Associated 2 - The Drag

Sometimes the little things are the most revealing. In Court 24 on one of the many days when I believed that there was a point in turning up, three barristers standing at the back of the court were having a conversation. One of them said  ''Nobody ever questions the costs of litigation when the State is paying'' and they laughed. 

Two months ago, the High Court ordered the taxpayer to hand over half a million euro to the ex-Athlone Town (the old club) player Michael Sheehan. Sheehan had a bit of a contretemps with the Gardai at closing time in Athlone eleven years ago. It appears that Mr. Sheehan got a bit mouthy after two others in his company were caught acting the maggot in the middle of the street. It was probably an overreaction to charge Sheehan under the Public Order Act. In the cold light of day, feelings might have been hurt but no blood was shed and the incident doesn't sound like it should have been a big deal for anyone involved. But the jury didn't see it like that and we are now on the hook for the award and for full teams of lawyers on both sides. 

Based on the court report, the State (or a barrister representing three State defendants) claimed and denied this and that. There is no mention of any of the three Gardai involved or other witnesses being called to give evidence. There is no mention of photographic evidence of bruising or any doctor's or psychiatrist's report being submitted to court in order to back up the plaintiff's claims. I assume that all of these things happened, because it would be absurd if they didn't happen. Then again, I know barristers. 

Whatever happened, it is doubtful that it was ever anything more than a personal injuries case. And the statute of limitations on personal injuries cases is two years in this country. Given the extraordinary pay out, it would appear that the jury accepted every word of Sheehan's case as fact.

By way of comparison, the city of Minneapolis was sued in 2017 for Tou Thao's (a police officer involved in George Floyd's death) and another police officer's using of excessive force on Lamar Ferguson in 2014. The fully sober litigant had been punched and kicked, suffering broken teeth and hospitalisation. The suit was settled for US$25,000 - less than 5% of Sheehan's award.

 

Judge Owens worked as a senior counsel up to four years ago, including a stint acting as counsel for the prosecution of another ex-Athlone Town player in the Central Criminal Court. Owens has more than four times the work experience as a senior counsel than as a judge. It is increasingly hard to find judges in this country who don't hold this conflict of interest. I'm not suggesting wrongdoing on Owens's part, but it is a rare judge who has the strength of character to stand up to the financial expectations of barristers.

Without access to the record or to the judgment, it is hard to get a strong sense of whether the public interest was properly represented in the case. The absence (so far) of a settlement and the unwieldy presence of a jury are good signs. But a red flag is raised by the E75,000 that the judge wanted handed over immediately to Mr. Sheehan. There is no sense in the bare court report that the jury instructed the judge to do this, as I understand to be required at a jury hearing.

The question of whether or not Mr. Sheehan made any payment to his solicitor prior to the judgment may appear irrelevant, but barristers will recognise its significance (*).  If Mr. Sheehan did not pay, then the question becomes, why did his solicitor have so much faith in the (hardly strong) case? And also if Mr. Sheehan did not pay, is that the reason why Judge Owens insisted on the State making the payment to him in the event of an appeal? And if that is the case, how did the good judge come by the information that Mr. Sheehan's legal team was in want of money? 

A culture has clearly taken root here, where judges feel obliged to award cases to litigants whose legal representatives would otherwise have no means of getting paid (that is the most charitable interpretation of what our judges are doing). The culture is doubly perverting of our justice system. Not only are paper thin cases which would not otherwise be pursued encouraged to go to court, their success is all but guaranteed.

The outcome of the Sheehan case is important for the future of public order policing in this country. That is a service which the Gardai provide for us, in a far from heavy handed way, despite what their detractors might say. They should be allowed to make mistakes and continue providing that service free from court interference. If the State does not succeed in overturning (or is not allowed to overturn) the judgment, then there will probably be more solicitors than Gardai patrolling the streets of a Saturday night. People will get hurt who otherwise would not have got hurt.

                                                                 Fi FAI Fo Fum 
                                                (''I smell the blood of an Englishman'') 

Anyone with a passing interest in how so much of the tax money we hand over in good faith gets directed towards private interests should keep an eye on what's happening with the FAI. The Minister for Sport Shane Ross was kind enough to bail them out in 2019.  Despite this, my understanding is that the FAI is not officially a public body and is therefore not bound by the Freedom of Information Act e.g. it is within its legal rights in refusing to reveal the identity of the Athlone club(s). I may be wrong about this.

A little reminder: in 2019, the FAI was looking for E18 million to avoid liquidation (God forbid that we would ever lose them!). The Taoiseach Leo Varadkar said ''We don't want to be in a situation where we are somehow asking the taxpayer to bailout the FAI ...'' Bailout secured (E11.6 million plus E7.5 million in interest free loans, ending this year) and clock ticking down on our 'generosity', they're back for more. And boy, are they really going for it this time.

Somehow, the FAI has secured a positive media reaction to its plan to relieve us a a cool half a billion euro. Which doesn't say much for the critical faculties of our journalists. Why the State should ever be expected to allow its funds to go through another entity before being invested in public infrastructure is a mystery, never mind going through a faux corporation (no shareholders, no product) run by unelected technocrats with a recent history of secrecy, fraud and deception. And in our case, given the February application by Athlone Town AFC CLG for a bizarrely elaborate ''facility building for the ladies' team'', what is to stop the FAI once again putting public money/property under the control of Michael O'Connor and John Hayden rather than, if absolutely necessary, the stadium's lawful owners? 

The craziest thing is that we are expected to believe that capital flows, unsupervised contracts and business-speak can ever equate to football success. It's difficult to know if these guys believe their own bullshit. Precedent of success would help their cause, but nobody asks for it. As far as I'm aware, in the eleven years since these types took over senior football in Athlone, they have yet to produce one player capable of playing in the League of Ireland.  They do talk a good game though.

If we are serious about making Ireland a producer of world class footballers (and we really should have more grown up ambitions), then we need four things: more poverty, less traffic, more cooperatives and less administration/management/grift.

What strikes me about all of the performers in the football racket is that none of them ever wants to invest his own money, no matter how profitable the operation. It is always someone else's money. This has the effect of making the entire football world one giant money laundering scheme, as it does not matter if the participating money is legitimate or illegitimate. As Whitney Webb writes: ''The conversion of dirty or hot money into 'credit capital' (capital that begins as a line of credit issued by a lending institution) is made easier by bank secrecy laws in tax havens, which makes it possible for legitimate and illegitimate pools of capital to intermingle freely''. 

Ireland is not strictly a tax haven, as we are governed by EU banking laws. We reach haven 'standards' through a nod and a wink, and through the use of the barrister (Haughey) founded IFSC. The then Labour party leader Alan Kelly exposed part of how the Irish system works in February of last year (coincidentally or not, he was forced to resign a week later and replaced by a barrister). It has always been the case that once organised crime reaches a certain level of success, the money men and the courts will find a way to accommodate them. If the choice is between saying no thanks to dirty money and finding a workaround, then round and round the cream of Irish accountancy and law will go. 

The FAI boys are there to manage the capital flows arising from the game, not the game itself. They have no material interest in the game, though they may be fans. My job now is to work the disconnect between the perception of what Jonathan Hill's job should be and the destructive reality. I will continue to seek to establish whether or not the FAI had a role in facilitating, then covering up match fixing, money laundering, defrauding of the members of Athlone Town and defrauding of the shareholders of my company.  And I will continue to try to exploit the consequences of Hill's refusing to answer questions. I don't believe his position is sustainable, but time will tell.

Our latest communication is included below. Encouragingly, he has yet to answer. I also contacted Valeo FC a couple of months ago, with simple inquiries as to what it has bought and what is the name of the Athlone club its players represent. Those inquiries have not been answered either. If that means that Valeo is a willing participant in whatever Sikes and Dodger are up to this time and doesn't care what club happens to be in its contract(s), then its indifference deserves some investigation.

After more than a decade of dealing with a procession of interchangeable liars and conmen, I am not in the mood to give the new guys the benefit of the doubt. So, what is Valeo and who is behind it?

                                                            VALEO FOR MONEY

   Valeo International Academy Athlone is apparently ''co-located at the Athlone Football Complex'', whatever that might be, and at the ''Technology University of the Shannon'', which locals know as the AIT. Valeo's charges for its Portuguese academy were said to ''range from $695 a week to (an eye watering) $42,250 a year''. Ireland is even more expensive, for sale at $750 a week and $4,000 a month; it appears to be open without qualification to any American who (or whose parents) can put up that kind of money. When four and a half weeks of something costs more than five times one week of something, it is advisable to check the small print on the something. Ireland would possibly be considered a more attractive option than Portugal for Irish-Americans, albeit one with little sunshine and less football culture.                                                                                                                                                             

 The Irish ''Academy offers multiple programs suitable for children, teenagers and adults''.  This suggests that very young Americans may be coming to Athlone and Valeo guarantees that their education will be looked after, meaning that at least one local school has done a deal with Valeo. It is not made clear how exactly Valeo intends to protect the young people under its care when they are not at school or in training.

 

     Whatever about Valeo, it is surprising that the AIT would want to collaborate with any iteration of Athlone Town, given that a previous version scammed the college out of around E12,000 of unpaid rent for its facilities (this issue was 'dealt with' in the High Court on November 14th 2018, when, having been presented with the invoices from the college to the club, the judge Richard Humphreys ordered my company to pay all of the E12,000 and much more - not to the owed party, but to the scammers). 

I have always felt that there was something more going on with Valeo than met the eye. Its getting involved with the dodgiest club in Ireland obviously skews the observer towards suspicion, perhaps excessively. It is possible that donations, grants and the two academies may be sufficient to support the entire Valeo operation. But its claims of philanthropic motive remain difficult to sustain. Philanthropy is normally confined to areas directly connected to the philanthropist - in this case, the Eastern US and Jamaica. It works best that way. But Valeo is (literally) all over the place, for no obvious good reason.

Emelio Williams is a remarkable character and a bit of a one man band. He is the founder and only voting member (there used to be two) of Valeo Futbol Club and appears to be doing alright for himself. Valeo is exempt from tax under the category of Charitable Organisation. I don't know how much, if anything, Williams is taking in from Valeo Futbol Academy LLC (it is not a non-profit like Valeo FC, though it used to be one) but he is likely the best paid manager in the League of Ireland. The Academy was struck off the Massachusetts business register in 2019 and reinstated in 2021. It partnered with the Jamaican club Montego Bay United FC in October or November 2015, a month or two after Williams founded a company called Outlier BioPharma (which has a manufacturing/packaging base in Montego Bay). 

Williams started his business career in tech start-ups and hit the ground running when the first of them, involving a Harvard graduate friend, received a $2 million investment. He later opened a restaurant in Boston. And then came Outlier BioPharma, a company which combines consulting services for companies outsourcing to Jamaica with the growing, processing and distribution/export of cannabis and cannabinoid products (under a medical licence from the Jamaican Cannabis Licencing Authority). Its members are or were Williams and Jay (or Javid) Nickpour. Nickpour is also the only other named director I could find for Valeo. 

Now, apart from the association of a drug business with children's sports and apart from Outlier's use of a regulation and worker unfriendly free trade zone in Montego Bay, I have no great problem with this. Jamaica appears to have cleaned up its act a little since the days when it was a major transshipment point for Colombian cocaine on its way to the US, though that might have as much to do with Mexico's usurping of Colombia as America's (more direct) supplier while Jamaica now participates in new Colombian routes into Europe. Cannabis is legal in both the American states (Massachusetts and Delaware) and one Canadian province (British Columbia) in which Outlier has been registered. It is also legal in Jamaica for medical and religious use. 

What is puzzling about Outlier is where the companies it does business with come from, where its produce and/or products go after they leave Jamaica, who they belong to while in transit and if they are transported with other goods. Unless the map below (under the heading of 'Outlier Global Platform') can be said to mean something, the company has little or nothing at to say about any of this. It does mention offering an ''Export Platform with access to the global Market to our partners.'' A wildly speculative mind might wonder about Valeo's 'small but global' philosophy and why all the countries/states (with the exception of Uganda - incidentally a trading post used by West African mafia to supply the lucrative Indian market with harder drugs) where it has been involved are accessible by sea. A more sober mind might simply ask, as with trying to find out the name of Valeo's Irish club, what in God's name is going on? 

This is obviously the second time that Athlone Town AFC CLG has been allowed by the FAI to get involved in this type of operation. Other League of Ireland clubs have shown integrity by saying 'no' (contrary to what this article says, Bohemians could have done an Athlone and invented a new club to sell, without bothering the membership of the original club - but only if they had the FAI at their back) to the easy money and not taking any chances in making sure they stay on the right side of the law. What exactly is different about Athlone? Why the recklessness? We know the pay-off in Athlone. What is the pay-off in Abbotstown?

21-4-2023

Dear Mr. Hill,

                       you received a letter from me more than a month ago. You have apparently chosen not to reply to the many questions asked and issues raised therein. Receipt of the registered letter has not been acknowledged by the FAI. 

I don't know if there is any way it could be claimed that I have not brought important matters to your attention, though you are welcome to make that claim if you wish. You are also very much welcome to dispute the details provided or challenge my interpretation of same.

Refusing to name (and reveal the owners/members of ) the football club is, well, unusual. The club plays in your league. Your association gave it a playing licence, just as it did its predecessors. Why should its identity (and the identities of its predecessors) be kept a secret? There is something very badly wrong, when an authority is asked a simple question in good faith and all the authority can do is stick its fingers in its ears and pretend it didn't hear it.

In the five years since the judge Richard Humphreys effectively ordered my company to hand the stadium over to his apparently one-off golfing companion John Hayden and to Michael O'Connor, on stated behalf of a club which was majority owner by an organised crime syndicate, I have neared the one million euro mark in spending and loans towards protecting the stadium property from that and two other predatory private interests (though it may be a little unfair on Ulster and ACC Banks to place them in that company). I did not expect and did not deserve any thanks for doing that. Neither did I expect nor deserve a decade of smears, threats, tricks and lies.

All of my investment was made on behalf of the people of my town. My company has never made and will never make a payment to its shareholders or directors. In those same five years since they were handed the stadium, Messrs. Hayden and O'Connor have pocketed an extraordinary amount of money - most likely an amount greater than what I have invested, with a multiple of that to come if and when the property is developed. You appear to be okay with this.

I don't particularly blame Messrs. Hayden and O'Connor for this debacle. They are what they are. I do blame those who used them, encouraged them and made them feel they were invincible. Those who stood back, revelling in the chutzpah of the two men, sometimes profiting from their actions, would now like to wash their hands of the whole affair. Of course they would. But justice doesn't work like that.

You may argue that these are legacy issues, things that happened before you were in a position to stop them. I would not accept that argument. A private skimming operation which started on John Delaney's watch has grown into a wholesale looting operation on Jonathan Hill's watch. You have not disputed my account of how this happened.

It is something of a mystery to me as to why Athlone Town AFC CLG inspires such unwavering loyalty and protection from people who should know better. Its directors are not known for their generosity to non-family members. Garda Dully appears to have only 'earned' three grand for his years of service to the company. My guess is that when the water begins to trickle a little faster, there will be a lot of guys beginning to sweat and beginning to question why they agreed to keep their fingers in the dyke for so long, for so little reward.

Last Tuesday was the fifth anniversary of the FAI's settlement of its High Court cases with Igors Labuts and Dragos Sfrijan. You are apparently refusing to explain how this happened, and you have not answered my question as to whether or not the association made additional payments to Messrs. Labuts and Sfrijan. As the International Centre for Sports Security intimated a long time ago, the FAI has colluded in some fashion with Pre Season. We may never learn the extent of the collusion, because it is being covered up to this day.

Just a thought: Would the FAI and its supposed adversary the Professional Footballers' Association of Ireland be so blase about Pre Season's activities if its trade was drug smuggling and money laundering rather than match fixing and money laundering?

Though it has been reported that Anping Sports Agency, a sister front company to both Pre Season and Football Investment Limited (FC Mohelnice), owned an equivalent 70% of Atletico Clube de Portugal to the 70% Pre Season owned of Athlone Town Athletic FC, that is not quite correct. Anping set up a management company [more accurately, a legal adjunct to the club] called Sociedade Anonima Desportiva for Atletico in 2013, of which it owned 70%.  In Athlone's case, the 'management company' Athlone Town AFC CLG, though not set up by either Pre Season or the club members, claimed a right to run the club and to have its creditors disregarded while apparently creating other club(s) at will. This 'right' has never been challenged by the FAI, despite the related protests of club members.

Pre Season still owns what it bought of Athletic FC.  Atletico CP, by contrast to Athletic FC (which has yet to convene a meeting), broke with Sociedade Anonima Desportivo in 2016, no longer allowing its players to cooperate with the management company. It took the hit for this in many ways, but honourably remained the same club and still exists. It seems likely, though I cannot confirm it, that the Portuguese Football Federation demanded these standards from Atletico.

Speaking in March of 2017, the FAI's Fran Gavin said about the Pre Season investment, ''We've never experienced that type of investment in a club where they're bringing players in from all over Europe. You wonder about their motivation...''. Two weeks afterwards, Mr. Gavin was delivering an 'integrity workshop' on match fixing for the Athlone players at my company's stadium.

There is absolutely no reason to suggest that Valeo Futbol Club is involved in match fixing or in any illegal activity. Its record and those of its individual players appear unblemished. Yet here we are again, with a mysterious investment in a club which is as likely as Athlone Town Athletic FC was in March 2017 to be completely unknown to the public. And what does the media or public know about how much Valeo handed over, to whom and under what conditions? Do Athlone football fans have no right to knowledge of any of this?

Why Valeo would go to so much expense and not put one of its own coaches in charge of its own players, when promotion is a possibility, adds to the mystery of what it is hoping to achieve in Athlone. I assume it is trying to turn a profit honestly, just as Pre Season did dishonestly. But how?

If a club was bought outright, then that club is very unlikely to be Athlone Town Athletic FC. Such a sale would mean handing over 70% of the take to Eric Mao and friends. I doubt that even the FAI would want that to happen. Which means that another club would have had to have been 'created' for the purpose of sale. And that would have required yet another special favour from the FAI, and a continuing favour in keeping its creation and its identity secret - at least until the stadium is sold.

The FAI's general tendency to concealment throws suspicion on events for which there may be an innocent explanation. The bringing forward of this year's club licencing process to November of last year almost certainly aided a company that appeared to be in a hurry to sell something. It would seem outrageous for the association to inconvenience all of the other clubs in order to serve the financial ambitions of the directors of one management company. But did it happen?

It still shocks me that the FAI can stand over so much secrecy in the case of any club under its regulatory authority. It is a position of power, not of service. And the buck isn't likely to stop with anyone anytime soon, is it? I would argue that the FAI's only duty of care is to the public, through nothing more complicated than honest regulation and transparency. 

One thing is for sure. If Valeo Futbol Club is a legitimate enterprise, then it won't be long before it is taken to court for something or other. One more judiciously arranged round of golf and they'll be back in Boston. Then we can welcome the birth, and subsequent sale to another lucky investor of Athlone Town Aubergine FC (founded 1887) or some such. This process can be repeated ad infinitum, under the terms of leprechaun law. Valeo is probably more used to American law, where a judge is as likely to be dragged out of a courtroom as an eccentric evangelical family.

Though I've given in to pessimism in the past, I now strongly believe that it is only a matter of time before I and we are vindicated. We are not in a hurry, as we know that there is no statute of limitations on fraud or on being an accessory to fraud. It is important to get it right.

If you ever wish to defy your legal advisors (and if not, do yourself a favour and get their advice in writing i.e. make them at least partially responsible for what you are doing) then you can contact me and we might work something out. At a minimum, you or a third party must provide us with all of the information we require - inclusive of the Valeo and Pre Season contracts, the identities of the various Athlone clubs, who owns them, how they were formed and what is in their constitutions.

Keep in mind two things though. One, as per the terms of Mr. McCaul's 'settlement', ownership of the stadium can be returned to where it belongs without restarting the legal process. Two, you may discover that you need our cooperation, but we no longer need yours.

Yours in (slight) Expectation, 

Declan Molloy

Athlone Town Stadium Ltd.

                       

                     

*When a senior counsel considers taking on a civil case, the first question he asks is, ''Who is prepared to put up the kind of money that will make this worth my while?'' If both sides (simply a matter of asking his opposing number in the law library) are prepared and able to do this, then an elongated but essentially honest contest is likely to follow. If only the opposition provides, then the senior counsel can proceed in the same manner and win. But if his client alone provides, then he is obliged to lose. There may be exceptions to this arrangement, but I've yet to come across one.

The State/taxpayer qualifies as a handy mark which always provides. That is not to say that the State will always lose. In asylum cases, it doesn't matter if the State wins or loses, because the poverty of the cipher/litigant means the State will pay both sides. The State normally wins where matters involving the enforcement of power are concerned. 

There are some variables and overlapping between the different scenarios, but nothing which might derail the barrister gravy train. That is why the overconfident graduates of Blackrock and Clongowes want to take silk and the rest of us want to take weed.