Printable View
Big row at the moment over whether Shels owe us compensation or not. It seems that players under 23 can't move for free and that compensation must always be paid unless the "selling" club indicate that they don't want to re-sign the player. Shels are claiming that Calwey has to have been playing for us for the last two full seasons, so they don't owe us anything. Either way, he didn't play on Friday because of it.
There has to be a straightforward answer to that. Either he has to have been with us for two years or we're owed compensation.
I'm sure the FAI :eek: will take a month or seven to sort it out.
Meant to post about this earlier. Apparently Ollie Byrne is threatening to take the matter to court and ignore any tribunal!
We seem confident about getting the money out of them though. Dick Shakespeare said: "Shelbourne have known for months that we’d be seeking compensation. The league has acted very professionally and has tried to push this along for the last month. It’s my impression that Shelbourne heads have been buried in the sand."
See here, here and here.
Pay up Ollie! :mad:
Apparently we signed him in August 2002, which was a month after the season started (which I think is right). Dick Shakespeare is quoted in the Star today saying we're definitely owed money and have said so since the start.Quote:
Originally Posted by John83
I'm sure there is a simple way out of this. I'd be tempted to say we're right, seeing as we usually are and seeing as how Shels' last registration whinge was over Ciarán Martyn, which they lost. Be interesting how it pans out though!
Either way, it seems that overall, offering players one-year contracts is a good move seeing as we do get compensation for them if they move.
See link 2 above.Quote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
They got "a four figure sum" out of that though so there must have been something in it.Quote:
Shels' last registration whinge was over Ciarán Martyn, which they lost.
Only if they stay for two seasons and are under 23 when they leave.Quote:
Either way, it seems that overall, offering players one-year contracts is a good move seeing as we do get compensation for them if they move.
According to the list of sports scholars here:
http://www.ucd.ie/sport/html/homepag...ewsnov024.html
Alan had a scholorship in 2002. It seems an open and shut case. Shels are denying thamselves of a player untill they sort it out.
Also, I've said this before, but I don't like the idea of clubs bringing relativley small matters like this to court. It's a waste of money and the FAI should be able to decide matters like this.
Interesting article by Emmet Malone in the Irish Times today about the row. Michael Hyland reckons Shels are in the right, but the league's legal advisers reckon we're right. Apparently, Roy Dooney had intended to amend the rule in question, which would have meant that Shels would have been right, but never got around to it ('cos he got the boot), and so it appears we're right. Article basically carries the tone that it's about time somebody shut Ollie up with his constant whingeing! There's talk of us receiving up to 40 grand from the tribunal too!
Here's the Emmet Malone article mentioned above...
Shelbourne's luck off the pitch may have run out
Emmet Malone
NATIONAL LEAGUE: League champions they may be but it is in off-the-pitch disputes that Shelbourne have established a really impressive unbeaten run over the past few seasons.
After a weekend, however, in which Pat Fenlon had probably earned himself a disrepute charge for his comments to the media and Ollie Byrne had made his by-now-customary threat to haul everybody off to the High Court, there were signs the Alan Cawley affair might just mark a change in the club's luck.
As of yesterday, there were no signs of the Tolka Park line on the controversy softening, but then you would hardly expect it to. Byrne, after all, has made a habit of screaming from the rooftops when he has felt aggrieved in the past and has made his club a tidy profit from it too.
Before Christmas the FAI paid the club €100,000 to settle a variety of outstanding claims by the Dublin club against them. Included in that list, apparently, was the refereeing error in last year's cup defeat by Sligo that spared Rovers a sending-off with a couple of minutes remaining, the legal costs of the Paul Marney case - though they were awarded against the club in court - and a reluctantly made contribution towards flood damage to Tolka Park.
At issue in the current dispute is whether close to €40,000 is due to UCD from Shelbourne in compensation for the club's role in developing Cawley.
By local standards it is a huge sum, enough to make the promising but unproven 22-year-old one of the most expensive signings in the domestic game's history and, after their recent financial troubles, coming up with the money would presumably be a struggle for the league champions.
At the heart of the conflict are differing interpretations of the league's rule 19.23. Shelbourne insist the rule's wording requires that Cawley have been a UCD player for two full seasons before compensation would be due and that he fell a few weeks short of this. UCD claim the midfielder was with the club for the full two seasons but that it doesn't matter anyway as the wording requires only that he have been there for part of the second season.
It is one of the case's many ironies that Roy Dooney, once Byrne's bête noire, intended changing the wording, in what would have been Shelbourne's favour, before being forced from office over the Paul Marney affair.
Michael Hyland, who was league chairman when a previous case involving Stuart Connolly's move from Athlone to Dundalk arose, agrees with Shelbourne's interpretation of the rule but, more significantly, one suspects, the league's legal advisers, A&L Goodbody, reckon UCD are on the firmer ground.
Not surprisingly, there is considerable sympathy around for the player who finds himself caught in the centre of all of this.
Equally predictably, though, there is little enough for Shelbourne. Fenlon's claim that he considered resigning when the club received a fax, three hours before kick-off on Friday, instructing them not to play Cawley is, amongst other things, viewed with a mixture of bemusement and consternation in Merrion Square, where it is felt that the club had to know already that it could not field a player whose transfer was the subject of a dispute.
And Shelbourne's own stated concern for the player would be easier to admire if they hadn't only last week made Ciaran Martyn pay the club around €7,500 compensation out of his own pocket for deciding to stay with Derry rather than honour a pre-contract agreement.
As it happens, their initial offer to Martyn was illegal under league rules but Byrne, who prides himself on his knowledge of the rule book, could justify the timing of his club's approach under the FAI's regulations. It was just the sort of move that has done much to alienate them from other league clubs over the years.
There have been other things that have generated ill will too, however, including Shelbourne's decision to oppose a proposed television deal that came before the league last year which Byrne felt didn't best suit his club's best interests. The vote on that occasion was 21 to one.
Sympathies will be divided in much the same proportions if, having done so well in the past out of living by the sword, Byrne is felled by it on this occasion.
40,000 euro, I can see why such a fight is being kicked up over it. Where is that figure from does anyone know?
Also, I'd be interested to read this rule 19 myself. Anyone know where a copy of the rulebook on the internet is?
Read that piece earlier; €40,000, sweet. :)
No idea where the league rules are available, there's no sign of them on fai.ie.
The only know copy is written on 60,000 post-its, which are currently stored in Eircom Park.Quote:
Originally Posted by Schumi
:DQuote:
Originally Posted by John83
The transfer would go to a tribunal, who would then decide the fee based on how long the player's been with us, how good he is and other stuff like that. I presume E40k is a complete educated guess so, as I don't think any tribunal has made any decisions so far in Ireland?
I presume also that some of that money would have to go to Sheffield Wednesday as part of the role they had in developing him? Should be only around 10% though, if CM is correct! He was only at Leeds for one year, so no money for them! :p
One of the highest transfer fees in Irish football, according to that article - thank you Johnny Bosman!!!
A snippet from today's Indo:
"SCHOOLBOY and junior clubs around the country will watch with envy this afternoon when an independent tribunal sits down to decide the compensation Galway United should receive from Derry City for striker Alan Murphy.
And they will be equally captivated when another tribunal decides, possibly later this week, on the level of recompense that Shelbourne must pay UCD after signing midfielder Alan Cawley during the close season.
The compensation that will be paid to Galway and UCD will be in recognition of the time, effort and money they put into the development and training of both players and it is cash that nobody will begrudge either club."
I don't know if that means that a decision has been reached. It looks more like lazy journalism to me, especially the bit that says "it is cash that nobody will begrudge either club.". I think that a few people in Shels would begrudge it.
Eleven-a-side.com's quote of the day:Quote:
"Shelbourne have known for months that we’d be seeking compensation. The league has acted very professionally and has tried to push this along for the last month. It’s my impression that Shelbourne heads have been buried in the sand." - UCD secretary Dick Shakespeare hits back at eircom League champions Shelbourne over the Alan Cawley eligibility debacle.
Today's Indo:
"Mayo club get cash windfall
MAYO club Ballinrobe got an unexpected windfall yesterday after Galway United announced they intend to give the schoolboy club 10 per cent of the fee due to them following the transfer of Alan Murphy to Derry City.
An independent tribunal yesterday ordered Derry to pay £22,000 for the 21-year-old striker, so Ballinrobe will receive €2,200.
"We didn't have to give Ballinrobe any money but we felt that morally we had to," said a Galway spokesman."
Apart from a ambiguity about pounds and euros in that, it gives an idea of the type of valuations that the tribunal puts on players. Aertel reported that Galway were dissapointed with the ammount.
P.S. Is this the same Alan Murphy whom I remember from his days at Drogheda United? A short lad with a begrudging handshake.
No, he's with us and is a full back...Quote:
Originally Posted by Bald Student
:D :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Bald Student
Apparently Galway were looking for E48000, so it looks like, if we win, we'll be looking at nearer E20k than E40k, but a nice windfall all the same!
Interesting bit in The Times today about how a prominent youth club has written to us several times looking for compensation for players we've signed and have yet to receive a satisfactory reply. Though I remember the committee saying taht they were happy we wouldn't get stung for thiings like that.
From today's Indo:
"Tribunal date set
AN end to the Alan Cawley saga is in sight after the Eircom League announced last night that a transfer compensation tribunal will meet on Friday morning, writes Gerry McDermott. UCD are seeking compensation from Shelbourne for the midfielder who has been forced to sit out the league champions' opening two games of the season."
I just hope that this is the end of it. We don't need to see the league taken to court over this.
Shouldn't we (and Shels) have a representative at the tribunal? If so, surely Friday night (when both are playing) is the worst possible time to have the tribunal?
I don't think so. The tribunal will decide what level of compensation is due. A representative from UCD or Shels is going to have a biassed opinion.
I meant even to be in attendance, as opposed to actually partaking.
Would seem very FAI-ish for us to find out how much money we're going to get (if any!) on the radio news on the way home from the match!
The piece posted there from the Indo said Friday morning not Friday night.
There's piece about it in the Times today by Emmet Malone, he seems convinced Ollie will bring it to court. :(
Yeah, saw that since - I'm an idiot...
There is a report on Alan in the Observer today. Not much new in it buy a few interesting little snippets though.
Apparently UCD sent a solicitor's letter to the league to ensure that a tribunal was set up. This had to be done by 5pm on Friday and according to yesterdays Indo it has been.
The relevant league rule (19.23) is quoted to say payment is due for a player under 23 'who has been in employment with his present club for at least 2 consecutive seasons.'.
Alan signed on 1st August 2002 a month into the season but had his contract back datad to the start of the season and was paid for the full season.
The paper also repeats the figure of 40,000 euro which it says is arrived at under a formula agreed under league rules.
It says thet 40,000 represents about one sixth of the clubs annual budget.
Another own goal for soccer
WITH spectacular inevitability, the domestic season has again kicked off with off-field controversy.
The unseemly squabble between Shelbourne and UCD over whether Alan Cawley's departure from Belfield should be subject to a transfer fee is the latest in an interminably long list of intractable disputes which continue to blight the game.
So, instead of the season kicking off in expectation of better crowds and better football, we have a conflict more redolent of the school-
yard, which has done nothing but scar a product already mutilated by opprobrium.
That a player, Alan Cawley, has been denied the opportunity to ply his trade by this dispute, could be forgotten amidst the insults which have been flying around his head for the past ten days.
Yet, he has and, with the ever present possibility of this one ending up in a law court, he may be kicking his heels for a while yet. He may also wonder should he walk away completely, like others before him, deciding in his mid-20s that the so-called professional game here cares more about self-interest than players like him.
The mechanics of the dispute have once again highlighted the inability of the Eircom League's constituent parts to work with each other, despite the fact that they, and the League itself, remain in a comatose state.
The actual rights and wrongs of the Cawley affair have little wider significance, other than the residual bad blood which will ineradicably exist between the nominal winners and losers.
Yet, what laughably escapes the protagonists in each tawdry dispute is that the erosion of the very fabric which should weave the local game together continues to unravel with frightening inexorability.
Where there should be co-operation to achieve strength in numbers, there is instead an alarming anarchic streak, which basically determines that each club should look after its own interest and ignore the big picture.
The promotion of the Eircom League in a land blighted by weighty obstacles such as the pre-eminence of other sports and a radical increase in juvenile apathy and inertia is a task in itself.
Remarkably, given this landscape, the Eircom League attempts to promulgate a product where the 22 major factions are presented (correctly) as generally incompetent, always quarrelling, financially reckless and deeply suspicious of every attempt made by its neighbour to improve oneself.
The nominal body chosen to oversee this entropy, the League authority, is consistently undermined, ridiculed and denuded of all responsibility when it is called upon to apply judgments.
The FAI occasionally interrupts this chaotic flow, solely on the whim of whichever of the 22 clubs needs a favour that week, and sees fit to override, ignore or reinterpret decisions made by the League.
This is because the League is technically a separate entity from the FAI but, of course, only when it suits the parent body. Where disputes have become politically sensitive, the hierarchy's sense of smell becomes disproportionately more acute and, Hey Presto, the League reverts to tame sub-ordinance.
The Cawley affair may have its origin amidst the fine print of an intractable rule book but in essence it is a classic symbol of the manner in which football is run in this country.
UCD and Shelbourne may never admit this in public, but there is more to this dispute than meets the eye. The resignation of Brendan Dillon as League chairman is directly relevant - as is the FAI's role in his departure.
Regardless of the outcome of Friday's tribunal - and the chances of an intervention by Fran Rooney can't be ruled out at this late stage - each club will cry foul and retreat into the long grass to be better prepared for their next exercise in sophistry.
And, still, our clubs will retreat into a financial haze, seduced by ordinary players seeking extraordinary wages, while the majority of their customers are unable to urinate in comfort.
And they wonder why the crowds aren't improving, why there is no progress in the European stage, why clubs are losing money in a witless fashion from year to year, why sugar daddies would walk a mile before ploughing a cent into an Irish club.
The FAI can offer all the lip service to the League they want and, seduced by the cosmetic advances generated by the Genesis report, gaily flirt with the idea of ending all problems with a full merger. But can you see 22 clubs absolving themselves of their responsibility while just eight or so of their number, under direct rule by the FAI, run the League?
In the absence of common sense, brace yourselves for the next senseless diversion from matters on the field. Sadly, fewer and fewer people care anymore.
Cawley is just the latest to join a lengthening list. And it will be ever thus as long as the clubs continue at the helm of such a lurching vessel.
David Kelly
The Bootroom
I'm a total neophyte to Irish football politics. Why would Dillon's resignation be as linked in with this case as Kelly suggests? Is it because he was "our guy" (and not Shels')
It strikes me as a kind of idioty article written to fill column space. Dillon's row is with the FAI (and Fran Rooney in particular), not with Shels. Don't think it's the best article ever written on the subject!
Any news on the case yet? Has a date even been set for certain?
Wasn't it supposed to be on last Friday?Quote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
It got postposned for some reason or other. New date was either today (haven't heard anything) or tomorrow.
According to the Shels message board here (I don't know if that link will bring you directly to the post - go to "Chat" and the post headed "Cawley" if it doesn't), the hearing collapsed today as Ollie walked away insisting they owed us nothing.
Cawley in limbo as Shels reject €20,000 price tag
ALAN CAWLEY is further away than ever from playing football again, it seems, after a €20,000 price tag was yesterday placed on his head by an Eircom League compensation tribunal.
UCD will be entitled to receive that amount from any club wishing to acquire his services. However, that club won't be Shelbourne, who revealed last night that they had dispensed with the player's services.
It is difficult to see Cawley finding another League club willing to pay such a hefty fee.
Cawley spent two seasons with UCD before signing for Shelbourne, a move which instigated the compensation saga which has blighted the opening of this season's league campaign.
"We're happy that the process has been fulfilled in accordance with the rules," said UCD secretary Dick Shakespeare.
:eek: :eek:
What sort of gobsh!te is Ollie Byrne?!?! Can't bully his way to getting the player, so he goes off in a huff instead! I presume the 20k fee was decided by the tribunal in the end? If so, that means that we're completely in the right. That flag will get a few more outings yet so!
And does that mean that he's technically still one of our players then as we still hold his registration?
I would think that he is technically unattached but anyone who wants him before he's 23 will have to pay us the 20k. I wonder would he come back and play for us for the rest of the season?
Hope he signed a hefty contract with Shels and sues the arse of them himself...
He'd have to sign as an amateur for us (like Seán Finn - presumably 'cos our wages budget is up). Don't know how happy he'd be with that. He should sue either Shels or his agent for loss of income surely?
My thought exactly! :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Dodge
Wonder how it is suing Shels comes so naturally to the mind?! :D
$hels have acted disgracefully in this and I hope Cawley does sue them for whatever wages they would have paid him; surely this would count as an unfair dismissal? They knew, or at the very least were aware of the possibility, that they'd have to pay us money for him and for them to sack (effectively) when told that they have to pay up is appalling.
Speaking to the Irish Sun, Shelbourne chief executive Ollie Byrne said: “It has nothing to do with us. Alan Cawley and UCD have issues between themselves which have to be dealt with and they have no bearing on Shelbourne FC. Alan Cawley has no relationship or contract with Shelbourne FC.”
There's a big contrast between that statment concerning Alan's pre-contract agreement and his actual contract with Shels and Shels' attitude to Ciaran Martyn's pre-contract agreement over the summer.