Longford hit by �19,000 building supplies bill

**A face** · 10/03/2007, 12:59 AM

Originally Posted by Longfordian

As for Paisley,there's questions to be asked about the make up of the tribunal panel given one particular person's role in the start of the situation.

Can you tell us more? pm even?

**A face** · 10/03/2007, 1:19 AM

I should have known

**Longfordian** · 10/03/2007, 1:25 AM

Originally Posted by Sonic

What annoys me most longfordian is you are the one giving the fans this information. The board are telling us nothing!!

I see where you're coming from but 'the board' comes down to two or three people willing to take the flak. I'm not sticking up for everyone blindly and I do feel communication could be better but we do have 100+ members who were entitled to go and find out this information and ask the pertinent questions at the AGM and the Supporters Trust meetings (memebership is common to both) which were held not long ago. Most didn't. Those who did, it won't come as a huge shock to hear about difficulties.It sounds glib but to have a voice just join up and you'll have as much of a say in the club as anyone else! The problems are short term. Long term we've an asset worth multiples of our debts.

**p�l-dcfc** · 10/03/2007, 1:43 AM

Originally Posted by Longfordian

Long term we've an asset worth multiples of our debts.

*cough* Shels *cough*

**max power** · 10/03/2007, 2:15 AM

p�l, not too long ago derry were using noble prize winners to try and cash in for a few quid.

we have lived well beyond our means for a long time and now we must do like, pats, bohs and shels and regroup.

it was awful to see certain players leave and to see a judgement against us, but if it makes people realise that we need help and talk is cheap 9 excuse the pun) then its not all bad.

at the mo the supporters trust will bring in 32k this year for capital project and debt reduction. its a start and a move in the right direction.

Longfordian has long had to be involved with the club and give info here. don't shoot the messenger or the board, 5 or 6 people trying to run a national club with 20 odd employees and limited income.

remember these were the same board when there was no stand in flancare or flancare itself.

no one can place us like shels, we never went full time or silly signings ( money not quality

) debts are mainly capital.

also i must mention certain people who hang around the club and say we need to do this and that.........do the work........take praise.........then send in an invoice for full payment

. Longfordian you know who i mean.

as said above, join the supporters trust and make a difference.

i still have to

**Buffalo Saint** · 10/03/2007, 7:23 AM

Originally Posted by Longfordian

As for Paisley,there's questions to be asked about the make up of the tribunal panel given one particular person's role in the start of the situation.

Would you like to elaborate on this? What question/s would you ask?

**A face** · 10/03/2007, 11:22 AM

How long did Paisley have left on his contract?

**RockofGibraltar** · 10/03/2007, 11:26 AM

1 more season afaik

**pete** · 10/03/2007, 12:11 PM

Has Flancare even been full? Would not maybe 4000 seater stadium have been better idea?

**Longfordian** · 10/03/2007, 2:42 PM

Originally Posted by sduffy

Not entirely sure what you're talking about, but please tell me that Fran Gavin wasn't on the tribunal?

No but his sucessor was

**Dodge** · 10/03/2007, 3:37 PM

So a representative of the PFAI was on the tribunal? Surely the facts decided the case? If he wasn't paid for 2 consecutive weeks, he could leave? Not much to argue is there

**Longfordian** · 10/03/2007, 4:23 PM

The club paid for an operation for him 12 months ago. He deferred wages by agreement 12 months ago. He was happy enough last season.Pats came calling and he decides to break his contract, with help from the PFAI. He complained to the club for the first time, he was paid his money.Our manager gave evidence he'd never once complained to him which is the normal procedure. Why should the PFAI have a representative on the tribunal panel? Longford Town didn't. Why was said representative crowing in the media after the decision was made about what a great victory it was for the PFAI. He should have been impartial if he was going to have a vote. F**k it, it's done now but the club are right to have issues with how it was done

**daithi** · 10/03/2007, 7:34 PM

Who was on the tribunal panel? Is it a secret society?

**Martinho II** · 11/03/2007, 12:06 PM

an absolute disgrace from paisley did! I hope that paisley was in the ground last nite to hear the disgust coming from section o regarding him!

the cheek of him is something else and as for that certain rep on the pfai he is sometin else to mouth off to the media..

**sligoman** · 11/03/2007, 12:07 PM

Fair play to Paisley. Not paying players their own wages, of course he'd want out. Well done!

**A face** · 11/03/2007, 2:07 PM

Originally Posted by Dodge

So a representative of the PFAI was on the tribunal? Surely the facts decided the case? If he wasn't paid for 2 consecutive weeks, he could leave? Not much to argue is there

Dodge, it was a mutual agreement between the player and the club, and the wages were paid in full as agreed. This was all done even before McGuinness was even appointed to that position. A position which he abused to help Pats tap up a player. He was not impartial as he was involved in the move at every juncture, from start to finish. It would make you wonder, did he even get a little something out of it because if he wasn't at the PFAI then thats what we'd all be thinking.

**Dodge** · 11/03/2007, 7:22 PM

Originally Posted by A face

Dodge, it was a mutual agreement between the player and the club, and the wages were paid in full as agreed.

They obviously weren't. McGuinness didn't make the decision on that tribunal on his own

This was all done even before McGuinness was even appointed to that position. A position which he abused to help Pats tap up a player.

How did he help Pats tap him up. pats made an offer to buy him last week, which Longford refused (they actually asked for more money and a player). Pats had gone through the correct channels.

He was not impartial as he was involved in the move at every juncture, from start to finish. It would make you wonder, did he even get a little something out of it because if he wasn't at the PFAI then thats what we'd all be thinking.

I'm saying that just because McGuinness was a PFAI rep doens't mean that Paisley should not have been released. I couldn't tell you whether McGuinness was crooked but these things are based on facts, not opinions so his say would've been limited

**A face** · 11/03/2007, 8:07 PM

Originally Posted by Dodge

I'm saying that just because McGuinness was a PFAI rep doens't mean that Paisley should not have been released. I couldn't tell you whether McGuinness was crooked but these things are based on facts, not opinions so his say would've been limited

Would you agree that he shouldn't have been there in the first place as he is not impartial? or else step down for the PFAI, one or the other.

The club and the player has agreed. It was done and dusted and he was paid in full. The player never opened his mouth about it until he was tapped up.

**RonnieB** · 11/03/2007, 8:27 PM

Pats offered 15k, longford asked then for 20-22 + maguire.

**Dodge** · 11/03/2007, 8:53 PM

Originally Posted by A face

The club and the player has agreed. It was done and dusted and he was paid in full. The player never opened his mouth about it until he was tapped up.

He wasn't tapped up!? Pats made an offer for him. He decided he wanted to leave. Longford are the ones who didn't pay him correctly so they have no one to blame but themselves