View Full Version : Mathews gone
holidaysong
09/12/2008, 6:17 PM
I love the close season. :)
Captain2007
09/12/2008, 6:25 PM
The way Alan Matthews has been treated by CCFC is absolutely disgraceful, it is just another nail in the coffin of the Eircom League, we are talking about people's livelihoods, I hope he gets full compensation through the courts.They probably have the replacement manager already in place before they sacked him,shame on CCFC.
Sheridan
09/12/2008, 6:28 PM
The way Alan Matthews has been treated by CCFC is absolutely disgraceful, it is just another nail in the coffin of the Eircom League, we are talking about people's livelihoods
Will you get out of that, this happens on a much greater scale in every major league in Europe every year.
Captain2007
09/12/2008, 6:32 PM
How can you compare Eircom League with Europe !!!
tiktok
09/12/2008, 6:42 PM
The way Alan Matthews has been treated by CCFC is absolutely disgraceful, it is just another nail in the coffin of the Eircom League, we are talking about people's livelihoods, I hope he gets full compensation through the courts.They probably have the replacement manager already in place before they sacked him,shame on CCFC.
We're also talking about the viability of clubs.
CCFC got into the mess this year was in lagre part paying wages beyond our means, if Mathews would not negotiate a contract at a wage the club could afford they are correct to let him go, it's terrible for AM, but no-one is bigger than the club.
On the other hand, if compensation will be due, it's just a mess.
holidaysong
09/12/2008, 6:57 PM
CCFC got into the mess this year was in lagre part paying wages beyond our means, if Mathews would not negotiate a contract at a wage the club could afford they are correct to let him go..
In that case why are CCFC signing players on full time contracts if they already have contracts that they cannot afford? Surely the sensible thing would be to wait and see if these contracts can be renegotiated before going and signing new contracts?
It seems bizarre. :confused:
In that case why are CCFC signing players on full time contracts if they already have contracts that they cannot afford? Surely the sensible thing would be to wait and see if these contracts can be renegotiated before going and signing new contracts?
It seems bizarre. :confused:
The only one who has singed a new full time contract is hoggy. Davin and Murray are both reportedly part time and gamble and Behan were already under contract, they were just taking pay cuts.
holidaysong
09/12/2008, 7:16 PM
The only one who has singed a new full time contract is hoggy. Davin and Murray are both reportedly part time and gamble and Behan were already under contract, they were just taking pay cuts.
Still though, why sign new players at all if you can't afford them? Part time or full time..
On the one hand you are getting rid of the manager because you cannot afford him but on the other you are bringing in new signings..
centre mid
09/12/2008, 7:18 PM
He always has the Bank job to go back too........oh wait...........
Seriously though, he would be top of the list of a few clubs I would have thought. Bad move by Coughlan if what is being suggested in this thread is correct. I'm loving the shrug of the shoulders by some city fans "Cant pay what we dont have" attitude, If Coughlan has boobooed than you will have to pay what you dont have.
The only one who has singed a new full time contract is hoggy. Davin and Murray are both reportedly part time and gamble and Behan were already under contract, they were just taking pay cuts.
I thought those contracts were null & void ;)
Still though, why sign new players at all if you can't afford them? Part time or full time..
On the one hand you are getting rid of the manager because you cannot afford him but on the other you are bringing in new signings..
We only had 7 players, if we want to play in any league we needed a few more, even if cheap.
The manager was on huge money, reportedly more than Dolan and Rico were on combined. He's being sacked for someone a hell of a lot cheaper which will allow us to bring in a couple opf players and a manager for the same money
He always has the Bank job to go back too........oh wait...........
Seriously though, he would be top of the list of a few clubs I would have thought. Bad move by Coughlan if what is being suggested in this thread is correct. I'm loving the shrug of the shoulders by some city fans "Cant pay what we dont have" attitude, If Coughlan has boobooed than you will have to pay what you dont have.
City fans reaction as far as I can see, is that if we have to pay out full compensation then its the most ridiculous decision in a long time, considering our situation
But if we get away with none or little compensation, then its the right decision.
I dunno what coughlan is thinking or what he's been advised but teh amount fo compensation paid will decide whether this was a good move. Its not as clear cut as either it is or it isnt
I thought those contracts were null & void ;)
Did you?
I dunno tbh, but I would see players contracts as different because whether they were legally valid or not, we wouldnt get a premier license without honouring them which would be a big motivation.
Martinho II
09/12/2008, 7:35 PM
i only heard the news at half six this evenin.. its a shock to hear the news... whats going to happen next?? rico comes back or god forsake dolan?? whos bein linked with the job now??
i personally think matthews has being let down badly he goes down to ye because our committee lets him down off the pitch and now this happens to him... i feel very sorry for the bloke after taking leave from his regular job and having moved down?? why does coughlan say about the two year deal being agreed? its certainly gettin stranger and stranger..:(
holidaysong
09/12/2008, 7:36 PM
We only had 7 players, if we want to play in any league we needed a few more, even if cheap.
I'm sure you could get cheaper players if you tried though.. Youths? Amateurs? Obviously, I can see why you want to bring in good players though..
However, if this ends up in court it won't look too good for CCFC if they are ripping up their manager's contract while also bringing in players (even if you only have 7) at the same time..
It'll be interesting to see what avenue Mathews goes down.
Longfordian
09/12/2008, 7:38 PM
Your manager is part of the same condition for Licencing is he not?. Nobody's arguing that he wasn't on a high wage but he'd agreed to take a cut. Surely the figure is the first thing that's discussed even if the deal wasn't 100% agreed, for your chairman and general manager to come out and say they'd agreed a new two year deal with him would suggest he wasn't going to stick to an extortionate wage. Coughlan may feel that by the time Mathews gets any compensation awarded to him either he won't be there or he'll have found some way of covering it by then.
I'm sure you could get cheaper players if you tried though.. Youths? Amateurs? Obviously, I can see why you want to bring in good players though..
We brought in 1 full timer and 2 part timers....at teh same time reducing the wages of 2 players. Doesnt really seem like going all out to me
However, if this ends up in court it won't look too good for CCFC if they are ripping up their manager's contract while also bringing in players (even if you only have 7) at the same time..
.
Tbh i havent a clue.
The only thing I can think of is that they claim Mathews wages was an Arkaga contract which doesnt fit in to the new wage structure and isnt affordable by the club, while the other 3 contracts are within the wage structure/budget given in during examinership.
As I said though I dont know what will happen with it, but it will decide how I feel about it
Your manager is part of the same condition for Licencing is he not?.
I dont think so but Im not 100% on that
Nobody's arguing that he wasn't on a high wage but he'd agreed to take a cut. Surely the figure is the first thing that's discussed even if the deal wasn't 100% agreed, for your chairman and general manager to come out and say they'd agreed a new two year deal with him would suggest he wasn't going to stick to an extortionate wage
Rumour is that while an original deal was agreed, Mathews came back wanting a few extra things that would push up the price, we said we couldnt afford it and he said he wasnt signing so.
I actually started a thread a couple of days ago asking about confirmation that Mathews signed, wondering why he hadnt.
centre mid
09/12/2008, 7:45 PM
Devil in the detail I suppose, who is the likely replacement? even in the short term?
Devil in the detail I suppose, who is the likely replacement? even in the short term?
No idea tbh, everyones being mentioned at the moment.
Personally I think itl be local and cheap
Nobody's arguing that he wasn't on a high wage but he'd agreed to take a cut.Did he though?
Longfordian
09/12/2008, 8:03 PM
Well nobody knows for sure but he'd indicated his willingness to do so in interviews and the most reasonable conclusion to draw from your chairman announcing he'd agreed a new deal would be that he was willing to take a cut. Now maybe it came apart at the last minute but from Mathews' interview he genuinely didn't see it coming and seems to feel the negotiations will be important for his case. Just to go back to micls' post above I just checked the rule again and the manager does come under the same provison as the players for Licencing. "The licence applicant must prove that... it has no payables overdue towards employees or Revenue/social/tax authorities as at November 30 of the year preceding the season to be licensed unless by the following January 31 they have been fully settled, deferred by mutual agreement with the creditor or are subject to a not obviously unsound dispute submitted to a competent authority.". So it doesn't seem to me you can acknowledge some contracts and not others.
but if that were the case the same would be applicable to our backroom staff, shop staff etc and they are definitely not getting all their money.
I was under the impression it was just players
Longfordian
09/12/2008, 8:10 PM
They may have agreed to defer it or write it off, both of which are acceptable. It's when there's no agreement or the agreement isn't adhered to that the problem arises.
tiktok
09/12/2008, 8:45 PM
I'm sure you could get cheaper players if you tried though.. Youths? Amateurs? Obviously, I can see why you want to bring in good players though...
What's the point of having a full time manager on huge wages if your team is going to be part-time and amateur, who's he going to spend his time training if they have to get off work to train? The wage Mathews was rumoured to be on was a bit much to work in the club shop.
What's the point of having a full time manager on huge wages if your team is going to be part-time and amateur, who's he going to spend his time training if they have to get off work to train? The wage Mathews was rumoured to be on was a bit much to work in the club shop.
If the rumours are true he'd want to be managing, playing working in the club shop and the CEO
tiktok
09/12/2008, 8:59 PM
I was never his biggest fan but even I would have liked him to have gotten a shot at next season [as with Rico before him, I find the idea of sacking a manager who brings in silverware to be daft].
The fact of the matter is if employing him meant we were spending beyond our means, he had to go.
We're aiming, if TC is to be believed, at having 16 full time players and a full-time manager next season and there is a fixed budget for that. If Mathews moving on means that we're more viable next season, it's for the best.
If we end up with a court battle and paying compensation [effectively paying two managers for the year] then it's a stupid stupid decision.
The big question [the compensation one aside] really is why the contract that both parties admit was agreed to was never signed, obviously one of two things happened after the agreement, the club tried to take something out or Mathews tried to put something in.
Longfordian
09/12/2008, 9:00 PM
I don't mean to be harping on at ye but I'm just bored and curious, how much roughly do people reckon would the deal he had agreed more or less and the amount you pay your new manager will be?. Obviously his old contract wasn't sustainable everyone knows that but just how much out of bounds was this new one that it seems was almost done?. It sounds to me from the interviews that Mathews didn't get much of a chance to think about the terms on offer and whether he'd come down that little bit more?.
dcfcsteve
09/12/2008, 9:03 PM
What's the point of having a full time manager on huge wages if your team is going to be part-time and amateur, who's he going to spend his time training if they have to get off work to train? The wage Mathews was rumoured to be on was a bit much to work in the club shop.
You're mixing legal and emotional/rational points though.
Rationally it wouldn't make any sense to pay a Manager big sums if you can't afford to.
Legally - if that's the contract you have him on and he doesn't agree to changing it, then that's what he's entitled to demand, end of story.
The law doesn't care if you can't fulfil your agreements - unles you want to avoid them totally by being wound-up, that is.
But he didnt sign the new deal......
lets put it this way, unless he was taking a near on50% pay cut(highly doubtful) then he'd still be on more than any other manager we've had.
If we paid a new man what Rico or Dolan was on(still too much imo) , then we'd be almost halving the money paid out based on the original contract
You're mixing legal and emotional/rational points though.
No, he's not.
He's saying if it was possible to sack him with little or no compensation then its the right decision but if we have to pay him the full amount then its a stupid decision.
Thought he made that fairly clear.
I dont know what will happen legally, if theres some loophole. Do you?
So many ups & downs with City best policy unfortunately seems to be to go along with the ride & try not to think about matters can't change :(
AFAIK Rico had an implied contract. Extension not written but he was paid at new rate.
dcfcsteve
09/12/2008, 9:06 PM
But he didnt sign the new deal......
lets put it this way, unless he was taking a near on50% pay cut(highly doubtful) then he'd still be on more than any other manager we've had.
If we paid a new man what Rico or Dolan was on(still too much imo) , then we'd be almost halving the money paid out based on the original contract
IT. DOESN'T. MATTER. IN. LAW.
You can't just walk away from a legally-binding agreement if the other person doesn't want to, and pretend it never happened.
Just ask Bohs....
IT. DOESN'T. MATTER. IN. LAW.
You can't just walk away from a legally-binding agreement if the other person doesn't want to, and pretend it never happened.
Just ask Bohs....
I'll take your word for it. Rumour is our owners think differently because of examinership.
We'll see I guess
tiktok
09/12/2008, 9:12 PM
It sounds to me from the interviews that Mathews didn't get much of a chance to think about the terms on offer and whether he'd come down that little bit more?.
The agreed deal was on the table with weeks.
You're mixing legal and emotional/rational points though.
Rationally it wouldn't make any sense to pay a Manager big sums if you can't afford to.
Legally - if that's the contract you have him on and he doesn't agree to changing it, then that's what he's entitled to demand, end of story.
The law doesn't care if you can't fulfil your agreements - unles you want to avoid them totally by being wound-up, that is.
I'm not mixing them up, I don't know where we stand legally so I'm not even considering it. If we don't owe him compensation, it's a good deal; if we do, it's a terrible deal. I've said that quite a few times already
However, I don't see how you could be released from examinership and expected to honour contracts into the future which could put the club right back into trouble, legally that might make sense, but rationally it makes none.
Longfordian
09/12/2008, 9:14 PM
It's not actually provided specifically in any of the rules relating to examinership as far as I know that you're no longer bound by agreements entered into before examinership. It's still the same company, examinership just gives you a chance to work out a deal with creditors to stop them winding you up. It gives you breathing space. I wouldn't be convinced there's any loophole but we'll see in due course I'm sure. Employees are the most preferential creditor there is also, they rank above even the Revenue.
tiktok
09/12/2008, 9:18 PM
It's not actually provided specifically in any of the rules relating to examinership as far as I know that you're no longer bound by agreements entered into before examinership. It's still the same company, examinership just gives you a chance to work out a deal with creditors to stop them winding you up. It gives you breathing space. I wouldn't be convinced there's any loophole but we'll see in due course I'm sure.
My understanding was that the employees would be preferential creditors, but there's a rumour that one player owed wages had to accept 7.5% of them as a creditor, which to me seems strange. Though, you could be right, hopefully the club have examined this carefully before making the decision, because it looks like Mathews will take legal action [which if he has been mistreated, is only right].
redgav
10/12/2008, 9:49 AM
What's the point of having a full time manager on huge wages if your team is going to be part-time and amateur, who's he going to spend his time training if they have to get off work to train? The wage Mathews was rumoured to be on was a bit much to work in the club shop.
lets call a spade a spade ,he was on 150K a year with bonuses included
Dodge
10/12/2008, 10:37 AM
AFAIK Rico had an implied contract. Extension not written but he was paid at new rate.
Thanks Pete, I knew it was recent enough. Should've known it was yourselves...
It's not actually provided specifically in any of the rules relating to examinership as far as I know that you're no longer bound by agreements entered into before examinership. It's still the same company, examinership just gives you a chance to work out a deal with creditors to stop them winding you up.
In non football terms, companies coming out of examinership can't cancel contracts they have with suppliers or customers.
sadloserkid
10/12/2008, 3:28 PM
Difference is that the new Cork Spoofer has Delaney on his side
Danny Drew wasn't actually born as a thorn in Delaney's side either. Give this man time. He's only in the door and has started in real Drew fashion.
Buile Shuibhne
11/12/2008, 5:26 AM
FAI to hit debt-ridden Cork with signing ban
By Daniel McDonnell
Thursday December 11 2008
THE FAI are set to block Cork City from signing new players until they settle debts with their existing squad.
Authorities in Abbotstown are closely monitoring the situation with the Leesiders, who sacked manager Alan Mathews on Tuesday, and compliance officer Padraig Smith will meet with owner Tom Coughlan early next week.
While the association have no distinct rule to deal with such an event, Cork will be informed that they cannot file contracts for new additions until they clarify when they will pay approx €150,000 owed to their existing players.
Cork will also be reminded that they will not qualify for a Premier Division licence unless the issue is settled.
Some players have been receiving money in dribs and drabs, but no firm agreement has been reached on how the monies will be paid or over what period of time.
It is another headache for Coughlan, who also has to deal with the consequences of firing Mathews; the Dubliner is looking for a pay-out of about €300,000 to cover the final two years of his contract.
Meanwhile, Drogheda United are preparing to make an offer to their players for wages they are owed since the club's financial implosion.
- Daniel McDonnell
©Independent.ie
tiktok
11/12/2008, 8:18 AM
It's all just getting so so messy.
It just boils down to the fact
Scenario 1 : Coughlan did his homework, Mathews old exorbitant contract no longer valid, good luck Alan thanks for the memories.
Scenario 2 : Coughlan made a mistake (a very big & costly one) and Mathews is due a huge payoff of his old and very exorbitant contract.
Mathews is obviously playing the fool in saying he knew nothing of it, it came out of the blue etc etc. what ever boosts his chances of a few bob, who can blame him.
srfc1928
11/12/2008, 10:04 AM
FAI to hit debt-ridden Cork with signing ban
By Daniel McDonnell
Thursday December 11 2008
THE FAI are set to block Cork City from signing new players until they settle debts with their existing squad.
FAO micls ;)
gufct
11/12/2008, 10:12 AM
It just boils down to the fact
Scenario 1 : Coughlan did his homework, Mathews old exorbitant contract no longer valid, good luck Alan thanks for the memories.
Scenario 2 : Coughlan made a mistake (a very big & costly one) and Mathews is due a huge payoff of his old and very exorbitant contract.
Mathews is obviously playing the fool in saying he knew nothing of it, it came out of the blue etc etc. what ever boosts his chances of a few bob, who can blame him.
Alan is one of the most genuine guys in the league and I was talking to him last Thursday and he was really excited about the way Cork were shaping up and he definitely didny have a clue that the rug was about to be pulled from under him.
Scenario 1 : Coughlan did his homework, Mathews old exorbitant contract no longer valid, good luck Alan thanks for the memories.
Even in the hopeful scenario that this is the case it does seem like Coughlan financial planning is done on week to week basis. If money is so tight (e.g. cut price sale of Doyle clause) would he not be better letting the entire squad & management go & just start from the first division on part time basis. Sacking a manager to pay for player contracts does not give me confidence about the future.
A face
11/12/2008, 10:27 AM
Even in the hopeful scenario that this is the case it does seem like Coughlan financial planning is done on week to week basis. If money is so tight (e.g. cut price sale of Doyle clause) would he not be better letting the entire squad & management go & just start from the first division on part time basis. Sacking a manager to pay for player contracts does not give me confidence about the future.
I reckon he thinks its better to start off at top flight football and it definitely is as regards bringing in revenue
tiktok
11/12/2008, 10:32 AM
FAO micls ;)
Our 'exisiting squad' is 8 players and to the best of my knowledge, they've all agreed staged payments on the money owed as part of their renegotiated deals, I think 3 have not yet signed renegotiated deals.
We have a number of former players, currently out of contract who we owe money to [which IMO we should have paid back already] who we now are not allowed to sign [because of the ruling] and agree the similar deals with, if I'm reading it correctly.
I worry that there isn't any money there and since it's the off season, i wonder where the money required is going to come from. I can't see this being sorted before Jan 31st unless Coughlan puts his hand in his pocket, in that case we won't get a licence.
tiktok
11/12/2008, 10:36 AM
Even in the hopeful scenario that this is the case it does seem like Coughlan financial planning is done on week to week basis. If money is so tight (e.g. cut price sale of Doyle clause) would he not be better letting the entire squad & management go & just start from the first division on part time basis. Sacking a manager to pay for player contracts does not give me confidence about the future.
We might have been better off in the long run if the examiner had gutted the club in terms of cost cutting and we started aain in Div. 1, looks like we're going to end up in Div.1 anyway but with a larger wage bill and a manager to pay off.
If Mathews is due €300k, we'll owe €450k before next season, we'll be back in examinership before this time next season.
pineapple stu
11/12/2008, 10:39 AM
Why do you think you'll start in Division 1 instead of the A Championship?
(Genuine question)
tiktok
11/12/2008, 10:42 AM
Why do you think you'll start in Division 1 instead of the A Championship?
(Genuine question)
Shels (genuine answer).
If there hadn't been a precedent set when they should have been kicked out, I'd be more worried. The only issue outstanding with regard to licencing is the payments to players (assuming we haven't managed to run up another tax bill in a month) when it comes down to it, I think we'll sort that out in time.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.2 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.