Clubs hold crisis talks in bid to secure survival Print

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by higgins

Cork and Drogheda should be demoted for non payment of creditors. Paying any creditor less than 100% what they are owed is gaining a sporting advantage on all other teams. It should be punished by demotion in my mind.

---

City went into and out of examinership in a perfectly legal and above board matter. Our agreement with creditors was approved by a High Court judge.

No existing FAI rule as far as I know states that a club that successfully comes out of examinership should be penalised by demotion. If any club wants to change that rule for the future fair enough but backdating is not an option.

we may not get a licence for a number of reasons but we shouldn't be refused for using a perfectly legal procedure

There is no other rule except a points deduction in the current season...however if you are in examinership come licensing time, then you may be demoted ie not awarded a premier licence!hence Droghedas plight at the moment...Cork's concern is siomething to do with outstanding wages owed to Matthews and players!This is a breach of FAI rules which could end up meaing them denying Cork a licence!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paudie

City went into and out of examinership in a perfectly legal and above board matter. Our agreement with creditors was approved by a High Court judge.

---

Of course as a business you are entitled to go into examinership and fair play for coming out of it too.

I already posted the words in my opinion but I'll just say it again. In my opinion you've gained a massive sporting advantage over other clubs both last season when you fielded a team you were not going to pay for and next season when you start off with a considerable amount of debt wiped off your books.

That in my opinion deserves a punishment of demotion.

And seen as you're talking about rules and what or what not you didnt break, do you remember the rules Shels broke that saw them demoted ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by higgins

Of course as a business you are entitled to go into examinership and fair play for coming out of it too.

I already posted the words in my opinion but I'll just say it again. In my opinion you've gained a massive sporting advantage over other clubs both last season when you fielded a team you were not going to pay for and next season when you start off with a considerable amount of debt wiped off your books.

That in my opinion deserves a punishment of demotion.

And seen as you're talking about rules and what or what not you didnt break, do you remember the rules Shels broke that saw them demoted ?

---

Your opinion is irrelevant.

The shels situation is also irrelevant given that the league is under different control now.

There is no rule saying we should be demoted because of it therefore we shouldnt be demoted. You can't make up the rules after the event. had there been a rule in place stating examinership meant automatic demotion then I would have no complaints(and I wouldnt have a problem with such a rule being put in place) but there wasn't.

We have already received our punishment for entering examinership, whether it was harsh enough is debatable perhaps, but there is no reason for us to be punished twice for the same thing. Therefore we simply should not be demoted on this basis.

Now demoting us for other reasons is a different story....

I'm reasonably sure that the licensing manual says that going into examinership is a breach of the license and can be punished by anything up to being put out of football.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Student Mullet

I'm reasonably sure that the licensing manual says that going into examinership is a breach of the license and can be punished by anything up to being put out of football.

---

You are right, a point I addressed when I said it's debatable whether the punishment was strong enough at the time. However having already received the punishment deemed appropriate I dont see any justification for further punishment.

What i was saying was there was no rule explicitly stating we should be demoted(rather than could be demoted).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Student Mullet

I'm reasonably sure that the licensing manual says that going into examinership is a breach of the license and can be punished by anything up to being put out of football.

---

Correct, it is up to the FAI to decide the punishment. In both cases they decided to dock Cork and Drogs 10 poins.
When licensing time comes around, then they can then demote, kick out, do what they want.

Its hilarious that Shels believe they are the moral guardians of the league and that the FAI should now be punishing clubs in advance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by micls

You are right, a point I addressed when I said it's debatable whether the punishment was strong enough at the time. However having already received the punishment deemed appropriate I dont see any justification for further punishment.

What i was saying was there was no rule explicitly stating we should be demoted(rather than could be demoted).

---

Licencing isn't a punishment though. It is deciding what licence a club warrants. Given the circumstances, I find it difficult to believe Cork are deserving a Premier licence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Celdrog

Correct, it is up to the FAI to decide the punishment. In both cases they decided to dock Cork and Drogs 10 poins.
When licensing time comes around, then they can then demote, kick out, do what they want.

Its hilarious that Shels believe they are the moral guardians of the league and that the FAI should now be punishing clubs in advance.

---

Some Shels fans have strong views on this.

Shels were demoted - and deservedly so at the time -by the FAI's First Instance Independent Licensing Committee in February 2007 - [had the FAI officially taken over the league at that stage coming into the 2007 season?]

Semantics about whether the FAI were running the league or not are irrelevant. The FAI have a history of helping out clubs - i.e. like when theybought into Drogs United Park previously.

Shels didn't have any debts written off or reduced. The FAI didn't offer any aid.

The Cawley transfer fee was the subject of a dispute prior to this.

Some Shels fans would like to see more consistency from the the FAI and their F.I.I.L.C..

There was no dispute in the Cawley case. It was decided in court that Shels were wrong. They still refused to pay the fee, so the FAI paid instead. I'm not sure how that constitutes "the FAI didn't offer any aid".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Celdrog

Not really, I didn't realise that Shelbourne made the rules.:rolleyes:

---

What?????:confused::confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CSFShels

Licencing isn't a punishment though. It is deciding what licence a club warrants. Given the circumstances, I find it difficult to believe Cork are deserving a Premier licence.

---

There are set guidelines in place as to what makes you qualify for a license.

if we fail to meet one of them i.e. having back pay paid then I would fully agree with our demotion

However, paying creditors 100% is NOT a licensing requirement and therefore should not lead to demotion(as Higgins suggests).

Shels fans are just ****ed off (and they have a point) that they've had to pay back every cent of what they owe, while City enter the seemingly 'convenient' examinership process and come out of it with the creditors/Revenue getting screwed over.
Shelbourne have at least 'done the daycent thing' since they went bust, something which Cork (and possibly Drogs) are looking to avoid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

There was no dispute in the Cawley case. It was decided in court that Shels were wrong. They still refused to pay the fee, so the FAI paid instead. I'm not sure how that constitutes "the FAI didn't offer any aid".

---

Of course there was a dispute in the Cawley case.

How else did it end up in court as you refer to?

The FAI paying UCD was more to do with them appeasing UCD rather than helping out Shels

Thankfully Derry City adhering to the FAI Tribunal decision and paying/agreeing to pay Galway Utd. (30,000) for Murphy strenghtened UCD's negotiation for money (20,000 Tribunal decision). I was suprised as any when I heard Derry City paid the agreed to pay the asking price.
The Tribunal's decision was based on age and achievement and potential. Shels refused to pay initially Pat Fenlon and Ollie Byrne. This FAI Tribunal is still around and meets when there is a dispute regarding a player of a certain age transferring between LoI clubs.


Re; Cork City and rules.
There are many rules organisational, civil, criminal etc. You brought a case against your creditors to default on payment. There's still the organisational rules to overcome. yes, Cork City can return to the High Court as much as they like. They may even win. It has already been shown that Cork City go to the Civil Courts to renege on promises, renege on debts.

When Cork City fans quite blatantly defend the actions of their club in refusing to pay the full debt. You club may be associated with both shamrock rovers and drogheda utd.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HarpoJoyce

Re; Cork City and rules.
There are many rules organisational, civil, criminal etc. You brought a case against your creditors to default on payment. There's still the organisational rules to overcome. yes, Cork City can return to the High Court as much as they like. They may even win. It has already been shown that Cork City go to the Civil Courts to renege on promises, renege on debts.

When Cork City fans quite blatantly defend the actions of their club in refusing to pay the full debt. You club may be associated with both shamrock rovers and drogheda utd.

---

What are you on about???

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by micls

Your opinion is irrelevant.

---

Well excuse me for posting my opinion on a public message board!!

You didn't answer the last part of my question either but I'm used to that around here...

:confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HarpoJoyce

Thankfully Derry City adhering to the FAI Tribunal decision and paying/agreeing to pay Galway Utd. (30,000) for Murphy strenghtened UCD's negotiation for money (20,000 Tribunal decision). I was suprised as any when I heard Derry City paid the agreed to pay the asking price.
The Tribunal's decision was based on age and achievement and potential. Shels refused to pay initially Pat Fenlon and Ollie Byrne. This FAI Tribunal is still around and meets when there is a dispute regarding a player of a certain age transferring between LoI clubs.


Re; Cork City and rules.
There are many rules organisational, civil, criminal etc. You brought a case against your creditors to default on payment. There's still the organisational rules to overcome. yes, Cork City can return to the High Court as much as they like. They may even win. It has already been shown that Cork City go to the Civil Courts to renege on promises, renege on debts.

When Cork City fans quite blatantly defend the actions of their club in refusing to pay the full debt. You club may be associated with both shamrock rovers and drogheda utd.

---

Dude have you been smoking weed or what :confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fintan Cassidy

Of course there was a dispute in the Cawley case.

How else did it end up in court as you refer to?

The FAI paying UCD was more to do with them appeasing UCD rather than helping out Shels

---

It ended up in court because Shels were desperately trying to squirm out of paying a few quid.

The court case was unequivocally in our favour (as it was blatantly clear-cut in our favour), but Shels - despite the fact that there could be no further cause for dispute - still refused to pay the fee and so the FAI stepped in and paid to avoid a very embarrassing situation for both Shels and the FAI.

I can assure you Shels suffered no embarrassment over the Cawley dispute.