This is not right!

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

29/09/2008, 2:58 PM
Bald Student

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dodge

Well Dublin City didn't have any outside backers they were basically a pet project. Closer to Kilkenny or Wexford than Bohs or Cork.

Rovers weren't buggered by outsiders over Tallaght they (maguire et al) ballsed it up from start to finish. lack of money was their problem rather than anyone pulling out (McNamara was the guy who brought them to the RDS)

Bohs would be a land deal that ****ed them over, rather than a backer pulling out.

Drogheda and Pats, AFAIK, are the only one who would be in real danger

I think we're getting a little sidetracked into a discussion on who counts as an outside backer or whether the various backers are good guys like Wallace or bad guys like the Kilkoynes. The point I was making originally was that I'd draw a distinction between clubs like Sligo or Cobh who run up a loss but are able to trade out of it and clubs who run up losses so big that they can't possible trade out of them.

I think running up big debts leaves a club vulnerable but that it's not the cause of UCDs likely relegation.
29/09/2008, 3:05 PM
Dodge

Yeah, apologies to all for getting it off topic.

UCD are gick...
30/09/2008, 4:42 PM
higgins

Quote:

Originally Posted by micls

Teh monthly reports is simply to stop things before they go too far.

Seems like 1.3 million wasn't enough in Corks case ?
Wonder how far they would have let it go before they nipped it in the bud :)

Quote:

Originally Posted by micls

The rule itself is over the course of the entire season. We have not broken it....yet

The FAI have come out saying they put restrictions on certain clubs (Galway at least) for going over the 65% during the season.
I'm pretty sure the rule was meant to be implemented each month. In fact at a meeting on the issue before the season started and in an article on the eloi website they said that there were different punishments for the amount of time you spend over the 65%. I imagine had Galway stayed over the 65% much longer they would have lost pints. They hit the panic button and put players up for sale.

Quote:

Originally Posted by micls

It depends on the rules the FAI have for this I suppose. Was the 10point deduction simply for entering examinership or for the examinership process? I dont know. I dont think our creditors will be getting 100% though

Again clear rules would make this a lot easier.

There are no rules.
It would be just my opinion that not paying people 100% of what you owe them is cheating other clubs as you have players earning a wage and playing for you on the basis you have the money and other clubs don't.

Shels have had to pay 100% of the debts.
We're still paying them off and will be for a long time to come.
We're effectively crippled for the next X amount of years due to paying back the debts built up winning league titles.
We were demoted on the back of that yet we've not turned away from any debts. In fact paying the FAI back what we owe them was part for the deal!!

If Cork are going to pay all debts then they should remain in the Premier Division. If not I think it's only fair on the other sides you're ahead of that you are demoted.
30/09/2008, 6:36 PM
Mr A

Quote:

Originally Posted by higgins

I imagine had Galway stayed over the 65% much longer they would have lost pints.

Ooooh Ted, they wouldn't like that now.

They wouldn't like that one bit.

(Great to see the FAI hitting clubs where it hurts though)
01/10/2008, 4:17 PM
pineapple stu

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dodge

In all probablility we're going to lose both legs to hertha. I'd say they're a similar level to the Celtic side we drew with in Glasgow (before losing at home).

Do you now have to agree with me after last night? ;)
01/10/2008, 4:25 PM
Dodge

Yep, that one game changed my mind
01/10/2008, 4:26 PM
micls

Quote:

Originally Posted by higgins

Seems like 1.3 million wasn't enough in Corks case ?
Wonder how far they would have let it go before they nipped it in the bud :)

The FAI have come out saying they put restrictions on certain clubs (Galway at least) for going over the 65% during the season.
I'm pretty sure the rule was meant to be implemented each month. In fact at a meeting on the issue before the season started and in an article on the eloi website they said that there were different punishments for the amount of time you spend over the 65%. I imagine had Galway stayed over the 65% much longer they would have lost pints. They hit the panic button and put players up for sale.

we had restrictions placed on us too when the FAI finally copped on.

but breaking teh wage cap over months isnt breaking licensing and cant get you your license revoked...only doing it over the year can.The punishments in between are to stop this from happening.

Quote:

Originally Posted by higgins

There are no rules.
It would be just my opinion that not paying people 100% of what you owe them is cheating other clubs as you have players earning a wage and playing for you on the basis you have the money and other clubs don't.

Who said any differently? Hence us being deducted 10 points for entering examinership.
And if we dont pay players the back pay there will be no license

Quote:

Originally Posted by higgins

Shels have had to pay 100% of the debts.
We're still paying them off and will be for a long time to come.
We're effectively crippled for the next X amount of years due to paying back the debts built up winning league titles.
We were demoted on the back of that yet we've not turned away from any debts. In fact paying the FAI back what we owe them was part for the deal!!

Ye didnt get a license becuase ye owed players money, as will be true of any other club. Even if you owed no one else money you wouldnt have gotten a license.

If ye had gone into examinership as we did ye would have been punished for doing so and it would have cost ye the league. ye didnt, so the situations are different

Quote:

Originally Posted by higgins

If Cork are going to pay all debts then they should remain in the Premier Division. If not I think it's only fair on the other sides you're ahead of that you are demoted.

As I said above we cant complain either way imo.

But itl be interesting to see if the 10 point deduction was for teh entire examinership process(including sorting a deal with creditors) or just for entering examinership.

It will have an effect on whether we stay up or not
01/10/2008, 4:31 PM
pineapple stu

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dodge

Yep, that one game changed my mind

Excellent.

(That was a joke, just in case...)

(And just to put it on record, I don't think our current team is significantly worse than the one which got into Europe in 2000, except that team had a proven goalscorer in Mick O'Byrne. �amon McLoughlin, Rob Dunne, E�in Bennis and Ken Kilmurray all started the TotoToto games and wouldn't get into our team now, I'd say. We also had Glen...)
01/10/2008, 5:07 PM
Dodge

Eamon McLaughlin certainly would. Always thought Rob Dunne was alright too.

Anyway, its not really relevent to the Pats team of the time though
01/10/2008, 5:12 PM
pineapple stu

It is relevant to your point about this being the worst UCD team ever, which I countered using the argument that Pat's had improved instead.

I'd have Bermo ahead of McLaughlin any day. Agree Dunne was alright, but wouldn't think he'd be in our team though.
01/10/2008, 5:15 PM
Dodge

Oh right, forgot about that argument. Stand by what I said mind.
01/10/2008, 5:24 PM
pineapple stu

Just saying the first thing you think of, eh? :p

Also (final word - promise!) - the 2003 team was far worse, particularly under Doolin. That's the worst UCD team I've ever seen by a distance.
01/10/2008, 5:41 PM
Schumi

Quote:

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

Also (final word - promise!) - the 2003 team was far worse, particularly under Doolin. That's the worst UCD team I've ever seen by a distance.

Player-by-player perhaps. Collectively this one is at least as bad.
02/10/2008, 11:44 AM
pineapple stu

Agree with you. But my point is that "collectively" is a function of a few things, including the quality of the opposition, which has improved in recent years. (Obviously you can add morale and balance, of which we don't have much either at present). If you took our team now and put it into the Premiership, it'd look a lot worse, but that doesn't mean the team's any worse. (Extreme example obviously)
02/10/2008, 6:04 PM
higgins

Quote:

Originally Posted by micls

we had restrictions placed on us too when the FAI finally copped on.

but breaking teh wage cap over months isnt breaking licensing and cant get you your license revoked...only doing it over the year can.The punishments in between are to stop this from happening.

Restrictions ?
You were signing players up until transfer deadline day !!
What restrictions ?

Also, of course the FAI can take your licence away!
You seem to think it's a once off event that and when you get it you have it for 12 months. It's not like a test once a year, it's an ongoing process.

For your information Shelbourne were awarded a Premier Division licence for the 2007 season. It was a couple of months into the year when they decided to take it away again.
We had deals with ALL players and staff owed money and had cleared the masive tax debts and still were only awarded a First Division licence.

I'm not complaining as we probably deserved to go down but seems it's different rules for everyone else.

Also there was no wage cap of any sort in the league when Shels decided to offer contracts they couldn't pay! Not that it shoudl have mattered...
02/10/2008, 6:10 PM
micls

Quote:

Originally Posted by higgins

Restrictions ?
You were signing players up until transfer deadline day !!
What restrictions ?

Eh...who? We had people on trial we couldnt sign.

Quote:

Originally Posted by higgins

Also, of course the FAI can take your licence away!
You seem to think it's a once off event that and when you get it you have it for 12 months. It's not like a test once a year, it's an ongoing process.

You're wrong. The licensing agreement of the wage cap is that you meet it over the year, not on a monthly basis.

Quote:

Originally Posted by higgins

For your information Shelbourne were awarded a Premier Division licence for the 2007 season. It was a couple of months into the year when they decided to take it away again.
We had deals with ALL players and staff owed money and had cleared the masive tax debts and still were only awarded a First Division licence.

If we owe any players money at teh end of the year we'l be relegated just like ye were

Quote:

Originally Posted by higgins

I'm not complaining as we probably deserved to go down but seems it's different rules for everyone else.

How so?

Quote:

Originally Posted by higgins

Also there was no wage cap of any sort in the league when Shels decided to offer contracts they couldn't pay! Not that it shoudl have mattered...

hence ye not being stripped of the title or a points deduction.

Its the money ye still owed that was the problem
02/10/2008, 10:46 PM
higgins

Did Dudfield not come in just before the window closed ?

Why issue the FAI with monthly accounts ?
Why have a press release at the start of the season saying there will be different punishments for the amount of time you stay over the 65%
Why call the clubs to a meeting to state the same ?
Why punish Galway for going over the 65% ?

Seriously think the 65% rule is an ongoing issue.
Otherwise after the final set of league games the FAI sit down and then work out point deductions and issue a lovely new table!!

Where are you getting your information ?

Again you seem to miss the point were I said we were issued a licence. We had our premier division licence yet it was then taken away.
We still owe a hat full of cash!!!
We would owe this regardless of what division we were in. We were not demoted for being in debt. If that was the case we'd not be able to get promoted for the next few years. We've massive debts....

You seem to have this magic end of the year date that you have to have your house in order or else ? Like an NCT or something that comes round and you need to pass.... That's not the way it works. If it was we would have passed the test and had 11 months to get our house in order before we were up again!

They can act when and how they like.
03/10/2008, 11:06 AM
micls

Quote:

Originally Posted by higgins

Did Dudfield not come in just before the window closed ?

Weeks before. Before we(or the FAI) knew we were in trouble

Quote:

Originally Posted by higgins

Why issue the FAI with monthly accounts ?

So tehy can try to stop clubs from breaking it over the year.

Quote:

Originally Posted by higgins

Why have a press release at the start of the season saying there will be different punishments for the amount of time you stay over the 65%
Why call the clubs to a meeting to state the same ?
Why punish Galway for going over the 65% ?

There will be punishments for going over monthly but you are not breaking the licensing agreement. Its a preventative measure by the FAI

Quote:

Originally Posted by higgins

Seriously think the 65% rule is an ongoing issue.
Otherwise after the final set of league games the FAI sit down and then work out point deductions and issue a lovely new table!!

If you break it over the year Id imagine itl just be relegation.Youl have been warned during the year with sanctions such as transfer blocks and possibly points deductions

Quote:

Originally Posted by higgins

Where are you getting your information ?

Same place everyone else n the thread who has said the same is Id imagine

Quote:

Originally Posted by higgins

Again you seem to miss the point were I said we were issued a licence. We had our premier division licence yet it was then taken away.
We still owe a hat full of cash!!!
We would owe this regardless of what division we were in. We were not demoted for being in debt. If that was the case we'd not be able to get promoted for the next few years. We've massive debts....

If you owe players money you cannot get a premier license. Regardless of other debts

Quote:

Originally Posted by higgins

You seem to have this magic end of the year date that you have to have your house in order or else ? Like an NCT or something that comes round and you need to pass.... That's not the way it works. If it was we would have passed the test and had 11 months to get our house in order before we were up again!

They can act when and how they like.

It is, in the case of the wage cap anyway. Ye couldnt pass cos ye owed players money
03/10/2008, 11:23 AM
Mr A

You can owe players money as long as they sign off a waver on it agreeing to deferral.
03/10/2008, 11:48 AM
micls

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr A

You can owe players money as long as they sign off a waver on it agreeing to deferral.

We were told if any money is owed to players we will not be getting a license

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page