On July 30th, ahead of the FAI's Annual General Meeting, the FAI released a statement on their website announcing a total of €100,000 to be made available to the 20 League of Ireland clubs to assist them in the formation of five-year strategic plans. Each club will receive €5,000.
The money on offer was rejected by Derry City and Saint Patrick's Athletic. Derry City Chairman Sean Barrett said that "“for us to be treated like that is not only disgraceful, it’s disrespectful and we will be not be accepting that figure. We will be telling them to keep the money. We won’t accept it".
Saint Pats' followed Derry's lead in rejecting the money via a statement on their website which was extremely critical of the FAI, claiming that the FAI has "utterly failed in its responsibility to the domestic game".
The FAI then responded to Pats' via a statement on their website on Saturday afternoon, expressing their disappointment with the Pats' statement, with League of Ireland director Fran Gavin quoted as saying it was "quite extraordinary given that the club's representative was one of the architects in agreeing the funding initiative in the first place". This is in reference to the fact St Pats' general manager Frank Kinsella was among those present at the meeting.
Saint Pats' then responded with a second statement, refuting the idea that the Pats' board rejection of the funding was in any way extraordinary.
Yesterday, Gavin Cooney of Balls.ie had the opportunity to speak with Fran Gavin about the issue.
GC: Could you explain in detail as to why the FAI made this decision in the first place?
FG: I think you have to go back to the Conroy report. The Conroy report was a consultation document which made 18 recommendations regards the running of the League and the future structure of the League going forward, right?
That was released in September.
Since then we sat down with the Premier Clubs Association representatives who they told us represent the 20 clubs in the league. The representatives are Frank Kinsella from St Patrick's Athletic, Denis O'Connor of Bray Wanderers and Martin Heraghty, who is chairman of Sligo Rovers. Dennis is also chairman of Bray Wanderers and Frank, I think, is commercial or general manager with Pats. They also had senior counsel Michael Cush with them at some of the meetings. They appointed him to assist with these discussions.
We've had eight to ten meetings so far.
One of the recommendations that came out in the Conroy Report was the need for clubs to have credible, strategic plans. We all agreed that that was a requirement, there was no problem with it, so at several of the meetings we talked about strategic plans, and how could we get the clubs to make strategic plans, and how to advise them and assist them with that.
We brought Declan Conroy (author of the Conroy Report) in for one of the meetings, and Declan explained how he had done similar strategic plans with small associations around Europe, and discussed other ideas around it.
The idea was to get all the clubs into a workshop and we would sit down with them and assist them.
About five or six meetings later, that still wasn't happening. So at the latest meeting the other day in Clonmel, the week of the FAI AGM, myself, John Delaney and (National League Executive Committee Chairman) Eamon Naughton met the same four people.
We talked about strategic planning and the Conroy Report and how are we going to move this on.
Another thing we were waiting for was for the clubs to come back with an agreed format of the League going forward; they were discussing that among themselves.
Sorry, a format of the league as in -
A format as to what the clubs wanted. Did they want a 16-team, 12-team, 10-team, did they want two divisions, that type of stuff.
So, they are discussing that among themselves. They still haven't come back with a format but that's okay, they're discussing that, it's grand. There's a lot of different things being discussed. The meetings have been very good, great discussions, very open, great interaction between the two sides, and it's been moving all the time.
Now, the other day at the meeting we sat down and asked 'how are we going to get these clubs to kickstart things, to get this done'. It was suggested at a meeting that 'OK, the FAI would put €100,000 up to assist the clubs to kickstart those plans to compile these actual plans.’
We would nominate three companies, and the club would pick one of them, and they could work with them to bring together a strategic business plan for the next five years.
Once we have all those plans off those clubs, myself, John Delaney and Eamon Naughton will sit down with each club and go through the different aspects of each plan and we will attempt to assist in bringing those strategic plans to fruition.
All clubs have different plans and different ambitions. Dundalk would be different than Cobh Ramblers, Cork City would be different than Limerick, they all have their own areas in which they'd like to strengthen and different ideas as to where they see themselves on the pitch, in their communities, in their academies, the development of their underage sides, an aspiration to go to Europe: all those ideas that you would have in a normal strategic plan.
The idea then is to talk with external stakeholders, such as the government, local authorities, even ourselves, we'd have some funding, to help get some funding for the clubs, to assist the clubs.
It was agreed at the meeting by everybody that this was a great idea, that it would be welcome by the clubs, and it was agreed to issue a joint statement with that in mind.
Frank Kinsella was there and agreed to it, and the other three lads agreed to it also. That's why it is very confusing as to why Pats' put out this statement, that they objected to it, they were going to refuse it. So, on the one hand they said ‘that's fine’ in the meeting, but on the other hand they come out, nearly ten days after the meeting and on the back of Derry making their comments.
But that's exactly the idea of the grant, that's where it came from, that's what it was used for. And it's really only the first step in working with the clubs on getting funding, so it's only a first step on kickstarting this thing. I think people see this and say 'Oh, the FAI made €11 million and they are only giving the clubs €5,000' - it's not related at all.
We'll get to the Pats' thing in a minute but I'm interested in the exact mechanics of how the money will be distributed, because I feel that's been lost in the amount of things that have been published and said in the last few days. The €5,000 to be given to each of the clubs: is that to be paid up front, or in installments?
The idea would be is that they would select the company who will work with them around the strategic plan itself, and we will pay €5,000 towards that plan being put together. If a company comes in and says 'oh, this will cost four and a half thousand of €5000', we will pay that sum of money.
Is there a way for the FAI to guarantee that this €5,000 will be used for this exact purpose? Athlone Town being one example of a club that their main issue is surviving week-to-week at this stage, so will they be allowed to use this €5,000 in other departments, or has it been specifically ringfenced for the development of the strategic plan?
This €5,000 is ringfenced for a strategic plan, and that's it. It will be based on invoices received from the company.
The next step after the submission of the strategic plan is for the clubs to sit down with yourself, John Delaney and Eamon Naughton. Have you any idea of the amount of money that the FAI have set aside to give to each of the clubs to help these bring business plans a further step?
Not at the moment because we would need to sit down with the club and see what's there. If you take a strategic plan, Gavin, there are 3 basic pillars in it. One would be on the pitch, the football side of the club. The first team, their underage: the U-19, under-17 and an under-15 league coming down the road, clubs will have academies, their player pathways, how do they develop the coaching side of things, how do they develop their facilities.
The second one would be around the governance of the club, and the business side of it. What's the structure of the club, how many committees do we have, how do we recruit volunteers, all that basic running of the club.
The third is the community, which is very important for us. So how do we embed ourselves in the local community? How do we get into local schools? How do we deal with our local clubs? What more can we do in the communities around us? What are we doing on social media to promote what we're doing? On the community side of things there, we would approach the governments and local authorities to see if there is funding there to assist that.
If there are any other areas in which we can assist, we would do that.
If we go anywhere, and someone asks us and says 'we need X amount of money', we have to say 'well, what is it for?'. Then they can say here is a strategic plan, we have gone over them and we can stand over them.
Will there be any penalties for clubs who fail to return a strategic plan, or do they have to do so within a certain time frame?
No, we'd like to see this process completed in two or three months, but there won't be a penalty.
We try to work with the clubs in a partnership approach, and that's how the meetings have been approached: a partnership between us and the clubs to try and achieve this. This was the whole idea of us saying 'look, let's see if this can help us kickstart the clubs into doing it'. So it's not a case of having penalties or fines if you don't have this, but it's best practice for any business, whether it’s football or any other business, to have a strategic plan.
Unfortunately, a lot of our clubs don't have them. I know Bohemians have one, I know Sligo are in the middle of one, so it's best practice, but we're not into saying that 'oh, if you don't have one by then we're going to fine you'. It won't come to that. It's trying to encourage the clubs really, to encourage both of us to co-operate to get these done.
Derry City and Saint Patrick’s Athletic have been very public in their rejection of the money, and I do want to discuss with you the Saint Patrick's Athletic that they published on their website yesterday in response to an earlier statement on the FAI website. I want to give you a couple of passages from the Pats' statement and ask you your opinion of them.
The original FAI statement expressed their disappointment and astonishment that Frank Kinsella, despite the fact that he represents Pats' and accepted the offer of the money at the meeting before the AGM, there was surprise that Pats' then rejected that money. Pats believe your statement was an attempt to undermine their original statement, and that there was nothing extraordinary about their general manager attending a meeting, accepting it on a personal level and then having it rejected by the St Pats' board. Are the FAI guilty of not accepting this process that, while Mr Kinsella may agree on a personal level, it is entirely possible that the Pats' board would reject it, and he was merely fulfilling due process in bringing it before the Pats Board?
I think it's absolutely ridiculous to suggest that. The position is that, Mr. Kinsella is there as a representative of the Premier Clubs Association; he's a representative of that association along with the two other men present and Mr. Cush.
If that was the case, as the meeting he should have said to us that 'listen, that's a great idea, I'll bring this back to my board and we'll come back and we'll have a discussion on it. It was agreed at the meeting by everybody there and it was also agreed to make a joint statement welcoming the initiative and that we agreed. Mr.Kinsella was part of that agreement.
At no stage did he say 'I have to go back to my board now and say it to my board and see if we accept that or not'. That was never said at any stage by any of the parties agreed to issue the statement, agreed to the initiative itself, agreed to the €100,000 itself, so coming up with this now is extraordinary by Pats, it really is.
If there were three men representing 20 different clubs, surely there’s an implication that everything has to go back to the individual clubs to be cleared or vetoed?
I don't know how many negotiations you've been in, Gavin, but when you go to in to negotiate with someone, and sit down in meetings to discuss future things, you go in with a mandate. That's their issue, the PCA have elected these people to go in and negotiate for them.
At no stage did they say 'we're not here, we have to go back' - that was never discussed. At any stage.
To come along afterward, nearly ten days later, and say 'oh actually, we had to go back to our clubs and say'...St Pats didn't make any statement about this the next day, or the day after, or the day after that. So if they had discussed it at their board meeting, why didn't they come out and say 'we're not happy with that, and we're not going to accept that money'.
It was very simple: we discussed the arrangement around it, everybody agreed on it, including Mr Kinsella, everybody agreed that it was a great idea, that would help kickstart this process, which we’ve been discussing over the last few months. At the request of the PCA, we made a joint statement.
Was it made explicitly clear to each person in the meeting how the money would be distributed? That it would be €5,000 given individually to each club?
It was. It's €100,000 between 20 clubs. It was made very clear.
Was it made explicitly clear that it would be €5,000 to each club, rather than weighted more for clubs more in need of this business plan. Was it explicitly clear that it would be €5,000 per club?
Yes, it was made clear to everybody.
A couple of other things arising from the Pats' statement. They responded to say that it has been "Ten months since we brought these issues forward nothing material has happened. We have made Association aware of the seriousness of the challenge facing the senior clubs - and the domestic game at all levels - but there has been no serious engagement. To demonstrate its commitment the PCA appointed Senior Counsel, Michael Cush, to lead its engagement with the FAI but, to date, his efforts have been largely rebuffed". What is the FAI's response to this?
It is extraordinary that they can say something like that. I think you need to talk with the other two members of the clubs association who were there at the meetings.
We have certainly discussed a lot of issues around various parts of the game, and we are progressing with all those issues with them at all times. They would have points they would make, we would have points we would make, like any negotiation. It takes a while to get all that done.
We've discussed formats of the league, we've discussed prize money, we've discussed all other issues, particularly around the Conroy Report.
The meetings have been very good. They've been conducted with a lot of trust, with a lot of goodwill, and with a lot of confidentiality, which is very important to us. We've discussed all those issues, and we continue to discuss them.
We're only 7-10 meetings in, and we are discussing the future of the league, so this doesn't happen overnight.
I think you can talk to other representatives they have and they would have a very different view that what Mr Kinsella has.
Have the FAI slightly jeopardized that trust you talked about in the statement? On a basic level, Frank Kinsella is named a number of times throughout the statement, but the other representatives weren't named at all?
There's no problem, I'm telling you who they are. I said who they were on the radio yesterday. The reason why Mr. Kinsella was named is because St Pat’s put out this statement. It wasn't Sligo Rovers or Bray Wanderers putting this statement out. It's St Pat’s, and Mr Kinsella, who represents Saint Patrick’s Athletic on the PCA, was at the meeting, and agreed to it. That's why we published Mr Kinsella's name there.
There is another line that stands out from the Pats' statement.
"What prevails with the FAI is an approach whereby it decides everything and where it dictates policy with the occasional PR flurry to try and create a public image that its senior executives are committed to change and to improvement".
Is that a fair comment?
I wouldn't even comment on it. It's not worthy of comment, to be honest.
You talk quite regularly through the statement of Pats' rejection of the process of the ongoing consultation between clubs and the FAI. But from my reading at least of the Pats statement, they reject explicitly the €5,000. Is the problem not the money on offer, rather than the process itself?
The issue here is around the strategic plans and the agreement we had with them. That's what the issue is with them. They're saying something completely different than what went on in the meeting. On the one hand they are agreeing, and then they are coming out and saying that 'oh no, we are not part of that now.
We've had clubs getting in touch with us saying they are fully supportive of the whole process and they want to work with the FAI to get the future of the league right.
Shamrock Rovers, Dundalk, Bohemians, Galway, Sligo, Cork City, we're working with the clubs. We would hope Pats' will come back into this, process as well, because we've had a lot of positive engagements with Pats. We've worked with Pats over the last number of years assisting them as well.
As we do with all clubs.
Only last week I was working with St Pat’s and John Delaney to try and expedite the loan signing of young (Steven) Kinsella from Everton. That was us working in partnership with the club, as we have in the past regarding aspirations that Pats to develop around Inchicore, for a new stadium and that.
We work with those clubs, like we work with Bohemians around Dalymount, like we work with Wexford around Ferrycarrig Park, like we're working with Cork around Glanmire Centre of Excellence, like we worked with Finn Harps around their new stadium.
We work with clubs on a daily basis - I work with clubs, John Delaney works with the clubs as well and we would hope to continue to work with St Pats, that they will come back into this.
There’s no point in going back to the old days of everybody having a go at each other - ‘You said this, I said that'. The idea here is for everyone to work together for the betterment of the league. That was the initial idea behind us meeting with the clubs and setting up a forum between the PCA and ourselves, so we could discuss issues around the league and the future of the league, to the betterment for the league and Irish football, and that's what we are there for.
That's what I have been doing, and the board of the FAI have been fully supportive of it at all times.
So the wording of some of the statements there, in saying the FAI have utterly failed in their duties to the league is absolutely, so far off the mark - it's incredible they could say something like that.
I think if you could realise that, before the FAI took over the running of the league, the clubs collectively owed seven million to Revenue. We've worked with the clubs to get that down.
This idea that the league is in crisis, that the league is not working properly, the league is not professional, I don't know where they are coming with this stuff.
Well, I think that Pats have accepted the findings of the Conroy Report, I think they have expressed frustration at some aspects of the FAI dealing with it, I don't think they are rejecting the process altogether.
Derry City have also come out very strongly and rejected the money, before Pats ever did. Why was there no statement on the FAI website criticising Derry?
I was in touch with Derry City and got their views on that, and we are dealing with that matter as well. That was by the secretary of the club Sean Barrett and I think that was well-documented and we are dealing with the overall matter on this.
The reason we mentioned Pats because Derry City weren't at this meeting. The reference to Pats' was very simple: it was because Mr. Kinsella was at the meeting and agreed to it. Then they put out their statement.
Was Mr. Kinsella not there to represent the PCA rather than Pats individually?
No, he was there as a representative of Saint Pats' and a representative of the PCA. As was Denis O'Connor a representative of Bray Wanderers and representing the PCA. As was Martin Heraghty chairman of Sligo and a representative of the PCA.
No-one else said that 'oh, I have to go back to my club now and sit down and talk about that'. If that was the case, we wouldn't have sat there and agreed to send out a statement'.
But surely those three men, if they are representing even partly the PCA, and if Derry City are members of that PCA, I don't see how you can claim that Saint Pats' were represented at the meeting, and Derry City weren't?
No, I think you need to get that right, Gavin. What I'm saying is to you is the reason we issued a statement: Pats' initially issued a statement, ok. Why we issued a statement with regards to Saint Patrick’s Athletic is because Mr Kinsella was there, representing the club.
And you believe -
No, I don't believe anything, I was there, at the meeting. He was there, representing the club, and representing the PCA.
At no time did he mention he had to go back to his board. Now we can keep going on about this, if you want, but that's our rationale putting out the statement.
We will move on. I want to briefly ask if either Pat’s or Derry City will face any penalty from the FAI on the basis of their criticism of this? I ask because Roddy Collins was fined a few weeks ago for comments critical of the League and I understand that criticism of the League is in contravention of the FAI's Participation Agreement.
That's a matter for the Disciplinary Control Unit within the FAI. We'll have a discussion with them over the next few days.
So it may potentially happen?
It is a matter for the Disciplinary Control Unit within the FAI.
I just want to briefly to touch upon your structuring of the money itself as to whether the FAI explored other avenues of giving this money out. I noticed one writer, John O'Sullivan on the 42.ie raise an alternative proposal of perhaps instead of giving €5,000 to each club, instead employ one man to visit each club and work with them from the very beginning rather than allow them to create their own business plans and return to them afterwards.
Was that explored by the FAI?
Gavin, I go back to the point I made earlier. This method was agreed between everybody that this was the method in which it would be done. The clubs agreed to it - that’s what was agreed.
You cite this from the Conroy Report, and I'm taking this from my point of view, so please correct me if I'm misreading it, but the Conroy Report would seem to state that many of the clubs currently are not in a position to even form their own business plans.
I'm looking at Article 4.2. of the report and it states that "the number of full-time paid administrators within the 20 SSE Airtricity League Clubs for the 2015 season will average less than one per club".
It goes on to say that the volunteers occupying these positions do "not have the professional expertise or qualifications to manage a small business such as an SSE Airtricity League club".
I'm quite confused as to how you can cite the Conroy Report as to why you should give the money, but at the same time, if these clubs are not capable or qualified of running their own small business, I don't know how you can expect them to form their own business plan?
Well, that's why we would appoint outside consultants and companies, to assist the clubs in it. For that very reason. I don't know if you have been involved in going through the formation of a strategic plan in any way, the process of going through it alone is a good exercise because it allows you to focus, and deal and talk with your stakeholders, so that's your fans, your volunteers, your local community, your local authorities, local media. All those different areas, and actually going through that process can be a huge positive for any club, whether they have one professional person or are all volunteers.
The idea of getting outside consultants is exactly to assist the clubs in proceeding...I've been around this league for a long time, as a player, as a coach, as a manager and now as an administrator, and we know how difficult it is for each club.
We are right there with the clubs, we know that it is different for some clubs with just volunteers. And even for clubs with professional administrators, or secretaries, or general managers, we know it's difficult for them, that's why we are trying to assist, that's why we are meeting with the clubs to actually see how we can assist this in a partnership approach. No other way.
That's what we are saying we are putting some funding up to get some consultants in to help you, because exactly the point you make, Gavin, we know it's difficult, but going through the process can be a very good deal for the club, and it can be a very positive experience.
Any club, or any company who has gone through that, will see it as a positive experience for any club. And if we have healthier clubs, that are sustainable, and are working well with their communities, and developing their players and developing their coaches, then we are going to have collectively a better league.
That's the idea behind it, and nothing else.
Can I ask what the Conroy Report cost in total, and was that cost burdened entirely by the Association?
I've no comment to make on that, Gavin. I wouldn't have the figures.
Sean Barrett has said that the €5,000 on offer was disgraceful, comparing the amount of money unfavourably with the €11 million the FAI earned throughout Euro 2016.
Do you have any sympathy for his view, given the vast differences between these two figures?
This €11 million. We're only a month after the Euros, and these discussions have been going on well in advance of the Euros. This is the first step in the process with the clubs, and of course there will be funding down the road for clubs around bringing these plans to fruition.
Now we said that, and there's no issue there. We'll also be approaching local authorities and the government for funding, which we already do, so you know, we're only down the road after the Euros.
This is the first step in the process in making the clubs stable, and building a better league, and that's what we're trying to do.
One final question on the progress of Dundalk, and how it might help the League itself?
I think the achievement of Stephen Kenny and the Dundalk has been fantastic, and it's been an absolute credit, and we are all very proud of them.
The board and the FAI have made available the Aviva for this match, which will be the biggest match in domestic football for many, many years. It's great that we are in a position to offer Dundalk a world class venue to make sure they can get through the play-off.
I think it's fantastic, it's great for the league, we would encourage everybody to get to the game. We're sitting down with the club in the morning with regards to planning for the fixture and the logistics that are involved. There are usually logistics around the demands that UEFA make on a fixture such as this, and for a club like Dundalk, this is unchartered waters.
We are used to it with the international games and we are making all of our staff in the FAI available to assist them and we will begin that process tomorrow morning with them.
This is just an example of the work we do with our clubs.
But I think Stephen Kenny gave a masterclass in match preparation and management, tactically he got it spot on. The manner in which they won the game was exceptional, and it was great to be there.
I was in Belgrade with Shamrock Rovers when they got through. I didn't think I would see that happen again in a long time, but it was great to be there in Tallaght.
Everyone in the league knows how good Dundalk are, so it's great to see that it's been recognised on an international stage and I suppose they believe they can go to the next round, and everyone can believe that they've got a real chance of getting through to the group stages, and what a boost that would be for the league.
