Drogs penalty-possible FAI Smudge?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BulmersKid

Why should they be punished twice for the same cime. They were punished for licensing violations. They got a 10 point deduction.

Anyway, for they way the club has orgainsied itself on and off the filed since their owners left them high and dry, I think that they should get some reward for turning things around.

Its not their fault that the league is so badthat a team with a 10point decution can still qualify for Europe. If they are good enough to qualify on merit then let them. They should not be disqualifed by a technicality off the field that has nothing to do with performances on the field.

Anyway its about time the FAI helped the Eircom League of Ireland clubs out.

---

Of course, the fact that they're still in the running for Europe has a lot to do with spending vastly more than was coming in... I know that Cork were screwed by the Arkaga guys, but changing ownership should not be a ticket to escaping the consequences of your actions.

If the FAI wants to be taken seriously on the issue of regulating the clubs financially then there has to be more than a slap on the wrists for issues like this.

As I think someone said above, UEFA issue the European licenses, so its their call.

Thankfully.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BulmersKid

Why should they be punished twice for the same cime. They were punished for licensing violations. They got a 10 point deduction.

Anyway, for they way the club has orgainsied itself on and off the filed since their owners left them high and dry, I think that they should get some reward for turning things around.

Its not their fault that the league is so badthat a team with a 10point decution can still qualify for Europe. If they are good enough to qualify on merit then let them. They should not be disqualifed by a technicality off the field that has nothing to do with performances on the field.

Anyway its about time the FAI helped the Eircom League of Ireland clubs out.

---

If you look at England for example, several clubs have gone into administration towards the end of a season knowing the points deduction wont affect them but then the FA copped on and carried the points deduction forward to the following season.

Cork and Drogheda wont be relegated, they'll spend more then they should and the penalty in one case might not actually matter one bit if one of the two clubs gets into Europe. They'll return at the start of next season having had their debts wiped for a fraction of the cost and with a decent chance of winning trophies.

Why should clubs then get themselves in order if they can pull strokes like this?

As much as this comes down to clubs acting in a proper fashion, it also needs the FAI to put rules and regulations in place which make sure a club is punished accordingly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BulmersKid

Why should they be punished twice for the same cime. They were punished for licensing violations. They got a 10 point deduction.

Anyway, for they way the club has orgainsied itself on and off the filed since their owners left them high and dry, I think that they should get some reward for turning things around.

Its not their fault that the league is so badthat a team with a 10point decution can still qualify for Europe. If they are good enough to qualify on merit then let them. They should not be disqualifed by a technicality off the field that has nothing to do with performances on the field.

Anyway its about time the FAI helped the Eircom League of Ireland clubs out.

---

Its obvious from the size of the debts whcih required examinership in both cases that Cork and Drogs were living well above their means for most of the season prior to going into examinership , Galway , Sligo and other clubs had to offload players to comply with regulations and both would be higher up the table if they didn't have to do this , whatever about the FAI I can't see UEFA allowing clubs to spend money they don't have to qualify for Europe , it would be like Hull City signing Ronaldo and Torres paying them and no-one else for a few months get enough points and then apply to write off the other debts built up to thier local creditors and the taxman take a 10 point deduction and still qualify for the champions league then use the money this generates to pay off the remaining debts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BulmersKid

Anyway its about time the FAI helped the Eircom League of Ireland clubs out.

---

I'm up for correction but didn't the FAI do just that years ago when they bought up Drogheda and Corks grounds for them?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr A

Of course, the fact that they're still in the running for Europe has a lot to do with spending vastly more than was coming in... I know that Cork were screwed by the Arkaga guys, but changing ownership should not be a ticket to escaping the consequences of your actions.

If the FAI wants to be taken seriously on the issue of regulating the clubs financially then there has to be more than a slap on the wrists for issues like this.

---

If that is the case so, every club (with the exception of two in Rovers and UCD) should punished in the same way for, as you put it, "spending vastly more than was coming in... "

Just cause cork went down the examinership route to reign in their finances, shouldn't be a factor in weather they compete in Europe or not. If they are awarded A UEFA licence then they should be allowed play.

All the examinership process did was aggree a payment system with the creditors. All but one agreed to this system(the revenue), and the High Court thought it was fair as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Duffman

I'm up for correction but didn't the FAI do just that years ago when they bought up Drogheda and Corks grounds for them?

---

Bought Drogs stadium. The Munster FA always owned Turners Cross, where every local pub league final is played

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BulmersKid

Just cause cork went down the examinership route to reign in their finances, shouldn't be a factor in weather they compete in Europe or not. If they are awarded A UEFA licence then they should be allowed play.

All the examinership process did was aggree a payment system with the creditors. All but one agreed to this system(the revenue), and the High Court thought it was fair as well.

---

Fcuk it, in that case i think every club should go down this line next year:rolleyes:

So you thinks it ok for a club/company to spend way above their means, gain an advantage on their competitors, and then apply to the courts to go into examinership in order to pay their creditors a small fraction of what they owe them?

AFAIK City won't get a licence if the players are no paid. It is not up to the FAI to police other business debts.

We have already started to pay the creditors more money as they get a cut of Setanta Cup prize money. They will also receive cut of LOI position prize money. If Kevin Doyle is sold in January it is very likely that we will have paid the creditors back close to all the monies owed.

I'll be astonished if either Cork or Drogheda are in europe next year. UEFA have far stricter financial guidelines than the FAI

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pete

We have already started to pay the creditors more money as they get a cut of Setanta Cup prize money. They will also receive cut of LOI position prize money. If Kevin Doyle is sold in January it is very likely that we will have paid the creditors back close to all the monies owed.

---

I can't see how that can be true at all.

Creditors were what - E1.3m? About 10% was paid up front, averaging Revenue (15%) and others (7½%), so E1.17m is left. They get 50% of the Setanta earnings (E75k to them) and of the league prize money (another E20k to them?). So you've still got E1.1m, give or take, to clear from Kevin Doyle's sale. What's your sell on clause? It'd want to be damn good to fetch that much!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

I can't see how that can be true at all.

Creditors were what - E1.3m? About 10% was paid up front, averaging Revenue (15%) and others (7½%), so E1.17m is left. They get 50% of the Setanta earnings (E75k to them) and of the league prize money (another E20k to them?). So you've still got E1.1m, give or take, to clear from Kevin Doyle's sale. What's your sell on clause? It'd want to be damn good to fetch that much!

---

10% from Doyle which should be good for E1m conservatively. I also believe the 1.3m included players wages up to end of the season which I believe will or have been paid.

E10m for Doyle "conservative"? Don't think so. Possible yes, but not conservative. Though I didn't realise it was that high.

I've heard the "players' wages have been paid; it was all a glitch" line before.

Will the players receive the 70% they're owed for the time in examinership? And will they continue to be paid after the end of the season? And don't the creditors only get half of the 10% sell on clause?

Yeah, forgot about that. So he'd have to go for E22k to clear the balance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

I can't see how that can be true at all.

Creditors were what - E1.3m? About 10% was paid up front, averaging Revenue (15%) and others (7½%), so E1.17m is left. They get 50% of the Setanta earnings (E75k to them) and of the league prize money (another E20k to them?). So you've still got E1.1m, give or take, to clear from Kevin Doyle's sale. What's your sell on clause? It'd want to be damn good to fetch that much!

---

From the little I know, the debt of 1.3m also inlcde the players wages to the end of the season. I am open to correction on this. This will have to be paid if Cork are to get a Premier Divison license, otherwise they will be relegated like SHels were.

Now Tom Coughlan, the new ower is suppose to have stumped up the money to pay the players.

The rest, however much that is, is being payed back on future revenues brought in on 50% sell-on clause from future sales of Doyle, O'Donovan, Bennett, Long and Meyler and prize money.

Already around €100k is should be paid back to the creditors from setata cup prise money and gate receipts.

And as pete says, Doyles protential transfer will clear a huge slice of the debt.

As I said all examinership did for City was agree a payment plan. And it the creditors are happy with that, don't see why other fans should be upset.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr A

Will the players receive the 70% they're owed for the time in examinership? And will they continue to be paid after the end of the season? And don't the creditors only get half of the 10% sell on clause?

---

I believe so.

Maybe E10m is a big high now I checked exchange rate. I'll revise to E7.5m or 6m queens money.

Given the players were on 30%+ wages their portion of the debt would be fairly high - I would guess something like 50%.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pete

I believe so.

Maybe E10m is a big high now I checked exchange rate. I'll revise to E7.5m or 6m queens money.

---

Which would mean the creditors get 5% (half of 10%), or E400k. A long way from clearing the creditors, as per your OP.

Seriously doubt the players were owed E600k in the two weeks between gonig to 30% wages and the E1.3m figure being announced. I'd say it includes minimal wages.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BulmersKid

From the little I know, the debt of 1.3m also inlcde the players wages to the end of the season. I am open to correction on this. This will have to be paid if Cork are to get a Premier Divison license, otherwise they will be relegated like SHels were.

As I said all examinership did for City was agree a payment plan. And it the creditors are happy with that, don't see why other fans should be upset.

---

On the first part, seeing the the FAI are trying to circumvent UEFA rules to get you into Europe, I wouldn't be surprised to see a fudge on that issue. An agreement to defer is enough, for example.

On the second part, assuming it was still directed at me, I'm not saying I'm upset or not, I'm just challenging Pete's suggestion that creditors will be almost entirely paid if Doyle goes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jeebus

Fcuk it, in that case i think every club should go down this line next year:rolleyes:

So you thinks it ok for a club/company to spend way above their means, gain an advantage on their competitors, and then apply to the courts to go into examinership in order to pay their creditors a small fraction of what they owe them?

---

Other clubs mighten be as lucky if they enter administration/examinership.

Debts do still have to be paid. Ask Shams fans. They are still paying off debts occured when they went into administration

What they pay is a small fration up front. The rest later.

Cork were just lucky they don't own their own ground otherwise that would have been sold. The only asset they had was players contracts and sell-on clauses.

The creditors decided to take a slice of potential earnings from the sell on clauses.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

On the second part, assuming it was still directed at me, I'm not saying I'm upset or not, I'm just challenging Pete's suggestion that creditors will be almost entirely paid if Doyle goes.

---

Not directed at anyone in particular. There just seems to be a lot of bitterness about the way sucessful Cork got out of examinership.

All they did was use an assest they had to try to pay off a debt. Now this culd make more for the creditors. It could make less. Its a gamble. But if they are happy to agree who are we to judge them.

Quote:

---

Seriously doubt the players were owed E600k in the two weeks between gonig to 30% wages and the E1.3m figure being announced. I'd say it includes minimal wages

---

.

Its hard to know. I don't know the exact figures of who was owed what. But if you are to believe that City were paying 75k every forthnght in wages. 3 months wages equals 450k.

That 1.3m is a newspaper calculation. So will alway sbe sensationised or incllude more than it should.