Petition to wind up Accolade (Shels)

**DvB** · 22/03/2006, 8:00 AM

Originally Posted by Dodge

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

Correct! It was actually the night we played Pats in Richmond Park the 8 points were deducted on the basis that our licence had been revoked. They basically took away the points we had gained up to that game, it was purely for that reason we assumed it an 8 points deduction & not some other amount! But at the start of the that season we had a premier Division License!

Koh

**thomas** · 22/03/2006, 8:31 AM

The real question is: Do Accolade T/A Shelbourne FC hold the License or does the Football club hold it?

The reality is that accolade basically just owns the lease on Tolka, the License allows for this set up. It means that the actual football club is not in trouble with revenue and therefore not open to be sanctioned.

Longford were in exactly the same position and just about pulled off a deal with the revenue in time.

Its yet another loophole that showed up as a get out for these two clubs who dont have to submit the accounts of their day to day operations to the CRO as they are not incorporated. Therefore, unless the revenue audits them they can get away with paying ZERO PAYE / PRSI.

**higgins** · 22/03/2006, 12:08 PM

Originally Posted by anto eile

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

I dont think the newspapers quote Ollie every time he changes his mind!

To take your own phrase
Hello Hello is anybody there

Go read through the posts and I think everyone agrees they agreed on structured payments after that quote.

**higgins** · 22/03/2006, 12:09 PM

Originally Posted by 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.

How do you know the option to borrow against future income hasnt already been used?

**Macy** · 22/03/2006, 12:30 PM

Originally Posted by thomas

Longford were in exactly the same position and just about pulled off a deal with the revenue in time.

Lots of clubs have arrangements to pay back arrears. Longford (are you obsessed or what?), Bohs, Pats, Shels, etc etc. Difference is others have obviously met the re-payments (seeing as revenue aren't trying to liquidate them), and have reduced their playing budgets.

**pineapple stu** · 22/03/2006, 12:31 PM

Originally Posted by thomas

The real question is: Do Accolade T/A Shelbourne FC hold the License or does the Football club hold it?

The reality is that accolade basically just owns the lease on Tolka, the License allows for this set up. It means that the actual football club is not in trouble with revenue and therefore not open to be sanctioned.

Accolade does far more than just hold the lease. It is Shelbourne FC - any bills/correspondence from Shels will have Accolade's name on them, etc. The relationship between the two appears to be the exact same as Branvard Limited and Shamrock Rovers.

Originally Posted by anto eile

Originally Posted by sfc red

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

Actually, it's a very relevant post - it shows why Shels are being petitioned for liquidation while Rovers were merely put into administration. Rovers' fans had long been up in arms about what was happening, ultimately kicked the board out, took over the club and operated strict budgets. That's not happening at Shels, which is why Revenue are taking a more severe stance.

**higgins** · 22/03/2006, 12:50 PM

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

Actually, it's a very relevant post - it shows why Shels are being petitioned for liquidation while Rovers were merely put into administration. Rovers' fans had long been up in arms about what was happening, ultimately kicked the board out, took over the club and operated strict budgets. That's not happening at Shels, which is why Revenue are taking a more severe stance.

So now your saying the Rovers and Shels cases are the same!!!!!

Holy devine jaysus, did you not read what makes them different and why each route is different in the previous 15 pages...

You really will jump at anything.

**pineapple stu** · 22/03/2006, 12:54 PM

Originally Posted by higgins

So now your saying the Rovers and Shels cases are the same!!!!!

See the bit where I put "Shels are" followed by "while Rovers were"? That indicates a difference. A difference means not the same.

**higgins** · 22/03/2006, 1:03 PM

and you then went on to compare the action taken by both sets of supporters??
If its different then why the comparison, I dont understand your point and seems like your posting for the sake of it at this stage.

As long as its clear your going around comparing two things that are not the same then thats fine.

**pineapple stu** · 22/03/2006, 1:10 PM

Originally Posted by higgins

If it's different then why the comparison

Because that's why you compare things.

The point is the difference (or at least, a key difference) between putting a company into liquidation or administration lies in whether it's a viable trading entity or not. Rovers clearly weren't a viable trading entity until the 400 Club took over and made various promises about slashing the budget, etc. Shels clearly aren't a viable trading entity, and have no such recourse at present.

**patcorr** · 22/03/2006, 2:52 PM

So when is all this mess going to be sorted?

**A face** · 22/03/2006, 3:15 PM

Originally Posted by patcorr

So when is all this mess going to be sorted?

I think the next we'll hear anything will be on the 3rd of April. That is when Ollie and the revenue have the next t�te � t�te !!

**thomas** · 23/03/2006, 7:50 AM

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

Accolade does far more than just hold the lease. It is Shelbourne FC - any bills/correspondence from Shels will have Accolade's name on them, etc. The relationship between the two appears to be the exact same as Branvard Limited and Shamrock Rovers.

Wrong, look at te account and tell me where it shows shels annual wage and PRSI/PAYE bills. They are not there because the football club is separate.

The figure you should look for is about EUR2.0m.

Macy, my point about LTFC limited is the same, the football club (ie players wages etc.) is not run through the company.
The entity holding control of the players holds the License, not LTFC Ltd, nor accolade in shels case.

**SeanDrog** · 23/03/2006, 8:13 AM

I'm certainly no expert but if the above is true then how on earth did his complany build up owed tax to that level if the main costs are under another company?

**pineapple stu** · 23/03/2006, 8:51 AM

Originally Posted by thomas

Wrong, look at te account and tell me where it shows shels annual wage and PRSI/PAYE bills. They are not there because the football club is separate.

Wrong - they are not there because the company claims an exemption from filing accounts.

Se�n Drog's point is valid too - if Accolade isn't Shels and doesn't pay its wages, how come it owes so much to Revenue?

Shelbourne FC is purely a business name - it doesn't have trade or have any activity, etc. It isn't even a legal entity. Accolade Ltd does all its trading. That's why Shels' headed paper includes the name Accolade Limited.

**Dodge** · 23/03/2006, 10:01 AM

And Accolade pays the wages of at least one Shels player

**chippie0001** · 23/03/2006, 12:19 PM

Originally Posted by thomas

Wrong, look at te account and tell me where it shows shels annual wage and PRSI/PAYE bills. They are not there because the football club is separate.

The figure you should look for is about EUR2.0m.

Macy, my point about LTFC limited is the same, the football club (ie players wages etc.) is not run through the company.
The entity holding control of the players holds the License, not LTFC Ltd, nor accolade in shels case.

Sorry but you are wrong there. Accolade is the employer of the Shels players and also pays the PAYE/PRSI to the revenue. I have seen at least one former Shels player P60 and its employer name and number is accolade.

**Macy** · 23/03/2006, 12:25 PM

Originally Posted by thomas

Macy, my point about LTFC limited is the same, the football club (ie players wages etc.) is not run through the company.
The entity holding control of the players holds the License, not LTFC Ltd, nor accolade in shels case.

And as I keep saying, the only reason that is the case because the FAI insist on clubs having a limited company. If it wasn't for that FAI rule, there only would be the club. I can see your point to a certain extent, but it would be wrong to make out that there is anything underhand about us, or necessarily shels, in doing things this way.

Have you evidence to back up this claim about the licence anyway? And was Rovers licence issued to Shamrock Rovers FC or Branvard Ltd last season? As that'd could be the test of your theory in this regard.