What the FAI thinks of progressive clubs:

**Jicked** · 17/05/2010, 12:14 AM

I'd hazard a guess that the third party the FAI have the deal with is Aviva. Probably part of the naming rights deal that all big football games over a certain presumed attendance would be held there for the next 20 years.

Which raises yet another interesting question...if a LoI side qualified for the Champions League group stages, the chances are they'd move the games to Lansdowne to get in bigger crowds, as well as the licencing issues. But does this third party deal mean that the FAI are contractually obliged to demand clubs move their games to their stadium before sanctioning them?

Surely FIFA/UEFA must have some rules governing this type of carry on.

**DannyInvincible** · 17/05/2010, 1:28 AM

Just listened to the interview. What a truly arrogant man. There's a lot worse I could use than "man", only it'd be censored on me. It's a shame he was allowed to feel so at home and comfortable. No penetration at all. At times, it was like a jovial discussion between two friends who hadn't seen each other in a few months. He was allowed to smugly rest on his laurels once he mentioned that there were third-party agreements in place which legally prevented the FAI from authorising certain games in Ireland. As if that explained everything satisfactorily or the agreements were something the FAI couldn't have avoided entering into in the first place. Just because they already exist and there's nothing that can be done about them now doesn't make them excusable or beyond criticism. Questions must still be asked of them to get to the bottom of their nature.

Why wasn't he asked the purpose/details behind these arrangements, with whom they were arranged, who stood to benefit and why the FAI signed up to them in the first place? Also, were the clubs aware of these secretive agreements that clearly directly impinge upon them? He should be begging for mercy by the end of any interview he's involved in right now given what has gone on this past week within Irish football. The last thing he should have the audacity to be doing is to be casually joking about trivialities and non-issues like being asked for Ireland tickets by a priest or something (?) who sent him home from hurling training ten years earlier for wearing an Ireland "soccer" jersey. Sweet Jesus. There are plenty of questions that still could do with an answer. Are Finnucane and Delaney buddies? He needs to be challenged by someone who has an in-depth understanding of the pressing issues here and someone who is acutely aware of what needs to be dragged out from the murky corridors of Abbotstown and into the public spotlight.

I'm puzzled as to how clubs can arrange certain friendlies but not others.

**DannyInvincible** · 17/05/2010, 2:36 AM

This, his "explanation" pretty much, from the story on RT� doesn't answer anything we don't already know:

Speaking on the Marian Finucane programme on RT� Radio on Sunday morning, Delaney said:

'We would have a relationship (with an agency) in terms of the organisation of friendlies coming into Ireland.

'There are certain games we can grant and there are certain games we can't in terms of attendance figures.'

'I think Limerick have acted very naively in the whole situation.

'Noel Mooney (FAI official) spoke to the owner of Limerick on Friday and explained that we couldn't grant the game.'

'We're contractually obliged to other people. I would love the game to be played in Limerick.'

There's nothing remotely revelatory about it - we've been well aware of these "third-party commercial agreements" for a few days now - bar, maybe, some vague and unclear mention of something to do with attendance figures. Presumably, friendlies which will host an attendance above a certain capacity must fall within the realm of these third-party agreements then? Still no justification of them offered, mind. When people are asking why the game can't go ahead, they're not asking to be reminded of a vague third-party commercial agreement. They want details. They want to know exactly how and why - not if, seeing as we already know of its existence - a third-party agreement is preventing Limerick from organising a friendly against Barcelona. Why should a third party be dictating what friendlies over a certain attendance can occur in this country?

And if he'd love these types of games to be going ahead, then I can't quite understand what he was doing getting into agreements with parties unrelated to the clubs that would prevent the FAI from sanctioning these games due to stipulations that are quite obviously specifically designed to directly impede club independence and autonomy.

**MariborKev** · 17/05/2010, 7:26 AM

Times reporting this morning that Limerick are taking legal advice on Delaney's comments.

**poster** · 17/05/2010, 7:47 AM

Newstalk reporting Athlone have applied for a friendly with Real Madrid.

**bennocelt** · 17/05/2010, 7:55 AM

Originally Posted by poster

Newstalk reporting Athlone have applied for a friendly with Real Madrid.

Seriously? Jesus I love this league.................

**HammerNThongs** · 17/05/2010, 8:12 AM

Originally Posted by bennocelt

Seriously? Jesus I love this league.................

Same here...but following it is horrific sometimes

**thischarmingman** · 17/05/2010, 8:25 AM

Originally Posted by poster

Newstalk reporting Athlone have applied for a friendly with Real Madrid.

I love LOI.

**Ash** · 17/05/2010, 8:34 AM

Get it right ... Madrid applied for a freindly against Athlone

After all, we are bigger than Barca!

**Mr A** · 17/05/2010, 8:54 AM

This has to be one of the most bizarre episodes in LOI history- and that's fecking saying something. The most plausible theory so far is that there is some agreement in place that friendly matches over a certain attendance have to be at the Aviva.

But what is the magic number? If Limerick drop the ticket sales by a few thousand could they go ahead with the game?

And what is the exact situation regarding friendlies? One of the major benefits envisaged for our new stadium is the ability to host big friendlies and other events- are there agreements we should know about before even thinking of that?

**MariborKev** · 17/05/2010, 9:21 AM

http://www.independent.ie/sport/socc...1-2182496.html

At least the tide is turning on the FAI.

**OneRedArmy** · 17/05/2010, 9:35 AM

So, effectively clubs will be prohibited from organising big-name friendlies with attendences over 20,000 for their own benefit until the FAI don't need the money any more. Which, if you believe the rumours about the finances, could be another 100 years.

The 20,000 figure is interesting, as that effectively limits it to games using the Aviva or Thomond. So in reality, Limerick are probably inadvertent losers here. That said, it also takes the option of an other LoI club looking to use the Aviva for a friendly off the table (unless of course they fancy donating all the money to the J Delaney Stadium Charity).

Messy situation all round, with the FAI handling with their usual Mr. Bean-like PR skills.

Despite all of the above, the clubs ceded overwhelming control to the FAI when they signed the participation agreement. The increased prize money has to come from somewhere.

**passinginterest** · 17/05/2010, 9:42 AM

So if Limerick agree to cap the attendance at 20,000 there's nothing to stop the game going ahead? Platinum One managed to make money from the Madrid v Rovers game with a 10,000 capacity, you'd imagine doubling that should make Barca v Limerick profitable if it's marketed correctly.

**Mr A** · 17/05/2010, 9:43 AM

So could Limerick make this game work with 19999 people paying in I wonder?

Edit: If it does cost €1,000,000 to get Barcelona, as the FAI say, it's hard to see how they would. Even at 26,500 it would not be easy.

**Jofspring** · 17/05/2010, 9:48 AM

and if the above is the case could the FAI not have used their heads (i know i know, its nearly impossible for them to do that) and say to Limerick to decrease the capacity and the game could go ahead instead of sending a 3 line fax saying that other games are on that night so they can't play it.

**OneRedArmy** · 17/05/2010, 9:59 AM

Originally Posted by Jofspring

and if the above is the case could the FAI not have used their heads (i know i know, its nearly impossible for them to do that) and say to Limerick to decrease the capacity and the game could go ahead instead of sending a 3 line fax saying that other games are on that night so they can't play it.

.......and how would the FAI make money out of that situation?

**Jofspring** · 17/05/2010, 10:02 AM

Originally Posted by OneRedArmy

.......and how would the FAI make money out of that situation?

Can't argue with that...

**Youths4Ever** · 17/05/2010, 10:12 AM

'We also got correspondence from Barcelona last week saying they had not agreed to the game in Limerick at this stage. '

have Barca agreed to game or this piece from the rte article incorrect.

**Jofspring** · 17/05/2010, 10:31 AM

Originally Posted by Youths4Ever

'We also got correspondence from Barcelona last week saying they had not agreed to the game in Limerick at this stage. '

have Barca agreed to game or this piece from the rte article incorrect.

Correspondance last week could have been anytime last week before Barcelona agreed to come over. The FAI could have been talking to them Monday and Limerick got the confirmation Tuesday for example.

**Rasputin** · 17/05/2010, 12:14 PM

Lads seriously bigger fish to fry here.
If the momentum of this FAI farce continues with the continual bad press and media attacks on our Nero like Fuhrer, Limerick may have this decision over turned and Delaney left with some serious pie on his face.
We all know Journalists read these threads so leave the bickering about Sadlier's comments to another thread.
On reflection though since we do have on of the most incompetant men in Ireland in charge of our football it begs the question how bad was the man he replaced?
Perhaps arriving at work covered in the babys blood every morning or went by the previous alias of Idi Amin.