QuoteDundalk have paid all of there players & we have paid off Stephen Geoghegan for the last year he had on his contract.Originally Posted by Schumi
Hmmm, I wonder who you could be talking about? If we get a licence it'll be a total joke.
KOH
No One Likes Us, We Don't Care
Dundalk have paid all of there players & we have paid off Stephen Geoghegan for the last year he had on his contract.
Children in the dark cause accidents.
Accidents in the dark cause children.
Never saw that (just read the thread title really) - good spot...
Can't see it being us, to be honest. Should meet all the non-ground items, we have planning permission for a new stand and are getting new changing rooms in as well...shows we're making some progress. Which would make it two from 11. Or one from ten if you're counting Rovers.
Hmmm...wonder if Shels have outstanding transfer fees? Like, to us?
Last edited by pineapple stu; 24/01/2005 at 9:44 PM.
I am not expecting to see Dublin City awarded a licence, i think some of the necessary info could not be collected in time. It will all be submitted in time for the appeal, and there should be no problem at that stage, in case any of you think we might be kicked out of the league, or that we will be scraping our way into competition like certain clubs last year. We will be awarded our licence on appeal, fair and square.
On a wider issue, i think it is a disgrace that clubs only recieved 3 weeks to complete the licence application. that doesn't mean 3 weeks to fill out a form. Thats three weeks notice on what needs to be done, and what needs to be submitted, with a large number of third party agreements and declarations that are required. (you should see what needs to be submitted, the detail is nearly laughable in places - although i think it is a good thing over all.)
the manual for 2006, should be issued in the next few weeks, clubs should be applying for there license a year in advance. ie the decision later today should be in relation to the year 2006, with the appeal in two months, and again in four or six months. It allows clubs to get their house in order, and where its not in order it allows them some time to get sorted. Surely it is unfair that a club could be kicked out of football with about three weeks notice, having already committed funds to players and signed players.
Its absolutely crazy, I think the whole idea of licensing is fantastic, but it needs to be more organised, and more spread out. Give clubs a realistic chance of meeting the requirements. It would also give the whole process a greater degree of respect, fans would feel like it was worth something, not just lip service to UEFA.
[size=3]Doubts over Premier permits for Rovers, St Patrick's
[/size]Emmet Malone
Soccer UEFA Licencing Scheme: With Eircom League clubs due to receive official confirmation this morning of whether their applications for UEFA licences have been approved, there were reports last night that two big Dublin clubs, Shamrock Rovers and St Patrick's Athletic, had failed in their attempts to obtain Premier division permits.
None of the clubs contacted by The Irish Times yesterday had received any indication from the FAI as to whether their applications had been successful, but there were persistent rumours that the two Dublin outfits had run into problems on the basis of the scheme's financial criteria.
Under that aspect of the programme, clubs are required to file audited accounts, a tax clearance certificate and satisfy a range of other requirements in relation to their debts and, in particular, their financial standing with other parties "within football".
Although it is not clear on which particular points the clubs may have run into difficulty, both had well publicised financial difficulties last year. Their fate would have depended, to some extent, on the date their financial years ended.
Senior St Patrick's Athletic officials could not be contacted yesterday, but Rovers chairman Tony Maguire insisted it would come as a major surprise and "huge disappointment" if it were confirmed they have failed to obtain a licence.
"It would be completely unexpected," he said. "All I can say is that this year's application was 20 times better than last year's and we were very optimistic about the process."
Clubs which fail at this stage of the scheme are entitled to appeal the decision. Last year only Derry City was initially granted a Premier division licence, leading to a chaotic period when it was unclear whether the league would be able to proceed with its two-tier structure for the season.
Subsequent appeals led to all but Rovers and Limerick being granted either A or B licences, and even they were eventually given the required documentation as the FAI effectively parked the scheme in an effort to avoid a humiliating crisis within the league.
Last year, however, almost all of the major problems encountered were in relation to infrastructure, an area that has since been significantly relaxed with clubs now having to provide plans and commitments in relation to the improvements they intend to make during the next three to five years.
At the same time, the financial and legal obligations of the clubs have become more demanding under the scheme, something that was always expected to cause some of those seeking licences difficulties. Making ends meet for most is a struggle, and in recent years just about all of the 22 clubs would have found themselves with serious problems at one stage or another.
If it is confirmed this morning that Rovers and St Patrick's have missed out, it will cause discomfort both within Merrion Square and the respective clubs.
In the light of some widely queried appeal decisions last year followed, eventually, by a very public climbdown over the entire issue, the association needs to restore the credibility of the much-heralded scheme amongst the public.
Former Derry City midfielder, Paul Hegarty, meanwhile, has returned to the Brandywell as assistant to manager Stephen O'Brien. Hegarty won both league and cup honours with the club.
[size=1]© The Irish Times[/size]
The core licensing manual was in place from 2003 so you had plenty of time to comply with it. My understanding was that most of the revisions in the document issued in November 04 related to WEAKENING the infrastructure requirements and the main body of the document was unchanged.
Your suggestion re applying for a license a year in advance opens the system up to greater potential for "cheating" and clubs having secured a license so far in advance have plenty of time to breach the requirements, in the full knowledge that the FAI are so disorganised that monitoring visits are unlikely to occur.
Its time to stop making excuses for clubs.
I think we can suspect the FAI have made a mess of this because it would seem that each country had choice how to adapt the Uefa rules to its own setup & rules implemented here are probably too strict in certain sectors.
Regardless of who the supposed clubs are - what's going to happen to any that fail to make the grade for a license....?
I'll tell you - nothing. The worst that will happen is the need to appeal in order to access the undoubted FAI fudge that follows.
A complete farce. What's the point in bringing in rules if there's no penalty for ignoring them ?
Waterford United Statement on Club Licencing
Jan 25 2005
Waterford United FC are disappointed not to have received a licence in the first round of licensing today.
The club will be appealing the decision immediately and are confident that this appeal will be successful.
Clarification has been sought by the FAI regarding certain paperwork and certification and the club is confident that ongoing dialogue between Waterford United and the Licensing Department of the FAI will ensure that the club can achieve the full licence for the coming season.
I'd reckon that statement can be copied and issued by a lot of clubs today....
in fairness - the appeal procedure is part of the process - and given the short lead in time from info request to deadline - its not beyond the bounds of possibility that certain documentation (especially from third parties) couldn't be compiled in three weeks - its right to refuse a license if they havent got it in and right to grant it on appeal if they complete the application in the appeal period
I cant understand why people are looking for blood on this -it shouldnt be a stick to beat clubs - it should be a helpful initiative
latest rumour I've read on email is two clubs dont have tax clearance and one hasnt filed audited accounts yet - and will have by the appeal time
give them time
its shambolic handling by the fai - they should know from contact with clubs how to initiate a reasonable application period instead of inviting bad press
I agree with the sentiment of your note, but clubs have been aware of both the process and the requirements of the scheme for well over a year now. So why should it suddenly be a surprise when they're asked 3 weeks in advance of the deadline to provide stiupulated info they were aware would be due as an integral part of the process ? It's like needing to remind people that Christmas comes round every year....
For once I don't think the FAI are at blame here. I think its the clubs fire-fighting again - not taking the time to get everything in place properly.
If the process was that difficult/unfair/time-pressuring, then a significant number of clubs would have failed to meet the criteria. It appears the vast majority had no problems - only 2 out of 22 did (a 91% complianace rate). If 20 of the clubs in the league can do it right and on time, that suggests responsibility for failure to comply with required details rests primarily with the other 2 themselves.
2 so far have admitted failing to get a license- cork and waterford - thats 2 SO FAR ......theres no evidence that any of the rest are any more compliant as I type this - I suspect the majority will not get a license of any sort (there are three grades)
the clubs did not have a year's notice - the fai re-drew the whole thing in private - got it approved by uefa - on 26th November 2004 for issue to the clubs
over 400 questions to be completed and records to be found - to my eyes thats unreasonable
as i suspected and predicted above......
The initial stage of the 2005 UEFA Club Licensing schem has concluded with
none of the 22 eircom League clubs receiving a licence. The Club Licensing
Committee, made up of independent experts in the fields of finance, safety,
legal, sporting administration and infrastrucutre, evaluated the date
submitted by the clubs in the five categories at their day-long meeting on
Friday.
While a number of clubs came extremely close, no club reached the required
standards in all five disciplines to achieve a licence. The clubs have had a
number of months to submit their applications together with all the relevant
data and have been supported by the FAI's Club Licensing department in
assisting with their submissions. However, in some cases the required
information was not submitted by clubs, and in other cases, not provided in
time for assessment.
Clubs now ahve the right to appeal the decisions to the Club Licensing
Appeals Committee, made up of a separate panel of independent experts, and
have five working days to lodge their appeals.
Commenting on the overall picture, FAI Chief Executive John Delaney said:
"This represents a real disappointment at this stage of the process.
However, there is still time to attain the required licences so we must wee
what the appeal part of the process holds." The FAI is urging clubs to
re-examine their submissions in tandem with the feedback from the Club
Licensing Department.
Mr Delaney also said he believed it would prove impossible for eircom League
clubs to receive any further Government funding without a licence granted
under the UEFA scheme. "Given the willingness of the Department of Sport to
support the club's efforts under the Club Licensing scheme to date, it would
be a huge setback if this much needed revenue was not available going
forward," he said.
While it is acknowledged that clubs have made real progress in the last
year, no club made the standard for 2005.
City are claiming one of the reasons they failed was because they sent copies instead of originals.
If clubs have failed for such petty reasons as this, why not wait a further week, give the clubs who came very close a chance to fix any minor errors, and then go public.
Instead we have the Assh*le pr*ck Delaney mouthing off about how disappointing it is, clubs can't get their act together and the whole PR disaster that goes with this.
You would swear that Delaney actually got something right once.
Have any clubs seen any of this money? Or is that for central funds?
Have to agree, if some were down to the difference between photocopies and originals, then they should have reserved judgement on those ones/ all of them.
If you attack me with stupidity, I'll be forced to defend myself with sarcasm.
macy
cork city say that - but in reality who knows - they failed in three of the five main areas - i suspect the "photocopies" story is just to placate fans - who are treated like mushrooms in this whole process
City are claiming one of the reasons they failed was because they sent copies instead of originals.
If clubs have failed for such petty reasons as this, why not wait a further week, give the clubs who came very close a chance to fix any minor errors, and then go public.
Instead we have the Assh*le pr*ck Delaney mouthing off about how disappointing it is, clubs can't get their act together and the whole PR disaster that goes with this.
You would swear that Delaney actually got something right once.
I don't know what the manual stipulated, but if clubs were asked to supply ORIGINALS of documents, and instead they only sent COPIES, should they be surprised if they get turned down ? If you tried to open a bank account or get a mortgage and they asked to see originals of pay slips etc, who would be to blame if you only offered them copies and they rejected your application ?
I'm actually glad everyone failed - if only in that it doesn't create a feck-up regarding some teams getting it and some not. It's good for someone to say 'no' to clubs in our league, as there's too much of the 'aul wink, nudge 'sure you don't really need to worry about that' attitude around. A kick up the ass all round is a good thing in my mind.
WWS - without knowing the basis of individual rejections, failure to get a license doesn't necessarily mean the timings were unfair. Failure is more likely to have been due to substantive issues (i.e. not meeting the grade) or administrative issues (not providing all the info or in the manner required) than as a result of 'not having enough time'. The press release states that "some" clubs didn't respond with the full info, not all or indeed the majority. It also states that "The clubs have had a number of months to submit their applications together with all the relevant data and have been supported by the FAI's Club Licensing department in assisting with their submissions". If the requirements were approved and distributed at the end of November - especially given that it's closed-season, so no games to worry about, and with the transfer window closed not much else to be dividing people's attentions - then is 6-8 weeks not sufficient time (allowing for Christmas) to provide info on arguably the most important document any club will possess ?
Without knowing the details of specific license refusals - as long as the FAI made the rules clear, and then followed its own rules, then the clubs themselves (incl my own) can only blame themselves for not meeting the requirements.
uhhhmmm - i dunno
no one has a clue wots goin on really
im opposed to licensing without a definitive rescue package agreed with the government to make good infrastructural problems
the fai have single handedly failed to unlock funds* for clubs that the GAA have easily managed in their dealings with the government
we're a poor league - in many ways a bankrupt one - with the FAI as our chief intermediary to government funding we have no hope of putting in place the basics
end of rant
*the club i follow have 1 million in grants sitting untouched cause they cannot raise the matching funds required under present conditions. its a farce
Far be it from me to get in the way, but regardless of the clubs involved, some clubs could've been very close.
I think it shows up a flaw in the system - there should be contact between the licencing bods and the clubs prior to an announcement, with time for missing info/docs to be provided. Might avoid a press release saying "the eL fails yet again, clubs shít as well as the standard of football".
If you attack me with stupidity, I'll be forced to defend myself with sarcasm.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks