Council suspend staff

**Spudulika** · 11/04/2011, 6:09 PM

I don't know what you mean MB, if it's that the wage budget was high, then it depends on your definition of high. If you think that it wasn't mid-table, then fair enough, you might have different views or insights into other clubs budgets. However it was between 4-6 in the table, which by most reckonings would be mid-table. At the time everything went they didn't have a full squad, it was going to have to be padded out with younger players, though this wouldn't be out of step with many clubs. I agree that there is a big deal of backside covering going on now, however it is more the case that they are trying to hang one person so that their own failings are covered up. I am certain that when/if the cases go to court the KPMG report (which I know some other posters on here have seen at the least) will vindicate the behaviour of the club since set up and also their budget and outlay for the one that didn't happen.

It would be interesting if clubs in Ireland adopted more stringent models that were laid down from on high, however I really don't see anything ever changing so long as we follow the British/Spanish/Italian models.

**marinobohs** · 12/04/2011, 12:22 PM

Originally Posted by Spudulika

I don't know what you mean MB, if it's that the wage budget was high, then it depends on your definition of high. If you think that it wasn't mid-table, then fair enough, you might have different views or insights into other clubs budgets. However it was between 4-6 in the table, which by most reckonings would be mid-table. At the time everything went they didn't have a full squad, it was going to have to be padded out with younger players, though this wouldn't be out of step with many clubs. I agree that there is a big deal of backside covering going on now, however it is more the case that they are trying to hang one person so that their own failings are covered up. I am certain that when/if the cases go to court the KPMG report (which I know some other posters on here have seen at the least) will vindicate the behaviour of the club since set up and also their budget and outlay for the one that didn't happen.

It would be interesting if clubs in Ireland adopted more stringent models that were laid down from on high, however I really don't see anything ever changing so long as we follow the British/Spanish/Italian models.

Spudulika, just find it hard to believe SF budget was "mid table" (unless EPL midtable) but have no evidence so will take your word on it, as Bohs have shown its amazing what value you can get for, ahem, 70/250 K

Never had the same strong doslike of SF as some on here and was sorry to see them implode (any such case weakens the LOI in my opinion). i do think we have to start analysing where things went wrong in ore detail than just writing it off as GG pet project. There was mistakes made, no question, but how big ? was a model on a smaller scale viable ? etc. A propoer analysis of SF model might help show that and assist clubs that may enter the LOI in the future.

**Spudulika** · 12/04/2011, 12:48 PM

It will be interesting if the FCC push the case to a tribunal or court as then everything will come out. More clubs could do the same (as in completely come clean) as there is so much nonsense spoken and written about sticking to budgets etc. I do believe a more viable option was formed, though then again, it just takes one clown to convince everyone that the impossible is possible and suddenly another club goes to the wall. Watching Bohs last night (on MNS) and they have some good players that would not cost the world, plus they have (from what I saw first hand last year) some very good young players coming through. I don't know how strong the overall youth section is, though I would think that it's possible to bring 2-3 good league quality players from it yearly.

**Charlie Darwin** · 12/04/2011, 12:50 PM

I think Spud might be right in terms of their budget but I can't see how they could have raised the funds for it. Especially if they were gonna be paying Bohs 50k a year to use their stadium.

**Spudulika** · 12/04/2011, 12:57 PM

CD, this is something that will come out, though I can say that it wasn't the club paying for Dalymount (some Bohs insiders can verify this) but a patron from the Fingal area who wanted to see the club development. It was a gift (nothing to do with GG, more to do with one of the people who were taking over the company and his contacts already bearing fruit). It was made in a effort to give the club a footballing home and keep it moving on. However the money for that is now lost as he paid it up for the year.

**Charlie Darwin** · 16/04/2011, 3:17 PM

A little nugget from Shaun Williams:

Milton Keynes Dons midfielder Shaun Williams has revealed he almost joined Celtic before signing for the league one side.

Williams had a trial in which he impressed Neil Lennon but attempts to sign him were rejected by his Irish club, Sporting Fingal, who folded in February. The 24-year-old was then snapped up by Don´s boss Karl Robinson.

“Fingal turned down two Celtic bids,” he told Bourne Local, “but then the club went out of business. It was a shame the move never came off. We had a three-year deal all planned and a loan period with MK Dons was part of that. But the offers were turned down.

“I am not saying that is the reason they folded, but it certainly would have helped them out a bit,” said the 2010 PFA of Ireland Young Player of the

**Spudulika** · 16/04/2011, 5:11 PM

Celtic knew that SF needed to sell and offered a paltry amount with no add ons, There was only 1 bid and it was 5 figures, well away from 100k. It wouldn't have helped the club as FCC were going to fold it anyway, when the 2nd bid was made for SW the FCC had already filed papers to shut down operations, he knows this, though why should truth get in the way of an article. It's a shame he's been lost to the LOI and to MK Dons.

**born2bwild** · 18/04/2011, 8:08 AM

Has he got clearance yet to actually play for MK Dons? Shocking to have a top player like that sidelined through no fault of his own. He's got a window of maybe 2 - 3 years to make it in England and these six months could seriously affect him. I mean he's a better player than Keith Fahey was when he went over and he's sitting on his hole.

**Mr A** · 18/04/2011, 8:17 AM

Originally Posted by born2bwild

I mean he's a better player than Keith Fahey was when he went over and he's sitting on his hole.

Woah.. steady on there, let's not go mad.

**Macy** · 19/04/2011, 11:02 AM

Originally Posted by born2bwild

I mean he's a better player than Keith Fahey was when he went over and he's sitting on his hole.

Yeah, that's why he's gone to Division 3 (league 1 me hole)...

**Ezeikial** · 16/05/2011, 11:46 AM

Council refuses to pay wages of bust football club

FINGAL County Council is to "vigorously contest" claims it owes wages to players following the collapse of a football club.
The council has insisted it does not have "any liability" regarding the outstanding salaries of Sporting Fingal, despite having a 26pc stake in the venture.
It comes after a letter was sent to the council by 10 players last month regarding its responsibility for paying the debts.
The club was forced to cancel footballers' contracts and withdraw from the Airtricity League in February after it was no longer able to fund itself.
It had been backed financially to the tune of some €2m by developer Gerry Gannon up until the end of last season, but failed to secure a new benefactor when he was no longer in a position to provide funding.
The council said the outstanding debts of Sporting Fingal FC Ltd -- which ran the club -- were an issue for that company, which has appointed a liquidator to wind up its affairs.
"The council does not accept any liability in the matter of these or other outstanding debts of the football club and will vigorously contest any such claims," the local authority said.
comurphy@herald.ie

http://www.herald.ie/national-news/c...b-2646383.html

**Spudulika** · 18/05/2011, 6:32 AM

Thanks Ezekial, the spinners are out in force for FCC. They're lying through their teeth and this is going to hammer them. GG handed over his shares to them, so they held 100% of the company shares, they had agreed to pass on these shares to new shareholders and retain 26%, but then they reneged on the deal and folded the company - they are liable and they can contest as vigorously as they wish, but they've gone from scapegoating an innocent party to now denying they were behind folding the club. Disgraceful behaviour but nothing that we shouldn't expect from the numpties who run the country.

**Macy** · 18/05/2011, 7:41 AM

I think I'd rather wait for the courts to decide liability. Personally I don't think anyone will be "hammered" - the whole point of a limited liability company is to limit liability. It's the company that owe the players, not the shareholders, whatever about the moral rights and wrongs.

Just as a matter of interest, how come (in your view) FCC are attempting to avoid liability by passing on shares, but GG apparently wasn't when he dumped them on the taxpayer?

**Spudulika** · 18/05/2011, 11:51 AM

Macy, the FCC assumed full control of the company, not just 26% as they stated, the company was left with money (operating capital) as limited as that would have been, and the FCC took on to sell on the company. GG passed on the shares and the FCC snapped them up. That's grand, it kept everybody sweet. Then they stabbed many people in the back (including their own people) by folding it without warning.

My view isn't/wasn't that they tried to pass on liability, they didn't. They had the chance to pass on the shares and even an option to step away altogether, but they didn't. It was a cop out of the biggest degree and another sorry mark on the LOI.

And I should add, the FAI did show a lot of decency in how they behaved, though I am waiting for the PFAI to ramp up pressure now.

**passerrby** · 18/05/2011, 12:21 PM

I do hope the council contest this why the hell should the council rate payers pay for the folly of a developer and others .

**Charlie Darwin** · 18/05/2011, 12:28 PM

The council had representatives on the board too. SF wasn't just a developer's folly - it was a joint folly between business and council, one that could yet prove to some very dodgy goings-on in the background. I'm not sure exactly how SF as a football was set up but if it's a limited company then the council won't have to pay the players. However, I assume the club itself had assets that have reverted to somebody's ownership (presumably the council, if they finished up 100% shareholders) and the players would have the right to petition for compensation from those.

**Spudulika** · 18/05/2011, 12:45 PM

passerby, the FCC used the project to within an inch of it's life and ARE responsible for taking a unilateral decision to do what they did. They stuck the taxpayers with a needless bill because of their stupidity and duplicity.

**passerrby** · 18/05/2011, 4:18 PM

neither of the above is reason why imo the rate payers should fork out.

**Dodge** · 18/05/2011, 11:32 PM

Originally Posted by Spudulika

passerby, the FCC used the project to within an inch of it's life and ARE responsible for taking a unilateral decision to do what they did. They stuck the taxpayers with a needless bill because of their stupidity and duplicity.

26% shareholders took a unilateral decision?