View Full Version : Cork Winding up Notice?
Drumcondra Red
02/07/2006, 11:42 AM
I don't think city fans were laughing at shels or anything - it was more the head in the sand attitude of the shels fans that we laughed at.
We didn't have a head in the sand attitude, we were given answers, just because they weren't shared with you means sweet fcuk all!
TheOwl
02/07/2006, 11:43 AM
What amazes me is the fatc that the same, and I mean exact same, thread but relating to Shels on this site spawned tons of pages, threads opening up everywhere and general comment on how Shels were mismanaging when compared to the rest of the league. How with this news, but with Cork, we have 3 pages. Shels fans were accused of heads in the sand as well so I expect Cork fans to match down to Turners Cross and protest etc etc. Like what us Shels fans failed to do???
Next time don't throw stones in glass houses....
I wouldn't even bring all that up Gareth - it is not worth the trouble of an arguement.
Word is that its 160k and not 400k which i think makes a huge difference.
I think people were critical of Shels because you have rumoured to have lost 1m last season alone yet continued to spend money on player you not even playing (large squad by eL standards).
Cork City has been run a tight enough budget in recent years so its unlikely that the debt from recent years - probably a Revenue investigation into the past.
Once again we see the unprofessional nature of civil servants (this time the Revenue Commissioners) as employees leaking information to their friends which is illegal. Surely a sacking offence but i;m sure the unions would protect him/her.
Dodge
02/07/2006, 12:17 PM
What amazes me is the fatc that the same, and I mean exact same, thread but relating to Shels on this site spawned tons of pages, threads opening up everywhere and general comment on how Shels were mismanaging when compared to the rest of the league. How with this news, but with Cork, we have 3 pages.
Most of those pages were Shels fans arguing/denying everything. Cork fans staying quiet here. Thats the difference
From the Sunday business post
High Court petition to wind up Cork City football club
02 July 2006 By Ian Kehoe
The Revenue Commissioners have taken legal steps to shut down the Eircom League soccer champions, Cork City.
They ha ve brought a High Court petition to wind up the club after an intensive audit of its financial records. During the audit, it emerged that Cork City owes the Revenue about €160,000 in outstanding taxes. The Revenue is seeking to dissolve Cork City Investment FC, the holding company behind the club.
The petition will be heard by the High Court on July17, unless a s ett lement can be reached before then. Brian Lennox, Cork City’s chairman, said that the debt would be paid in the next two weeks and insisted the club would not be wound up. Lennox said a lot of the debt was historic and that the club had taken a number of steps to shore up its finances in recent years.
‘‘A lot of it goes back to the bad old days where most clubs did not maintain proper books,” he said. ‘‘There were some problems over historic PAYE and PRSI payments and we are trying to sort it all out.”
Representatives of the club met Revenue officials in recent weeks in an effort to resolve the issue. However, no agreement was brokered, prompting the Revenue to issue the petition. Cork City Investments FC was incorporated three years ago as the holding company for the club. Lennox owns 99 per cent of the company. He said it was almost impossible to make money from an Eircom League club and said the government should provide financial support to the league. Cork City is believed to have one of the biggest wage bills in the league.
According to its most recent accounts, Cork City Investment FC had retained losses of €140,000 at the end of 2004 after making a loss of €66,000 during the year. This is the second petition the Revenue has brought against an Eircom League club. In March, it brought a petition to wind up Accolade, the company behind Shelbourne Football Club.
The petition was later dropped after Shelbourne paid the Revenue €300,000. The Revenue has launched a major investigation into the financial affairs and tax liabilities of soccer clubs in the Eircom League.
The Revenue designated the 22-team league as an ‘‘area of specific risk’’, and is conducting audits on a number of clubs within the league.
passerrby
02/07/2006, 12:27 PM
I think them fine people in the revenue are doing a great job.. Fair play
When the Revenue are finished with the eL will they investigate the GAAs "expenses" payments to players and in particular managers?
Réiteoir
02/07/2006, 12:58 PM
When the Revenue are finished with the eL will they investigate the GAAs "expenses" payments to players and in particular managers?
will they bol...
higgins
02/07/2006, 1:07 PM
I think what would sort all these problems out is a new league where small clubs and clubs from areas where there's already other clubs should be kicked out of the Premier Division. That would make everything better. Or else point out what a sham (a) FAI Licencing, (b) the new FAI league and (c) the FAI in general are. The league seriously needs strict financial control - all clubs to get back to solvent status and stay that way under penalty of at least a points deduction and at most relegation. If this means most clubs taking backwards steps akin to Waterford (who made a profit in their last accounts), then so be it. We are currently living in a state of delusion about how good our league really is - it's like saying Ireland had a strong economy in the early 80s.
From looking at club accounts (and I mentioned that Cork might have problems on their forum a couple of months back), Pat's (owe E228,000) and Dublin City (owe E70,000) probably should be nervous. Bohs (owe E460,000) already had issues with Revenue, I think? Either way, they'll be OK once the E2m comes in (when does this happen, incidentally?)
Incidentally, I wonder is there an apology coming from those who dismissed this thread as doom mongering?
Why is it a sham ???
Licensing says you need a TCC doesnt it?
Shels and Cork would have got this on the basis they had agreed a repayment structure with the tax man. This is carried out once a season and nothing the FAI could have done about it.
If you want a rule brought in stating a club with a winding up order against it gets punishment then fine say it, but under current rules Shels or Cork done nothing wrong.
Shels bill has been paid!
Wheres your problem??????
Its like paying any other bill only the tax man can and now will issue winding up orders to get their money.
Poor Student
02/07/2006, 2:23 PM
Just back from Cork, but I heard about this at the game on Friday. A bit shocked to hear this given that Lennox always seemed to be going on about fiscal prudence and Cork haven't really been in the market for snapping up the league's top stars. I assume like Shels they have defaulted on their agreed payment scheme with the revenue? How did this happen? Poor budgeting? Unlike Shels, Cork have no assets to play with. Will this be paid straight from Lennox's pocket?
Just back from Cork, but I heard about this at the game on Friday. A bit shocked to hear this given that Lennox always seemed to be going on about fiscal prudence and Cork haven't really been in the market for snapping up the league's top stars. I assume like Shels they have defaulted on their agreed payment scheme with the revenue? How did this happen? Poor budgeting? Unlike Shels, Cork have no assets to play with. Will this be paid straight from Lennox's pocket?
its being paid this week considering we've won 800k in prizemoney and have the league biggest sponsoship deal money isnt a problem. i'd put it down to the fact the club was run poorly in the past. this debt is going back yeahs and was only discovered afer an internal audit by the revenue
higgins
02/07/2006, 2:53 PM
its being paid this week considering we've won 800k in prizemoney and have the league biggest sponsoship deal money isnt a problem. i'd put it down to the fact the club was run poorly in the past. this debt is going back yeahs and was only discovered afer an internal audit by the revenue
Pablo you dont get a winding up notice for discovering you owe tax :D
And people on here say the Shels fans would believe anything :eek:
Pablo you dont get a winding up notice for discovering you owe tax :D
And people on here say the Shels fans would believe anything :eek:
i dont belive anything. i believe what i know to be true.
If not then we wont be making any sigings this week and we'll be out of business. But i know a bit more about the subject then you do so we will and we wont be!
higgins
02/07/2006, 3:07 PM
You are talking there Pablo as if the 800K prizemoney and Sponsorship deal (its finished isnt it??) is sitting in a bank account somewhere?
If it was sitting there why did you fail to meet your repayments?
Why didnt you pay the bill in full when you first heard of this HISTORIC debt :D
You are talking there Pablo as if the 800K prizemoney and Sponsorship deal (its finished isnt it??) is sitting in a bank account somewhere?
If it was sitting there why did you fail to meet your repayments?
Why didnt you pay the bill in full when you first heard of this HISTORIC debt :D
the sponsorship money is paid in stages. i presume not having a home game for 7 weeks didnt help.
still 165k isnt exactly a fortune. if its an issue CCFC wont exist in 2 weeks will it?
The is a D4 conspiracy to stop us winning the league & deflect attention from the financial woes of dublin clubs!
higgins
02/07/2006, 3:28 PM
the sponsorship money is paid in stages. i presume not having a home game for 7 weeks didnt help.
still 165k isnt exactly a fortune. if its an issue CCFC wont exist in 2 weeks will it?
for the eircom league 165K is a lot Pablo!
You make it out that your sitting on over 1million euro? thats not true and if you believe it to be true your as mad as a hatter :)
no home game in 7 weeks is the most valid reason so far as to why you missed the repayments and Im sure it had something to do with it but I was asking you why if you have that much money did you agree a repayment structure in the first place and why having agreed that repayment structure did you fail to make the payments ?
Assuming you have this money why not use it to pay the tax man on time like agreed?
Its amazing the double standards shown on here towards this issue!
It must have went into the 100's, the amount of posts claiming Shels fans were stupid for not marching down to Tolka and ousting ollie and claiming the club was ours! :D
Why when Cork fans believe what they are told is it different?
CollegeTillIDie
02/07/2006, 3:31 PM
higgins
Cause Shels are from Dublin I suppose. Us jackeens are never believed ;)
P.S. I thought having a Match programme was necessary under this Licencing thingummy ......
No one mentioned there was a repayment plan. For all we know the Revenue could have just demaned the cash immeadiately but City were stalling looking for better deal.
Anto McC
02/07/2006, 3:41 PM
The is a D4 conspiracy to stop us winning the league & deflect attention from the financial woes of dublin clubs!
Nice one Pete :D
No one mentioned there was a repayment plan. For all we know the Revenue could have just demaned the cash immeadiately but City were stalling looking for better deal.
thats exactly what happened
No one mentioned there was a repayment plan. For all we know the Revenue could have just demaned the cash immeadiately but City were stalling looking for better deal.
Just pay the money, cheats!
;)
passerrby
02/07/2006, 4:49 PM
this is for killing the big fella ye brutes
Just pay the money, cheats!
;)
how would we go about asking the FAI to bail us out dodge?
;)
how would we go about asking the FAI to bail us out dodge?
;)
Let Shels keep their fake league without going to court and make sure you pay them back within 3 months :p
CollegeTillIDie
02/07/2006, 6:05 PM
Cork Hibs 1976 ; Cork Celtic 1979; Cork United 1982; Cork City ( Plonk Version) 1996; All went bust and in the first three cases out of football !
What is it with Cork clubs ?
pineapple stu
02/07/2006, 6:15 PM
No one mentioned there was a repayment plan. For all we know the Revenue could have just demaned the cash immeadiately but City were stalling looking for better deal.
Read the Business Post article. It states Cork met with Revenue to agree a repayment deal. You don't stall with Revenue to get a better deal.
The is a D4 conspiracy to stop us winning the league & deflect attention from the financial woes of Dublin clubs!
Would you say you're being ridden rock solid by the tax man?
If you want a rule brought in stating a club with a winding up order against it gets punishment then fine say it, but under current rules Shels or Cork done nothing wrong.
That's what I am saying. The fact that, under current rules, Shels and Cork have done nothing wrong is the sham. It means clubs can essentially overspend as before and the FAI simply won't step in. It's unfair on Cork and Shels fans - so far - that a Licencing Scheme which was introduced to stop clubs going under is actually unable to do anything even when clubs are threatened with liquidation.
OneRedArmy
02/07/2006, 7:55 PM
I love the use of the term "historic debt" by Lennox and some people on here. It somehow applies that failure to pay a creditor a debt not incurred in the here and now is somehow less of a problem, when in fact the reverse is the case when you add interest and penalties.
In any case, can a company that has only been in existance for 3 years really call something "historic" and incurred "back in the bad old days"?
The Revenue special cases group is obviously having a good time going through EL clubs! (BTW totally agree with the above on the GAA, surely under the counter payments should be the next target)
Could other companies owed money make a difference here? There is an option for them to come forward and demand their money too is there not, which would make a big difference?
higgins
02/07/2006, 9:07 PM
No one mentioned there was a repayment plan. For all we know the Revenue could have just demaned the cash immeadiately but City were stalling looking for better deal.
Doubt revenue would issue a winding up notice if Cork just found out they owed this money. BL has said this is historic debt, whatever that means!
I would think its fairly certain they had a repayment structure in place but I'm sure the truth will come out soon.
higgins
02/07/2006, 9:15 PM
Read the Business Post article. It states Cork met with Revenue to agree a repayment deal. You don't stall with Revenue to get a better deal.
Would you say you're being ridden rock solid by the tax man?
That's what I am saying. The fact that, under current rules, Shels and Cork have done nothing wrong is the sham. It means clubs can essentially overspend as before and the FAI simply won't step in. It's unfair on Cork and Shels fans - so far - that a Licencing Scheme which was introduced to stop clubs going under is actually unable to do anything even when clubs are threatened with liquidation.
Well not just because shels were one of the clubs but I dont think revenue giving notice to wind up a company is enough reason to punish a club.
Its a bill that needs paying and unlike a printer :) or some other day to day bill the tax man has a neat little trick to get his money, i.e. Wind you up!!
I think the current ruling saying you need a TCC is enough to cover this. Revenue will not give you a TCC if they think you cant pay it back and rather then have the FAI get involved in the tax affairs of every club I think its acceptable they rely on the the Tax mans opinion.
You see Shels owed 300K, Cork seem to owe 160K. How would you differ between the two? Who is in a position to say how much of a debt any club can have? Its not realistic to put figures on every club and as I mentioned before different clubs have different debts and whats workable for one would not be for the other.
You want new rules brought in to cover this? thats fair enough, its your opinion but I think this area is fine as it is. How would you intend to work any new rule ??
Schumi
02/07/2006, 9:22 PM
Could other companies owed money make a difference here? There is an option for them to come forward and demand their money too is there not, which would make a big difference?
My understanding is that they could but if that put the company out of business, they could end up getting only a small percentage of the money so it'd probably be safer for them not to.
pineapple stu
02/07/2006, 9:26 PM
You want new rules brought in to cover this? thats fair enough, its your opinion but I think this area is fine as it is. How would you intend to work any new rule ??
The area cannot possibly be fine enough as it is if clubs are being hit with winding-up petitions every couple of months.
UEFA Licencing calls for all clubs to be solvent - that would be a huge start. Insolvent clubs should be docked points. Clubs should present budgets at the start of the year which show them meeting all their expenses; again, any club not meeting this budget (within reasonable levels, which I'm not going to bother defining for the purposes of a hypothetical post) should be docked points. Simple as.
In any case, can a company that has only been in existance for 3 years really call something "historic" and incurred "back in the bad old days"?
I presume when the company was incorporated, it took over the business of the unincorporated entity which was around before. In which case, it would have started off with the balance sheet at the date of incorporation, which could have included older debts.
OneRedArmy
02/07/2006, 9:45 PM
Could other companies owed money make a difference here? There is an option for them to come forward and demand their money too is there not, which would make a big difference?
My understanding is that they could but if that put the company out of business, they could end up getting only a small percentage of the money so it'd probably be safer for them not to.
A winding up order would generally make other creditors tighten up their credit terms, cash on delivery or reduction in credit amounts etc.
higgins
02/07/2006, 9:53 PM
The area cannot possibly be fine enough as it is if clubs are being hit with winding-up petitions every couple of months.
UEFA Licencing calls for all clubs to be solvent - that would be a huge start. Insolvent clubs should be docked points. Clubs should present budgets at the start of the year which show them meeting all their expenses; again, any club not meeting this budget (within reasonable levels, which I'm not going to bother defining for the purposes of a hypothetical post) should be docked points. Simple as.
Im sorry to say its not simple as!
any club can come up with a budget!! I could do you out one tomorrow if you want. Not meeting your budget means your docked points :eek: Are you living in the real world ??? Plenty of businesses run into cash flow problems and dont meet their expectations.
Could shels not just put in Setanta FAI Cup League Cup and League winners and Champions League even and get away with it. Will they be punished for not winning a competition like they said :D
Easy for you to say simple as when you dont have any idea how to work it or at least you have not stated any way of working it.
A winding up notice is just a way the tax man has of getting his money.
If the printer says they wont print anymore until they are paid would this also fall into a points deduction!
If Guinness say they will not deliver stock until you pay your last bill is this cause for further deduction.
To me it seems it's a UCD fan trying to come up with ideas to bring bigger clubs down to your level.
Your going to complicate things by adding in rules like that. If its not black and white theres no point adding things in. As I said the TCC covers this in theory and if you cant trust revenue then whats the point.
pineapple stu
02/07/2006, 10:29 PM
Not meeting your budget means your docked points :eek: Are you living in the real world ???
Show me where I said that? If you can genuinely explain your problems and what you're going to do about them, fair enough. If you're having to use capital expenditure to meet current expenses, you should be docked expenses. If you make a loss of maybe 5% of turnover or more, penalties should be considered. It works in other leagues - don't see why it can't work here. I already said I don't intend going into details for a hypothetical debate - that doesn't mean they can't be worked out.
If the printer says they won't print anymore until they are paid would this also fall into a points deduction!
If Guinness say they will not deliver stock until you pay your last bill is this cause for further deduction.
Where are you getting this from?
To me it seems it's a UCD fan trying to come up with ideas to bring bigger clubs down to your level.
Nope, it's trying to get clubs to cop onto themselves before they all go broke. It's trying to get a Licencing system which is pro-active rather than reactive - i.e. stopping clubs from getting into trouble with Revenue rather than penalising them only when they get wound up by Revenue.
The league can't go on in an environment where clubs think it's OK to rack up debts. The losses the clubs are making have to stop, and soon. The FAI are doing nothing to stop this.
Peadar
02/07/2006, 10:36 PM
I take it the RC have no jurisdiction over Derry?
The UCD heads think they're right clever boyos going on about football clubs just because they're not a club. I suppose they're praying a few of the top clubs go out of business so that they have a chance of being allowed into the new Premiership.
The RC can investigate a business going back over the last 10 years. They're investigating every club and they're going to find a lot of money being owed. The clubs may not agree but the RC isn't giving them much room to negotiate. In the next few weeks it will be some other club who's being served with a winding up petition.
OneRedArmy
02/07/2006, 11:02 PM
I take it the RC have no jurisdiction over Derry?Correct. But you have nothing to fear as the Inland Revenue in the North woke up to football clubs slipshod business methods a long time ago. The Revenue has petitioned to wind up numerous clubs over the last few years (Derry, Ards, Coleraine) & actually succeeded in putting Omagh out of business.
They would & have laughed away any Roversesque 3c in the Euro offer & would happily put a club under to avoid any moral hazard arising.
I think your point about it being a matter of time before other clubs get the same demands is spot on.
As a Derry fan I don't speak from any moral high ground, it wasn't so long ago we were in the same sort of position.
Student Mullet
03/07/2006, 12:30 AM
UEFA Licencing calls for all clubs to be solvent - that would be a huge start. Insolvent clubs should be docked points. Clubs should present budgets at the start of the year which show them meeting all their expenses; again, any club not meeting this budget (within reasonable levels, which I'm not going to bother defining for the purposes of a hypothetical post) should be docked points.I'm with Higgins on this one. If we did this we'd be docking points left, right and centre. It would ruin the league as a sporting competition.
I actually think the FAI have the correct idea. Limit players wages (incl. PAYE & PRSI) to 65% (or whatever) of turnover. That'd solve the problem as clubs wouldn't build up debts on other expences.
Dr.Nightdub
03/07/2006, 12:33 AM
Insolvent clubs should be docked points. Clubs should present budgets at the start of the year which show them meeting all their expenses; again, any club not meeting this budget (within reasonable levels, which I'm not going to bother defining for the purposes of a hypothetical post) should be docked points.
Stu, when the criteria for membership of the new top division were being discussed, you and other UCD fans were very vociferous about a club's League standing being determined solely by playing criteria - i.e. that on- and off-the-field issues should be kept separate. Now you're saying that a club's League standing (i.e. the number of points it has) should be subject to non-playing criteria e.g. tax compliance.
Which is it to be?
thomas
03/07/2006, 2:13 AM
Stu, when the criteria for membership of the new top division were being discussed, you and other UCD fans were very vociferous about a club's League standing being determined solely by playing criteria - i.e. that on- and off-the-field issues should be kept separate. Now you're saying that a club's League standing (i.e. the number of points it has) should be subject to non-playing criteria e.g. tax compliance.
Which is it to be?
What does it matter, even with a points deduction you can finish third and still be credited with a league title.
Spin.
Historic Debt?
‘‘A lot of it goes back to the bad old days where most clubs did not maintain proper books,” he said. ‘‘There were some problems over historic PAYE and PRSI payments and we are trying to sort it all out.”
Not "All of it goes back to the bad old days"
Not even "Most of it goes back to the bad old days"
Yet everybody, even non Cork fans can somehow read that quote and conclude unequivocally that this is all down to old debts raised by an audit. A decent audit at most clubs, even well run ones, would reveal many many "sharp practices" in relation to paying of tax on wages, including the practice of paying "expenses" as a large element of the bottom line. Even with Cork paying a lot of their taxes (which is a relatively new development in the eL) a revenue audit would leave most clubs with a bill to pay. A revenue audit of almost any business in the country would leave it with a bill to pay.
Stu, when the criteria for membership of the new top division were being discussed, you and other UCD fans were very vociferous about a club's League standing being determined solely by playing criteria - i.e. that on- and off-the-field issues should be kept separate. Now you're saying that a club's League standing (i.e. the number of points it has) should be subject to non-playing criteria e.g. tax compliance.
Which is it to be?
In fairness Doc, he's never said off the field points shouldn't be taken into it. He's always said if clubs achieve the club license, it should then be down to on the field performance. Set minimum standards and those that don't reach them shouldn't be allowed in. I agree with him 100% BTW
audits on all el clubs at the moment we had one over a fortnight ago but ive heard nothing back yet. Most clubs are going to be facing a large bill especially those dealing in cash payments so id say there will be lot more stories on this in the coming months.
People need to wake up and smell the coffee. The league obviously can't sustain the current wage levels, well not when clubs have to pay the correct amount of tax. The sooner everyone realises that the better.
The FAI have to enforce financial conditions on the clubs, or else we'll never have a sustainable league. After the revenue finish their current audits, and clubs settle (or otherwise), then extremely strict conditions should be put in place.
And most of those strict conditions wouldn't even be that strict in the non-footballing world. Gross pay signed contracts, Payslips with every pay packet, P60's, P35 returns.
I'd also make compliance an issue for both player and club - the players and PFAI have allowed the situation develop that under the counter/ cash payments are acceptable. Infact the PFAI argue against Gross Pay contracts. Have a standard contract that includes the player stating that they will not accept payments without payslips or remittance advice (if it is genuine expenses).
I say that speaking of a supporter of a club that I wouldn't be at all surprised if we were next up.
higgins
03/07/2006, 10:19 AM
Show me where I said that? If you can genuinely explain your problems and what you're going to do about them, fair enough. If you're having to use capital expenditure to meet current expenses, you should be docked expenses. If you make a loss of maybe 5% of turnover or more, penalties should be considered. It works in other leagues - don't see why it can't work here. I already said I don't intend going into details for a hypothetical debate - that doesn't mean they can't be worked out.
From your previous post you said,
Clubs should present budgets at the start of the year which show them meeting all their expenses; again, any club not meeting this budget (within reasonable levels, which I'm not going to bother defining for the purposes of a hypothetical post) should be docked points
You want clubs who make 5% loss to be fined yet your going on about this new league as not being fair as it not all to do with results on the pitch :)
Its the right of any business to spend their money wht way they like.
IF Tolka was sold for 1million in the morning and shels spent it on a bonus for Dave Rogers, its none of anyone business! If they were to use the proceeds to buy in 3 or 4 new players and up people wages for a season its none of anyones business!
You talk as if Shels go out of business every few months!
Shels are over 100 years old and still very much in business... Your petty plans to deduct clubs points due to them making more money than the smaller clubs wont work.
I suppose if Bohs get their 2million on the future sale of Dalymount it would not be fair money in your eyes??
If you have a TCC it has to be assumed your Tax affairs are in order.
Your opening up a can of worms if you think the FAI are going to go through every club every season and measure these 5% and weigh up who had a budget that was fair and who didnt!!!
Can't believe your suggesting this
higgins
03/07/2006, 10:29 AM
In fairness Doc, he's never said off the field points shouldn't be taken into it. He's always said if clubs achieve the club license, it should then be down to on the field performance. Set minimum standards and those that don't reach them shouldn't be allowed in. I agree with him 100% BTW
I also agree with off the field coming into the equation and am fully behind licensing but you have to add reality into things and this presenting of budgets and points deduction if you come in less than 5% ?
You honestly feel thats workable ?
Stu seems to be annoyed that some clubs are able to carry more debt than others. He is annoyed that some clubs have assets and can use these to fund the playing side of things.
Its not good business practice to carry on like this and cash will dry up eventually but every club has the right to spend their money the way they like!
A 30/40K wage bill can be cut to 10/20K in a matter of weeks at any club and if they want to overspend for a year on the off chance they strike it luck then I see no problem with it as long as all bills are paid eventually.
The way I see things working with nearly all football clubs is they overspend for a season or two trying to reach the next level and then reality hits and they cut back and pay off the debts and then when all is normal again they try push the boat out again in the hope of hitting the jackpot.
I dont see anything wrong with this attitude as long as the debts are carried forward and will eventually be paid.
I dont agree with the 4cents in the euro situation way of clearing debts, that to me should carry some punishment in the rule book but spending your clubs money they way you want should not carry a points deduction.
higgins
03/07/2006, 10:35 AM
And most of those strict conditions wouldn't even be that strict in the non-footballing world. Gross pay signed contracts, Payslips with every pay packet, P60's, P35 returns.
I'd also make compliance an issue for both player and club - the players and PFAI have allowed the situation develop that under the counter/ cash payments are acceptable. Infact the PFAI argue against Gross Pay contracts. Have a standard contract that includes the player stating that they will not accept payments without payslips or remittance advice (if it is genuine expenses).
Now that makes perfect sense to me!
If they were to deal with all those areas before going into the mess that would be Stu's idea it would stop the clubs having to run around trying to get this under the counter money.
Making a loss should not be a points deduction but the madness that is players wages in the EL can be sorted fairly easily.
dcfcsteve
03/07/2006, 10:42 AM
From your previous post you said,
You want clubs who make 5% loss to be fined yet your going on about this new league as not being fair as it not all to do with results on the pitch :)
Its the right of any business to spend their money wht way they like.
IF Tolka was sold for 1million in the morning and shels spent it on a bonus for Dave Rogers, its none of anyone business! If they were to use the proceeds to buy in 3 or 4 new players and up people wages for a season its none of anyones business!
You talk as if Shels go out of business every few months!
Shels are over 100 years old and still very much in business... Your petty plans to deduct clubs points due to them making more money than the smaller clubs wont work.
I suppose if Bohs get their 2million on the future sale of Dalymount it would not be fair money in your eyes??
If you have a TCC it has to be assumed your Tax affairs are in order.
Your opening up a can of worms if you think the FAI are going to go through every club every season and measure these 5% and weigh up who had a budget that was fair and who didnt!!!
Can't believe your suggesting this
I think you've got the wrong end of what PS was saying. He's saying that clubs should present their budget at the start of each season, and if that budget predicts that they won't have enough income to meet their expenses then action should be taken.That's completely different from trying to tell clubs how they spend the money they actually have - it's about ensuring clubs don't spend beyond their means and risk insolvency.
There's a danger that budgets would be manipulated to say anything though, so I'm not sure how truly effective such an approach would be. Also - a 5% loss is insignificant in my view and not worthy of action, as it could easily be made-up in future years.
As for your assertion that "it's the right of a business to spend their money any way they like". It is indeed other people's business when it coems to football clubs - shareholders if they're a PLC or Ltd Company; charity commissioners, if they're a trust or charity; the judiciary, if they're acting illegally; and fans regardless of how they're legally incorporated. There are usually rules governing the spending of any business, depending on how it is structured.
Furthermore, as league football is an organisation with its own rules that clubs must agree to abide to, the FAI/League has every statutory right to tell clubs how they should spend their money. Hence it can introduce things like a wage cap.
passerrby
03/07/2006, 11:03 AM
there is nothing in licensing that ask.s about debts the only question is do you have a tax clearance cert which is no more than three months old
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.2 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.