2008 Licences

[John83]

The confidentality agreement within the process attempts to protect the contributors to the process. So information, recorded information is not used in a negative way against the contributors. I have no sympathy for gossip correspondents and supporters who are frustrated because they are not part of the shared information.

I think you're being disingenuous here, Harpo. The straw-man figure of gossiping fans and journos is a poor attempt to dismiss genuine concerns by lumping them in with more base motivations.

In the absence of information, there is speculation, which may be even more harmful to Pats than the truth. Confidentiality also leads to unaccountability, which leads to corruption and scandal. I don't doubt you can think of a dozen examples involving the FAI yourself.

John83, your post above is just a very general line, with no specifics or proven facts and is one reason many supporters remain out of the decision making process in Irish football.

Fine, here's your proven facts:
The Licensing committee denied Sligo Rovers a licence for making a submission in red pen. This is not in question.

The same year they granted Dublin City a licence. Mid-season, Dublin City ceased trading because they were not financially viable. This, too, is not in question.

Why then should I have confidence that Pats have been punished for any matter of relevance?

The confidentiality clause of the Licensing

I've read it, thanks. That it exists is not really of interest.

Ultimately, I think hiding behind confidentiality is harmful to the licencing process.

[Bald Student]

Ultimately, I think hiding behind confidentiality is harmful to the licencing process.

I don't agree. Making ridiculous judgments is harmful to the process. The confidentiality itself is necessary but open to abuse.