneys to Revenue can get a licence. A proviso is in place that if there is an agreement in place between the club and Revenue to pay the tax off, that's OK. Shels don't have one now
Can you go look up a few more articles there Stu and see what happens when revenue asked a company to wind up as your above 9.3 is very unclear. You have mentioned a provision without giving details and you have mentioned an agreement without the exact details.
Again if Shels have broken a rule and you can point it out Im behind the punishment but its unclear what your saying?
Just to add in Im as confused as the rest of you over this one but nobody is posting anything concrete. If it turns out one or two of you are right then so be it.
The agreement between Accolade and Revenue, which was overseen by FAI officials, has been breached. That is why Revenue have gone to the High Court. The Revenue may accept what Ollie has to say on Apr 3rd and everything will be hunky dory. However, they may not.
Also, you never know who else might turn up in court looking for money. The judge may not be as nice as the Gypo judge that Rovers got. He may not have a clue about the Eircom League. He may come down heavy on Ollie. He might want to make an example of Accolade.
Worrying times ahead for Shels, however, I think the hooligan will somehow get out of this.
Either way, Accolade will have a hefty legal bill plus Revenue interest to pay.
It really is a shame that the court date isn't April 1st
There's also a provision for if the issue is before the courts:Quote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
Quote:
Alternative 3: Proceedings have been
opened with the competent body
according to national legislation or
proceedings have been opened with the
FAI, UEFA or FIFA with regard to these
overdue payables.
If Shels missed a repayment and the revenue don't agree a new schedule, Shels' license is revoked. If the revenue agree a new repayment scheme, no rule was broken (that I can see) so no punishment should be given.Quote:
Originally Posted by higgins
Quote:
A Licence will not be granted in the following instances:
...
• If the Licence Applicant has failed to prove they have had no overdue payables
towards employees, including any social charges and taxes (FIN 1.03).
Now if you really wanted to know about things, you'd have looked up the Licencing manual yourself! It's downloadable from the FAI website.Quote:
Originally Posted by higgins
Shels have quite clearly broken the agreement with Revenue. Not even Ollie's denying that. As a qualified accountant, I'll tell you now that Revenue do not issue reminders through public newspaper notices that the company is to be wound up. Shels agreed to make 21 monthly payments of E12k each to discharge back tax. Evidently they've missed one - or more - payments. This is more than likely due to the payment bouncing because the mney wasn't there in Shels' account. It's actually a bit harsh for Revenue to seek a winding up order against someone for missing one - or even two - DD payments (I've seen companies do it before), so I'd say there's some history there as well and basically Revenue are sick of Shels by now.
With regards the manual, I refer you in particular to point FIN 1.03 on page 103 of the manual which states (my comments in round brackets) -
This is an A Licencing requirement, which means that -Quote:
Originally Posted by UEFA Licencing Manual
Clear enough for you now? ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by UEFA Licencing Manual, para 1.6, page 3)
Edit - Good man BS! Always able to use 1 word instead of 20! :)
I interpereted 'competent body according to national legislation' to be the high court. I'm not a legal eagle so I could be wrong but it seems to me that Shels are surviving under alternative 3 until April.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pineapple
Yeah, I'm unsure about that too. But surely Rovers were in proceedings with the same competent body, yet they were docked 8 points? I haven't seen anywhere that refers to administration at all, so I was working on the notion that the competent body was Revenue, and once it moved beyond them (i.e. the High Court), the licence was invalid.
Shels are surviving because there's no meeting of the First Instance committee for another month. Thre may be other reasons, but that one will override them for now anyway.
lads just to clarify something and this is for you Shels supporters. The money is on the way you will be paid your champions league money in excatly 58 days time Ollie mearly has to go the bank and ask for a short term loan to pay the tax man.:eek: So anyone getting hyped up should relax a bit as much as it kills me :mad: to say it shels have quite a bit of money on its way for its 2 games it won last year in the competition, and not even counting the games they played in.
hello hello,is there anybody home????Quote:
Originally Posted by higgins
1: ollie is quoted in the papers saying he refuses to pay any more tax.
2: its not good business practice to overspend.and besides ,it is illegal to overspend while insolvent.so if shels are spendnig cash they havent got,then they will be in trouble for it..oh look they are in trouble
you win a prize for the most irrelevant post of the monthQuote:
Originally Posted by sfc red
can you just stop posting here and let the adults do the debating?
according to the newspaper (sunday business post i think) from a couple of months ago, shels get one third of the money from tolka, meaning shels will get E7M. i was surprised at the low number.but the sunday business post is not often wrong when commenting on EL clubs business. its been right about Rovers when our problems were in the news last year,and has consistently had accurate articles on bohs over the last couple of years,the most recent no more than a month agoQuote:
Originally Posted by CharlesThompson
The Licensing rules seem to deal with a club's pursuit of a license at the point of application. It could feasibly arise that someone would meet the criteria for a license at the time of application, but then at some later point no longer meet that criteria.Quote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
Does the manual stipulate that a license can be revoked, once granted ? And does it state that it can be done if you no longer meet the requirements you apparently did/should have met at the time of application ? I wouldn't be surpirsed if there was a huge loophole here - and that once you got a license for a season that was that.
The message you have entered is too short. Please lengthen your message to at least 5 characters.Quote:
The FAI Club Licensing Committee has the power to withdraw any licence or
apply any sanction during a season if the Licensee:
o no longer satisfies any single criteria for issuing the licence;
o violates any of its obligations, duties, confirmations or
undertakings under the FAI Club Licensing Manual, Contract or
Confidentiality Agreement
o Is involved in a bankruptcy, receivership, examinership or
liquidation process, or is struck off the Companies' Register
The withdrawal of a licence or imposition of a sanction is not mandatory and the
FAI Licensing Committee will have discretion to exercise this power or not.
Don't know if it states it or not, but Rovers had their license revoked last season
Correct! It was actually the night we played Pats in Richmond Park the 8 points were deducted on the basis that our licence had been revoked. They basically took away the points we had gained up to that game, it was purely for that reason we assumed it an 8 points deduction & not some other amount! But at the start of the that season we had a premier Division License!Quote:
Originally Posted by Dodge
Koh
The real question is: Do Accolade T/A Shelbourne FC hold the License or does the Football club hold it?
The reality is that accolade basically just owns the lease on Tolka, the License allows for this set up. It means that the actual football club is not in trouble with revenue and therefore not open to be sanctioned.
Longford were in exactly the same position and just about pulled off a deal with the revenue in time.
Its yet another loophole that showed up as a get out for these two clubs who dont have to submit the accounts of their day to day operations to the CRO as they are not incorporated. Therefore, unless the revenue audits them they can get away with paying ZERO PAYE / PRSI.
I dont think the newspapers quote Ollie every time he changes his mind!Quote:
Originally Posted by anto eile
To take your own phrase
Hello Hello is anybody there
Go read through the posts and I think everyone agrees they agreed on structured payments after that quote.
How do you know the option to borrow against future income hasnt already been used?Quote:
Originally Posted by sidcon
Lots of clubs have arrangements to pay back arrears. Longford (are you obsessed or what?), Bohs, Pats, Shels, etc etc. Difference is others have obviously met the re-payments (seeing as revenue aren't trying to liquidate them), and have reduced their playing budgets.Quote:
Originally Posted by thomas
Accolade does far more than just hold the lease. It is Shelbourne FC - any bills/correspondence from Shels will have Accolade's name on them, etc. The relationship between the two appears to be the exact same as Branvard Limited and Shamrock Rovers.Quote:
Originally Posted by thomas
Actually, it's a very relevant post - it shows why Shels are being petitioned for liquidation while Rovers were merely put into administration. Rovers' fans had long been up in arms about what was happening, ultimately kicked the board out, took over the club and operated strict budgets. That's not happening at Shels, which is why Revenue are taking a more severe stance.Quote:
Originally Posted by anto eile
So now your saying the Rovers and Shels cases are the same!!!!! :eek:Quote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
Holy devine jaysus, did you not read what makes them different and why each route is different in the previous 15 pages...
You really will jump at anything.
See the bit where I put "Shels are" followed by "while Rovers were"? That indicates a difference. A difference means not the same.Quote:
Originally Posted by higgins
and you then went on to compare the action taken by both sets of supporters??
If its different then why the comparison, I dont understand your point and seems like your posting for the sake of it at this stage.
As long as its clear your going around comparing two things that are not the same then thats fine.
Because that's why you compare things.:rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by higgins
The point is the difference (or at least, a key difference) between putting a company into liquidation or administration lies in whether it's a viable trading entity or not. Rovers clearly weren't a viable trading entity until the 400 Club took over and made various promises about slashing the budget, etc. Shels clearly aren't a viable trading entity, and have no such recourse at present.
So when is all this mess going to be sorted?
I think the next we'll hear anything will be on the 3rd of April. That is when Ollie and the revenue have the next tête à tête !!Quote:
Originally Posted by patcorr
Wrong, look at te account and tell me where it shows shels annual wage and PRSI/PAYE bills. They are not there because the football club is separate.Quote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
The figure you should look for is about EUR2.0m.
Macy, my point about LTFC limited is the same, the football club (ie players wages etc.) is not run through the company.
The entity holding control of the players holds the License, not LTFC Ltd, nor accolade in shels case.
I'm certainly no expert but if the above is true then how on earth did his complany build up owed tax to that level if the main costs are under another company?
Wrong - they are not there because the company claims an exemption from filing accounts.Quote:
Originally Posted by thomas
Seán Drog's point is valid too - if Accolade isn't Shels and doesn't pay its wages, how come it owes so much to Revenue?
Shelbourne FC is purely a business name - it doesn't have trade or have any activity, etc. It isn't even a legal entity. Accolade Ltd does all its trading. That's why Shels' headed paper includes the name Accolade Limited.
And Accolade pays the wages of at least one Shels player
Sorry but you are wrong there. Accolade is the employer of the Shels players and also pays the PAYE/PRSI to the revenue. I have seen at least one former Shels player P60 and its employer name and number is accolade.Quote:
Originally Posted by thomas
And as I keep saying, the only reason that is the case because the FAI insist on clubs having a limited company. If it wasn't for that FAI rule, there only would be the club. I can see your point to a certain extent, but it would be wrong to make out that there is anything underhand about us, or necessarily shels, in doing things this way.Quote:
Originally Posted by thomas
Have you evidence to back up this claim about the licence anyway? And was Rovers licence issued to Shamrock Rovers FC or Branvard Ltd last season? As that'd could be the test of your theory in this regard.
Do they? Half the clubs in the league don't have an associated limited company.Quote:
Originally Posted by Macy
But Accolade holds a work permit for a Shels player. Is that possible without paying the wages?Quote:
Originally Posted by thomas