Petition to wind up Accolade (Shels)

**A face** · 18/03/2006, 12:27 AM

Originally Posted by R�iteoir

Lads - want to chuck �10 in each to get a big banner done to take to all future games against Shels?

50 foot long with the word "Ju$tic�" in 6 foot high letters?

Is that whether its seen or not seen to be done !!

Seriously ..... its all eyes on the league to see how the handle this one. They'll have a bit of a breather up until April 3rd, whatever happens there it'll will fast ... yae or nay and thats it.

Its what the league do afterwards that we'll be curious to see. Licencing, Rules books, Showing example, Sitting on the can to keep the worms in ..... because they'll have to get this one right. If the league and the FAI are to merge then this could (not saying it is, just could) be what decides it.

**Magicme** · 18/03/2006, 1:39 AM

What riles me is that all clubs had to sign a letter in January to Licensing saying if anything had changed so even if Shels werent aware of problem prior to Jan, (which is doubtful tbh) they fraudlently signed off on this letter to the licensing committee.

Sorry but as a mons fan with a club that has been pushed to the limit to provide evidence to prove that we are licence worthy, this **** really rankles.

**A face** · 18/03/2006, 2:43 AM

Originally Posted by Magicme

Sorry but as a mons fan with a club that has been pushed to the limit to provide evidence to prove that we are licence worthy, this **** really rankles.

extremities, two sides to a piece of string �. The league have questions to answer, there is no question of that. The thing is how many questions and how long for is the thing ??

This wont be going away and there is a chance it will never go away either if the league dont answer the questions properly and fully. They may not actually realise how much under the spot light the actually are ??

Licencing .... it works every single which way possible or reword/scrape it !!

Genisis Two/Who ??

Sort it !!

**sfc red** · 18/03/2006, 2:56 AM

Originally Posted by R�iteoir

Lads - want to chuck �10 in each to get a big banner done to take to all future games against Shels?

50 foot long with the word "Ju$tic�" in 6 foot high letters?

Get a job

**Breifne** · 18/03/2006, 10:06 AM

Originally Posted by Magicme

What riles me is that all clubs had to sign a letter in January to Licensing saying if anything had changed so even if Shels werent aware of problem prior to Jan, (which is doubtful tbh) they fraudlently signed off on this letter to the licensing committee.

I had actually forgotten about this, we had to submit a letter no more than 3 days prior to the licensing committee meetings that no event had taken place that had an affect on our financial position. There is no way possible that the Revenue have made this petition now and that shels weren't aware of this prior to that letter being submitted.

The Revenue are fair in their dealings, and would have gone through the relevant channels, I know a number of clubs have broken agreements with the Revenue before and have managed to re-negotiate their repayment agreements. This situation is either gross neglect of their Revenue liability by Shelbourne or the revenue clamping down on eL clubs after getting burned by 96% by Rovers.

**R�iteoir** · 18/03/2006, 12:50 PM

Originally Posted by sfc red

Get a job

I do have a job actually - and it's a good one

I earn €40,000 per year and have an excellent benefits package making biscuit tins, brown envelopes and packaging up large amounts of sand for the express purpose of people burying their heads in it.

Plus I pay tax and PRSI

How about you?

**Dodge** · 18/03/2006, 12:58 PM

Ah lads don't get peronal. A better answer would've been. I have a job and pay tax and PRSI...

**R�iteoir** · 18/03/2006, 1:09 PM

Originally Posted by Dodge

Ah lads don't get peronal. A better answer would've been. I have a job and pay tax and PRSI...

Cheerfully edited

**sfc red** · 18/03/2006, 1:33 PM

And what did you say beforehand???

I'd swear you were chatting me up here

**Roverstillidie** · 18/03/2006, 2:47 PM

from their 2004 audited accounts:

Due to the flooding in November 2002, we cannot ascertain what assets and liabilities exist in the club. All records were destroyed. The club has failed to record transactions which may give rise to 'additional amounts receiveable' or 'addition liabilities'. Proper books have not been kept by the company. We could not provide the necessary audit tests because evidence available was limited and records maintained by the company did not form an adequate basis for these tests resulting in insufficent evidence to give reasonable assurance that the financial statements are free from material misstatements.

The company engages in a wide range of activities carried on for the purpose of fund-raising or to provide a benefit for supporters ( no small mention of running a football club). Bookeeping is performed by small permanent staff regarding the activities executed by a large number of volunteers (no mention of professional playing staff).. Independent confirmation by us that all transactions were properly recorded was not generally available and concludes that the task of audit work was...... (virtually impossible)."

now the $64,000 question: HOW DID THEY GET A LICENCE?

and how many points do they lose for their licence application?

**A face** · 18/03/2006, 3:03 PM

Its actually unreal when you think of it, i mean some of the things the Ollie has been up to over the years to undermine other clubs. Its like he was setting up a surface to air missle base in a greenhouse at times.

There is pushing the boat out and then there is sinking it.

**hoopy** · 18/03/2006, 3:33 PM

This is the same guy who wanted us thrown out've the league last year instead of docking points, then couldn't get us into Tolka quick enough this season

**CollegeTillIDie** · 18/03/2006, 4:57 PM

Now Rovers fans know why you were so welcome all of a sudden in Tolka Park

**R�iteoir** · 18/03/2006, 6:29 PM

Originally Posted by hoopy

This is the same guy who wanted us thrown out've the league last year instead of docking points, then couldn't get us into Tolka quick enough this season

I think his decision on trying to get you in this season was more a monetary decision than one based on his quite lowbrow "principles"

**bohs til i die** · 18/03/2006, 7:28 PM

Originally Posted by Roverstillidie

now the $64,000 question: HOW DID THEY GET A LICENCE?

and how many points do they lose for their licence application?

Shels obtained a Licence because they had a TCC, issued on December 30th. The reason the revenue are going down this road I because Shels have defaulted on the agreement they made with the revenue to obtain the TCC.

Shels cannot be sanctionned for this by the league or FAI because they have done nothing wrong in the rules of the league.

**pineapple stu** · 18/03/2006, 7:35 PM

What about the proviso in the licencing that a club must inform the Licencing Committee of any change of circumstances up to three days before the meeting of the licencing committee? Having outstanding tax is enough to fail to get a licence if you don't have an agreement to repay it. Shels have now defaulted on this agreement, so can it be said to exist?

That said, having read through the licencing document, there seems to be an inordinate amount of "unless" clauses designed to provide the FAI any excuse to allow a club pass and so fudge the issue.

**green-blood** · 18/03/2006, 8:23 PM

Shels cannot be sanctionned for this by the league or FAI because they have done nothing wrong in the rules of the league

exactly, but they get fecked out of the league if they are wound up.... roll on April 2nd, 2 days for fools this year

**thomas** · 19/03/2006, 6:35 AM

Originally Posted by soccerc

This is how I understand the situation having spoken to quite a number of people, some of whom would have a good insight into the workings of the eL.

It seems that last October/November the Revenue approached Shels with a tax bill including penalties and interest, (the amount is not of consequence in the overall scheme of things). Shels replied to them disputing the amount.

The eL/FAI got involved with a senior official attending meetings with Shels and the Revenue to sort out the repayment terms. As a result of those negotiations a schedule was agreed and Shels received their licence.

It then appears that the club failed to meet the repayment schedule and the Revenue made contact intimating their next course of action. The seriousness of the situation allegedly was ignored forcing the Revenue to seek the petition to wind up Accolade.

I understand that the eL Board of Management were not aware of the ongoing difficulties though senior officials may have been informed and this it seems may come back to haunt Shels. Some clubs are angry at what they perceive as inequitable application of both the eL rules and the Club Licensing regulations.

Shels are expected to meet their liabilities to the revenue in the coming days and the April High Court date will pass without the Petiton being presented.

In the interests of balance and fairness if anyone wishes to dispute or add to the above then I would be happy to oblige

The most important thing for shels at this point was to have told the licensing body otherwise there will be sanctions. If they pay the debt then there'll be no punishment.

**thomas** · 19/03/2006, 6:41 AM

Just to clear up green blood, the rules allow a non incorporated entity, Shelbourne FC, to hold the license. My understanding is that the associated accolade company does not hold the license, the football club does.

Its a get out both shels and longford have taken advantage of.