Fair Play to the FAI

**Longfordian** · 09/01/2009, 5:47 PM

That's not what it says here, mentions "unspecified future payments in 2009":

http://www.eleven-a-side.com/eircoml...ws.asp?n=35459

Why would the players not accept the improved offer, with the future payments guaranteed by the FAI, rather than the original offer?.

**brianw82** · 09/01/2009, 5:48 PM

Oh FFS.

Moderators, PLEASE. Do we need ANOTHER bickering thread?

**pete** · 09/01/2009, 6:17 PM

Drogs website says:

We are pleased to announce that a settlement has been agreed with the players in relation to outstanding monies owed to them by Drogheda United FC. The PFAI has accepted that this offer is in full and final settlement to all players.

That is not very clear as full & final could still mean payments over the next few months. Given statements after the FAI meeting yesterday that sounds more logical?

**HarpoJoyce** · 09/01/2009, 6:25 PM

Originally Posted by Longfordian

That's not what it says here, mentions "unspecified future payments in 2009":

http://www.eleven-a-side.com/eircoml...ws.asp?n=35459

Why would the players not accept the improved offer, with the future payments guaranteed by the FAI, rather than the original offer?.

Originally Posted by pete

Drogs website says:

That is not very clear as full & final could still mean payments over the next few months. Given statements after the FAI meeting yesterday that sounds more logical?

The 'full and final' may refer that the parties can't pursue any more money after the agreement and payment schedule agreed today.

On-topic;
FAI are still cool.

**pete** · 09/01/2009, 6:27 PM

Originally Posted by HarpoJoyce

The 'full and final' may refer that the parties can't pursue any more money after the agreement and payment schedule agreed today.

Last comment on this as don't want to harp

on about it but yes that sounds correct although obviously payments may continue through some of next season.

**Longfordian** · 09/01/2009, 7:06 PM

Yep full and final settlement means they can't come back looking for any more than is agreed to be paid under this deal. Doesn't mean it's a once off payment, not that it really matters.

**pineapple stu** · 09/01/2009, 9:20 PM

Originally Posted by brianw82

Oh FFS.

Moderators, PLEASE. Do we need ANOTHER bickering thread?

If you've a problem with a post, report it. Easiest way.

**higgins** · 10/01/2009, 1:13 AM

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

Can I just point out that the last time you accused me of making up bull was over my comment that Shels are still drawing down funds from Tolka and making losses. Both those comments have been subsequently verified in, respectively, the national press (source Shels) and a website run by a Shels fan (extratime).

Have you ever read "The Boy Who Cried Wolf"?

You're wrong again ..
You said Shels were overspending.
Shels are not overspending!!

I'd explain it to you but if I did you'd ignore the answer and move on to some other crap. Seems like you have a list of tpics there that you just keep running through. Each time they are explained you choose to ignore it.

I've got a lot of unanswered questions on here from you where you just blank the thread when the going gets tough.

**pineapple stu** · 10/01/2009, 12:07 PM

Originally Posted by higgins

You're wrong again ..
You said Shels were overspending.
Shels are not overspending!!

You don't think a 2008 loss of pushing E100k when you've as much debt as you do isn't overspending?

The rest of your post is gibberish. The "tough questions" I "avoided" were confirmed in media reports. I don't see any reason to go back on them. Shels continue to overspend (which I define as making a loss) and to draw down on the sale of Tolka. Why you continue to lie about this is a question you seem happy to avoid.

**HarpoJoyce** · 10/01/2009, 8:28 PM

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

You don't think a 2008 loss of pushing E100k when you've as much debt as you do isn't overspending?

The rest of your post is gibberish. The "tough questions" I "avoided" were confirmed in media reports. I don't see any reason to go back on them. Shels continue to overspend (which I define as making a loss) and to draw down on the sale of Tolka. Why you continue to lie about this is a question you seem happy to avoid.

Making a loss isn't my definition of 'Overspending'.
In a previous post you mentioned that your earlier comments on Shels drawing down were 'previously verified'. But higgins is asking about your comments on 'over-spending'. It's important to get the term right from the beginning otherwise you slander clubs unnecessarily.

**higgins** · 10/01/2009, 8:34 PM

Well said HarpoJoyce.

Stu knows we have debts, Stu doesn't know what the figure for those debts were last year or the year before or the year before.
Stu doesn't know what the figure for those debts are now.

Stu doesn't know a lot about Shels yet he seems happy to let on that he does.

How do you know our loss is pushing 100k ?
You've heard a figure of 70 being mentioned and you've rounded up to 100k have you!! Great system Stu.

Fact is you don't know what the total loss was for Shelbourne this year and you don't know what our debts were before and after the current season.

Without thos figures how can you back up what you're saying ?

**BulmersKid** · 10/01/2009, 8:49 PM

Originally Posted by higgins

Well said HarpoJoyce.

Stu knows we have debts, Stu doesn't know what the figure for those debts were last year or the year before or the year before.
Stu doesn't know what the figure for those debts are now.

Stu doesn't know a lot about Shels yet he seems happy to let on that he does.

How do you know our loss is pushing 100k ?
You've heard a figure of 70 being mentioned and you've rounded up to 100k have you!! Great system Stu.

Fact is you don't know what the total loss was for Shelbourne this year and you don't know what our debts were before and after the current season.

Without thos figures how can you back up what you're saying ?

Now I don't want to be seen to be taking Stus side here but:

If you have existing debt, and then make a loss during the previous season i.e spend more than you earn, How is that not considered Overspending?

**Longfordian** · 10/01/2009, 8:50 PM

Fact is you don't know what the total loss was for Shelbourne this year and you don't know what our debts were before and after the current season.

Without thos figures how can you back up what you're saying ?

It'd be easy enough to get hold of previous years' figures from the CRO wouldn't it?. €2.50 to download the accounts if I remember correctly.

**John83** · 10/01/2009, 9:04 PM

Originally Posted by Longfordian

It'd be easy enough to get hold of previous years' figures from the CRO wouldn't it?. �2.50 to download the accounts if I remember correctly.

I think that whatever way Shels are incorporated or registered, they don't publish those figures.

**higgins** · 10/01/2009, 9:08 PM

If you think it's easy to get hold of the shels debt figures then be my guest ..

Stu assumes that the overall debt has not reduced over recent years.

He has posted that Shels are overspending and yet has no figures for the debts over the last few seasons or the losses made this season.

There was no basis for posting what he posted around 6 months back. Although like the Cawley situation the time has nothing to do with it, he'll link anything together just to confuse things.

**Longfordian** · 10/01/2009, 9:09 PM

Are they not trading as a limited company?. They certainly were at the time of their finanical difficulties, the winding up orders and all that. Accolade Limited. I thought all limited companies had to file accounts at some point?. For the record I don't really care, just curious.

Edit: List of submissions made here. I don't know whether the figures would be on any of these but Shels are definitely trading as Accolade.

http://www.cro.ie/search/submissions...er=106863&BI=C

**John83** · 10/01/2009, 9:26 PM

Originally Posted by Longfordian

Are they not trading as a limited company?. They certainly were at the time of their finanical difficulties, the winding up orders and all that. Accolade Limited. I thought all limited companies had to file accounts at some point?. For the record I don't really care, just curious.

Edit: List of submissions made here. I don't know whether the figures would be on any of these but Shels are definitely trading as Accolade.

http://www.cro.ie/search/submissions...er=106863&BI=C

Yes, Shels are Acolade (and vice versa). I don't know the specifics of why they don't publish those figures, just that they use some exemption. Pineapple Stu can probably be more helpful in that regard.

**pineapple stu** · 11/01/2009, 1:11 AM

Originally Posted by BulmersKid

If you have existing debt, and then make a loss during the previous season i.e spend more than you earn, How is that not considered Overspending?

Exactly. You're in debt, you run up a decent sized loss, and that's not overspending? Nonsense.

Shels don't publish accounts.

**Buile Shuibhne** · 11/01/2009, 9:45 AM

Shels budgeted to lose a modest 70k going into last season which included servicing debts to a number of creditors going back to our implosion.

Not an unusual or unsound business practice.

The shortfall was then made-up by drawing down from our only asset - Tolka Park. Not an ideal situation - but we're surviving and moving on.