Why are Cork City not being deducted points?

[eamo1]

Lads,im not trying to stir anything here im just asking a question.Shamrock Rvs had to get an examiner and had points deducted,Longford Town too last season.So can someone explain why CCFC havent been docked points when the others were?My mum was asking me this qs earlier and i said i didnt know but id ask it on here.

[skitz3]

Lads,im not trying to stir anything here im just asking a question.Shamrock Rvs had to get an examiner and had points deducted,Longford Town too last season.So can someone explain why CCFC havent been docked points when the others were?My mum was asking me this qs earlier and i said i didnt know but id ask it on here.

Shels were also demoted.

[A face]

Because the books are not cooked. Thats the reason the others fell foul, in our case they are not.

[kdjaC]

Because the books are not cooked. Thats the reason the others fell foul, in our case they are not.


So the "projected" attendances have been below expectation thus creating a financial drop.


^^ what cork did.


if they dont pay their players and the PFAI get involved they will be docked points relegated etc: Arkaga filled in the licence app very well so are safe as they can always point to the above....for now.



kdjac

[higgins]

So you are within the 65% for the year are you ?

The very fact you are under examinership should be enough for a points deduction in my opinion. This option should be a last resort for clubs and while I do wish Cork come out stronger the other side it has a bad effect on the league as a whole when this happens. For that reason you should be deducted a similar set of points as clubs in the uk are when they go into administration.

Not paying your debts as may happen under this process is giving you an unfair advantage on the pitch.

Shels were punished (rightly so) but there will come a time when all debts will be cleared.
Nobody will ever be left without their money.

[A face]

So the "projected" attendances have been below expectation thus creating a financial drop.

No, that would have nothing to do with it, where are you getting that from? Actually forget it .... that is not the issue.


if they dont pay their players and the PFAI get involved they will be docked points relegated etc: Arkaga filled in the licence app very well so are safe as they can always point to the above....for now.


The players have never not been paid. I haven't been paid by my boss for three weeks, i get paid monthly but its still three weeks without pay.

Its all based on 'for now'

[A face]

So you are within the 65% for the year are you ?

I dunno, i dont pay the players AND know our total income. Both figures would be essential to answer that question.

[kdjaC]

No, that would have nothing to do with it, where are you getting that from? Actually forget it .... that is not the issue.

ehh yes it is you got a licence to operate based on projections, the attd projection being the main thing in securing your funding and ability to pay players and keeping within the 65% cap...ehh ffs your a cork fan you should know this :confused:

Your attd have been lower than expected thus creating a shortfall...again wtf why am i explaining this to a cork fan :confused:




The players have never not been paid. I haven't been paid by my boss for three weeks, i get paid monthly but its still three weeks without pay.

Its all based on 'for now'

if the players are happy to not get paid then fine, but once they are not ala Rogers at shels and the PFAI are brought in then its a problem, nowt to do with cork but more a slating of how the FAI work with their retardedly implemented licencing system.



kdjac

[SMorgan]

Give it time. CCFC have to be sanctioned. We were assured that the stable door was bolted after Rovers got nearly all their debts written off.

Any club that fails to operate within the financial restrains that other clubs operate within are cheating and any sanction by the FAI should reflect this fact.

[Dodge]

Again, ROvers weren't docked point for going into examinership, they were docked points for submitting the wrong accounts. Shels weren't demoted either. They couldn't get a new premier division license for that season. No sanctions were imposed on them for the season the indiscretions took place. (Rightly, the fact they were in the first was seen as enough)

However, the new league participation agreement clearly states that "any" sanctions are open to the FAI/league to impose if a club goes into examinsership. Points deduction would be the logical sanction.

[bohs til i die]

So you are within the 65% for the year are you ?

The very fact you are under examinership should be enough for a points deduction in my opinion. This option should be a last resort for clubs and while I do wish Cork come out stronger the other side it has a bad effect on the league as a whole when this happens. For that reason you should be deducted a similar set of points as clubs in the uk are when they go into administration.

Not paying your debts as may happen under this process is giving you an unfair advantage on the pitch.

Shels were punished (rightly so) but there will come a time when all debts will be cleared.
Nobody will ever be left without their money.


Cork should not be punished until the examinership process is complete. If they do get away without paying their debts in full they should be docked points. I do however think they should start next season with the points deduction instead of losing the points this season.

[centre mid]

The licenscing committee has not met yet to discuss this afaik, its up to them whether Cork or Arkaga have broken any rules, if they find they have then a points deduction could be applied.

[jebus]

Aren't the FAI deciding on a punishment at the start of next month lads? Wait til then to kick up a fuss if you feel Cork are being let off lightly

[Macy]

Because the books are not cooked. Thats the reason the others fell foul, in our case they are not.
Not living up to the guarantee's given, if given as part of the licencing process, could well mean a points deduction. It wasn't for cooked books any of the clubs mentioned above were deducted points for - it was for breaches of the licence (Rovers wrong accounts submitted, Longford incomplete application, Shels non payment of players).

[micls]

Would they not wait til after examinership to decide this?

No point deducting points from a non-existant club.
Or for example if Arkaga are still in charge they proabbly just wont be giving them a license etc etc.

Also the 65% is over the year so theoretically even if we had broken it till now(because of them not putting int he money they said they would) there still is enough time to get back under.

Im frustrated that there isnt a clearly outlined punishment but expect something/

[A face]

ehh yes it is you got a licence to operate based on projections, the attd projection being the main thing in securing your funding and ability to pay players and keeping within the 65% cap...ehh ffs your a cork fan you should know this :confused:

Your attd have been lower than expected thus creating a shortfall...again wtf why am i explaining this to a cork fan :confused:

That would all be relevant if attendances were the issue, the attendances haven't dropped this year. There isn't a staggering increase either mind, but it hasn't dropped.

Why do you keep bringing up attendances? Are you obsessed by them or something?


if the players are happy to not get paid then fine, but once they are not ala Rogers at shels and the PFAI are brought in then its a problem, nowt to do with cork but more a slating of how the FAI work with their retardedly implemented licencing system.

I know it would be handy for the PFAI to tap up a few players for Pats again but the club would still have contravene the rules for the PFAI to be able to do that.

[A face]

Would they not wait til after examinership to decide this?

No point deducting points from a non-existant club.
Or for example if Arkaga are still in charge they proabbly just wont be giving them a license etc etc.

Also the 65% is over the year so theoretically even if we had broken it till now(because of them not putting int he money they said they would) there still is enough time to get back under.

Im frustrated that there isnt a clearly outlined punishment but expect something/

What you said !!

[micls]

Your attd have been lower than expected thus creating a shortfall...again wtf why am i explaining this to a cork fan :confused:

kdjac

Have they? I would have thought the shortfall was because of money Arkaga pledged to put in and didnt because our attendances are actually up this year.

Although given the clowns in charge I wouldnt be surprised if they predicted a huge jump in attendance

[A face]

Have they? I would have thought the shortfall was because of money Arkaga pledged to put in and didnt because our attendances are actually up this year.

Although given the clowns in charge I wouldnt be surprised if they predicted a huge jump in attendance

I'm sure he is obsessed with attendances, thats why he keeps bringing it up.

[Dodge]

Maybe he's talking about projected attendances. If your average was 3,000 and you aimed for 4,000 but only got 3,500, you're in trouble even with the increase.

And before anyone starts, I made up these figures, and they're not relevent to any club. just want to illustrate what I think kdjac means.

Also, give it up with the PFAI/Pats stuff a face. One player joined, and he wanted to leave anyway. His union just worked for him. And tapping up happens everywhere. Grow up FFS

[Schumi]

They'd want to be some projected attendances to cover €1.3m of losses!

I'd say the most likely outcome of all this is that Cork will have breached the 65% rule at the end of the season and be punished with whatever the FAI feel like at the time.

[jinxy lilywhite]

The monthly audits by the FAI should of picked this up. Auditors should be asking question and I wonder what the answer was. A points deduction should be used as a detterant as other clubs I feel are waiting anxiously to see what happens to Cork before they try to go down the route of examinership

[Dodge]

BTW the "wait and see" attitude won't work as Cork, by going into examinsership, have already broken their license agreement.

Obviously, I'm not saying that sanctions should come out immediately but for the sake of licensing, sanctions must be applied before the end of the season

[micls]

The monthly audits by the FAI should of picked this up. Auditors should be asking question and I wonder what the answer was.

i dunno. If Arkaga were claiming they were covering the debts(which is allowed to be counted in the wage cap) they were probably just taken at their word. Naive perhaps but Id imagine they werent expected to renege on the written agreement

[pete]

The monthly audits by the FAI should of picked this up. Auditors should be asking question and I wonder what the answer was. A points deduction should be used as a detterant as other clubs I feel are waiting anxiously to see what happens to Cork before they try to go down the route of examinership

As mentioned above Examinership does not necessarily mean points deduction based on precedent. If every club that failed to pay players wages for a week (City players were paid 1 week late) or had exceeded the 65% rule inside the season then Galway & Harps to name two would also be deducted points.

TBH I don't know how we have not exceeded the 65% rule so far but I suppose the "letter of guarantee" was deemed to be sufficient by the FAI.

Overall I think it us bad for the FAI or any of their bodies to make the rules up as they go along as there should be clear rules & sanctions before the season starts.

[micls]

BTW the "wait and see" attitude won't work as Cork, by going into examinsership, have already broken their license agreement.

Obviously, I'm not saying that sanctions should come out immediately but for the sake of licensing, sanctions must be applied before the end of the season

Fran Gavin said there was no points deduction for going into examinership which confused me. Does he mean its just not an automatic points deduction or is he just wrong?

[Schumi]

As mentioned above Examinership does not necessarily mean points deduction based on precedent.But that was in a different league as we've been told so many times. Is examinership mentioned in the FAI's participation agreement that everyone signed?

[Dodge]

Fran Gavin said there was no points deduction for going into examinership which confused me. Does he mean its just not an automatic points deduction or is he just wrong?

Its not automatic. The agreement states "any sanction" can be given, but it definitely mentions examinership as a breach. Given the fact that fines are out of the question, its hard to see what other sanctions they can give.

Oha dn precendent is out the window pete, as this is the "new" league, remember?

[micls]

Its not automatic. The agreement states "any sanction" can be given, but it definitely mentions examinership as a breach. Given the fact that fines are out of the question, its hard to see what other sanctions they can give.

Oha dn precendent is out the window pete, as this is the "new" league, remember?


Yeah I suppoise. I just dont see why Gavin couldnt just say that.

[jinxy lilywhite]

Have the courts appointed an examiner yet?

[Dodge]

http://www.fai.ie/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=46



• The FAI Club Licensing Committee has the power to withdraw any licence or apply any sanction
during a season if the Licensee:
o no longer satisfies any single criteria for issuing the licence;
o violates any of its obligations, duties, confirmations or undertakings under this
Manual, Contract or Confidentiality Agreement
o Is involved in a bankruptcy, receivership, examinership or liquidation process, or
is struck off the Companies' Register

The withdrawal of a licence or imposition of a sanction is not mandatory and the FAI Licensing
Committee will have discretion to exercise this power or not.

[Dodge]

Yeah I suppoise. I just dont see why Gavin couldnt just say that.

because he's a fool?

[micls]

because he's a fool?
:) point taken

[centre mid]

Yeah I suppoise. I just dont see why Gavin couldnt just say that.

He did, he said it before last nights game on Setanta.

[micls]

He did, he said it before last nights game on Setanta.

Didnt see it. The comments Im talking about were early last week maybe someone told him the rules....

[Dodge]

He did, he said it before last nights game on Setanta.

Can you expand on this? Did he mention any sanctions in particular?

[centre mid]

Can you expand on this? Did he mention any sanctions in particular?

He babbled about 65% for a while but did say that it will be up to the Licensing Comm to decide what if any sanctions will be imposed on Cork. They are due to meet next week or week after I think.

[holidaysong]

As mentioned above Examinership does not necessarily mean points deduction based on precedent. If every club that failed to pay players wages for a week (City players were paid 1 week late) or had exceeded the 65% rule inside the season then Galway & Harps to name two would also be deducted points.

I don't think Galway did exceed 65% though. They exceeded 55% and once this happens, a transfer embargo is put on your club and you have to reduce your wage budget - this is a safety measure to stop you crossing the 65%.

[DRDoc]

Its very unlikely that Cork will be punished in a severe manner

They were not in excess of the 65% - the only problem was that Arkaga decided to cease their backing

The simple fact of the matter is that the FAI took a guarantee from Arkaga that was not binding - this is completely the fault of the FAI - as it was they who insisted upon it to meet with the salary protocal - so they onus was on them to make sure it was worth the paper it was handwritten on

The fai decided to take the guarantee without seeking legal advice as to whether it would be enforceable or not

[Macy]

TBH I don't know how we have not exceeded the 65% rule so far but I suppose the "letter of guarantee" was deemed to be sufficient by the FAI.

Overall I think it us bad for the FAI or any of their bodies to make the rules up as they go along as there should be clear rules & sanctions before the season starts.
I would agree that it's as bad for the FAI as Cork, assuming you survive. The original 65% fudge was supposed to be non refundable donations from benefactors, but it turns out the FAI took a non legally binding letter of guarantee. :rolleyes:

[Dodge]

Its very unlikely that Cork will be punished in a severe manner

They were not in excess of the 65% - the only problem was that Arkaga decided to cease their backing

The simple fact of the matter is that the FAI took a guarantee from Arkaga that was not binding - this is completely the fault of the FAI - as it was they who insisted upon it to meet with the salary protocal - so they onus was on them to make sure it was worth the paper it was handwritten on

The fai decided to take the guarantee without seeking legal advice as to whether it would be enforceable or not
Here's that paragraph again;

• The FAI Club Licensing Committee has the power to withdraw any licence or apply any sanction during a season if the Licensee:
o no longer satisfies any single criteria for issuing the licence;
o violates any of its obligations, duties, confirmations or undertakings under this Manual, Contract or Confidentiality Agreement
o Is involved in a bankruptcy, receivership, examinership or liquidation process, or is struck off the Companies' Register

The highlighted points clearly allow for Cork to be hit with severe sanctions given recent statements by the league and Arkaga. The beauty of the license is that whether the undertaking Arkaga signed is legally binding or not is immaterial to the sporting sanctions that the FAi can impose. It may not help Cork's creditors but it absolutely allows the FAI to act

[OneRedArmy]

A) The Licensing Manual gives the FAI (through the various Licensing & Appeals Committees) scope to apply any sanction it sees fit.

B) Anything related to projections (eg attendence, revenues etc.) is unenforceable.

C) Ditto management accounts. Not worth the spreadsheet they are written on. That holds true in any company, but especially true in a league where the audited accounts have, historically, been filed under the fiction section.

D) Failure by the parent company to abide by a guarantee (if the guarantee is legally enforceable) may be the stick to beat Cork. But it sounds like its hypothetical at this stage.

Best wait and see what develops.

[pete]

Here's that paragraph again;

• The FAI Club Licensing Committee has the power to withdraw any licence or apply any sanction during a season if the Licensee:
o no longer satisfies any single criteria for issuing the licence;
o violates any of its obligations, duties, confirmations or undertakings under this Manual, Contract or Confidentiality Agreement
o Is involved in a bankruptcy, receivership, examinership or liquidation process, or is struck off the Companies' Register

The highlighted points clearly allow for Cork to be hit with severe sanctions given recent statements by the league and Arkaga. The beauty of the license is that whether the undertaking Arkaga signed is legally binding or not is immaterial to the sporting sanctions that the FAi can impose. It may not help Cork's creditors but it absolutely allows the FAI to act

I don't think "any sanction" is a good way to run a league. The FAI should have set guidelines. Points deductions is the least of our worries anyway.

Fran Gavins "it is the Licencing Committees decision" line is worthy of a government Minister passing the buck to his quango.

[Dodge]

I don't think "any sanction" is a good way to run a league. The FAI should have set guidelines. Points deductions is the least of our worries anyway.

Fran Gavins "it is the Licencing Committees decision" line is worthy of a government Minister passing the buck to his quango.

Agree on all counts. The FAI even give themselves this little get ou of jail free card to use

"The withdrawal of a licence or imposition of a sanction is not mandatory and the FAI Licensing Committee will have discretion to exercise this power or not."

[Dodge]

BTW this is the form of letter that Arkaga (and others no doubt) have had to sign
---
Financial Statements for the Year ended 30th November 20XX

I/We refer to your request that I/we provide you with comfort in respect of the provision of financial support to you from name(s) to assist you in meeting your liabilities as and `when they fall due.

In addition, I/we confirm that I/we have no intention of demanding repayment of any loans or other payables for the foreseeable future other than in the normal course of business.

I/we confirm that I/we will continue to provide the financial support to XXXXXXXX F.C. Limited as outlined above for a period at least to 30 November 20XX to enable it to continue as a going concern and to meet its financial obligations as they arise.

---

Pretty ****ing wishy/washy

[higgins]

People are getting confused between the 65% and the letters each club had to sign saying they are liable for debts built up over the course of the season.

ALL clubs signed these. Somebody at each club has given a written guarantee that they are responsible for the debts should they go unpaid.

This in no way allows you to spend more than 65%

As Corks debts are rising there is no way they could be under the 65% limit. As they showed no signs of getting rid of players during the last transfer window then they have nobody but themselves to blame.

I find it funny the way there's a separation between Cork and Arkaga when people talk about this :) Cork ARE Arkaga. If they messed up then Cork messed up. There seems to be this theory that it was Arkaga messing up and not really the people at Cork. You made the decision to sell to these clowns and while it's not the fans that made the decisions you have to pay the price.

The Arkaga of Shels was Ollie Byrne. He had nothing to do with the club when we were punished. It was clear to everyone in the FAI that Ollie was a very sick man at the time and would no longer play a part in the future of the club.

Still didn't change their decision.

Cork will be punished on two fronts I bet.
For breaking the 65% and for going into examinership.
Depends how the FAI are feeling on the day they punish you !!

[SMorgan]

Whatever the FAI decide to do, one would like to think that the sanction would be the exact same for Cork Coty as it would be had Monaghan United, Kildare County or anyother club broken the rules.

[OneRedArmy]

Whatever the FAI decide to do, one would like to think that the sanction would be the exact same for Cork Coty as it would be had Monaghan United, Kildare County or anyother club broken the rules.You would hope so but
1) thats not the way the FAI work
but more importantly
2) that would require two clubs going under having the same set of circumstances and the same set of rules applying, which given that previous troubled clubs(Shels and Rovers) had different circumstances in addition to the fact the rules seem to change annually, is unlikely.

[pete]

Cork will be punished on two fronts I bet.
For breaking the 65% and for going into examinership.
Depends how the FAI are feeling on the day they punish you !!

I don't see us breaking the 65% rule. We still have turnover of X amount we just haven't paid our bills. :p

The only reason players are being off loaded is because Arkaga decided not to pay excess on revenue. It is debatable if they ever paid the excess given the size of the debt.

City fans are guilty of believing Arkaga when they told us last year they would pay the difference between revenue & expenditure. PR campaign of recent days suggests this was out of their control when in fact they had 100% control. The list of excuses would be embarrassing to any business person.

[eamo1]

I started this thread so that i could have an answer for my mother who asked me that qs last night while we were watching the Pats Sligo game.However after 3 pages of this thread im still confused and still dont have a concrete answer,maybe because there isnt any:eek:.Its ok though,thanks lads for the input.