Licensing results out

[Mr_T]

If Harps were genuinely turned down on the seat issue, yet Drogs got there's based on future plans then thats another major inconsistency. Harps are more advanced than Drogs when it comes to the new ground. (Notwithstanding the fact that 1500 covered seats has actually been a premier division "rule" since the late 90's ).

Do Drogs have ANY seats? The biggest problem at Harps is that since the Licensing Safety Gurus deemed the few seats we have to be unsafe our seated capacity is zero. If we were promoted (or IAG'ed ) to the Premier we would have to, and could, install a small amount of temporary seating to satisfy the Premier License and allow us to play in Finn Park till the new stadium is complete.

[BrayUnknowns]

Drogheda have about 100 covered seats i reckon

[passerrby]

this whole thread proves licensing is a joke

[Magicme]

Try telling that to our licensing officer tho Passerby....he works his butt off for it...wouldnt like to be there when u tell him he's wasting his time!!

[higgins]

It really is a farce. Shels getting a licence with an outstanding Winding Up order is obviously the biggest joke. Regardless of whether it will be withdrawn, which can't be a certaintly given it's their 3rd, it shouldn't have been issued until such time as it was revenue withdraw it. However bad it is for the FAI not to issue a licence to their champions, where does it leave the image of the league if they are in administration within weeks of getting one "with flying colours".

Well as it stands Shels got their licence fairly it seems.

You can argue that the licence is not good enough because it allows teams get winding up orders throughout the season and then just before their licence inspection pay up what is required but its hard to put a rule in place when its outside of the control of the FAI as to who gets a winding up order.

You don't know how many clubs are out there that deserve a winding up order ?
It would be silly to suggest that Shels are the only ones around who are not paying tax or who are not up to date, why revenue are chasing them is their business and although they are legally entitled to chase them for outstanding tax they may be neglecting others who in comparison to their budget have a more serious problem with paying tax?

Going on the rules of the Premier Licence financial section what rule have Shels broke now that they are in possession of a Tax Clearance Cert ?

[Macy]

Try telling that to our licensing officer tho Passerby....he works his butt off for it...wouldnt like to be there when u tell him he's wasting his time!!

Sure it's the FAI that are telling him that by giving licences out in the manner they are. The only saving grace is that clubs that properly comply with licencing are ensuring their long term future and sustainability. As a tool of compulsion to make clubs operate in this way, Licencing has been, and continues to be, a massive failure.

[Macy]

You can argue that the licence is not good enough because it allows teams get winding up orders throughout the season and then just before their licence inspection pay up what is required but its hard to put a rule in place when its outside of the control of the FAI as to who gets a winding up order.

Have they paid up and has the hearing been cancelled? I'm not talking about the past ones, as clearly there is no rule to stop that (even if there should be penalties), rather the current outstanding one that could lead to administration.

I'm sure there are plenty of clubs in arrears with revenue, and paying back on a payment plan. However, are you suggesting that Revenue are on some sort of anti Shels crusade? If other clubs were defaulting, as shown in the Cork City case, they'd be faced with the same treatment from Revenue.

[higgins]

Macy I don't know if anyone is 'out to get' Shels but I'd imagine Shels of all the clubs are in one of the best positions to pay their tax bill. Considering they stand to gain from the sale of Tolka maybe revenue know they can squeeze shels for the money and they are doing just that ?

Maybe it serves no purpose to issue a different club with a winding up order as they are prepared to accept a much more drawn out repayment structure then they would for Shels ?

My main point is that with so many factors involved and a certain amount of discretion from revenue that maybe what rule is being applied to one club may not be applied to the next in regards to winding up orders? To wirte a rule into the rulebook regarding winding up orders you would have to be certain that Revenue are looking on all clubs as equal and applying the same rules in each case and looking at each club at the same time eash season.

Maybe they should rethink the issue surrounding tax and make it more than just about having a TCC, as its shown now that clubs are issued these while under a repayment structure. Bohemians are one other club who have mentioned they were under a repayment structure. Maybe from now on repayment structures should now be allowed, full stop. Everyone should be up to date by the time the next season comes into action and then maybe quarterly spot checks with points deductions for those who don't stay in line?

I don't know what exactly is a fair system but I don't think a rule based on revenues desire to wind you up is fair. Saying they will wind you up could be more of a tactic than an indication you are at the brink of going out of business.

[pineapple stu]

Macy I don't know if anyone is 'out to get' Shels but I'd imagine Shels of all the clubs are in one of the best positions to pay their tax bill.

That makes no sense at all. If they were in the best position to pay their bill, you'd imagine they'd do so (and pay their players) rather than getting dragged up to cort every other month. It's all well and good having a large asset, but if it's not overly liquid or if it's essential to the running of the club, then you're in trouble.

Well as it stands Shels got their licence fairly it seems.

It does. And that's the whole joke, don't you think?

On the Shels debate, well I'm not surprised the FAI have passed them, becuase if I was in charge I would too. The sole reason for this being, that the FAI are trying to market this new league to fans of the English Premier, people who normally don't care a jot about the Eircom League. Now how would it look to them if Shelbourne (who trust me are seen as the biggest club in Ireland to said lay fans) aren't in this new league?

It isn't as clear cut as relegate them or do nothing. You could dock points as well - the precedent has been set already. Dock them ten points, say - they stay in the Premier, do alright in Europe but they've been given a clear warning to cop on to themselves or they won't be succeeding in the future.

[sadloserkid]

Heard Wexford are a good bet to have a new team in the league next season. As for us... I suspect we'll be alright but it won't be lack of trying to commit suicide on the part of some of our incumbents.

[Lim till i die]

Heard Wexford are a good bet to have a new team in the league next season. As for us... I suspect we'll be alright but it won't be lack of trying to commit suicide on the part of some of our incumbents.

Now that's what I call making a mockery of licencing

Wexford..... Sources

[sadloserkid]

Wexford..... Sources

One of the best young coaches on this island, if not further afield.

[Macy]

Maybe they should rethink the issue surrounding tax and make it more than just about having a TCC, as its shown now that clubs are issued these while under a repayment structure. Bohemians are one other club who have mentioned they were under a repayment structure. Maybe from now on repayment structures should now be allowed, full stop. Everyone should be up to date by the time the next season comes into action and then maybe quarterly spot checks with points deductions for those who don't stay in line?

But Shels have had (several) repayment schemes. That's not what got Shels into trouble, it's Shels inability to stick to the repayment scheme that has been the problem. The value of assets has nothing to do with it, and is just a straw clutching exercise looking for an excuse.

[higgins]

That makes no sense at all. If they were in the best position to pay their bill, you'd imagine they'd do so (and pay their players) rather than getting dragged up to cort every other month. It's all well and good having a large asset, but if it's not overly liquid or if it's essential to the running of the club, then you're in trouble.

They have paid up 3 large amounts of money to the tax man over the last 6 months. This is proof to me that Shels can pay their tax. Why they don't do this before they get the winding up order only Shelbourne know exactly.
Three winding up orders and three payments. Seems to me that it's a 'tactic' used now against shels to get their money and it's worked. I've never ever said that Shels should not pay their tax I only questioned if playing by Revenues rules when it's not clear to everyone what their rules are in regards to winding up orders, may not be the fairest way to do things?

Would you not accept that?

I don't claim the current system is correct either, far from it but to base it all on Revenues calls for winding up would be wrong.

It does. And that's the whole joke, don't you think?

Yes I do think. I have posted it here before, many times! Ive posted it on Shelsweb too, many times. The current system is useless as it stands. The idea is good but theres no great desire from the clubs or the FAI to improve standards.

I know it was attempted before and kind of fizzled out but I'd like to see the FAI in partnership with the government come up with a serious set of rules to be part of the new premier division. Pick the teams that will take a place in this new division and upgrade every single club to the minimum standards required then set them free...

They sink or swim.

[higgins]

But Shels have had (several) repayment schemes. That's not what got Shels into trouble, it's Shels inability to stick to the repayment scheme that has been the problem. The value of assets has nothing to do with it, and is just a straw clutching exercise looking for an excuse.

so your telling me if Revenue knew Shels didnt have the ability to pay the tax and I mean knew as in 100% sure they couldnt, that we would have seen these winding up orders ?

I'm sure there are clubs in the league today that could not survive a wind up or pay all your tax situation.

All I am saying is that a new rule based on 'If you receive a winding up order the follwoing happens ..................' is not a great idea. There are better ways around the problems than that.

[Macy]

Three winding up orders and three payments. Seems to me that it's a 'tactic' used now against shels to get their money and it's worked. I've never ever said that Shels should not pay their tax I only questioned if playing by Revenues rules when it's not clear to everyone what their rules are in regards to wonding up orders may not be the fairest way to do things?

It is clear what the revenue rules are with regard to winding up orders. Pay your taxes including any repayment schemes or face a winding up order. What's not clear or fair?

[Macy]

so your telling me if Revenue knew Shels didnt have the ability to pay the tax and I mean knew as in 100% sure they couldnt, that we would have seen these winding up orders ?

Yes, why wouldn't they? It forces the business into administration and revenue have first call on the assets. What would you expect them to do - let you carry on racking up debts to them?

[higgins]

It is clear what the revenue rules are with regard to winding up orders. Pay your taxes including any repayment schemes or face a winding up order. What's not clear or fair?

So you know that only Shelbourne and Cork City are the only two clubs who have ever broke that rule ?

I find that hard to believe but if thats what everyone thinks then by all means throw it into the club licence application that you have to be clear of winding up orders.

I think there are much better ways to sort it out.

[gufct]

Higgins you must be ollie because your reasoning is so rose tinted its off the wall. The revenue will hit shels like a ton of bricks if ollie keeps up his mouthing off in public. I know from my own dealings with the taxman that if you dont play ball with them (ie. welch on previous agreements) they will give you absolutely no leeway the next time this happens.

[Macy]

So you know that only Shelbourne and Cork City are the only two clubs who have ever broke that rule ?

I know they're the only two clubs that have defaulted to the extent that a winding up order is issued. Do you really think revenue apply different rules to different businesses?