What the FAI thinks of progressive clubs:

[Macy]

Or maybe they wanted to get it all out in the open rather than have people accusing them later of cancelling coz they were in talks with them.

If the FAI are in no more than "talks" then there should be no impediment to Limerick playing them. Apart from bitterness about Limerick beating them to the agreement.

Even if the FAI have a binding agreement, what does it say about the organisation that it's financial plans are based on pimping out their time in the stadium to foreign clubs who's long term aim is to take money out of Irish football?

[osarusan]

but it can't take away from the fact that there are agreements and obligations binding upon all concerned, bar Barcelona, which prevent this match from occurring.

Without you knowing what the third-party commerical agreement is (and Fran Gavin refused to say what it was), I don't see how you can believe that post.

i just fail to see your logic - which appears to be that the FAI, who are simply unable to allow this game to go ahead because of a third-party contract (and thus have a watertight reason for not approving it) decide to supplement this watertight reason with two farcical reasons which are immediately discredited. And the FAI are doing this to make themselves appear better in the eyes of the domestic footballing public?

[Lim till i die]

The FAI don't want any marquee games going on outside the big white elephant they can't afford to pay for.

Feel free to bring over your Hulls and your Wolves and your Trabzonspors and take a hit on them but a Barcelona?!

By jesus they have a stadium to be paying for!!

That FAI statement is PR spoof

[harps1954]

Slow down lads, do we know what was in the participation agreement ? No we dont.

You can download if from the LOI website here: http://www.airtricityleague.com/inde...tion-agreement

[DannyInvincible]

Have you not read the FAI statement?

I already read the statement and clearly seem to have interpreted it very differently from yourself, which, I feel, is reasonable enough, given the fact that we don't know the full details of these "third-party agreements". Anything other than that is speculation. None of us are aware of the full facts here. You seem to assert that such agreements don't exist, in spite of what the FAI has claimed, whereas I just don't see the FAI - for all their pettiness, skullduggery and incompetence - outright lying to the public. That's the crux of it, from what I can make out. You seem to believe they are lying to us?

What they are saying in Point 2 is that, because the FAI are trying to bring Barca to Ireland, it has influenced their decision. What other reason apart from income could be for that?

You're assuming it was a decision they were able to make in the absence of claimed pre-existing agreements.

But Barcelona playing a game in Thomond wouldn't necessarily have nullified the prospect of Barcelona playing in Lansdowne as part of some FAI jamboree. This is clear seeing as Barcelona are considering playing a game in Dublin, and had been even when they'd already agreed to play in Limerick.

Slow down lads, do we know what was in the participation agreement ? No we dont.

But if Limerick are "obliged to retain ownership of the July 31 date because of Airtricity League fixtures", then it must be part of some agreement to which Limerick are party. There are no obligations without consent.

Without you knowing what the third-party commerical agreement is (and Fran Gavin refused to say what it was), I don't see how you can believe that post.

i just fail to see your logic - which appears to be that the FAI, who are simply unable to allow this game to go ahead because of a third-party contract (and thus have a watertight reason for not approving it) decide to supplement this watertight reason with two farcical reasons which are immediately discredited. And the FAI are doing this to make themselves appear better in the eyes of the domestic footballing public?

Who knows? I'm resigned to having to speculate on its content, as is everyone else, which makes our individual interpretations of what was said as reasonable or unreasonable ("logical" or "illogical") as the next depending on your own perspective. I'm prepared to take their word for it that there is a third-party agreement in place that prevents this game from taking place because I just can't envisage the FAI officially lying to the public. Benefit of the doubt, good faith, innocent until proven guilty, and all that... If I'm wrong, I'll happily hold my hands up, but I genuinely feel that this is one line the FAI just wouldn't stoop so low to cross. It would be a help though if the nature of the agreement was disclosed, to the satisfaction of Limerick at least.

I'd rather not get bogged down in any further speculation though. I certainly don't disagree with the sentiment of anger here and feel that the FAI should be transparent and explain the exact nature of these "third-party agreements". Likewise, they should be helping Limerick find a solution or way around the apparent obstacles.

[Lim till i die]

You can download if from the LOI website here: http://www.airtricityleague.com/inde...tion-agreement

I stopped reading around here:

5.5.10 A Committee Member shall be removed / disqualified by the FAI Board if:-

(ii) he becomes of unsound mind;

(v) his conduct generally renders him unfit to hold the office he holds.

[DannyInvincible]

The FAI don't want any marquee games going on outside the big white elephant they can't afford to pay for.

Feel free to bring over your Hulls and your Wolves and your Trabzonspors and take a hit on them but a Barcelona?!

By jesus they have a stadium to be paying for!!

That FAI statement is PR spoof

I'm not convinced by that argument at all. It just doesn't add up. No-one has, so far, been able to convincingly explain how Barcelona playing in Thomond would actually cost the FAI anything that bringing over Hull, Wolves or Trabzonspor wouldn't cost them. Sure, they'll have nothing to gain from it either, but it doesn't mean they'll lose out from it, so why would Limerick drawing a windfall be an issue for them? Unless, of course, Barcelona would have refused to play in Lansdowne due to their agreement with Limerick, but that doesn't appear to be the case seeing as they were already in talks with the FAI and have been considering it since before the FAI failed to sanction the game in Thomond Park. I suppose you could say the negotiations might have hit a snag and Barca were expressing reluctance to visit given they'd already promised a date in Ireland, but, once again, that would just be speculation.

[Mr A]

The participation agreement on friendlies:

Friendly Matches
19.14 No Participant Club can arrange any match without the prior written consent of the League Director. Such
permission granted is for the playing of the match only. Where the televising of the match, either live or
delayed in any form or media outlet is concerned, an application, in writing, for such permission is also
required to be made by the Participant Club to the League Director for his consideration. The Director
shall notify the Participant Club of his decision in writing.
22
19.14.1 Permission for Friendly Matches is given on the strict understanding that the Participant Club is
able to fulfil its competitive fixture schedule.
19.14.2 Entitlements to the FAI for Friendly Matches are outlined in Rule 6 of Schedule Three
(Commercial Rules) of this Participation Agreement.
19.14.3 No Participant Club shall allow its ground to be used for any football related activity within the
Competitive Season without the prior written consent of the League Director.
19.14.4 All applications for friendly matches and / or football related activities must be made in writing
to the League Director at least five (5) days in advance of the fixture/ football related activity.

And some more, the commercial bit referred to above:

6 Tickets and Hospitality
6.1 Participant Clubs shall provide the following tickets and hospitality opportunities to the FAI for all
matches in which Participant Clubs partake within the jurisdiction of the FAI:
6.1.1 One hundred (100) match tickets. This shall include the following:
6.1.2 Twenty five (25) Directors Box matches tickets.
6.1.3 Twenty five (25) VIP Hospitality passes.
6.1.4 Twenty five (25) VIP Car Park passes.
6.1.5 Twenty five (25) Ordinary Car Park passes (i.e. up to 50 car park passes in total).
6.2 Participant Clubs shall provide the FAI and/or League Sponsor, on request, the use of any facilities
available at the ground of the club before and after League matches for hospitality use. The Sponsor
and/or FAI will be responsible for the cost of any catering, or food and beverage costs in connection with
such use.
6.3 Each Participant Club shall fly the National League flag at each League match. The flag shall be issued to all
Clubs by the League Department prior to the commencement of each season.

Not massively illuminating to the issue at hand though!

[pineapple stu]

So there's actually no reason at all not to grant permission, unless Limerick have to play a postponed game on the 31 July and won't be able to play an any single other scheduled league day?

[osarusan]

No-one has, so far, been able to convincingly explain how Barcelona playing in Thomond would actually cost the FAI anything that bringing over Hull, Wolves or Trabzonspor wouldn't cost them. Sure, they'll have nothing to gain from it either, but it doesn't mean they'll lose out from it, so why would Limerick drawing a windfall be an issue for them?

Because if Limerick played them first, it would take the gloss off (and perhaps lead to less than a full house) any subsequent friendly arranged by the FAI.

[Jofspring]

Ya from what i can make out it is saying it must not interfere with a League of Ireland fixture that Limerick are playing in, which this game would not affect. Limerick would be able to fulfil its competitive fixture schedule.

[passinginterest]

What are the odds the FAI are actually negotiating with Barcelona to play Manchester United in their beloved "Aviva" seeing as the League 11 v Man U is fixed at a similar time? That'd be some kick in the face for Limerick.

[PartySaint]

Because if Limerick played them first, it would take the gloss off (and perhaps lead to less than a full house) any subsequent friendly arranged by the FAI.

And it would mean that little Limerick FC would be able to do what the FAI coldnt do and thats get a full house at Thomand Park

[Dunny]

Awful image...

[Jofspring]

Awful image...

It should be on the back page of every paper in the country.

[**FrOsTy**]

Haven't the time nor patience to go through all the pages here but from what I read on page 1 it seems to me that the FAI are afraid that people won't go to thier W*ankfest against Man Utd a few days later.

[DannyInvincible]

I stopped reading around here:

Believe it or not, "unsound mind" is actually a recognised legal term used to describe someone who is not fit for trial. Presumably, it would entail a mental assessment of the individual in question.

Because if Limerick played them first, it would take the gloss off (and perhaps lead to less than a full house) any subsequent friendly arranged by the FAI.

Quite possible, I suppose. But we still can't be entirely sure as to whether the FAI had a choice in the matter or not due to this "third-party commercial agreement" claim, even if they wouldn't really have liked the idea of it going ahead. I wonder who the FAI are lining up as Barca's opponents...

[seand]

It beggars belief. Whatever thoughts I had of going to the Algeria/Paraguay games have gone out the window and I will let the FAI know why... for all the good it'll do.

[D.24saint]

It beggars belief. Whatever thoughts I had of going to the Algeria/Paraguay games have gone out the window and I will let the FAI know why... for all the good it'll do.

your spot on all LOI fans should boycott those games out of solidarity plus I dont fancy giving money to Johnny Boy and his henchmen

[KevB76]

You can download if from the LOI website here: http://www.airtricityleague.com/inde...tion-agreement

Thanks.

A quick scan through reveals;

3. Commercial Contracts
3.6 Where there is a conflict between an FAI contract and a new commercial contract entered into by a club then the FAI contract shall prevail
3.7 The FAI may inform participant clubs of the relevant terms and obligations of commercial contracts entered into by the FAI which may have an effect on new commercial contracts proposed to be entereed into by a club

Sounds to me they're using 3.6 as a reason, but this begs the question why dont they comply with 3.7 and tell the club what the exact conflict is.