15,000+ Friendlies - Third Party

[fieldofmarkets]

ha ha, please let that happen

[DannyInvincible]

My own suspicion is that nobody thought the 15,000 clause would be an issue since no LOI club comes close to that capacity anyway, and even outside of football there are very few venues that do.

You make generally reasonable points, but in that case, why include the clause at all if nobody would have suspected it would have been an issue anyway? It's there for some reason, assuming this third-party does exist, such is the current level of scepticism.

Out of interest, how would a club go about finding out the identity of this alleged third party? Presumably the participation agreement signed away any legal rights of knowledge or enquiry they might have had? Maybe that's not the case at all, but if it is, it effectively gives the FAI the freedom and protection to claim what they like.

[SkStu]

Danny, the PA states that the FAI may disclose details of any agreements or commercial contracts entered into. It is mentioned earlier in the thread.

[DannyInvincible]

Ah yes, sorry. I'd actually encountered that and written about it in that other beast but it slipped my mind. My head's gone to mush.

The thing with that is that it does seemingly give the FAI the right to disclose details if they so wish. There's no obligation there. They may, or may not, reveal the details. And, due to the wording there in what is a legal agreement (?), I can't see how a club might take them to court to demand the release of the details. In effect, the participation agreement does amount to the clubs signing away any right to some knowledge of secretive agreements that are directly impinging on them. As a result, it appears the FAI can lie about the existence of all the fabricated third-party agreements they like.

In the meantime, I was reading about Thomond Park and, while it has a standard capacity of 26,500 (seated and terracing), when used for all-seated affair, the official (?) capacity is lowered to 15,100. For some reason, I just assumed it had a capacity around the 25,000-30,000 mark. I don't know why. Ignorance probably. Anyway, maybe that's been highlighted somewhere else as well, but the 15,000 figure mentioned by the FAI seems all the more "convenient" now then; that's if it was merely some coincidence that nobody truly thought would ever come into question. In saying that, presumably Limerick could have sold 14,999 tickets to escape the clause if it was financially viable for them or was there talk that the figure related to official capacity of a venue as opposed to the number of tickets sold?

[Schumi]

I presume Limerick would have used the terraced capacity for the friendly.

[Ezeikial]

The thing with that is that it does seemingly give the FAI the right to disclose details if they so wish. There's no obligation there. They may, or may not, reveal the details. And, due to the wording there in what is a legal agreement (?), I can't see how a club might take them to court to demand the release of the details.

I have no doubt that there would be plenty of legal opinions on this and would not rule out a court ordering its declaration to the offended / affect party.

From what I hear today from the Limerick camp there is a strong appetite to pursue this further. There may well be interesting times ahead, but it is a dangerous game for Limerick to take on the FAI.

Conversely Limerick could well be in a strong position to haggle out an "off the record" sweet deal with the FAI if they believe Limerick are determined to follow through on this - the FAI simply could not carry any embarressment in a court action

[Jofspring]

I really hope Limerick seek as much leagal advice as possible and make sure they have a serious case before going near the courts with the FAI. Last thing Limerick need is for this come back at them.

[fieldofmarkets]

Limerick need to be strong here, get the legal advice and establish their basis for an action....its got to be there in numerous ways. Through the details/interpretations of the PA and the 3rd party agreement or even in the way the FAI handled the refusal and reasons given. The FAI are possibly also in breach of their raison d'etre (to promote and foster the game in all of Ireland) which must form part of the PA.

Other parties also need to challenge based on anti-competition laws. The Limerick Chamber of Commerce (or any other regional authority) or the GAA (as their stadia are now excluded...how does that look after they opened their doors to the FAI). Its perfectly ok for the FAI to enter into exclusive agreements with 3rd parties wrt fixing their games. It is not acceptable for them to use their self-imposed monopoly position to veto other commercial enterprises (in this case a club organised glamour friendly) in order to benefit their own commercial arrangement.

Now I must wonder if all the PA is, is an attempt to ringfence this position...rather than to 'benefit the league'.

The FAI or Aviva cannot afford the negative publicity of seeing a case go to court....especially from a little club like Limerick. I don't see that Limerick have much to loose, I suspect the club does not have the resources to get to or to develop The Markets Field, not without a Thomond Park revenue stream anyway. If we get refused a license next year from the 1st division through spite...another club can come in.

I manage an organisation...I will be writing to the FAI to let them know I will not choose their Aviva or games for our corporate entertainment. I will also write to Aviva letting them know I will not consider their insurance.....will do nothing I know, but at least I will have voted with my 2 feet.

[KevB76]

Conversely Limerick could well be in a strong position to haggle out an "off the record" sweet deal with the FAI if they believe Limerick are determined to follow through on this - the FAI simply could not carry any embarressment in a court action

I would speculate that any such "off the record" sweet deal with the FAI is not worth the paper its written on.

[Dodge]

I would speculate that any such "off the record" sweet deal with the FAI is not worth the paper its written on.

Plenty of clubs have benefitted from similar

[osarusan]

I would speculate that any such "off the record" sweet deal with the FAI is not worth the paper its written on.

The important elements of a deal won't be written down on any paper.

Here's a plausible (not probable, but plausible) chain of events, based on the possibility that the FAI have no third-party agreement.


FAI don't have a third-party agreement, and realise this would come out in court and lead to a few resignations.

FAI and Limerick hold informal talks in which Limerick agree not to seek any big-name friendlies for the next five years.

FAI release a press statement saying that after considering the matter and listening to the clubs (because the FAI care), they've decided to scrap the 15,000 capacity restriction, and their commercial partner has willingly agreed to it. Limerick, as a result, are happy to drop their legal case.

In a completely unrelated development, the FAI can announce that Limerick are now eligible for a substantial financial grant, which, amazingly, but most importantly, coincidentally, just happens to be the amount needed to meet the asking price for The Markets Field.

Limerick and the FAI walk away arm in arm to begin the process of working together and building the strong and healthy club in Limerick that both have wanted for so very long.

And, apart from Daniel McDonnell, they all live happily ever after.

[Charlie Darwin]

It all depends on what agreement the clubs have signed up to with the FAI. If they've given the FAI full discretion over whether to approve a friendly, it doesn't matter whether there's a third party agreement or not.

[shantykelly]

only if you lie about the existence of said thrid party - if they admit there isn't one (speculating!), then they would have to further explain the decision not to sanction the friendly against barcalona.

[Charlie Darwin]

They wouldn't have to legally. In order to maintain support, they would.