View Full Version : Cork Winding up Notice?
higgins
03/07/2006, 11:07 AM
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.
Your last sentence captures what I'm trying to say. I find it unworkable and unrealistic to deduct points for a business making a 5% loss on a budget you can whip up the night before! Next of all he'll want us to give extra points for who presents the budget in the nicest folder! Maybe a prize for biggest improver :)
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.
I am saying it’s the right of the owner of the company who runs the club to spend the money they have, yes. If Bohs want to pocket the 50Million and play in Fairview Park (as long as it meets minimum standards) then its there right to go buy the worlds best player and play him for a couple of months if they want! I'm not saying reckless spending should go unpunished and certainly writing off debt is a big NO but the picture Stu likes to paint is clubs are spending money they don’t have. I presume by money they don’t have he means its money that could not be sustained over the long term. My answer to that is if they want to blow their lot in the space of a month then let them!! As long as they are carrying the debt forward and paying bills then no harm is done.
Clubs are adult enough to understand spending at a faster rate then what they take in will only lead to huge debts and a long period of nothingness where your trying to pay off the debt. If UCD don’t like to go done this route then that’s their choice but why punish other clubs who overspend for a season or two in the hope of breaking out of their division and hitting the big time.
Take Drogheda for example!
I think its great what they have done the past year or two and wish them success but they will quickly realise in a couple of years that if they don’t make any inroads in Europe that they cant spend that amount of money every season and expect to make a profit but I don’t see the harm in giving it a go for a couple of years.
UCD, looking to take the fun out of football :)
dcfcsteve
03/07/2006, 11:34 AM
Clubs are adult enough to understand spending at a faster rate then what they take in will only lead to huge debts and a long period of nothingness where your trying to pay off the debt. If UCD don’t like to go done this route then that’s their choice but why punish other clubs who overspend for a season or two in the hope of breaking out of their division and hitting the big time.
Take Drogheda for example!
I think its great what they have done the past year or two and wish them success but they will quickly realise in a couple of years that if they don’t make any inroads in Europe that they cant spend that amount of money every season and expect to make a profit but I don’t see the harm in giving it a go for a couple of years.
UCD, looking to take the fun out of football :)
One man's fun is another man's financial impropriety.
I'm broadly with Stu on this one (if only because the fact that we agree on something will floor him..... :D :p )
Chasing the dream is all very well, but more often than not it ends in disaster. Having clubs act like footballing versions of the mayfly - rising quickly from obscurity to glory, before withering back to obscurity a short time later - is not in the interests of the game overall. Leeds Utd tried it, and failed spectacularly. Numerous other clubs have tried it and failed as well.
The problem is that failure usually involves recourse to bankruptcy etc, which not only screws over creditors but also creates an extremely negative image of the game. We have enough of an image problem in Irish football without adding the circus of countless financial implosions to the heady mix.
Well-run businesses/football clubs may lack somehwat in glamour. They may preclude the overnight rise and fall of otherwise unfashionable teams (Drogheda ?). But they also don't distort the natural rules of competition with 'unnatural' financial behaviour, they don't creat an image of your industry as reckless, risky dangerous for outsiders to get involved in, and they don't feck off fans by seeing their teams go from glory to disaster in the blink of an eye-lid.
As for clubs beinfg adult in their attitude towards spending money !?!? There is something peculiarly intoxicating about football that makes otherwise sensible/shrewd people take thoroughly reckless financial risks - usally in pursuit of "the dream". This is truie the world over. When it comes to football, I'm afraid history has shown again and again that many individuals and clubs are incapable of acting in an "adult", prudent or sensible manner.
One man's fun is another man's financial impropriety.
Or one man's fun is another man's reckless trading.
pineapple stu
03/07/2006, 12:31 PM
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.
Exactly.
there is nothing in licensing that asks about debts the only question is do you have a tax clearance cert which is no more than three months old
Wrong. Section 9 deals with finances and notes that no club may have outstanding wages or PRSI unless there's some sort of agreement in place or there's a form of arbitration in place. This, it would appear, means that having a winding-up petition against you is OK under Licencing. Which, of course, makes a mockery of the whole thing.
I'm broadly with Stu on this one (if only because the fact that we agree on something will floor him..... )
Damn you Steve!!! Now I'm all confused! I can't disagree with both you and higgins now!:D
The only place UCD will win anything is on the Balance Sheets :D
CCFC has been conservatively run in recent years with no massive gambles in expenditure to win titles which implies that if we owe money then must be a lot more clubs that owe the Revemue money.
Whats clubs owe money to the Revenue & what clubs definitely don't?
:confused:
Pats do. have had a repayment plan for the last 18 months or so and haven't defaulted once.
Schumi
03/07/2006, 1:21 PM
Everyone owes money to the Revenue (except Rovers probably), it's just a matter of who's keeping to their scheduled payments I think.
Everyone owes money to the Revenue (except Rovers probably), it's just a matter of who's keeping to their scheduled payments I think.
I think its odds on another clubs will be in the news about this later in the season so.
The Revenue Auditors are doing the rounds of clubs at the moment. The Rovers case exposed all the dubious expense payments that have been going on in the league, hence the audit of all clubs. It's likely that all clubs will be hit with a tax bill, unless they're clubs that have recently been in the shíte like Rovers. Again, it's back to the net pay contracts.
However, a winding up notice will only be issued if payment has been missed or if a club hasn't come to a repayment schedule with the revenue.
soccerc
03/07/2006, 1:31 PM
I think its odds on another clubs will be in the news about this later in the season so.
I'd imagine sooner than that :rolleyes:
CollegeTillIDie
05/07/2006, 9:06 PM
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.
No peadar because of all ye feckers go to the wall we won't have anyone to play against :D
pineapple stu
06/07/2006, 12:55 PM
Whats clubs owe money to the Revenue & what clubs definitely don't?
:confused:
Everyone owes money to Revenue. Some clubs only owe current amounts; some owe more than that.
You can get figures from club accounts - will post when I get home if I remember. It varies from big amounts like Bohs, Pat's, Cork and Dublin City (mentioned on this thread earlier), to smaller amounts of about E20,000 to E30,000 for Bray, Kilkenny, Drogheda (I think) and a couple of others.
This looks like it'll definitely be back in the news - Revenue have been talking to all clubs with a view to sorting out exactly where things are with everyone (I'd tell you what we owed before it was paid, but I wouldn't want to embarrass the "conservatively run" clubs :)).
NY Hoop
06/07/2006, 2:14 PM
Everyone owes money to Revenue. Some clubs only owe current amounts; some owe more than that.
You can get figures from club accounts - will post when I get home if I remember. It varies from big amounts like Bohs, Pat's, Cork and Dublin City (mentioned on this thread earlier), to smaller amounts of about E20,000 to E30,000 for Bray, Kilkenny, Drogheda (I think) and a couple of others.
This looks like it'll definitely be back in the news - Revenue have been talking to all clubs with a view to sorting out exactly where things are with everyone (I'd tell you what we owed before it was paid, but I wouldn't want to embarrass the "conservatively run" clubs :)).
Not everyone:D
For the first time in our history everything is transparent and done properly.
KOH
pineapple stu
06/07/2006, 8:30 PM
Your P30s are paid on the last day of the month every month?
Here's that summary I promised...
Owed to
Club Year-end Revenue
Bohemians 30-Nov-05 462,629
Bray Wanderers 30-Sep-05 15,000
Cork City 31-Dec-04 141,559
Drogheda United 31-Dec-04 30,588
Dublin City 30-Sep-04 70,528
Galway United 31-Oct-05 36,040
Kilkenny City 31-Oct-04 1,935
St Pat's Ath 30-Jun-05 228,762
Shamrock Rovers 31-Oct-05 15,018
Waterford Untd 31-Oct-04 61,013
Battery Rover
06/07/2006, 9:48 PM
Are these the only teams that owe money or the only ones that have been audited?
Where does this info come from?
A face
07/07/2006, 12:18 AM
Are these the only teams that owe money or the only ones that have been audited?
Where does this info come from?
What he said !!
Dr.Nightdub
07/07/2006, 2:05 AM
Stu, your figures regarding Pats are way out of date. We paid them a six-figure sum in order to get the tax clearance cert for this season's UEFA licence, what's left owing is considerably under €100k and we've agreed a repayment schedule of either 5 or 6 years - genuinely can't remember which, either way it's less than €2k a month.
pineapple stu
07/07/2006, 9:17 AM
Are these the only teams that owe money or the only ones that have been audited?
Where does this info come from?
Apologies - only clubs incorporated as companies are included. The others aren't incorporated (except Kildare, whose accounts don't disclose Revenue liabilities) and Derry (cos I haven't gotten around to looking for them).
Stu, your figures regarding Pats are way out of date.
They're dated when they're dated. Maybe they've come down since then, but the figures above are per the last audited accounts.
At one stage I think ours was above 500K... As Nightdub said we're closer to 50K than 100K now
Good work though stu
dahamsta
07/07/2006, 9:53 AM
Nice bit of research there stu.
el punter
07/07/2006, 10:03 AM
How have Bohs managed to amass a revenue liability of close on half a million?
Dodge
07/07/2006, 10:11 AM
How have Bohs managed to amass a revenue liability of close on half a million?
Same way they gave a contract worth that to Gareth Farrelly...
Dublin Citys 70k seems large for squad of part-time players. I think fulltime teams are always likely to have bigger tax bill.
pineapple stu
07/07/2006, 10:33 AM
At one stage I think ours was above 500K... As Nightdub said we're closer to 50K than 100K now
In Pat's previous accounts, the amount was E330 or so. So, yes, it appears to be coming down significantly.
Pete - the important question regarding Dublin City's liability (and everyone's, I suppose) is how old is it? Is it two or three years that they haven't paid? It isn't necessarily just the most recent year.
Partizan
07/07/2006, 10:39 AM
AFAIK, we have significantly reduced ours.
el punter
07/07/2006, 11:04 AM
Same way they gave a contract worth that to Gareth Farrelly...
How is that structured does anyone know? Why would any club pay half a million to a rookie manager?
Schumi
07/07/2006, 1:48 PM
Why would any club pay half a million to a rookie manager?
It would include his wages as a player too, don't forget. Still crazy money though if true.
I think fulltime teams are always likely to have bigger tax bill.
Not necessarily. For most part time players, their regular day job takes them over the cut off point, so the part time clubs get stung for all their wages at the top rate of tax.
pineapple stu
07/07/2006, 7:10 PM
True, actually. Didn't think of that for some reason!
For what it's worth, here's another accounts summary to show nett assets (i.e. all assets less all liabilities) and profit or loss last year...
Nett assets/ Profit/(loss)
Club Year-end (liabilities) last year
Bohemians 30-Nov-05 1,198,575 796,044
Bray Wanderers 30-Sep-05 (496,248) (911)
Cork City 31-Dec-04 (130,752) (66,137)
Drogheda United 31-Dec-04 (108,005) (14,432)
Dublin City 30-Sep-04 (820,071) (413,368)
Galway United 31-Oct-05 (207,135) (69,291)
Kildare County 31-Oct-05 (132,580) 44,874
Kilkenny City 31-Oct-04 (95,805) (16,779)
St Pat's Ath 30-Jun-05 (190,176) (580,499)
Shamrock Rovers 31-Oct-05 5,534 1,308,132
Waterford Utd 31-Oct-04 (286,272) 22,272
Included in the results above is E1.27m profit for Bohs on sale of property (i.e. they made a loss of E470,000 before that), E1.5m of a write-off for Shamrock Rovers due to their administration settlement and a decent amount (E80k?) for Bray from the loan deals with Zayed and Wes Charles. Harps' last AGM said they made a profit of E2,000 last year, while UCD were just under break even, just to add two more into the mix. Fairly clear link, by and large, between teams who are making profit/breaking even and those who are struggling - Kildare (third-last last year after three seasons just missing out on the play-offs), Rovers (relegated last year), UCD (bottom half of the Premier), Waterford (no comment needed!), Harps (relegated last year) and Kilkenny (second bottom again this year).
Obviously, the more a club's nett liabilities and the more it lost in the last year, the more likely we'll be hearing about them in connection with Revenue liabilities soon.
pineapple stu
19/07/2006, 8:20 PM
THE HIGH COURT 2006 No. 222 COS IN THE MATTER OF CORK CITY INVESTMENT FC LTD. AND IN THE MATTER OF THE COMPANIES ACTS, 1963-2003 NOTICE is hereby given that a Petition for the winding-up of the above-named company by the High Court was on the 21st day of June, 2006, presented to the High Court by Gerard Harrahill, Collector General, Sarsfield House, Francis Street, Limerick, a creditor of the above-named company, and that the said Petition is directed to be heard before the High Court on the 17th day of July, 2006, and that any creditor or contributory of the said company who wishes to support or oppose the making of an Order on the said Petition may appear at the time of hearing by himself or his Counsel for that purpose and a copy of the Petition will be furnished to any creditor or contributory of the said company who requires it by the undersigned on payment of the regulated charge of the same. FRANCES COOKE, REVENUE SOLICITOR, DUBLIN CASTLE, DUBLIN 2. Solicitor for the Petitioner. NOTE: Any person who intends to appear at the hearing of the said Petition must serve on or send by post to the above-named Petitioner or his Solicitor notice in writing of his intention to do so. The notice must state the name and address of the person or, if a firm, the name and address of the firm, and must be signed by the person or firm, or his or their Solicitor, (if any), and must be served, or, if posted, must be sent by post in sufficient time to reach the above-named Solicitor or the Petitioner not later than 5 o'clock in the afternoon of the 14th day of July, 2006. </B></B>
What happened with this in the end?
BohsFans
19/07/2006, 8:57 PM
How is that structured does anyone know? Why would any club pay half a million to a rookie manager?
:rolleyes:
read it again, he didn't say the spoofer gets half a mill.
Risteard
19/07/2006, 9:52 PM
The bill got paid (last Monday week, i think) so i think the hearing just didn't happen.
BohsFans
19/07/2006, 10:00 PM
Who's next?
Bohs - payments schedule from 2006.
Bray - ????
Cork - paid bill in full
Derry - can't be touched by the RC
Drogs - paid bill a few years ago
Dub City - goneski
Longford - ????
Pat's - payments schedule from ????
Shels - paid bill in full
Sligo - ????
UCD - OK and up to date - according to 'CollegeTillIDie'
Waterford - ????
MariborKev
19/07/2006, 11:08 PM
Derry - can't be touched by the RC
Aye, but HM Customs and Revenue are forever on our shoulder
CollegeTillIDie
19/07/2006, 11:24 PM
UCD - Don't Owe the Revenue. Paid two years tax in one last year. Before Rovers dodgy bookkeeping episode ( yes I know previous board yadayadayada) EL clubs paid revenue a year in arrears.
Aye, but HM Customs and Revenue are forever on our shoulder
They probably think ye smuggling diesel with all those cross border trips :D
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.2 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.