Licences 2011

[geezer]

i know at least 100 regulars who are over 30years supporting united rarely missing a game.. The League of Ireland real fans....zapped with a licence technicality and a bad rotten virus

[osarusan]

i know at least 100 regulars who are over 30years supporting united rarely missing a game..

After 30 years, will they not stick around for the A Championship? 1 season there in front of 100 people and you come back up again.

[micls]

Might Waterford consider an appeal? And if they were successful would they then get the premier place?

Monaghan finished ahead in the rankings. Rankings are made after the playoff.

i know at least 100 regulars who are over 30years supporting united rarely missing a game.. The League of Ireland real fans....zapped with a licence technicality and a bad rotten virus

It's not a technicality, it's ye missing the deadline. It's harsh and horrible for the fans but you can't claim the rules haven't been broken, especially if one of the footballing debts wasn't met as claimed above.

Edit: From the GUFC statement: The club will shortly be in possession of a Tax Clearance Certificate and are in the process of settling fully with one remaining football creditor.

This makes it sounds like ye simply didnt get stuff sorted in time

[Ash]

After 30 years, will they not stick around for the A Championship? 1 season there in front of 100 people and you come back up again.

Jaysus, we've had many a game in the 1st Division in front of 100 people and still lived to tell the tale

[jebus]

League needs a side like Galway in it imo, just like sides from other areas like Derry etc to make it a proper league of Ireland.

After a year down in the First I'd assume you realise that there are two Galway clubs playing LoI football at the moment

[harps1954]

Agreement had been reached with both the footballing creditors one of whom was waiting for the cheque that was lodged to his account to clear (he had emailed this to the Fai) and the 2nd wanted to confirm the agreement with his solicitor today.

Not trying to stir things here, but if you knew the player was going to wait until a cheque had cleared, why didn't Galway give him a bank draft - there would have be no waiting on anything to clear then? It doesn't matter that he emailed the FAI saying that he was waiting on the cheque to clear, he was basically saying I'm still owed the money until the bank tells me it's in my account.

Although I feel sorry for Galway, they left it to the very last minute to sort these things out. It's a typical Irish thing though - sure deadlines don't matter. Look what happened Portadown in the Irish League a couple of years ago - there documentation was something like an hour late in being delivered to the IFA and it was just disregarded. Irish people just think "ah sure it'll be alright" when submitting documents with deadlines.

[Dodge]

I thought Galway would win the appeal until i read their statement. Basically said, "look its nearly ready"

[marinobohs]

I thought Galway would win the appeal until i read their statement. Basically said, "look its nearly ready"

I think it depends very much on whether or not the FAI want to give Galway some leeway - letter from Revenue RE delay and correspondance from player concerned (as reported earlierin thread) may allow them some fudge room.
But while that is the solution it is also a problem as many (especially on here) will castigate them for not applying own rules and highlighting how "once again" FAI dont uphold licencing process.

Genuinely wish Galway all the best with appeal though especially for long suffering fans

[marinobohs]

Bohs draged the league through the gutter by generating acres of negative publicity for themselves and the league by not honouring the legal playing contracts they had with their players!

These players were left for months on end with no wages including over the christmas period, then had to go down the legal route before being paid off and laid off.

Aren't there strict employment law regulations around laying staff off and then hiring replacement staff later on lower wages to ensure people are not messed around with by employers?

Hhhhmmmm, I am surprised to see so many new signings coming on board so quickly at Bohs following the recent lay offs or is the football industry exempt from these rules?!

At least try and get some facts right - Bohs told players at the end of the season they were no longer able to honour contracts (at the time they wee fully paid to date). Unlike Sporting Fingal most recently (and other clubs previously) Bohs sought to reach agreement with the players rather than walk away. In mid December with less than one months pay owed the players were offered 14 weeks pay (according to their rep) two players initiated court action and attaching pubicity that followed, not the club. Agreement was reached around contract commitments and nobody "laid off". This is much more than Brian Shelley was accorded at a previous club where he is still waiting for wages due in 2005 !
As regards the "employment laws" you refer to I am at a complete loss - club replaces players with cheaper players ????? If that is an "offence" there is not a club in the land not guilty.The fact is, of course, there is nothing illegal about it (nor against any football rules).

Apoligies for the club signing players for 2011 - I appreciate we should have played the season with only four/five players.

Now unless there are some more similar "points of discussion" lets get back to the real issue of Galways predictiment.

[Dodge]

As regards the "employment laws" you refer to I am at a complete loss - club replaces players with cheaper players ????? If that is an "offence" there is not a club in the land not guilty.The fact is, of course, there is nothing illegal about it

just for the record it absolutely is illegal to make a person redundant and then replace them with someone on less money.

For people on contract it might be different, and football is iffy at the best of times.

In the real world though employers can't make someone redundant and replace them with cheaper labour

[pineapple stu]

Yeah, it basically means you've sacked them, and you'd better have a damned good reason for it. That's also why Bohs had to honour the contracts given out - you can't make a footballer redundant because you make a position redundant, not a person.

Obviously once their contract has expired, you can choose not to offer a new contract and get in a cheaper player, but that's a different thing entirely.

[marinobohs]

Yeah, it basically means you've sacked them, and you'd better have a damned good reason for it. That's also why Bohs had to honour the contracts given out - you can't make a footballer redundant because you make a position redundant, not a person.

Obviously once their contract has expired, you can choose not to offer a new contract and get in a cheaper player, but that's a different thing entirely.

posts can be declared redundant if terms and conditions change and new terms are not acceptable to the employee so you can change a players terms under labour law and if it is not acceptable to the player they can seek to be made redundant (either by the employer or via Employment Appeals Tribunal).
As regards Dodge's point, it is NOT illegal - see Irish Ferries and Aer Lingus as two high profile cases where the scenario you say is illegal actually happened - in the latter case the Dept of Enterprise, Trade and Employment (as was) confirmed it was allowable (there are numerous similar cases throughout the country).

Above is in the context of labour law as it currently stands on the matter (Redundancy Payments Acts) matters under contract law are somewhat different.

[de bowez]

Yeah, it basically means you've sacked them, and you'd better have a damned good reason for it. That's also why Bohs had to honour the contracts given out - you can't make a footballer redundant because you make a position redundant, not a person.

Obviously once their contract has expired, you can choose not to offer a new contract and get in a cheaper player, but that's a different thing entirely.

Out of interest how would those laws hold up if all players were replaced with amateurs?

[Ezeikial]

Is the reason not obvious?

Galway owe money to three players.Bohs owe money to none.Simple really!

Yep licensing is about having credit facilities

[Ezeikial]

The committee is independent

In name only. Don't be fooled none of the FAI formed "independent" bodies are

[pineapple stu]

Out of interest how would those laws hold up if all players were replaced with amateurs?

Genuinely don't know. Doesn't usually arise in regular work, but football is different of course.

posts can be declared redundant if terms and conditions change and new terms are not acceptable to the employee so you can change a players terms under labour law and if it is not acceptable to the player they can seek to be made redundant (either by the employer or via Employment Appeals Tribunal).

But you're not making a post redundant by letting one footballer go and hiring another, so that's irrelevant.

[marinobohs]

Genuinely don't know. Doesn't usually arise in regular work, but football is different of course.



But you're not making a post redundant by letting one footballer go and hiring another, so that's irrelevant.

original player is made redundant (in circumstances outlined) as occured to employees in Aer Lingus and Irish Ferries (among many) - ie employment was terminated by way of redundancy - and replaced by new (in some cases same) employee.

Only difference with football players is issues around contract which are seperate to redundancy legislation (most of which apply to all fixed term contracts) and of course the ability to prevent club renewing licence, which is, of course, an FAI rule with no basis in law.

[pineapple stu]

You're ignoring the vital distinction between a post and a person. If Bohs could make footballers redundant, they'd have done that, given them statutory redundancy (nil for less than two years' service) and hired new players. They had to try buy out the contracts because they legally could not make the players redundant.

[marinobohs]

You're ignoring the vital distinction between a post and a person. If Bohs could make footballers redundant, they'd have done that, given them statutory redundancy (nil for less than two years' service) and hired new players. They had to try buy out the contracts because they legally could not make the players redundant.

Wrong Stu. they had to buy out the contracts because (a) players could have sued for breach of contract (completely seperate to Redundancy legislation) and/or (b) failure to reach agreement would have precluded Bohs from getting a licence.

In cases quoted staff were made redundant (under the terms of the Redundancy legislation) and their posts filled at lower terms and conditions - in some cases by the employees declared redundant (especially Aer Lingus) - i think the logic is that the former post(s) are redundant but the new revised posts (with new T&C) are in fact new posts.

This is a realitively new development and the tax free staus of the redundancy payment has been questioned by Revenue in the Aer Lingus case. It does run contrary to the idea that posts and not people are made redundant and has arisen as a result of agreements between employers and trade unions (SIPTU in both cases quoted).

It would be interesting to see what the adjudication would be were these cases appealed to the Employment Appeals Tribunal (the arbitrors of matters under the Redundancy Acts) but at the moment these high profile examples have been used as a benchmark in many other companies.

I am personally aware of one Dublin based LOI club that offered to make staff (non playing) redundant and re hire them on lesser terms (during the close season).

[passerrby]

bloody hell lads galway are in thre **** at least let them have a thread of there own ,