View Full Version : Gareth Farrelly moaning
Sniffer
20/02/2009, 1:59 PM
Apparently he had a slice off the FAI in his morning's Sun, anyone know what it was about?
sligoman
20/02/2009, 2:01 PM
Not fully paid by Cork, being discussed here (http://foot.ie/showthread.php?t=112045&page=7).
FAI response (http://www.fai.ie/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4036&Itemid=9)
Main points. Cork owe Farrelly money. As he went down the legal route, it couldn't count as money owed under liecensing. Cork's lawyers are worse than the FAI's
tiktok
20/02/2009, 3:58 PM
Cork owe Farrelly money.
Is how you read it and for the Courts to decide.
At worst, Cork owed Farrelly money which he didn't claim for from the examiner.
The Examiner let him go, I don't think CCFC have any case to answer here.
They don't to me anyway. It was definitely my reading of the FAI piece (I didn't read farrley's piece)
Jersey Cow
20/02/2009, 4:24 PM
There's nothing Farrelly said that can be argued!!....hats off to him for being so honest and blunt!
garyderry
20/02/2009, 4:49 PM
Is how you read it and for the Courts to decide.
At worst, Cork owed Farrelly money which he didn't claim for from the examiner.
The Examiner let him go, I don't think CCFC have any case to answer here.
I dont understand, he had a contract with cork, cork reneged on it and the examiner tried to force him to sign a different deal, and he refused (as he is entitled to).
How do you work out cork dont owe him money?
Réiteoir
20/02/2009, 6:21 PM
I dont understand, he had a contract with cork, cork reneged on it and the examiner tried to force him to sign a different deal, and he refused (as he is entitled to).
How do you work out cork dont owe him money?
The regular Laws don't apply in the great People's Republic iirc
tiktok
20/02/2009, 7:25 PM
I dont understand, he had a contract with cork, cork reneged on it and the examiner tried to force him to sign a different deal, and he refused (as he is entitled to).
How do you work out cork dont owe him money?
Yeah, you don't understand and I doubt you're particularly interested in trying to, nevertheless.
Someone was an employee of a business, the business got into trouble and was unable to pay wages, a couple of weeks wages are owed and the business goes into examinership.
In order to guarantee the short term future of the business through examinership, the High Court appointed Examiner has to take certain action, among these are cost cutting measures and unfortunately, the sacking of some staff. What staff are chosen to have contracts terminated is purely the decision of the examiner.
Those staff are no longer employees of the business, in order to recoup the money owed, they have to apply to the examiner as a creditor [as former employees they are named as preferential creditors]. If they don't apply to the examiner as a creditor they will see no money, because the money to bring the business out of examinership is entirely divided up between creditors who have applied to the examiner.
On coming out of examinership, the new owner has no responsibility to cover any debts not claimed for and agreed during examinership.
It doesn't matter whether the business is Cork City, Sasha, Thomas Read's or any of the 71 other businesses that went into examinership last year, despite the smartarse comments.
CSFShels
20/02/2009, 9:50 PM
Cork City really are a horrible football club. Whatever Shels have been through in the past, they've never treated their players in such a horrible manner. Why anyone is going to play for them is a mystery to me.
sullanefc
20/02/2009, 10:01 PM
Cork City really are a horrible football club. Whatever Shels have been through in the past, they've never treated their players in such a horrible manner. Why anyone is going to play for them is a mystery to me.
:D Fantastic. And Ollie Byrne was such a nice chap.
TheBoss
20/02/2009, 10:51 PM
I was surprised to see a 2 page article to do with the league. :D
Celdrog
20/02/2009, 10:53 PM
Cork City really are a horrible football club. Whatever Shels have been through in the past, they've never treated their players in such a horrible manner. Why anyone is going to play for them is a mystery to me.Even I find funny
CuanaD
21/02/2009, 11:53 AM
Yeah, you don't understand and I doubt you're particularly interested in trying to, nevertheless.
Someone was an employee of a business, the business got into trouble and was unable to pay wages, a couple of weeks wages are owed and the business goes into examinership.
In order to guarantee the short term future of the business through examinership, the High Court appointed Examiner has to take certain action, among these are cost cutting measures and unfortunately, the sacking of some staff. What staff are chosen to have contracts terminated is purely the decision of the examiner.
Those staff are no longer employees of the business, in order to recoup the money owed, they have to apply to the examiner as a creditor [as former employees they are named as preferential creditors]. If they don't apply to the examiner as a creditor they will see no money, because the money to bring the business out of examinership is entirely divided up between creditors who have applied to the examiner.
On coming out of examinership, the new owner has no responsibility to cover any debts not claimed for and agreed during examinership.
It doesn't matter whether the business is Cork City, Sasha, Thomas Read's or any of the 71 other businesses that went into examinership last year, despite the smartarse comments.Yes, but it doesn't look as cut & dried as that in the extratime.ie article:
The Irish Sun states that Farrelly complained to the Rights Commissioner last month after concluding that the FAI would not act. Farrelly is quoted by the newspaper as saying: “They stopped paying me on August 12 right until the end of my contract. I was let go because they classified me as a non-essential playing member, I had been sick. I wanted to play, I made three attempts to come back and each attempt was declined by the club. The examiner was saying: ‘you’re not being paid so you can’t come back’. When they went back to the High Court to come out of examinership, the examiner appeared to state that my case should be held and heard under the terms of the FAI, which resorted back to the licensing issue.
“Within the High Court, I was classified as a contingent creditor and that, I believe, should be looked upon and covered under the rules of the FAI. But the FAI have not acted on that. As far as I am aware, Cork have ignored all correspondence — they haven’t acknowledged it at all.”
I'm no barrister, but I can see why both sides feel they have a case here
On coming out of examinership, the new owner has no responsibility to cover any debts not claimed for and agreed during examinership.
That is the only logical legal situation otherwise historical debt would haunt companies for years.
the-blue-harp
21/02/2009, 7:53 PM
how any cork city fans can stand up and suppourt the actions of their club (with financial matters) on here is totally beyond me. what a mess. and its not only embarrasing for the wonderful city of cork, its embarrassing for the whole league.
We are all truly embarrassed and horrified, that Examiner was ruthless.
A face
23/02/2009, 8:38 PM
We are all truly embarrassed and horrified, that Examiner was ruthless.
Ruthless i tells ya, ruthless, the shame and embarrassment of it all !! :eek:
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.2 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.