Printable View
Aye, and using the law as a reason to act immoral will only get you so far in returnQuote:
Originally Posted by OneRedArmy
Don't care about Derry and their debts but if its fairly clear why some think (new) Derry should pay historical debt. That you're not obliged to isn't really the point.
Pay it from what though? The new club has practically the same revenues as the old club, lower if anything.
From those revenues. Same as other clubs are paying off their debts from their existing revenues.
(Not to take one side or the other in the debate, but that's how it'd be done).
The club folded because it couldn't pay its debts. There's no comparison between Derry City in 2009 and the currently solvent but indebted clubs in today's league.
Immoral? We're in fairly good company with most of the rest of the league when it comes to immoral and unethical behaviour. The list of clubs that have failed to pay all debts in full and on time and shafted various creditors is a fairly long one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dodge
My point was that legally we aren't able to selectively pay our debts, no matter how much people want us to.
And I'd argue that the directors who got us into the mess getting hit with the largest penalty is natural justice. As was said above, the reality is that most of the creditors (by volume and number) were fans.
For the record, I wasn't calling Derry immoral.
Just playing devils advocate.
It shold be remembered too that Derry weren't demoted due to debts, but rather because of the dual contracts.
Legally, there's no comparison, you're right. But you asked how the new club could pay off its debts, and I pointed out how. No different to any other club paying off their heavy debts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlie Darwin
We're purely talking about a "Wouldn't it be nice if..." scenario of course.
The big question here is: if licensing isn't going to prevent clubs from dumping their debts and then reappearing, what the hell is it for? Surely this is one of the central reasons for having it, yet it has proved completely ineffective in this regard. We hear a lot about 'moral hazard' these days and surely this is a case where it has to be taken seriously. Otherwise clubs with few assets would be foolish not to chase the dream in the knowledge that the consequences for meltdown are fleeting.
I'm just not sure why you pointed it out, because it's a very practical question.Quote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
If a business can't pay its debts, them it's not a viable business and nobody, with the possible exception of Finn Harps, is going to benefit from Derry City flagellating itself and especially not the small businesses that depend on a successful Derry City to survive.
If you enter an agreement to repay all debts over, say, 10 years as part of a goodwill donation, it becomes a bit more manageable because you've taken out the time pressure of repaying, which is a major factor. You're under no legal obligation to repay - you don't technically owe the money - so you can't be sued for slow payment.
Even if that were desirable and financially viable, that's still a large amount of money from the club's operating budget that could otherwise be spent on the football pitch. Debt like that is a noose around anyone's neck, whether it's legally a debt or just a voluntary commitment. It might be in some creditors' interests for the club to service all of its debts, but not all of them, and if a club like Derry goes to the wall, the effect is a lot wider than just the people who are owed money.Quote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
Yep, not going to argue with that. But it would be possible to make the repayments from their current revenues, which was my only point.
If we're talking about moral obligations then surely you'd argue that every club that has been through an examinership process where creditors received less than 100% or indeed any club that has failed to pay a supplier in full should, morally speaking, make good that debt?Quote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
I think you'd have to, yep.
So Derry writing off almost €1million in debt, bypassing the A League and allowed to have a budget which is vastly higher than the rest of sides in the division is punishment?
Who has exactly suffered in this situation, other than the creditors?
So what's different in Derry 2009 and 2010?
-They played pre-season in the "old" Derry's 2009 strip.
-They have the same manager as before.
-The same colours.
-The old club's (1994-2009 and 1928-1994) honours.
-Have founded in 1928 on the club crest.
-Play in the Brandywell.
Cobh were drop kicked into the A-League with their debt whilst Kildare and Kilkenny were simply allowed to fold from senior football.
No surprise that other clubs fans may back Derry in this, after all, their club may be looking at the same avenue in the not too distant future.
By the way, it is sour grapes, I have no problem admitting that. We, as a club, bust our hump every season with fundraisers and ticket draws to keep the club afloat whilst trying to field 3 or more sides and service debt. We also saw our club undergo a huge review to sort out the working of the club and to ensure that the huge debt is not run up again.
In turn, a club that cheated to gain sucess in European and domestic competition can start a fresh and buy their way straight back to the Premier Division again.
Rant over, now bring on the usual whiter than white Derry fans with their usual "get over it" bullology.
No-one was willing to take over the mantle of running Kildare and Kilkenny; those cases are completely different to here.
You'd imagine the Derry directors would have been banned from running companies, so they'd suffer as well. Which would be good.
I agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
And the logical follow on from that is that all those fans who spout moral outrage, yet hide behind their club having stiffed their creditors by way of a "mutual agreement", e.g. successful examinership debt forgiveness, are, simply, hypocrites of the highest order?
(I recognise UCD aren't among the above bunch, not having to my knowledge stiffed anyone)
Derry City FC/or friends of DCFC have paid over £100k to debters this season. That's including honouring the pre-paid season tickets bought last year.
Should Derry pay their debts too?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam_Heggy
Cobh and Derry suffered similar difficulties - the only difference is that for Cobh it made more business sense to restructure, while Derry was beyond repair. For Cobh restructuring meant dropping to a lower level to build a squad from scratch, whereas Derry have enough fans to generate a budget to sustain a First Division team. It's nothing to do with fairness - if Cobh had presented a credible business plan for starting the season in D1, they would have been considered too.
Paynig your debtors? No wonder ye're fecked...Quote:
Originally Posted by Candystripe
Did Harps do that? But yeah, you would have to agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by OneRedArmy
I wasn't referring to Harps specifically. But I'd guess the list of clubs that haven't shafted suppliers, shareholders etc. over the years is a fairly short one.Quote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
Surely using your logic, if Finn Harps Cooperative Society Limited didn't "own" Finn Harps FC in 1974 then you'd have to remove the FAI Cup win from your list of honours?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam_Heggy
I've got no issue with Derry repaying any debt or not. I couldn't care less about it.
My issue is not with Derry, but with the FAI who decided to fudge it so that Derry (and Cork? Same circumstances?) could get into Div. 1. I remember that on here at least the majority of the Derry (and Cork) fans were worried about the very existence of LOI football in the city, and would have settled for a restart in the A league.
The FAI had the chance to show teams that they are willing to punish overspenders, they had a chance to set a deterrent that really would make clubs take notice, and they didn't take it. As Mr. A says, what's to stop another team from doing it, as they have a precedent of a demotion of one flight and (if the team is big enough) maybe even an immediate return to the top flight?
How is that the same?Quote:
Originally Posted by dcfc_1928
The fans bought the club and the took over the debt, how is that the same as what Derry have done on 3 occasions now?
Who were they punishing? The board ****ed off and the owners defaulted. Any further punishment would only hurt the blameless.Quote:
Originally Posted by osarusan
Seeing as how the board ****ed off and the owners defaulted, why punish the blameless at all?Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlie Darwin
They'd already been thrown out of the league. Denying them re-entry would have been punishing the blameless.Quote:
Originally Posted by osarusan
They wouldn't have been denied re-entry, they would have been accepted in the A-League. Where the majority of their fans on here had hoped for, and where there would have been a precendent set that the FAI are willing to take a stance on crazy spending.Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlie Darwin
So its now the "we've got to draw a line in the sand somewhere" argument?Quote:
Originally Posted by osarusan
Which is an admission that we should be singled out for punishment, versus every other club (and its unarguably a long list) that played around with creditors, the Revenue etc., didn't pay all their debts and got off with it.
Its the 1928 on the crest that bugs me. Your club wasn't founded in 1928. It was founded in 2010.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_nXILHhJLt4...-my-gears1.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by CSFShels
Was your club founded in 1928 or 2010?
Derry City Football Club was founded in 1928. The operating company behind Derry City Football club was founded in 2009.
First dual contracts - now dual foundation dates - it's an outrage I tells yer, a thundering disgrace...Quote:
Originally Posted by CSFShels
http://www.morningstarr.co.uk/forum/...an-outrage.jpg
So this is the same club, just with a different operating company?Quote:
Originally Posted by City till I Die
So it's now the 'why should it be us?' argument?Quote:
Originally Posted by OneRedArmy
Unarguably you're not the first club to do it, but with a stronger stance from the FAI you might have been the last to do it, precisely because you didn't get away with it.
Just like in 1994, yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by CSFShels
So Derry City Football Club didn't sign players on dual contracts and run up huge debt?Quote:
Originally Posted by City till I Die
The operating company Wellvan did. Its no different to Liverpool FC being under the name Kop Holdings or Southampton being under the name Southampton Leisure Holding (SLH) PLCQuote:
Originally Posted by Sam_Heggy
To be fair Dodge, Wellvan went into administration shortly after and is currently in liquidation. If it hadn't been the contracts, the debt should have got us.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dodge