So many ups & downs with City best policy unfortunately seems to be to go along with the ride & try not to think about matters can't change :(
AFAIK Rico had an implied contract. Extension not written but he was paid at new rate.
Printable View
So many ups & downs with City best policy unfortunately seems to be to go along with the ride & try not to think about matters can't change :(
AFAIK Rico had an implied contract. Extension not written but he was paid at new rate.
IT. DOESN'T. MATTER. IN. LAW.Quote:
Originally Posted by micls
You can't just walk away from a legally-binding agreement if the other person doesn't want to, and pretend it never happened.
Just ask Bohs....
I'll take your word for it. Rumour is our owners think differently because of examinership.Quote:
Originally Posted by dcfcsteve
We'll see I guess
The agreed deal was on the table with weeks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Longfordian
I'm not mixing them up, I don't know where we stand legally so I'm not even considering it. If we don't owe him compensation, it's a good deal; if we do, it's a terrible deal. I've said that quite a few times alreadyQuote:
Originally Posted by dcfcsteve
However, I don't see how you could be released from examinership and expected to honour contracts into the future which could put the club right back into trouble, legally that might make sense, but rationally it makes none.
It's not actually provided specifically in any of the rules relating to examinership as far as I know that you're no longer bound by agreements entered into before examinership. It's still the same company, examinership just gives you a chance to work out a deal with creditors to stop them winding you up. It gives you breathing space. I wouldn't be convinced there's any loophole but we'll see in due course I'm sure. Employees are the most preferential creditor there is also, they rank above even the Revenue.
My understanding was that the employees would be preferential creditors, but there's a rumour that one player owed wages had to accept 7.5% of them as a creditor, which to me seems strange. Though, you could be right, hopefully the club have examined this carefully before making the decision, because it looks like Mathews will take legal action [which if he has been mistreated, is only right].Quote:
Originally Posted by Longfordian
Quote:
Originally Posted by tiktok
lets call a spade a spade ,he was on 150K a year with bonuses included
Thanks Pete, I knew it was recent enough. Should've known it was yourselves...Quote:
Originally Posted by pete
In non football terms, companies coming out of examinership can't cancel contracts they have with suppliers or customers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Longfordian
Danny Drew wasn't actually born as a thorn in Delaney's side either. Give this man time. He's only in the door and has started in real Drew fashion.Quote:
Originally Posted by charliesboots
FAI to hit debt-ridden Cork with signing ban
By Daniel McDonnell
Thursday December 11 2008
THE FAI are set to block Cork City from signing new players until they settle debts with their existing squad.
Authorities in Abbotstown are closely monitoring the situation with the Leesiders, who sacked manager Alan Mathews on Tuesday, and compliance officer Padraig Smith will meet with owner Tom Coughlan early next week.
While the association have no distinct rule to deal with such an event, Cork will be informed that they cannot file contracts for new additions until they clarify when they will pay approx €150,000 owed to their existing players.
Cork will also be reminded that they will not qualify for a Premier Division licence unless the issue is settled.
Some players have been receiving money in dribs and drabs, but no firm agreement has been reached on how the monies will be paid or over what period of time.
It is another headache for Coughlan, who also has to deal with the consequences of firing Mathews; the Dubliner is looking for a pay-out of about €300,000 to cover the final two years of his contract.
Meanwhile, Drogheda United are preparing to make an offer to their players for wages they are owed since the club's financial implosion.
- Daniel McDonnell
©Independent.ie
It's all just getting so so messy.
It just boils down to the fact
Scenario 1 : Coughlan did his homework, Mathews old exorbitant contract no longer valid, good luck Alan thanks for the memories.
Scenario 2 : Coughlan made a mistake (a very big & costly one) and Mathews is due a huge payoff of his old and very exorbitant contract.
Mathews is obviously playing the fool in saying he knew nothing of it, it came out of the blue etc etc. what ever boosts his chances of a few bob, who can blame him.
FAO micls ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Fintan Cassidy
Alan is one of the most genuine guys in the league and I was talking to him last Thursday and he was really excited about the way Cork were shaping up and he definitely didny have a clue that the rug was about to be pulled from under him.Quote:
Originally Posted by razor
Even in the hopeful scenario that this is the case it does seem like Coughlan financial planning is done on week to week basis. If money is so tight (e.g. cut price sale of Doyle clause) would he not be better letting the entire squad & management go & just start from the first division on part time basis. Sacking a manager to pay for player contracts does not give me confidence about the future.Quote:
Originally Posted by razor
I reckon he thinks its better to start off at top flight football and it definitely is as regards bringing in revenueQuote:
Originally Posted by pete
Our 'exisiting squad' is 8 players and to the best of my knowledge, they've all agreed staged payments on the money owed as part of their renegotiated deals, I think 3 have not yet signed renegotiated deals.Quote:
Originally Posted by srfc1928
We have a number of former players, currently out of contract who we owe money to [which IMO we should have paid back already] who we now are not allowed to sign [because of the ruling] and agree the similar deals with, if I'm reading it correctly.
I worry that there isn't any money there and since it's the off season, i wonder where the money required is going to come from. I can't see this being sorted before Jan 31st unless Coughlan puts his hand in his pocket, in that case we won't get a licence.
We might have been better off in the long run if the examiner had gutted the club in terms of cost cutting and we started aain in Div. 1, looks like we're going to end up in Div.1 anyway but with a larger wage bill and a manager to pay off.Quote:
Originally Posted by pete
If Mathews is due €300k, we'll owe €450k before next season, we'll be back in examinership before this time next season.
Why do you think you'll start in Division 1 instead of the A Championship?
(Genuine question)
Shels (genuine answer).Quote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
If there hadn't been a precedent set when they should have been kicked out, I'd be more worried. The only issue outstanding with regard to licencing is the payments to players (assuming we haven't managed to run up another tax bill in a month) when it comes down to it, I think we'll sort that out in time.
A Championship didn't exist when Shels were Shelegated though.
The precedent, it could be argued, it that Shels were demoted to the lowest tier of the league.
Didn't the chairman of the Licencing Committee resign in protest at Shels even getting a 1st Divison licence on a split vote?. No guarantee of anything this time around.
I think the argument that Shels were awarded a First Division licence is a better one.Quote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
But the way things have gone this year I wouldn't be surprised what the next twist in our saga will be, three months ago I was hoping we'd even have a club to support, I'll be glad we do regardless of where we end up next season.
Yes. But they still got it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Longfordian
I know there's no guarantees, but we're in a better state than Drogs are right now, so I'm still taking solace from our escaping as we have.
Think he did, yeah.Quote:
Originally Posted by Longfordian
That said, with the way things look up in Drogheda, I could see Kildare staying in the First, Drogheda restarting afresh in the A Championship and no suitable clubs being around to step up and deny Cork a spot in the First, if it were to come to it.
Theres a relief.Quote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
If only the world ran on my opinion. ;)
True. If we have to pay Matthews 300k then screwed before we start again. No assets of any description left this time either. Bohs claimed legal advice said they would win Albion case so if Coughlan relying on similar advice is a big gamble.Quote:
Originally Posted by tiktok
I can see the FAI, in an attempt to save the premier clubs in severe trouble with licencing, to abolish the A Championship or detach it from the Eircom League so as to make the First Division the basement as it was 2 years ago.
They could further manipulate things so the 2 divisions become one.
Was Matthews not also entitled to a bonus for winning the Setanta Cup?
I thought is was around 50k?
That would up the claim to €350,000, ouch!
Salthill Devon will step up and we'll have three Galway clubs in the League!!.
Why is this ruling preventing you from agreeing a deal with these players?Quote:
Originally Posted by tiktok
Just found this on Citys forumQuote:
Originally Posted by Schumi
Interesting.Quote:
Club Statement Dec 11 2008
Cork City Football Club has undergone significant restructuring since emerging successfully from the Examinership process, as the club aims to operate at a sustainable level.
The club would like to thank all of our employees for their cooperation with regard to the issue of FAI Licensing requirements. Cork City Football Club are compliant with FAI Licensing requirements, and speculation that the club is the subject of a transfer embargo is unfounded. The club would like to thank players and staff for their support as we look forward to a bright and successful future for Cork City FC and challenge for success in 2009.
Similar deals about paying it off over a renegotiated contract.Quote:
Originally Posted by Schumi
Anyway, seems the story was a fabrication so they can get on with sorting out the players what they're owed.
I'd love to know on what basis we should have been kicked out ?Quote:
Originally Posted by tiktok
We played the last few weeks of a season when players were not getting their money on time and in full,, Cork Drogheda, Harps, Bray, Cobh, Athlone and probably more have been doing the same this year.
We sold a ground and spent the money before sorting out an alternative ground,, Bohs are doing that now.
In fact when we were punished there was no 65% rule in place. We broke no overspending rules.
Also in terms of deals with players after the season. We paid in full the money owed to revenue and came to agreements to pay all creditors in FULL!! No Examinership/write off your debts nonsense.
Most people on here like to think the situation at their club is unique in some way and that they don't deserve the punishment that came Shels way.
Truth is if the same rules were applied today to all the clubs then 5 or 6 clubs would be demoted.
Quote:
Originally Posted by higgins
You really are touchy aren't you. The chair of the committee reviewing your case resigned in protest when you weren't kicked out, stsating that you shouldn't have gotten a first division licence. Take your outrage up with him.
I'm not holding CCFC up to be anything they're not, I've said since day one I didn't expect us to be in the premier next season and that we'd gained an unfair advantage over relegated clubs. If you expect me to say I WANT to be relegated, you'll have to wait I'm afraid.
You really need to get over your examinership being "a load of nonsense" idea just because you CHOSE not to avail of that route yourself, if the High Court are OK with the process, I'm OK with it. Do people lose out, of course they do, people will lose out when Sasha and Thomas Read's are going through their examinership process too.
Not really my problem that the chair of the committee took a bit of a hissy fit because the vote didn't go his way!
As for the rest of your post, you're coming at it from a business point of view. Of course as a business you have the right to go into examinership to try save the business.
However from a sporting point of view the FAI have to ensure there's a level playing field for all the teams. All I'm pointing out is that if Shels were demoted and the FAI apply the same rules to other clubs then we should see more teams refused a premier division licence. I doubt that will happen somehow.
Wouldn't expect you to say Cork should be refused a Premier Division licence but you would have to agree that if you compare it to the Shels case that you've more or less done the exact same as ourselves, i.e. not paying players in full for part of the season.
It is my opinion that you have even gone one step further than Shels and gained a further sporting advantage by having your debts partly cleared.