Cork City denied a licence; club to be wound up; FORAS to enter First Division

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • marinobohs
    Banned
    • Mar 2009
    • 3629

    #721
    Originally posted by Sam_Heggy
    Mental stuff, I suppose banking on bigger gates is pretty silly in the first place. I mean, the good will is draining from the club by the second and it's all down to one man at the end of the day.
    Only option is for foras to apply to A League now for next season. Sad situation.
    As cork do not own the ground and have no assets apart from the players can they "do a rovers" IE walk away from what they owe, appoint a new board and maintain a place in the Prem ? I think the rules may have altered since but am not sure (something I share with FAI/League admin )

    Comment

    • CuanaD
      Reserves
      • Jul 2004
      • 909

      #722
      Originally posted by GalwayRed
      You cant make somebody redundant unless you can prove you dont need them or anyone else to do the job theyre doing anymore afaik. Ie. if cork city make a midfielder redundant to cut the wage bill and then replace him with a player on amateur terms than thats grounds for unfair dismissal as cork city did actually need a midfielder they were just trying to cut costs. They would have to pay off the midfielders contract in full to release him.
      Exactly - they can't be replaced for something like 18 months I think
      http://trophymanager.com/?c=489688
      Trophy Manager - online football managment game - I like it - I think I'm getting obsessed with it though.

      Comment

      • marinobohs
        Banned
        • Mar 2009
        • 3629

        #723
        Originally posted by CuanaD
        Exactly - they can't be replaced for something like 18 months I think
        There is no time limit on it, the matter can be referred to the Employment Appeals Tribunal under the Redundancy Payments Act (as stated redundancy applies to the job not the worker). In the event that a club replaced a player with a cheaper option it could be declared a non redundancy situation by the EAT.
        This is far from cut and dried however (SEE Irish ferries / SIPTU case) and each case is examed individually.

        Comment

        • Sam_Heggy
          Seasoned Pro
          • Jan 2007
          • 3894

          #724
          Originally posted by marinobohs
          As cork do not own the ground and have no assets apart from the players can they "do a rovers" IE walk away from what they owe, appoint a new board and maintain a place in the Prem ? I think the rules may have altered since but am not sure (something I share with FAI/League admin )
          I would say at best they would be allowed to re-enter into the A league but as you say, does the FAI have a set rule on this or can it be altered to suit?
          http://www.ustream.tv/channel/finn-harps-radio

          Comment

          • pineapple stu
            Biased against YOUR club
            • Aug 2002
            • 40781

            #725
            Yeah, licencing (allegedly) makes it impossible to be wound up and keep your spot in the Premier.

            Comment

            • John83
              Coach
              • Feb 2003
              • 9082

              #726
              The case is different from Shams, who pretty much resemble Coughlan's Cork. If the company's actually wound up, they're gone from the Premier, barring some spectacular new FAI fudging.
              You can't spell failure without FAI

              Comment

              • pineapple stu
                Biased against YOUR club
                • Aug 2002
                • 40781

                #727
                Originally posted by John83
                The case is different from Shams
                True. It's the same as Cork in the mid-90s (among other Munster examples)

                Comment

                • Schumi
                  Capped Player
                  • Jun 2001
                  • 10741

                  #728
                  Originally posted by John83
                  The case is different from Shams.
                  I think he was referring to previous cases of Rovers winding up holding companies and continuing in the league under a new holding company. I'm not sure of the details but this was the general jist of what happened as far as I'm aware.
                  We're not arrogant, we're just better.

                  Comment

                  • pineapple stu
                    Biased against YOUR club
                    • Aug 2002
                    • 40781

                    #729
                    Think MB was specifically talking about the examinership in 2005.

                    Comment

                    • Schumi
                      Capped Player
                      • Jun 2001
                      • 10741

                      #730
                      Originally posted by pineapple stu
                      Think MB was specifically talking about the examinership in 2005.
                      They didn't keep a place in the premier that year though. They lost the play off to Home Farm.
                      We're not arrogant, we're just better.

                      Comment

                      • pineapple stu
                        Biased against YOUR club
                        • Aug 2002
                        • 40781

                        #731
                        Originally posted by Schumi
                        They didn't keep a place in the premier that year though. They lost the play off to Home Farm.
                        That had nothing to do with "winding up holding companies and continuing in the league under a new holding company", as you put it, though.

                        Comment

                        • Schumi
                          Capped Player
                          • Jun 2001
                          • 10741

                          #732
                          Originally posted by pineapple stu
                          That had nothing to do with "winding up holding companies and continuing in the league under a new holding company", as you put it, though.
                          Huh? I'm saying that in 2005 they didn't
                          walk away from what they owe, appoint a new board and maintain a place in the Prem
                          so I assume that that refers to a previous case of walking away from what they owe.
                          We're not arrogant, we're just better.

                          Comment

                          • pineapple stu
                            Biased against YOUR club
                            • Aug 2002
                            • 40781

                            #733
                            They did maintain their place in the Premier, though. They played the whole rest of the season, in fact. If Cork were to be wound up now, they could (in theory) play no further games in the Premier this season. However, in the mid-90s, Cork were wound up, started a new company the next day and kept their place in the Premier as a result. That's not allowed now.

                            Comment

                            • marinobohs
                              Banned
                              • Mar 2009
                              • 3629

                              #734
                              Originally posted by Schumi
                              They didn't keep a place in the premier that year though. They lost the play off to Home Farm.
                              true, but they lost the prem place on the pitch (they were not reegated). cork are unlikely to be relegated on the pitch. my question was has the rules changed to prevent a club "doing a Rovers" i.e. winding down one holding company and starting afresh and retaining their place in the Prem (this is not a dig at Rovers by the way just quoting an example - so save the hate mail !).
                              I think the rules may have changed since but am not sure of the position.

                              Comment

                              • Schumi
                                Capped Player
                                • Jun 2001
                                • 10741

                                #735
                                Originally posted by pineapple stu
                                They did maintain their place in the Premier, though. They played the whole rest of the season, in fact.
                                Ah, of course, the examinership wasn't at the end of the season. I'd forgotten that.

                                I'm aware of the rule change on winding up holding companies and I assume they can't go into examinership twice. This seems to about a much smaller amount than the revenue one though so they'll probably get the money from somewhere and something else will blow up later.
                                We're not arrogant, we're just better.

                                Comment

                                Working...