Printable View
The licencing office at the FAI seem to be taking a new line with the process this year.
To be fair they seem proactive and adamant to helping clubs tackle issues early and that surely will help.
The process will have to improve though in terms of timing surely licences need to be handed out at least 2-3 months before league commences not 2 or 3 weeks as happens in some appeal cases
Almost definitely shafting Limerick *shakes fist*Quote:
Originally Posted by geezer
Strongish rumours of a Galway saviour appearing in the event of Boez death actually.
http://www.balls.ie/wp-content/uploa...10/delaney.jpg
"Free licenses for all!....except Limerick"
I know from our point of view, licencing will most likely be a very close call.
You would think the majority of clubs will also struggle to get a licence in reality.
The only saviour around for Galway United are our fans, Some of the Lims fans present last friday witnessed that.
Gufc will participate in the process and try to overcome any of the issues.
The club will gladly participate in any division next season
Despite losing 23 games on the trot at home and against the likes of Cockhill Celtic nearly 1400 galwegians came to Terryland last friday night. Double the crowd that was in Monaghan. The club is not being run by one man band self interested individuals for the last year and the club hasnt run away from its debts.
There is an appetite for the club in Galway still despite the constant relegation battles and mismanagement even the FAI could see that last friday.
But we have to get real in Terryland, a focus on a real fully functioning football club has to continue
into next season in whatever division we participate in.
Please let there be some sense used so that the fixtures aren't released before the licence decisions- last season was a farce in that regard. It would be great if the licences could be sorted earlier (but as Sam said I think there will be too many clubs on the verge for this to happen). There shouldn't be any more situations where clubs that had played by the rules (like Bray and Monaghan) get shafted because of the decisions being made so late on.
Sure they cant fail us all........Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam_Heggy
Will be interesting to see how many of the ex-A Championship teams apply for the First Division. Tralee are definitely applying and Cobh look to be doing the same despite some off-field problems, no word from Carlow or Fanad. As I said in the Cobh forum, the four clubs would have until November 30th to meet the criteria, whether they would be given any provisional word before February remains unknown.
I would like to see Cobh back and Tralee in too. wouldn't mind salthill staying either.
They obviously aren't the most glamourous trips but going to Galway for 3 teams, Cobh and Tralee are all handy travel wise. Waterford too.
Hmmm.....perfectly set up for a Southern Division :O
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam_Heggy
Refuse Harps a licence, bump Longford up into the Premier, jobs a good un. :good:Quote:
Originally Posted by Jofspring
call for information from foot.ie licence manual experts
Under licensing rules we have found a weak piece, something that could hurt any club if it doesnt go unchecked. The biggest issue for clubs is "footballing debts" the interpretation of this seems to be clear, you would presume it means managers, coaching staff of course players, Technical staff, Physio etc to protect those in the game.
In our case we have the situation where a director (not a football director) has put his claim last year under "footballing debt" made a payment arrangement with himself and lodged it all under licencing under "football debts" with no back up but has it acknowledged from the club which was under the total control of the licence officer and controlled by the same individual that it was a valid "footballing debt" and its automatically accepted by the licence process. No appeals, no comeback no cross checking even for someone in such control. Now the LOI is notorious for having clubs being run by one man bands so this it seems is a danger to all the people at clubs like genuine football staff the very ones the process is supposed to protect
This could be a danger for all clubs if any ceo sticks in a claim and can hold everyone to ransom a year later. Does anyone here have experience of this.
Nick Leeson was caught to pay the wages out of his own wad a few times basically??
That's what happened this year.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dunny
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lim till i die
Its not about any individuals, Its the process im interested in, a debate on the understanding of some of the finer points of licence among supporters is a useful debate to engage in. Constitutions of countrys change, Audits consistently result in change management and improvement in many private & public companies.
Fair enough, I was just making the point that if a director loaned a club money to pay the wages it's probably fair enough for this to be classed as a footballing debt.....
There's very little to be gained from a debate on the clarity or otherwise of the licensing process, call a spade a spade we all know what licensing is, a useful stick for the FAI to beat any club with should they so choose.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lim till i die
I do believe it is an independent process, i used to have my doubts but that was ignorance on my part. The Licence office itself is on its game, pro active, looking to help as opposed to just measure.
As the landscape changes over the next 15, 20 years with the make up of who runs clubs changes, fans will have to seek to understand where the rules come from, who made them up, are they appropriate to changing times. do they need updating, What is the purpose of them etc, does it work etc etc
Genuine question, do the licencing committee work closely with the clubs to make sure everything is in order or is it up to the clubs to adhere to the conditions set out end of story?Quote:
Originally Posted by geezer
If the committe does work with the clubs and help them out and the clubs still don't manage to meet the licencing criteria well then the clubs only have themselves to blame really
I find it hard to believe though that the licencing committee are totally independent of the FAI though. I still think asking Pat O Sullivan to put money in the account last year to gaurantee the years wages was a joke and it was basically a way of the FAI saying, you screw with us (Barcelona case), we will screw with you, which backfired of course as he had it in the same day. If this was the Licencing committees order then surely all clubs should have had to ensure the same thing and not just one club. I know people will say they didn't want another Sporting Fingal (one man at the top) but I think that is an easy excuse for the FAI to come out with. All clubs entered into contracts with players and i'm sure plenty of clubs which much higher budgets than ours so it shouldn't be one rule for one club and another for everyone else.
[QUOTE=Jofspring;1550765]Genuine question, do the licencing committee work closely with the clubs to make sure everything is in order or is it up to the clubs to adhere to the conditions set out end of story?
If the committe does work with the clubs and help them out and the clubs still don't manage to meet the licencing criteria well then the clubs only have themselves to blame really
They are definitely being way more pro active trying to help, The licence office are probably the most professional dept in the fai, excellent professional people there.
THE thing is they are obviously following a template and they are by the book yet helping clubs in every way possible to get over the line. What I am trying to fathom is where the book comes from i would have presumed uefa, but this year seemingly the "infrastructure" aspect has been taking out of licencing and is now with the FAI so they are looking after that. This is a massive change , infrastructure was probably 20% of the licence. We spent a fortune this year addressing the local FA debt mostly because we could try and protect access to the infrastucture of Terryland, This was our top priority now the goalposts seem to be moved probably to help clubs, if this huge element is moved out of licencing perhaps we would have been better directing them funds at other creditors other than infrastructure related ones.
Can other elements be moved out, I do believe the football ones are important to protect the people playing, coaching, physios etc
so back to my point, where does the manual originate from, can huge swathes be "taken out" by the governing body, why would this be done? was it safety over the bray wall episode,
is it to ensure some clubs can come up easier, I have often wonder who dreamed up you had to have 3000 seats when your club wouldnt get 3000 in a game only once every 8 years
This is a big debate, im all for licencing to help continuous improvement, but not to add unnecessary cost or blindly direct supporters hard got funds down the wrong gulley or on ring rusty seats that look nice on mns, because the licence manual changed without detailed flagging to those who participate in the process
Like any auditor (and i have been involved in corporate audits and compliance for 15 years) independent bodies or auditors of any process will only approve on the process provided or in this case whats on the manual provided.
Take this season gone.Quote:
Originally Posted by geezer
Bohs got a Premier licence.
So did yourselves. :bulgy:
So did Athlone. :bulgy: :bulgy:
Limerick meanwhile had to lodge eleventy million euro in an account before they got their first licence.
I've a fair idea of the ins and outs of licencing and I still think it would be a bit naieve (sp??) to consider it a fully independent process.
Rubberbandits?
Being extremely generous, it could be that the standards are so wishy washy that it is a flawed processQuote:
Originally Posted by geezer
I actually would think the opposite - more clubs are now being run in a sustainable manner. The money's down and clubs are brassic, but there doesn't appear to be the same "spend it and they will come" attitude that prevailed in previous years, imho.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam_Heggy