QuoteWhat's the restructuring got to do with licencing?Originally Posted by Hooperatzi
From the blurb on the brochure.
It's technically correct, but not in the real world.
What's the restructuring got to do with licencing?
How could I have brought it up if I was responding to a point someone else made about it?
I believe that in the end Limerick will be the winners as a new club formed with a group of football dedicated people in the forefront will bring a strong and consolidated club into the League.
In years to come Danny Drew might just realise he is not the guy that was shafted by the FAI. But in fact was saved by the FAI. A phone call from Ronan Seery to DD might explain the reason.
Anyone on here more au fait with the law than me?? Can Danny Drew use Shels as an example of the shambles that is licencing or must he stick to putting across Limericks case without using any other clubs? If it's the former he has a pretty good case, if it's the latter he hasn't a leg to stand on
It's all moot anyway IMO because I reckon there's as much chance of Lord Lucan appearing in the High Court charged with having unlawful carnal knowledge of Shergar as there is of Mr. Drew making an appearance
But the legal system deals in technically correct facts so if it goes to court then the only complaint can be that Limerick didn't get invited to the new party.
Foot.ie's entire existence is predicated on the average idiot's inability to ignore other idiots
I heard the invitations were going to be faxed to the clubs which would leave Derry in serious danger of missing out.
SIGNATURESCOPE
Not my area of expertise by any manner of means but in short I don't think so.
I doubt it either, it would be similar to getting caught speeding and attempting to get off by arguing that everybody else around you was speeding but you were the only one that got caught. In essence, the argument is "We're guilty, but we're not the only ones"
The main problem there is that by taking that approach it's an immediate admission of guilt and a judge may simply throw the case out then and there.
Foot.ie's entire existence is predicated on the average idiot's inability to ignore other idiots
not an expert on this but if dd can show that a precident had been set that allowed a club to gain a licence without completely compliing with the manual requirements then he may be able to show he was singled out for special trteatment
I wish i did not know then what I dont know now
It was sniffa who brought up the restructuring. Myself and DmanDmythDledge both said that was nonsense.
Problem is that no-one's actually fallen foul of the licencing yet. You can't really fail under the current wordings because it's all "If the club have no other plans or an agreement in place or a budget", then the club "may not get a licence" which "may not allow them compete in the league". So actually everyone's probably complied with the manual - even Shels - because all it asks is that you take note of a few things and make up a budget or a plan to get rid of them.
agree with the princible but that means ollies plans were acceptable while DD we not, now thats hard to takeProblem is that no-one's actually fallen foul of the licencing yet. You can't really fail under the current wordings because it's all "If the club have no other plans or an agreement in place or a budget", then the club "may not get a licence" which "may not allow them compete in the league". So actually everyone's probably complied with the manual - even Shels - because all it asks is that you take note of a few things and make up a budget or a plan to get rid of them.
Last edited by A face; 08/01/2007 at 9:17 PM. Reason: Fixed the quote
I wish i did not know then what I dont know now
Ah now. Think before you type.
Anyone could make up the plans Ollie made up. Even Danny Drew.
Shels don't have a board of directors either. What's your point?
He's not sure
A lecture on board members from a Rovers fan
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks