What the FAI thinks of progressive clubs:

**joeSoap** · 19/05/2010, 10:44 AM

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

Are Limerick still looking at legal action now the game's off?

I would very much hope so. Compensation from the FAI to the tune of whatever the projected profit would have been will suffice. Provided the club can provide the heads of agreement with Barcelona they say they have, the multitude of lies and contradictions displayed by Delaney in this matter would not stand up in court. He also would be obliged to prove the existence of this 'third party'. What the FAI have done here is despotic, dictatorial and disgusting and they must be brought to task over it legally, or else all clubs with ambition will suffer.

**Dodge** · 19/05/2010, 10:52 AM

No court case will happen

Ye olde particiaption agreement will see to that. OK Limerick might win, but they won't get a license, so whats the point?

**Straightstory** · 19/05/2010, 10:52 AM

Originally Posted by joeSoap

I would very much hope so. Compensation from the FAI to the tune of whatever the projected profit would have been will suffice. Provided the club can provide the heads of agreement with Barcelona they say they have, the multitude of lies and contradictions displayed by Delaney in this matter would not stand up in court. He also would be obliged to prove the existence of this 'third party'. What the FAI have done here is despotic, dictatorial and disgusting and they must be brought to task over it legally, or else all clubs with ambition will suffer.

Completely, completely, completely agree.

**OneRedArmy** · 19/05/2010, 11:12 AM

Originally Posted by Alf Honn

They've also taken a 15mill loss on the Aviva naming rights by selling the bond to an investor in exhange for an upfront payment. This sounds completely untrue.

----

You're right, it does sound untrue but, sadly, you are incorrect.

A fascinating article in the Sunday Times Business section at the weekend outlined the dire state of the FAI finances. Not available on-line but there's a similar story in today's Indo headlined the 'Real cost of the Aviva stadium': http://www.independent.ie/sport/socc...m-2184726.html

Here's an extract from the Sunday Times:

"NSL, formerly the Lansdowne Road Stadium Development Company, sold their 10-yr naming rights to Aviva for 40 mill but securitised them to clients NCB Stockbrokers for 25mill to get cash up front."

Yes, that's a hit of 15mill. And they're denying Limerick the chance of making a paltry 100k to keep them afloat!

Err......... its not a "hit". Its called Net Present Value.

Assuming the €40 million is paid evenly at €4m a year (I've no idea whether this is the case or not), then securitising the cash flows for €25m gives an annual discount rate of over 9%, which does seems on the high side, but not beyond the realms of possibility.

But to describe it as "losing €15m" is completely incorrect. If you want to prove, this, go up to someone on the street, tell them you'll pay them 10 euro a year for the next ten years, and then ask them for €100 now and see how far you get....

**Dodge** · 19/05/2010, 11:51 AM

Originally Posted by gspain

The ERC also control the semi finals. they are located in the home country of the team drawn at home.

You are correct re a Union but the ERC might decide not to use a 50,000 seater stadium and let the IRFU decide then whether or not to apply with CP.

YOu sure about that? Seems out that anyone but Biarritz would choose to play their home semi final in Spain?

**endabob1** · 19/05/2010, 12:02 PM

The home club must nominate what ever stadium they want to use for the semi-final, there is a minimum capacity which I think would mean Thomond is fine for a semi. Open to correction though

**Jofspring** · 19/05/2010, 12:06 PM

Originally Posted by Dodge

YOu sure about that? Seems out that anyone but Biarritz would choose to play their home semi final in Spain?

Yes the ERC decide where the semi-finals are held. Last season Munster had drawn a home country semi-final. The match was against Leinster and was held in Croke Park so you could say Munster didn't have a home semi-final, just home country advantage whch in that case was no advantage at all. Biarritz chose the nearest stadium with a big capacity, it just happened to be in Spain. They don't consider themselves French per say anyway they consider themselves Basque.

**Jofspring** · 19/05/2010, 12:08 PM

Originally Posted by endabob1

The home club must nominate what ever stadium they want to use for the semi-final, there is a minimum capacity which I think would mean Thomond is fine for a semi. Open to correction though

The team that draws home country advantage must have the semi-final venue at least 60km (open to correction there) away from their home ground.

**Dodge** · 19/05/2010, 12:08 PM

Oh I realise that, but who decided where it was. My guess is Biarritz. gspain thinks the ERC had final say

**endabob1** · 19/05/2010, 12:13 PM

http://www.ercrugby.com/eng/31_264.php

It's the ERC, semi's are "nominally" Neutral so Leinster could play a semi at aviva but Munster would probably have to too.

**Dodge** · 19/05/2010, 12:15 PM

Thanks endabob, and apologies to gspain for doubting him...

**Schumi** · 19/05/2010, 12:21 PM

Originally Posted by Jofspring

The team that draws home country advantage must have the semi-final venue at least 60km (open to correction there) away from their home ground.

How did Toulouse hold their semi in Toulouse?

**Nah Nah Nah Nah** · 19/05/2010, 12:26 PM

Originally Posted by Jofspring

The team that draws home country advantage must have the semi-final venue at least 60km (open to correction there) away from their home ground.

That's not correct as Toulouse played Leinster in Toulouse soccer stadium. I think it works something like you can play it in a ground that's not your regular home ground with a capacity of 20,000 or more.

**MariborKev** · 19/05/2010, 3:39 PM

Someone from the League is going to be on the Last Word on Today FM defending this decision.

Might be worth emailing in some of the questions raised here!

**Ezeikial** · 20/05/2010, 12:19 AM

Originally Posted by MariborKev

Someone from the League is going to be on the Last Word on Today FM defending this decision.

Might be worth emailing in some of the questions raised here!

It was really embaressing and another lost opportunity. The politician, ex mayor of Limerick, was so lacking in cogent points and so full of waffle he made Fran Gavin sound like a resoned caring director of an altruistic organisation. His main thrust was like "ye Dubs are not giving us Limerick folk a proper share out" He even said it was a disgrace that Limerick have been overlooked for the Premier Division!

**Charlie Darwin** · 20/05/2010, 5:12 AM

Originally Posted by Alf Honn

They've also taken a 15mill loss on the Aviva naming rights by selling the bond to an investor in exhange for an upfront payment. This sounds completely untrue.

----

You're right, it does sound untrue but, sadly, you are incorrect.

A fascinating article in the Sunday Times Business section at the weekend outlined the dire state of the FAI finances. Not available on-line but there's a similar story in today's Indo headlined the 'Real cost of the Aviva stadium': http://www.independent.ie/sport/socc...m-2184726.html

Here's an extract from the Sunday Times:

"NSL, formerly the Lansdowne Road Stadium Development Company, sold their 10-yr naming rights to Aviva for 40 mill but securitised them to clients NCB Stockbrokers for 25mill to get cash up front."

Yes, that's a hit of 15mill. And they're denying Limerick the chance of making a paltry 100k to keep them afloat!

This one? http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle7127685.ece

OK, this is completely misleading.

First of all, Aviva paid 44m to the Lansdowne company for the naming rights - that's 22m each for the IRFU and FAI. A hit of 15m would be 7.5m apiece. It's the difference between writing of 66% of the fee and 33%.

Second, securitising a loan doesn't mean you literally sell the assets for the amount quoted. They would normally take that money in over a period of years (presumably ten years, such is the duration of the sponsorship) and the cumulative total of 40m would be worth less than 40m today minus lost interest payments. Securitisation is like placing a bet that the money will be more use to you today than the equivalent amount will be in ten years.

The article is misleading on a number of issues. The FAI does have serious funding issues but it's entirely related to their ability to shift their share of the seats, nothing to do with the independent company that runs the stadium.

**Buile Shuibhne** · 20/05/2010, 7:09 AM

It's all Daniel McDonnell's fault

The FAI need new PR advice - with the first principle being - When in a hole, stop digging!

http://www.independent.ie/sport/socc...t-2186686.html

**MariborKev** · 20/05/2010, 7:36 AM

Fair play to Dan!

**seand** · 20/05/2010, 7:58 AM

Legend. Magnificent stuff. He did get caught out for a couple of petty swipes and generalisations but it's hilarious that the FAI decided to have a go.