the only time i have questioned anything in relation to the man from Del Monte and Pancho Villa is when i have solid facts to back up what i questioned a lot of these cannot be put in print due to their tendency to threaten to sue anyone that takes them on but you may have noticed lately that the papers are prepared to take on a sytem that is corrupt to the core and in a worst ate now than it ever was.
The only hope of our league progressing and regaining the trust and confidence of the Business Community,The Government and more importantly the Irish People was the UEFA Licencing system but has been completely undermined by the FAI.
A-Licences
June 2 2004 at 7:07 AM Stephen (no login)
from IP address 217.137.166.12
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From today's Irish Indo
UEFA licence saga lands FAI in another mess
Wednesday June 2nd 2004
LAST Friday, Shelbourne, Bohemians, Longford Town and Cork City received their UEFA Club Licence from the FAI - a pre-requisite to participate in next season's European club competitions.
The four clubs involved seemed utterly unsurprised by the good news - such was the FAI's gleeful desire to hurriedly inform the media, one of the club secretaries heard the news only when this writer told him, fully three hours after the media had been informed.
The glad tidings should have produced a swelling in the chests of soccer fans throughout the country but, unfortunately, this is Irish soccer we are talking about and, ever since the decision was announced, there has been the whiff of discord in the air at the manner in which the licenses were awarded.
Given that UEFA club licensing is arguably the most important issue on FAI chief executive Fran Rooney's table, his leadership and decisiveness will be crucial in determining whether the integrity of the process is upheld.
Last Saturday, Rooney told this newspaper that he would welcome an UEFA investigation into the award of the licences. "We have nothing to hide," he said.
If that is the case, then perhaps the answers to a few questions would contribute to the spirit of transparency and openness we were all promised by Genesis.
One presumed that the First Instance Licensing Committee, who have been involved in the process since the very beginning, would have been the body charged with the responsibility to hear the four licence applications. Why were they not?
If it is true that the chairman of the First Instance Licensing Committee (and his Appeals Committee counterpart) discovered at an UEFA workshop that circumstances had changed and that the Appeals Committee should be the body to hear the initial applications, why was there no evidence produced to support this contention?
Is there any evidence to support this assertion?
Since the deadline for entry to UEFA competitions was May 31, why was the Appeals Committee then told that a meeting last Thursday was purely for "communication purposes" and not to deliver any swingeing verdicts about licences?
Given the above, why was there a sudden shift in emphasis, with a meeting being held at 7am on Friday purely to discuss the award of licences?
When a member of the committee said that he/she would be unable to attend Friday's re-scheduled meeting but would participate via a conference call so that the meeting would have a quorum, why was this important request denied?
When a new committee member was co-opted on Friday morning, did the other members not realise that they were acting contrary to their manual, which forbids them from co-opting a new member without sanction from an FAI Board of Management meeting?
Is it true that a member of the FAI Board of Management member rang his colleagues on Friday night to ask them to ratify the decision to co-opt the new committee member, even though the decision had already been made?
Would the co-opted member have had sufficient time - in the less than 24 hours available - to sift through the four applications and garner sufficient knowledge of the exhaustive manual in order to deliver an informed decision?
If one of the four clubs had their licence application turned down by the Appeals Committee, to whom would they appeal? The Appeals Committee again?
Will the Licensing Committee now step in and revoke the awards, as is their right, in the event that the four clubs have not fulfilled all the criteria?
And, for the clubs involved, whom we hope carry the flag in European competition this summer, a few questions.
Do they know that it is they who will suffer if their licences were awarded incorrectly, with expulsion from this and forthcoming competitions a real possibility?
Do they - and the other 18 league clubs - also know that the grants which have yet to be released by the government will remain in cold storage until UEFA decide whether or not to investigate this issue?
Could the clubs concerned possibly outline the dramatic improvements they have made since first being denied the licence in February?
These questions are aimed at eliminating the secrecy which has shrouded this issue, causing Derry City, for one, to threaten legal action. And, if their attitude is so risible, as claimed by some, why don't the FAI come clean and eradicate the opaque nature of last week's deliberations?
The clubs will be the ones to suffer if the integrity of the licensing process was, deliberately or not, impugned to any degree. They deserve an answer. As do a government who are keeping a close eye on the FAI's recent actions.
If Rooney ever had a chance to demonstrate the vision and commitment he has so often promised to deliver since Genesis, then this is a timely opportunity to lift the veil of secrecy and uphold the honour of the licensing system.
The article has some serious flaws. For instance the deadline for entry into european compoetition is not may 31st. How could it be when 1. There are some leagues and cups not finished in europe and 2. the european fair play draws have not taken place.
no doubt there are some questions to be asked but the independent is just putting the boot in
I'm sure you meant to headline the thread impartial rather than partizan but in the end your slip more accurately reflected the tone of the 'piece of journalism'.By the way, is there any indication who wrote this, it seems more 'dramatic' than Gerry McDermott's Indo pieces
There are some valid points in there which should be answered, but just to touch on one that affects Cork City rather than the FAI....
Here's a response to the Indo,Originally Posted by gufct
Could the editors concerned possibly outline the 'dramatic' increase in interest they have shown?
There was absolutely no indication whatsoever that CCFC had to make 'dramatic' improvements, most of the work that needed to be done was minor, and everyone chipped in to help out. Malachy Clerkin wrote a great article on it in the 'Sunday Tribune' (which I'll happily post-up or pm to anyone).
The only real issue CCFC had was that remodeling work needed to be carried out on the turnstiles, but the club had planning permission obtained to carry out the work on that end of the ground already last year and to spend money on a remodel of the turnstiles only to tear them down to redo the shed end would be pointless. To the best of my knowledge City's dramatic improvement (smacks of tabloid journos in the 'compact') was to say, can you allow us a derogation based on the plans we have in place.
Much like we've done with Landsdowne.
Cork City: Making 'Dream Team' seem realistic since 2007.
Every club has signed a confidentiality clause as part of their Licence application so they are perfectly within their rights not to disclose what improvements they have made. Every club also signed a contract stating that they accept the decision of the Licencing Committee.You cant accept some decisions and not others, by that logic the whole Licencing Committee is flawed and Derry's licence is invalid too. All this crap about the exhaustive manual and would they have time to understand it? Its not like an exam where you have to memorise the bloody thing, its there in black and white in front of you, broken down into exactly what is required, its simple enough to see whether a club is in compliance or not, either the documents are there or they're not. Tick the box yes or no. Every club was given a list of what they were missing and knew what they had to do to get their Licence.In our case I know we had our documentation in. Despite what people may think its not rocket science
P.S. FAI had to nominate clubs for European competition on May 31
Last edited by Longfordian; 02/06/2004 at 10:14 AM.
Upwards to the vanguard where the pressure is too high.
Not a lot for me to add, and Tommy you know as well as me that journalists aren't necessarily impartial either, certainly not in the case of the FAI.
If you attack me with stupidity, I'll be forced to defend myself with sarcasm.
It was Dave Kelly who wrote the piece but Gerry McDermott has done a similar article when Rovers and Limerick were awarded their licences.
Fans should forget about their club loyalties when the greater good of the league in the long term is being seriously undermined by the FAI meddling in the commissions work.
While the article makes some good points it starts from the basis that the FAI has broken the rules and its up to the FAI to prove they haven't.
Obviously UEFA have the power to investigate licences but as far as I know they haven't decided to do it yet. Rooney said he would welcome any investigation anyway.
It seems reasonable to me not to allow a committee member to participate via a conference call since the committee would be looking at written submissions!
As far as I know the committee is made up of independent professionals who are signing off on the decision i.e. they are putting their professional reputation on the line by signing off. Not the kind of thing you'd think someone would do just to do a few eL clubs a favour.
I read that all 4 Welsh euro entrants got UEFA licences and I'd say their infrastructure wouldn't be as good as most eL clubs.
While the FAI's track record is poor let's not get too negative and assume they pulled a fast one.
an "A" Licence by simply having your infrastructure right.We reached A licence Standard on Sporting,Administration & Financial but we failed on Legal and Infrastructure.
We have since spent a large amount of money on our Infrastructure works including revamping our dressing Rooms,installing state of the Art CCTV and Control Room and Hospitality Room and Offices,Tarmacing the area adjacent to the clubhouse and finally blocking off the site of our new Stand completely with Hoarding the full length of the town side of Terryland.
We have started digging the foundations for the new stand and intend to have the first nine steps of Terracing with a retaining wall built before October the rest of the stand will be completed whenever the FAI gets its **** together over the Capital Grants.
I have asked on this and other Forums what have Shels done on their infrastructure since they were refused their Licence im still waiting for a reply.
The other four clubs all failed on more than one criteria in the 1st place mostly financial,legal & Infrastructure ive yet to see any evidence of works done to rectify these matters but then again im just paranoid like Jim Roddy and all the other el fans who are sickened to the back teeth by all the stroke pulling that goes on within the FAI.
To be fair clubs arent going to come out and say exactly what they've done since last time in the off the field areas, its confidential information. I know we've done a lot of work in the other criterias apart from infrastructure. We passed administration andd personnel first time around and addressed our issues in the other areas such as the company being reinstated. As was pointed out already the Licensing committee are all experts in their fields and arent likely to be in the business of pulling strokes. Tolka passed on infrastructure as it has been FIFA approved which overrules UEFA's Licence while I believe Bohs have sectioned off some of their ground. The Cork lads have said what they've done, while we've nominated grounds which are up to standard and are trying to get ours up to standard, I know you dont trust the FAI but I do believe that people did work hard to get their Licences
Upwards to the vanguard where the pressure is too high.
One presumed that the First Instance Licensing Committee, who have been involved in the process since the very beginning, would have been the body charged with the responsibility to hear the four licence applications. Why were they not?
If it is true that the chairman of the First Instance Licensing Committee (and his Appeals Committee counterpart) discovered at an UEFA workshop that circumstances had changed and that the Appeals Committee should be the body to hear the initial applications, why was there no evidence produced to support this contention?
Is there any evidence to support this assertion?
Since the deadline for entry to UEFA competitions was May 31, why was the Appeals Committee then told that a meeting last Thursday was purely for "communication purposes" and not to deliver any swingeing verdicts about licences?
Given the above, why was there a sudden shift in emphasis, with a meeting being held at 7am on Friday purely to discuss the award of licences?
When a member of the committee said that he/she would be unable to attend Friday's re-scheduled meeting but would participate via a conference call so that the meeting would have a quorum, why was this important request denied?
When a new committee member was co-opted on Friday morning, did the other members not realise that they were acting contrary to their manual, which forbids them from co-opting a new member without sanction from an FAI Board of Management meeting?
Is it true that a member of the FAI Board of Management member rang his colleagues on Friday night to ask them to ratify the decision to co-opt the new committee member, even though the decision had already been made?
Would the co-opted member have had sufficient time - in the less than 24 hours available - to sift through the four applications and garner sufficient knowledge of the exhaustive manual in order to deliver an informed decision?
The clubs case should have been heard by the 1st Instance UEFA Licencing Commitee which is the one that all applications are sent to and who awarde the licences in the 1st place instead the FAI made the Appeals Committe sit on the appeals.I for one would like an explanation for this.
I have posted on the el MB about Shels and their total indifference to the UEFA Licence ( Surprise).They have not even lengthened the size of their pitch which was the one point evryone knew they had failed on never mind the ones they failed on that didnt become public knowledge.
Derry are about to go legal on this and have kept UEFA informed every step of the way the very future of the total credibility of our league has been compromised by the total corruptness within Irish Soccer.
Posting Permissions
Quote
Bookmarks