A level playing field...

[rerun]

Firstly, I think if Derry were in breach of the rules and this can be proved then DCFC probably got what they deserved, the rules are the rules and all that.

Heard Gavin last night on MNS saying that it was the only course of action was to expel/disqualify/terminate contract of Derry from the league. He went on to say that he didn't think that the practice of double contracts was widespread. Now, I know this is hearsay, but I've seen it mentioned on this board that there are some very well paid groundsmen and barmen in the league, if you know what I mean

So, in order to keep the playing field level, is it not the fairest option for the FAI to request the bank details of all players in the league (there aren't really that many) and look at payments to the players from (a) the club, and/or (b) the company controlling the club. If they match up with the standard players contract, fair enough. If they don't, then the club gets expelled from the league.

[Macy]

This should be on the salary cap poll thread.

The simple solution to your issue around groundsmen and barmen is to expand the 65% rule to all wages for the club, not just playing side. Then it doesn't matter to the FAI.

The players are stupid for agreeing to that though - afaik the tax scheme still applies where they can claim back sporting wages in tax in future years, so it's in their interests long term to maximise the amount of football income they get. Footballers stupid, who'd have thunk it?!

[rerun]

This should be on the salary cap poll thread.

The simple solution to your issue around groundsmen and barmen is to expand the 65% rule to all wages for the club, not just playing side. Then it doesn't matter to the FAI.

The players are stupid for agreeing to that though - afaik the tax scheme still applies where they can claim back sporting wages in tax in future years, so it's in their interests long term to maximise the amount of football income they get. Footballers stupid, who'd have thunk it?!

Does the 65% rule not provide a loophole in that case that needs to be closed, and isn't in this case adequate to expel City?

I see your point regarding using the tax laws to your benefit, but €30K now is worth more than €30K in 20 or so years time. Aside from that, do the same tax rules exist in NI?

[Macy]

Does the 65% rule not provide a loophole in that case that needs to be closed, and isn't in this case adequate to expel City?

There is a bit of difference between using loopholes, and actually having two contracts for the same job. Is whataboutery a legal defence? A bit late in the day to be expecting an even hand from the FAI now with regard to licencing, given the carry on last season.

[pineapple stu]

Just to clarify, cos I'm stupid - were Derry giving second contracts to players to, say, "run the club shop" or "coach the underage teams", or were the second contracts purely relating to extra cash in hand payments?

[rerun]

Did anyone ever say that the contracts were for the same job, and as I mentioned in my initial post, are the contracts not for different jobs, i.e. I'm sure the standard players contract doesn't contain details to cover the work you do in the bar or with a lawnmower. Having two contracts in respect of two different roles might be duplicitous, but I'm not sure that it's illegal.

If City are in the wrong and are reasonably sure that other clubs are up to the same shenanigans, it might be worth their while going to court to get the prize money at least and force a more exhaustive investigation by the FAI. I'm sure the FAI don't want a court battle on their hands that could stop them distributing prize money, or if it drags on, preventing the new season from starting.

[White Horse]

Just to clarify, cos I'm stupid - were Derry giving second contracts to players to, say, "run the club shop" or "coach the underage teams", or were the second contracts purely relating to extra cash in hand payments?

The second contract superceeded the first contract. They were not for "supplemental activities"

Delaney revealed that the association is in possession of at least one player’s bank statements which show that it was the unofficial deal that was being honoured in terms of payments being made.
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/...258483182.html

All the BS from the directors of Derry City will evaporate when players come clean by Thursday. No player is going to run the risk of not being employable next season.

[tiktok]

There may be a point to readjusting the protocol % to cover all wages in a club and not just players. You could have a completely legitimate case where a player is actually fulfilling a second role within a club e.g.. manager, coach, underage coach, CPO.

[pineapple stu]

Did anyone ever say that the contracts were for the same job, and as I mentioned in my initial post, are the contracts not for different jobs, i.e. I'm sure the standard players contract doesn't contain details to cover the work you do in the bar or with a lawnmower. Having two contracts in respect of two different roles might be duplicitous, but I'm not sure that it's illegal.

No-one ever said anything, relax.

From reading the Irish Times article, it seems the players were being paid different amounts to what was being declared by the club, and therefore the monthly accounts were nonsense, and the club were routinely lying to the FAI in their licencing reports. We've no indication as to whether tax was being paid or not on the difference. Maybe I'm still missing something (quite possible), but I think expulsion from the league is a bit harsh for that. Relegation for defrauding licencing maybe, but not necessarily expulsion.

[Nedser]

Maybe I'm still missing something (quite possible), but I think expulsion from the league is a bit harsh for that. Relegation for defrauding licencing maybe, but not necessarily expulsion.

I think the FAI's position is: DCFC fraudulently obtained their licence. As such, their licence was never valid, and they never had any right to be in the league this season. Until such time as they obtain a valid licence, they'll remain out of the league.

Doesn't seem overly harsh to me, assuming the allegations are true of course. If the allegations aren't true, then obviously all bets are off.

[redobit]

Could (or should) the players involved be punished too?

[pineapple stu]

I think the FAI's position is: DCFC fraudulently obtained their licence. As such, their licence was never valid, and they never had any right to be in the league this season.

Thing is, Shamrock Rovers fraudulently obtained their licence in 2005, when they filed 2003 accounts with the year tipp-exed out and replaced. They were docked eight points. Seems a bit of a contradiction. (And yes, it wasn't the FAI-controlled league back then; I don't think that really makes a difference).

[rerun]

No-one ever said anything, relax.

From reading the Irish Times article, it seems the players were being paid different amounts to what was being declared by the club, and therefore the monthly accounts were nonsense, and the club were routinely lying to the FAI in their licencing reports. We've no indication as to whether tax was being paid or not on the difference. Maybe I'm still missing something (quite possible), but I think expulsion from the league is a bit harsh for that. Relegation for defrauding licencing maybe, but not necessarily expulsion.

Intended a question mark after the first statement, I was actually asking

I guess they can always argue that if player A has a standard contract lodged with the FAI for €500p/w and a secondary contract for, ahem, coaching the under 8's for €250p/w, then it may be legitimate for the club to pay €750 to player A's bank account?

That is unless the secondary contract was stupid enough to say that it was in respect of playing for the first team...

[pineapple stu]

I guess they can always argue that if player A has a standard contract lodged with the FAI for €500p/w and a secondary contract for, ahem, coaching the under 8's for €250p/w, then it may be legitimate for the club to pay €750 to player A's bank account?

That is unless the secondary contract was stupid enough to say that it was in respect of playing for the first team...

But then we get to three issues -

1) Is the problem dual contracts for a secondary role within the club, in which case, do we get an investigation into the massive increase in the costs of running Bohs' underage team, for example?
2) Were they kicked out for going over 65%, in which case, do other clubs get the same treatment?
3) Were they kicked out because Delaney got annoyed? In which case, it's going to be a great pre-season.

As I said, relegation is fair enough for, it seems, lying to get a licence, going over 65%, lying on monthly reports, etc. Kicking the club out altogether doesn't seem to tally with what we know, in my opinion.

Edit - actually, I think that's kind of where you're going with your opening post, in fairness.

[Ezeikial]

Thing is, Shamrock Rovers fraudulently obtained their licence in 2005, when they filed 2003 accounts with the year tipp-exed out and replaced. They were docked eight points. Seems a bit of a contradiction. (And yes, it wasn't the FAI-controlled league back then; I don't think that really makes a difference).

One can reasonably argue that there is no moral difference, but by the same token the current league operators (FAI) should not be bound by the precedents set by their forerunners. If it was recognised that the league required a new controlling body, surely at least part of the reason was due to dissatisfaction with the previous regime

[Martinho II]

From the sheet of paper that John Delaney showed to Tony O'Donoghue the contract belonged to a certain Sporting Fingal goalie on loan from Derry City.. Wouldnt you think that the name of the player could have greyed out? It revealed what the player was on which was appox 500-600 a wk

[pineapple stu]

One can reasonably argue that there is no moral difference, but by the same token the current league operators (FAI) should not be bound by the precedents set by their forerunners. If it was recognised that the league required a new controlling body, surely at least part of the reason was due to dissatisfaction with the previous regime

All that does, though, is to answer my question of "Why throw Derry out of the league entirely rather than just relegate them?" by saying "Why not?"

[gufct]

syu I thought you above all of us mere mortals would have actually read the statements or listened to the interviews. The FAI have explained all along that they couldnt relagate Derry under their rules so the only option was to terminate their contract and they have left the door open for Derry to reapply for entry to the 1st division.

The implication is that the double contracts had been the norm in Derry for years under Jim Roddys regime and the current board took over the contrcts when they assumed control. The biggest problem for Derry,Their employees & Pat McDaid in particular is that their will be almost definitely an audit by HMRC and for their southern based players by our own Revenue Commissioners which could lead to a massive Tax Bill even if they go back just 6 years.

Derry will not want to go to court and you can be sure that all the players will own up now.

[pineapple stu]

syu I thought you above all of us mere mortals would have actually read the statements or listened to the interviews. The FAI have explained all along that they couldnt relagate Derry under their rules so the only option was to terminate their contract and they have left the door open for Derry to reapply for entry to the 1st division.

(a) I don't recall seeing that anywhere from the FAI, though I may well be wrong of course; is there anywheres in particular it was said?
(b) I thought that licencing essentially allows the FAI the ability to make up punishments as they go along and
(c) If not, that's a really silly arrangement by the FAI, and I'd still argue a points deduction equating to relegation would have been a more appropriate punishment, which brings us back to square one.

[EalingGreen]

All that does, though, is to answer my question of "Why throw Derry out of the league entirely rather than just relegate them?" by saying "Why not?"

Perhaps the FAI are saying that had DCFC been open and honest about the true state of their finances, they would never have qualified for a Licence in the first place.
Therefore they have now been disqualified from holding their Licence.
Which may explain the curious construction used by Delaney about next season i.e. the FAI will see whether they might play in the First Division next season. In other words, if there is a suitable entity from Derry (Wellvan? Some other Group?), they may apply for a new Licence (assuming they meet the qualifying criteria).

If the above is correct, this would distinguish them from eg Cork or Bohs, in that those clubs presumably did qualify for a valid Licence at the start of the season and if they have subsequently broken certain Rules, then the range of punishments includes fines, points docking or relegation etc, rather than disqualification?