2009 Licensing - Where the clubs stand (from Indo)

**The Lilywhites** · 30/01/2009, 5:43 AM

From: http://www.independent.ie/sport/socc...d-1620299.html

Bohemians
Recently expressed concern that they may not be able to sign any players for the 2009 season after a rejected budget from the Licensing department. However, Bohemians have exploded back onto the market after the contracted staff, led by manager Pat Fenlon, took a wage cut, while new signings will increase the potential of extra revenue through trophy success and gate receipts and further ease budgetary concerns.

Bray Wanderers
No outstanding issues.

Cork City
Money owed to two players is expected to be paid by tomorrow. Alan Mathews is still owed a significant five-figure sum and the Football Managers Association of Ireland is keeping a close eye on licensing proceedings. "It is money that is due, which has not been paid and I expect it to be dealt with by licensing," said FMAI officer Dermot Keely.

Derry City
No outstanding issues.

Drogheda United
As stated in main article. http://www.independent.ie/sport/othe...e-1620404.html

Dundalk
Schedule of re-laying of new synthetic pitch required for License committee, while small fee owed to a former player expected to be paid off by tomorrow.

Galway United
Small issue over owed bonuses to one player expected to be resolved by tomorrow, while previous monies owed to players have been meticulously dealt with.

Shamrock Rovers
No outstanding issues.

Sligo Rovers
Had one budget rejected, but returned to LOI finance director Padraig Smith with a new one, which has been accepted. No other issues.

St Patrick's Athletic
Still in negotiations with certain players over 7.5pc pay-cut. Conclusion expected and required to be reached by tomorrow.

First Division clubs in severe danger of being refused licences:

Athlone Town (owe approx €24,000 wages and negotiations are ongoing), Cobh Ramblers (owe €41,000 wages) and Waterford United.

**noby** · 30/01/2009, 7:29 AM

How come Waterford United are the only ones there without any reason given?

**adamd164** · 30/01/2009, 8:02 AM

Had heard Mathews won't accept just his back wages from examinership period from us - demanding next two years' worth as well.

If that's the case, then it's a dispute for the courts to settle, not the licensing committee. The LC cannot rule that a man was unfairly dismissed - it's not their jurisdiction. They'd actually be impeding due process.

Have to laugh at Keely expressing outrage though - possibly the single person with most to gain if clubs are demoted.

garyderry · 30/01/2009, 8:55 AM

Originally Posted by adamd164

Had heard Mathews won't accept just his back wages from examinership period from us - demanding next two years' worth as well.

If that's the case, then it's a dispute for the courts to settle, not the licensing committee. The LC cannot rule that a man was unfairly dismissed - it's not their jurisdiction. They'd actually be impeding due process.

Have to laugh at Keely expressing outrage though - possibly the single person with most to gain if clubs are demoted.

surely the back pay is all the licensing can deal with, if you dont pay that or come up with an agreement you can get a licience?

**adamd164** · 30/01/2009, 8:58 AM

The backpay isn't this 'five figure sum' that the Indo are on about though - that's his wages for the next two years.

Our position is that he was not unfairly dismissed and so that we do not owe him anything other than his backpay for the examinership period.

As I say, the licensing committee can't make rulings on that, it'll be brought before the labour courts. They are legally obliged to remain neutral on it.

**Dodge** · 30/01/2009, 9:09 AM

He had a contract and was dismissed without warning. He's without doubt entitled to the money he was due to receive.

If you say he wasn't dismissed unfairly, Cork will have to prove that his dismissal was warrented,a dn that they followed all the steps necessary to dismiss him (usually in the shape of warnings or notice)

**micls** · 30/01/2009, 9:09 AM

Originally Posted by adamd164

The backpay isn't this 'five figure sum' that the Indo are on about though - that's his wages for the next two years.

Our position is that he was not unfairly dismissed and so that we do not owe him anything other than his backpay for the examinership period.

As I say, the licensing committee can't make rulings on that, it'll be brought before the labour courts. They are legally obliged to remain neutral on it.

The backpay is a five figure sum 70k. But it seems he wont except that without the rest of the money(nearly 300k) or something like that

**charliesboots** · 30/01/2009, 9:10 AM

Originally Posted by adamd164

The backpay isn't this 'five figure sum' that the Indo are on about though - that's his wages for the next two years.

Our position is that he was not unfairly dismissed and so that we do not owe him anything other than his backpay for the examinership period.

As I say, the licensing committee can't make rulings on that, it'll be brought before the labour courts. They are legally obliged to remain neutral on it.

They are in their ******** - if that was the case then the licensing committee couldn't make a decision on outstanding payments to players unless they were over two years old as there could possibly be a legal case.

Best to have a look at your participation agreement.

**adamd164** · 30/01/2009, 9:14 AM

Originally Posted by micls

The backpay is a five figure sum 70k. But it seems he wont except that without the rest of the money(nearly 300k) or something like that

Mother of jesus, but wasn't he on a healthy wage!?

Anyway, no doubt it'll be an interesting few weeks ahead if the LC are going to try to determine whether or not we had a right to sack him.

**micls** · 30/01/2009, 9:18 AM

Originally Posted by adamd164

Mother of jesus, but wasn't he on a healthy wage!?

Anyway, no doubt it'll be an interesting few weeks ahead if the LC are going to try to determine whether or not we had a right to sack him.

Id imagine that includes bonuses etc.

70k isnt exact but i think its somewhere in that region

**Dodge** · 30/01/2009, 9:22 AM

Originally Posted by adamd164

Anyway, no doubt it'll be an interesting few weeks ahead if the LC are going to try to determine whether or not we had a right to sack him.

They'll do no such thing. If you sack him, he's still entitled to the money he's due.

**adamd164** · 30/01/2009, 9:29 AM

You're telling me that if a club claims it sacked an employee with good reason then the licensing committee demand that you still pay everything they would have been due to receive?

So if Jeff Kenna was found to be involved in a major match fixing scandal and Pats sacked him as a result then the licensing committee would force you to pay him the remainder of his contract?

**pineapple stu** · 30/01/2009, 9:32 AM

I think DOdge's point is that (a) there was no such reason and (b) if there were, the proper steps weren't taken.

**adamd164** · 30/01/2009, 9:35 AM

Hold on - that's a circular argument. We are making the claim to the LC that we had good reason to sack him and intend to take it all the way to the courts.
Now on the one hand you're saying the LC won't make a ruling on it, but on the other that we didn't have a good reason?

As for proper steps being taken - do either of you have the foggiest about how it was handled? Of course Mathews will say proper steps weren't taken, same as the club will say they were.

**The Lilywhites** · 30/01/2009, 9:38 AM

Originally Posted by noby

How come Waterford United are the only ones there without any reason given?

Simple - because there is no problem at Waterford. I'd expect a statement from the club soon.

**Macy** · 30/01/2009, 9:47 AM

Originally Posted by adamd164

Mother of jesus, but wasn't he on a healthy wage!?

I thought everyone in the league knew that Matthews had a very decent job so it would take a good wage for him to go full time. Cork offered him enough to give up the day job, and now are welching on the agreement, so he's dead right to use every avenue possible, including licencing.

**noby** · 30/01/2009, 9:53 AM

Originally Posted by The Lilywhites

Simple - because there is no problem at Waterford. I'd expect a statement from the club soon.

That's what I presumed.

**pineapple stu** · 30/01/2009, 9:54 AM

Originally Posted by adamd164

Hold on - that's a circular argument. We are making the claim to the LC that we had good reason to sack him and intend to take it all the way to the courts.
Now on the one hand you're saying the LC won't make a ruling on it, but on the other that we didn't have a good reason?

Fair point.

**adamd164** · 30/01/2009, 9:54 AM

Originally Posted by Macy

I thought everyone in the league knew that Matthews had a very decent job so it would take a good wage for him to go full time. Cork offered him enough to give up the day job, and now are welching on the agreement, so he's dead right to use every avenue possible, including licencing.

Good luck to him.

I know we're confident the LC are gonna grant the license, so people can huff and puff to kingdom come tbh.