Petition to wind up Accolade (Shels)

[higgins]

Since now SHels/Ollie/Accolade are being taken to court by the revenue on a winding up order as they have renaged on this agreement then IMO the tax clearence cert should become invalid thus meaning a breach of licencing rules and a punishment should ensue.

Thats only what you think should happen..
Do you know of any rule Shels have broken by being issued a 'Winding up' notice?

I am not 100% clear they broke any rules so far but could well be wrong.

Its no use trying to complicate the issue even further

[Mr_T]

I thought I heard somewhere there was a meeting of the First Instance Committee scheduled for last night (don't know if that's the name of the body?)

The committee met last monday (13th March) so won't meet again for another month or so.

[Juz the Hoop]

Thats only what you think should happen..
Do you know of any rule Shels have broken by being issued a 'Winding up' notice?

I am not 100% clear they broke any rules so far but could well be wrong.

Its no use trying to complicate the issue even further

Im not trying to complicate it at all. If anything I thought I explained it quite clearly.

There is no way on earth that with that debt the revenue would have issued a tax clearence cert. What they would (and reading between the lines it seemed they did) do is come to a signed agreement and a payment schedule with Shels/Ollie/Accolade to clear the debt that has built up (that doesnt take into account present payment of taxes). Shels/Ollie/Accolade have obviously not ahered to this hence the order served on them.

I am not 100% on the Licencing but surely if the Licence was given on receipt of a tax clearance cert (which all clubs have to have) then with this order being served then that TCC has to be invalid. That doesnt even take into account Mr T's post about monthly checks which i had heard but forgot.

Ollie has been a stickler for the rule book in the past will he do so now?

KOH

JUZ

[CharlesThompson]

I think you're right on everything there Juz except that the TCC can't be invalid until 3rd April when Ollie has his day in court. If - as i guess is going to happen - Ollie comes up with the readys between now and then (in full) then they will retain their TCC.

[pete]

I am not 100% on the Licencing but surely if the Licence was given on receipt of a tax clearance cert (which all clubs have to have) then with this order being served then that TCC has to be invalid. That doesnt even take into account Mr T's post about monthly checks which i had heard but forgot.

As Shels have not made a statement all we can do is speculate...

As you mentioned above the clubs now have to provide monthly financial statements based on their submitted budgets & plans for the year. We can only expect that the monthly payments to the revenue were included in Shels yearly plan & that the FAI would have expected to see (12k i think) outgoing in Shels monthly statements. Several questions remain - did the FAI notice that no 12k payment to the revenue in latest monthly statement? did shels even include this latest change in their accounts...? Shels have technically changed their agreed budget not so what are the sanctions for this?

[pineapple stu]

Do you know of any rule Shels have broken by being issued a 'Winding up' notice?

Article 9.3 of UEFA Licencing states that no club which owes outstanding moneys to Revenue can get a licence. A proviso is in place that if there is an agreement in place between the club and Revenue to pay the tax off, that's OK. Shels don't have one now.

[higgins]

I am not 100% on the Licencing but surely if the Licence was given on receipt of a tax clearance cert (which all clubs have to have) then with this order being served then that TCC has to be invalid

BUT SURELY ???

My point is that you dont know this and you are complicating the issue by adding it in.
IF the TCC has been revoked by revenue then I am 100% behind the enforcment of the rule in the licencing manual that deals with a revoked TCC.

My problem is your putting it out there that shels should be punished and you are not fully sure what rule has been broken.

Article 9.3 of UEFA Licencing states that no club which owes outstanding moneys to Revenue can get a licence. A proviso is in place that if there is an agreement in place between the club and Revenue to pay the tax off, that's OK. Shels don't have one now

Again do you know if this agreement has been broken or have they been giving a deadline of April to get back on track?
Can you go look up a few more articles there Stu and see what happens when revenue asked a company to wind up as your above 9.3 is very unclear. You have mentioned a provision without giving details and you have mentioned an agreement without the exact details.

Again if Shels have broken a rule and you can point it out Im behind the punishment but its unclear what your saying?

Just to add in Im as confused as the rest of you over this one but nobody is posting anything concrete. If it turns out one or two of you are right then so be it.

[Sam Savic]

The agreement between Accolade and Revenue, which was overseen by FAI officials, has been breached. That is why Revenue have gone to the High Court. The Revenue may accept what Ollie has to say on Apr 3rd and everything will be hunky dory. However, they may not.
Also, you never know who else might turn up in court looking for money. The judge may not be as nice as the Gypo judge that Rovers got. He may not have a clue about the Eircom League. He may come down heavy on Ollie. He might want to make an example of Accolade.
Worrying times ahead for Shels, however, I think the hooligan will somehow get out of this.
Either way, Accolade will have a hefty legal bill plus Revenue interest to pay.

[hoopy]

It really is a shame that the court date isn't April 1st

[Bald Student]

Article 9.3 of UEFA Licencing states that no club which owes outstanding moneys to Revenue can get a licence. A proviso is in place that if there is an agreement in place between the club and Revenue to pay the tax off, that's OK. Shels don't have one now.

There's also a provision for if the issue is before the courts:

Alternative 3: Proceedings have been
opened with the competent body
according to national legislation or
proceedings have been opened with the
FAI, UEFA or FIFA with regard to these
overdue payables.

Can you go look up a few more articles there Stu and see what happens when revenue asked a company to wind up as your above 9.3 is very unclear. You have mentioned a provision without giving details and you have mentioned an agreement without the exact details.

If Shels missed a repayment and the revenue don't agree a new schedule, Shels' license is revoked. If the revenue agree a new repayment scheme, no rule was broken (that I can see) so no punishment should be given.

A Licence will not be granted in the following instances:

...

• If the Licence Applicant has failed to prove they have had no overdue payables
towards employees, including any social charges and taxes (FIN 1.03).

[pineapple stu]

Again do you know if this agreement has been broken or have they been giving a deadline of April to get back on track?
Can you go look up a few more articles there Stu and see what happens when revenue asked a company to wind up as your above 9.3 is very unclear. You have mentioned a provision without giving details and you have mentioned an agreement without the exact details.

Again if Shels have broken a rule and you can point it out Im behind the punishment but it's unclear what your saying?

Now if you really wanted to know about things, you'd have looked up the Licencing manual yourself! It's downloadable from the FAI website.

Shels have quite clearly broken the agreement with Revenue. Not even Ollie's denying that. As a qualified accountant, I'll tell you now that Revenue do not issue reminders through public newspaper notices that the company is to be wound up. Shels agreed to make 21 monthly payments of E12k each to discharge back tax. Evidently they've missed one - or more - payments. This is more than likely due to the payment bouncing because the mney wasn't there in Shels' account. It's actually a bit harsh for Revenue to seek a winding up order against someone for missing one - or even two - DD payments (I've seen companies do it before), so I'd say there's some history there as well and basically Revenue are sick of Shels by now.

With regards the manual, I refer you in particular to point FIN 1.03 on page 103 of the manual which states (my comments in round brackets) -

The licence applicant must prove that it has no payables overdue (i.e. having your January PAYE outstanding on the 1st of February doesn't count, but having it outstanding on the 20th February does count as the Revenue deadline for payment is the 19th) arising from contractual agreements with its employees (i.e. PAYE/PRSI)...up to the 30th November (this is the case with Shels as they have agreed a 21-month DD agreement to pay back tax of E300k, so it must go back further than November 2005). A payable is overdue when it should have been settled in the past according to a contractual agreement. Should [this be the case], this may not lead to the refusal of the licence if the licence applicant is able to prove at the national submission date that -
Alternative 1 - The licence applicant has paid the overdue payables (obviously not the case here).
Alternative 2 - The licence applicant has concluded a written agreement with the creditor to extend the deadline of the payment of these overdue payables (this is presumably how Shels got the licence originally; however, as they have since defaulted on the agreement, it becomes void and so they now fall down here as well).
Alternative 3 - Proceedings have been opened with the competent body according to national legislation (Revenue, presumably; this isn't the case as Revenue have clearly not opened proceedings with Shels, but have opened them with the High Court) or with the FAI, UEFA or FIFA (the FAI have said they're not going to help out, and Shels would get a similar answer from UEFA and FIFA obviously)

This is an A Licencing requirement, which means that -

Non-fulfillment of the criteria will result in the licence applicant being refused a licence and the club may not be granted admission to the FAI National League Premier Division and UEFA Club competitions.

Clear enough for you now?

Edit - Good man BS! Always able to use 1 word instead of 20!

[Bald Student]

Alternative 3 - Proceedings have been opened with the competent body according to national legislation (Revenue, presumably; this isn't the case as Revenue have clearly not opened proceedings with Shels, but have opened them with the High Court) or with the FAI, UEFA or FIFA (the FAI have said they're not going to help out, and Shels would get a similar answer from UEFA and FIFA obviously)

I interpereted 'competent body according to national legislation' to be the high court. I'm not a legal eagle so I could be wrong but it seems to me that Shels are surviving under alternative 3 until April.

[pineapple stu]

Yeah, I'm unsure about that too. But surely Rovers were in proceedings with the same competent body, yet they were docked 8 points? I haven't seen anywhere that refers to administration at all, so I was working on the notion that the competent body was Revenue, and once it moved beyond them (i.e. the High Court), the licence was invalid.

Shels are surviving because there's no meeting of the First Instance committee for another month. Thre may be other reasons, but that one will override them for now anyway.

[sidcon]

lads just to clarify something and this is for you Shels supporters. The money is on the way you will be paid your champions league money in excatly 58 days time Ollie mearly has to go the bank and ask for a short term loan to pay the tax man. So anyone getting hyped up should relax a bit as much as it kills me to say it shels have quite a bit of money on its way for its 2 games it won last year in the competition, and not even counting the games they played in.

[anto eile]

1: Shels have not refused to pay anybody as of yet so your jumping in a bit early with the cheating comments.

2: Its not against the law to overspend! .

hello hello,is there anybody home????
1: ollie is quoted in the papers saying he refuses to pay any more tax.
2: its not good business practice to overspend.and besides ,it is illegal to overspend while insolvent.so if shels are spendnig cash they havent got,then they will be in trouble for it..oh look they are in trouble

[anto eile]

You have to remember that most football fans are not as active as you people on here. Most just turn up to games, watch the football and go home. People's lives are complicated enough

you win a prize for the most irrelevant post of the month

can you just stop posting here and let the adults do the debating?

[anto eile]

There main asset is their lease on Tolka Park. Depending on what story you read it is worth anything between €10m - €30m to them.

.

according to the newspaper (sunday business post i think) from a couple of months ago, shels get one third of the money from tolka, meaning shels will get E7M. i was surprised at the low number.but the sunday business post is not often wrong when commenting on EL clubs business. its been right about Rovers when our problems were in the news last year,and has consistently had accurate articles on bohs over the last couple of years,the most recent no more than a month ago

[dcfcsteve]

Now if you really wanted to know about things, you'd have looked up the Licencing manual yourself! It's downloadable from the FAI website.

Shels have quite clearly broken the agreement with Revenue. Not even Ollie's denying that. As a qualified accountant, I'll tell you now that Revenue do not issue reminders through public newspaper notices that the company is to be wound up. Shels agreed to make 21 monthly payments of E12k each to discharge back tax. Evidently they've missed one - or more - payments. This is more than likely due to the payment bouncing because the mney wasn't there in Shels' account. It's actually a bit harsh for Revenue to seek a winding up order against someone for missing one - or even two - DD payments (I've seen companies do it before), so I'd say there's some history there as well and basically Revenue are sick of Shels by now.

With regards the manual, I refer you in particular to point FIN 1.03 on page 103 of the manual which states (my comments in round brackets) -



This is an A Licencing requirement, which means that -

Originally Posted by UEFA Licencing Manual, para 1.6, page 3)
Non-fulfillment of the criteria will result in the licence applicant being refused a licence and the club may not be granted admission to the FAI National League Premier Division and UEFA Club competitions.

Clear enough for you now?

Edit - Good man BS! Always able to use 1 word instead of 20!

The Licensing rules seem to deal with a club's pursuit of a license at the point of application. It could feasibly arise that someone would meet the criteria for a license at the time of application, but then at some later point no longer meet that criteria.

Does the manual stipulate that a license can be revoked, once granted ? And does it state that it can be done if you no longer meet the requirements you apparently did/should have met at the time of application ? I wouldn't be surpirsed if there was a huge loophole here - and that once you got a license for a season that was that.

[Student Mullet]

The FAI Club Licensing Committee has the power to withdraw any licence or
apply any sanction during a season if the Licensee:
o no longer satisfies any single criteria for issuing the licence;
o violates any of its obligations, duties, confirmations or
undertakings under the FAI Club Licensing Manual, Contract or
Confidentiality Agreement
o Is involved in a bankruptcy, receivership, examinership or
liquidation process, or is struck off the Companies' Register
The withdrawal of a licence or imposition of a sanction is not mandatory and the
FAI Licensing Committee will have discretion to exercise this power or not.

The message you have entered is too short. Please lengthen your message to at least 5 characters.

[Dodge]

Don't know if it states it or not, but Rovers had their license revoked last season