Cork Winding up Notice?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

Read the Business Post article. It states Cork met with Revenue to agree a repayment deal. You don't stall with Revenue to get a better deal.


Would you say you're being ridden rock solid by the tax man?


That's what I am saying. The fact that, under current rules, Shels and Cork have done nothing wrong is the sham. It means clubs can essentially overspend as before and the FAI simply won't step in. It's unfair on Cork and Shels fans - so far - that a Licencing Scheme which was introduced to stop clubs going under is actually unable to do anything even when clubs are threatened with liquidation.

---

Well not just because shels were one of the clubs but I dont think revenue giving notice to wind up a company is enough reason to punish a club.

Its a bill that needs paying and unlike a printer :) or some other day to day bill the tax man has a neat little trick to get his money, i.e. Wind you up!!

I think the current ruling saying you need a TCC is enough to cover this. Revenue will not give you a TCC if they think you cant pay it back and rather then have the FAI get involved in the tax affairs of every club I think its acceptable they rely on the the Tax mans opinion.

You see Shels owed 300K, Cork seem to owe 160K. How would you differ between the two? Who is in a position to say how much of a debt any club can have? Its not realistic to put figures on every club and as I mentioned before different clubs have different debts and whats workable for one would not be for the other.

You want new rules brought in to cover this? thats fair enough, its your opinion but I think this area is fine as it is. How would you intend to work any new rule ??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EnDai

Could other companies owed money make a difference here? There is an option for them to come forward and demand their money too is there not, which would make a big difference?

---

My understanding is that they could but if that put the company out of business, they could end up getting only a small percentage of the money so it'd probably be safer for them not to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by higgins

You want new rules brought in to cover this? thats fair enough, its your opinion but I think this area is fine as it is. How would you intend to work any new rule ??

---

The area cannot possibly be fine enough as it is if clubs are being hit with winding-up petitions every couple of months.

UEFA Licencing calls for all clubs to be solvent - that would be a huge start. Insolvent clubs should be docked points. Clubs should present budgets at the start of the year which show them meeting all their expenses; again, any club not meeting this budget (within reasonable levels, which I'm not going to bother defining for the purposes of a hypothetical post) should be docked points. Simple as.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OneRedArmy

In any case, can a company that has only been in existance for 3 years really call something "historic" and incurred "back in the bad old days"?

---

I presume when the company was incorporated, it took over the business of the unincorporated entity which was around before. In which case, it would have started off with the balance sheet at the date of incorporation, which could have included older debts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EnDai

Could other companies owed money make a difference here? There is an option for them to come forward and demand their money too is there not, which would make a big difference?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Schumi

My understanding is that they could but if that put the company out of business, they could end up getting only a small percentage of the money so it'd probably be safer for them not to.

---

A winding up order would generally make other creditors tighten up their credit terms, cash on delivery or reduction in credit amounts etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

The area cannot possibly be fine enough as it is if clubs are being hit with winding-up petitions every couple of months.

UEFA Licencing calls for all clubs to be solvent - that would be a huge start. Insolvent clubs should be docked points. Clubs should present budgets at the start of the year which show them meeting all their expenses; again, any club not meeting this budget (within reasonable levels, which I'm not going to bother defining for the purposes of a hypothetical post) should be docked points. Simple as.

---

Im sorry to say its not simple as!
any club can come up with a budget!! I could do you out one tomorrow if you want. Not meeting your budget means your docked points :eek: Are you living in the real world ??? Plenty of businesses run into cash flow problems and dont meet their expectations.
Could shels not just put in Setanta FAI Cup League Cup and League winners and Champions League even and get away with it. Will they be punished for not winning a competition like they said :D

Easy for you to say simple as when you dont have any idea how to work it or at least you have not stated any way of working it.

A winding up notice is just a way the tax man has of getting his money.

If the printer says they wont print anymore until they are paid would this also fall into a points deduction!
If Guinness say they will not deliver stock until you pay your last bill is this cause for further deduction.

To me it seems it's a UCD fan trying to come up with ideas to bring bigger clubs down to your level.

Your going to complicate things by adding in rules like that. If its not black and white theres no point adding things in. As I said the TCC covers this in theory and if you cant trust revenue then whats the point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by higgins

Not meeting your budget means your docked points :eek: Are you living in the real world ???

---

Show me where I said that? If you can genuinely explain your problems and what you're going to do about them, fair enough. If you're having to use capital expenditure to meet current expenses, you should be docked expenses. If you make a loss of maybe 5% of turnover or more, penalties should be considered. It works in other leagues - don't see why it can't work here. I already said I don't intend going into details for a hypothetical debate - that doesn't mean they can't be worked out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by higgins

If the printer says they won't print anymore until they are paid would this also fall into a points deduction!
If Guinness say they will not deliver stock until you pay your last bill is this cause for further deduction.

---

Where are you getting this from?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by higgins

To me it seems it's a UCD fan trying to come up with ideas to bring bigger clubs down to your level.

---

Nope, it's trying to get clubs to cop onto themselves before they all go broke. It's trying to get a Licencing system which is pro-active rather than reactive - i.e. stopping clubs from getting into trouble with Revenue rather than penalising them only when they get wound up by Revenue.

The league can't go on in an environment where clubs think it's OK to rack up debts. The losses the clubs are making have to stop, and soon. The FAI are doing nothing to stop this.

I take it the RC have no jurisdiction over Derry?
The UCD heads think they're right clever boyos going on about football clubs just because they're not a club. I suppose they're praying a few of the top clubs go out of business so that they have a chance of being allowed into the new Premiership.

The RC can investigate a business going back over the last 10 years. They're investigating every club and they're going to find a lot of money being owed. The clubs may not agree but the RC isn't giving them much room to negotiate. In the next few weeks it will be some other club who's being served with a winding up petition.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peadar

I take it the RC have no jurisdiction over Derry?

---

Correct. But you have nothing to fear as the Inland Revenue in the North woke up to football clubs slipshod business methods a long time ago. The Revenue has petitioned to wind up numerous clubs over the last few years (Derry, Ards, Coleraine) & actually succeeded in putting Omagh out of business.

They would & have laughed away any Roversesque 3c in the Euro offer & would happily put a club under to avoid any moral hazard arising.

I think your point about it being a matter of time before other clubs get the same demands is spot on.

As a Derry fan I don't speak from any moral high ground, it wasn't so long ago we were in the same sort of position.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

UEFA Licencing calls for all clubs to be solvent - that would be a huge start. Insolvent clubs should be docked points. Clubs should present budgets at the start of the year which show them meeting all their expenses; again, any club not meeting this budget (within reasonable levels, which I'm not going to bother defining for the purposes of a hypothetical post) should be docked points.

---

I'm with Higgins on this one. If we did this we'd be docking points left, right and centre. It would ruin the league as a sporting competition.

I actually think the FAI have the correct idea. Limit players wages (incl. PAYE & PRSI) to 65% (or whatever) of turnover. That'd solve the problem as clubs wouldn't build up debts on other expences.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

Insolvent clubs should be docked points. Clubs should present budgets at the start of the year which show them meeting all their expenses; again, any club not meeting this budget (within reasonable levels, which I'm not going to bother defining for the purposes of a hypothetical post) should be docked points.

---

Stu, when the criteria for membership of the new top division were being discussed, you and other UCD fans were very vociferous about a club's League standing being determined solely by playing criteria - i.e. that on- and off-the-field issues should be kept separate. Now you're saying that a club's League standing (i.e. the number of points it has) should be subject to non-playing criteria e.g. tax compliance.

Which is it to be?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dr.Nightdub

Stu, when the criteria for membership of the new top division were being discussed, you and other UCD fans were very vociferous about a club's League standing being determined solely by playing criteria - i.e. that on- and off-the-field issues should be kept separate. Now you're saying that a club's League standing (i.e. the number of points it has) should be subject to non-playing criteria e.g. tax compliance.

Which is it to be?

---

What does it matter, even with a points deduction you can finish third and still be credited with a league title.

Spin.

Historic Debt?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LENNOX

‘‘A lot of it goes back to the bad old days where most clubs did not maintain proper books,” he said. ‘‘There were some problems over historic PAYE and PRSI payments and we are trying to sort it all out.”

---

Not "All of it goes back to the bad old days"

Not even "Most of it goes back to the bad old days"

Yet everybody, even non Cork fans can somehow read that quote and conclude unequivocally that this is all down to old debts raised by an audit. A decent audit at most clubs, even well run ones, would reveal many many "sharp practices" in relation to paying of tax on wages, including the practice of paying "expenses" as a large element of the bottom line. Even with Cork paying a lot of their taxes (which is a relatively new development in the eL) a revenue audit would leave most clubs with a bill to pay. A revenue audit of almost any business in the country would leave it with a bill to pay.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dr.Nightdub

Stu, when the criteria for membership of the new top division were being discussed, you and other UCD fans were very vociferous about a club's League standing being determined solely by playing criteria - i.e. that on- and off-the-field issues should be kept separate. Now you're saying that a club's League standing (i.e. the number of points it has) should be subject to non-playing criteria e.g. tax compliance.

Which is it to be?

---

In fairness Doc, he's never said off the field points shouldn't be taken into it. He's always said if clubs achieve the club license, it should then be down to on the field performance. Set minimum standards and those that don't reach them shouldn't be allowed in. I agree with him 100% BTW

audits on all el clubs at the moment we had one over a fortnight ago but ive heard nothing back yet. Most clubs are going to be facing a large bill especially those dealing in cash payments so id say there will be lot more stories on this in the coming months.

People need to wake up and smell the coffee. The league obviously can't sustain the current wage levels, well not when clubs have to pay the correct amount of tax. The sooner everyone realises that the better.

The FAI have to enforce financial conditions on the clubs, or else we'll never have a sustainable league. After the revenue finish their current audits, and clubs settle (or otherwise), then extremely strict conditions should be put in place.

And most of those strict conditions wouldn't even be that strict in the non-footballing world. Gross pay signed contracts, Payslips with every pay packet, P60's, P35 returns.

I'd also make compliance an issue for both player and club - the players and PFAI have allowed the situation develop that under the counter/ cash payments are acceptable. Infact the PFAI argue against Gross Pay contracts. Have a standard contract that includes the player stating that they will not accept payments without payslips or remittance advice (if it is genuine expenses).

I say that speaking of a supporter of a club that I wouldn't be at all surprised if we were next up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

Show me where I said that? If you can genuinely explain your problems and what you're going to do about them, fair enough. If you're having to use capital expenditure to meet current expenses, you should be docked expenses. If you make a loss of maybe 5% of turnover or more, penalties should be considered. It works in other leagues - don't see why it can't work here. I already said I don't intend going into details for a hypothetical debate - that doesn't mean they can't be worked out.

---

From your previous post you said,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

Clubs should present budgets at the start of the year which show them meeting all their expenses; again, any club not meeting this budget (within reasonable levels, which I'm not going to bother defining for the purposes of a hypothetical post) should be docked points

---

You want clubs who make 5% loss to be fined yet your going on about this new league as not being fair as it not all to do with results on the pitch :)

Its the right of any business to spend their money wht way they like.

IF Tolka was sold for 1million in the morning and shels spent it on a bonus for Dave Rogers, its none of anyone business! If they were to use the proceeds to buy in 3 or 4 new players and up people wages for a season its none of anyones business!

You talk as if Shels go out of business every few months!
Shels are over 100 years old and still very much in business... Your petty plans to deduct clubs points due to them making more money than the smaller clubs wont work.

I suppose if Bohs get their 2million on the future sale of Dalymount it would not be fair money in your eyes??

If you have a TCC it has to be assumed your Tax affairs are in order.

Your opening up a can of worms if you think the FAI are going to go through every club every season and measure these 5% and weigh up who had a budget that was fair and who didnt!!!
Can't believe your suggesting this

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dodge

In fairness Doc, he's never said off the field points shouldn't be taken into it. He's always said if clubs achieve the club license, it should then be down to on the field performance. Set minimum standards and those that don't reach them shouldn't be allowed in. I agree with him 100% BTW

---

I also agree with off the field coming into the equation and am fully behind licensing but you have to add reality into things and this presenting of budgets and points deduction if you come in less than 5% ?

You honestly feel thats workable ?

Stu seems to be annoyed that some clubs are able to carry more debt than others. He is annoyed that some clubs have assets and can use these to fund the playing side of things.

Its not good business practice to carry on like this and cash will dry up eventually but every club has the right to spend their money the way they like!

A 30/40K wage bill can be cut to 10/20K in a matter of weeks at any club and if they want to overspend for a year on the off chance they strike it luck then I see no problem with it as long as all bills are paid eventually.

The way I see things working with nearly all football clubs is they overspend for a season or two trying to reach the next level and then reality hits and they cut back and pay off the debts and then when all is normal again they try push the boat out again in the hope of hitting the jackpot.
I dont see anything wrong with this attitude as long as the debts are carried forward and will eventually be paid.

I dont agree with the 4cents in the euro situation way of clearing debts, that to me should carry some punishment in the rule book but spending your clubs money they way you want should not carry a points deduction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Macy

And most of those strict conditions wouldn't even be that strict in the non-footballing world. Gross pay signed contracts, Payslips with every pay packet, P60's, P35 returns.

I'd also make compliance an issue for both player and club - the players and PFAI have allowed the situation develop that under the counter/ cash payments are acceptable. Infact the PFAI argue against Gross Pay contracts. Have a standard contract that includes the player stating that they will not accept payments without payslips or remittance advice (if it is genuine expenses).

---

Now that makes perfect sense to me!
If they were to deal with all those areas before going into the mess that would be Stu's idea it would stop the clubs having to run around trying to get this under the counter money.

Making a loss should not be a points deduction but the madness that is players wages in the EL can be sorted fairly easily.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by higgins

From your previous post you said,



You want clubs who make 5% loss to be fined yet your going on about this new league as not being fair as it not all to do with results on the pitch :)

Its the right of any business to spend their money wht way they like.

IF Tolka was sold for 1million in the morning and shels spent it on a bonus for Dave Rogers, its none of anyone business! If they were to use the proceeds to buy in 3 or 4 new players and up people wages for a season its none of anyones business!

You talk as if Shels go out of business every few months!
Shels are over 100 years old and still very much in business... Your petty plans to deduct clubs points due to them making more money than the smaller clubs wont work.

I suppose if Bohs get their 2million on the future sale of Dalymount it would not be fair money in your eyes??

If you have a TCC it has to be assumed your Tax affairs are in order.

Your opening up a can of worms if you think the FAI are going to go through every club every season and measure these 5% and weigh up who had a budget that was fair and who didnt!!!
Can't believe your suggesting this

---

I think you've got the wrong end of what PS was saying. He's saying that clubs should present their budget at the start of each season, and if that budget predicts that they won't have enough income to meet their expenses then action should be taken.That's completely different from trying to tell clubs how they spend the money they actually have - it's about ensuring clubs don't spend beyond their means and risk insolvency.

There's a danger that budgets would be manipulated to say anything though, so I'm not sure how truly effective such an approach would be. Also - a 5% loss is insignificant in my view and not worthy of action, as it could easily be made-up in future years.

As for your assertion that "it's the right of a business to spend their money any way they like". It is indeed other people's business when it coems to football clubs - shareholders if they're a PLC or Ltd Company; charity commissioners, if they're a trust or charity; the judiciary, if they're acting illegally; and fans regardless of how they're legally incorporated. There are usually rules governing the spending of any business, depending on how it is structured.

Furthermore, as league football is an organisation with its own rules that clubs must agree to abide to, the FAI/League has every statutory right to tell clubs how they should spend their money. Hence it can introduce things like a wage cap.

there is nothing in licensing that ask.s about debts the only question is do you have a tax clearance cert which is no more than three months old