I had a bit of sympathy for them in the past but think the FAI need to step in now if the stories about them trying to withold our share of the gate receipts from Friday night are true.
Printable View
I had a bit of sympathy for them in the past but think the FAI need to step in now if the stories about them trying to withold our share of the gate receipts from Friday night are true.
I also had sympathy for them but this is really pulling the p*ss now.How can they not know how much money they owe and how many more chances are they going to be given?????????:mad:
If that is true that they withheld Sligo's share last Friday then thats bottom of the barrell stuff.Might not be true though.
With a wage bill still fairly high it seems to me that a lot of the 102k that was paid since the story broke will just be going to service tax over that period.
It's unclear if this is on top of ongoing payments or just a once off payment of 102k that came off the 'historical debt'... to borrow a phrase from Brian Lennox!
Have the FAI made any comments regarding Cork and the 65% rule ?
All Shels need is Cork to be in First Division next year !!! We'll never get out of that hole :)
Cork and Bohs too???Quote:
Originally Posted by higgins
It is not true...Sligo left the ground with several thousand euros in cash...Quote:
Originally Posted by eamo1
That doesn't mean they didnt attempt to withhold itQuote:
Originally Posted by political_rebel
All the comments I read on the issue suggested Cork paid it, but only after FAI/LOI intervention
We should enter that $1m paranormal challenge in the states... How a penniless shyster kept an unviable football club in business for 6 months by moving club offices to a deserted Cobh hotel, operating a club shop out of a massage parlour and organising friendlies with lower league English clubs.
Are they going to show his disastrous marriage to Mia Farrow?Quote:
Originally Posted by adamd164
Good piece on it in todays indo
http://www.independent.ie/sport/socc...p-1774574.html
Some very interesting quotes - Coughlan stating he does'nt understand the examinership process, then he states that he has a figure in his head but its a different figure than the revenue has in his head and indicates that he will sort them out !!!! if I were revenue and read this , it would certainly get my back up and give me a very bad impression of this guy.
"It is a complex process," said Coughlan. "I don't understand the examinership process but the difference has to be agreed by both parties. We have a month but hopefully we can get it wrapped up in the next couple of days.
FIGURE
"There's a (settlement) figure in my head, but I don't think it's the same figure that's in the Revenue's head. I'll get our guys to sit down with them and say, 'look, this is what it is'."
The above doesn't add up, he is making out that it is all still up for negotiation but if this is the case then why are they making 102k payments an the judge looking for the remaining payment? To me (and its just my opinion) he is tying to pay off a limited amount hoping to appease the revenue but avoid paying all that is owed but it appears that the revenue are having none of it.
For a crowd of 1853 or whatever the official crowd was, they tried to give us €2,500 our MC stood their ground so Cork changed it to 5k which was still not right, but we were told that was all we were getting. As it was worked out that it should be approx 7,5k for our share of the gate, we objected. The FAI were contacted and agreed that Cork should have give us 7,5k and Cork have been told to pay us the remaining balance by the FAI.Quote:
Originally Posted by eamo1
They also told us we were not allowed to put people on the gate as they would tell us how many and how much they would give us at the end, This information was relayed to our one and only female official which i think they thought may have been an easy touch. Anyway this was laughed at and the FAI official had to step in to tell we were allowed to have people on the gate.
Laughable stuff from Cork and very very amateurish from them.
Disgraceful stuff from Cork officials if true.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rovers Maniac
To the question of 'not knowing how much we owe', we obviously know how much the revenue are looking for, but there seems to be disagreement on the figure. The club are arguing the point, in today's indo it makes clear that the issue is on the revenue bill for tax payable on wages we honoured from the examinership period.
All in all, I'm worried, we had three home games the last three weeks to help us on the money repaid, we're heading towards the break now and have two home games between now and the next hearing. The first this Friday against Dundalk, the second -v- Pat's which is on a Tuesday night, neither will bring in much cash. These two games will also have to bring in the wage bill for the next two months with our next home game against Bray being too late for the July pay cycle.
We're going to be seriously reliant on the Ipswich friendly bringing in some cash, bar the Roy Keane factor [long since flogged to death] there's not much of a draw in a game against Ipswich.
The club needs to get realistic, start making cuts in the July transfer window and start asking for financial help from those around who can offer it i.e. FORAS.
Sligo should have had people on every gate to make sure they got their due. Most LOI clubs will shaft you completely on cup gates if they are let away with it.
The club would have a lot more credibility if it started making expenditure cuts.Quote:
Originally Posted by tiktok
We did, but this is the reason the hassle started in the first place because Cork turned around and told us that we were not allowed to have people on the gate. At this point Rovers reported the matter to the FAI official there who said we did have a right to have somebody stand at the gate. By the way i agree on you other point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr A
As LOI fans should we not be happy that we have not "lost" another club ? even if it just delays matters for 4 weeks ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr A
We should
But that doesn't mean we can't point out the ridiculousness that some clusb continue with
Another €225K due by 13th July according to the Irish Daily Star...Quote:
Originally Posted by SeanDrog
The Ipswich game will hopefully attract a good gate and some much needed cash for us!
Sure if they send Cork and Bohs down, we won't even want to get out of it :) The first division will be where it's at.Quote:
Originally Posted by higgins
The FAI won't touch any of the big clubs apart from Shels. No fear of them sending Bohs or Cork down.
I'm worried the High Court will wind Cork up and we'll be facing Cork 37 next year!
Although I'd guess they have to come through the A Championship first.
Are Cork able to sign players at the moment ?
makes me smileQuote:
Originally Posted by higgins
Yeah, we are. Why wouldn't we though? All our issues are with the tax man not the 65% rule.Quote:
Originally Posted by higgins
If you're having problems keeping up with tax commitments then chances are the 65% rule will come into play at some point. After all, if you haven't the money to cover all your wage expenses then it stands to reason that your income cannot far exceed player outgoings, if it does so at all.
Fixed that. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by higgins
Roughly what is your monthly bill to revenue with the current squad ?
102K doesn't seem a lot as each month you're adding probably another 20 to 30k to your tax debt on curret wage structures?
By the time the next court case comes around you'll have had to pay those 4 weeks tax just to stand still.
Seems you need to get rid of some players to be honest.
You're at the same place Shels were at in 2006. Coming up to the transfer window we were in big trouble, Ollie gambled to hold all the players together and do all things possible to get to the end of the season and win the league. At that stage our squad were all free agents and we spent the next year or two paying them back 100% of their wages.
I would say Tom will try do an Ollie!
didnt realise higgins that ye had to pay back 100% of their wages. what happened?Quote:
Originally Posted by higgins
We had to pay back every single penny we owed to not only players and staff but all creditors, and rightly so. The same should be expected of any club since but as we've seen this wasn't the case.
As has been discussed a thousand times, Shels couldn't go into administration as they had the cash/assets to pay everyone; they just got it from selling the lease on their ground. Shels like to play the martyr by saying that they had to pay back all the outstanding wages, but their situation was just different to the others. They probably would have liked to go into administration and wipe a load of their debts, but couldn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Martinho II
thats a very good easy explanation of it.No wonder I give up accountancy my head was wrecked! this discussion is highly technical and I wouldnt have a good grasp of legal laws so I am better off leaving it to the experts.:(Quote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
Agreed, the 'we paid back everyone line' is getting tiring now.Quote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
Gives them a hell of a lot more credibility than any of the clubs who hide behind administration.
Don't think they wouldn't have hidden behind it if they had a chance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SeanDrog
Two things leap out from that :
1) Coughlan is 'politically' naive.
Even if you don't understand the Examiner process - don't be stupid enouhg to tell the whole feckin world that you're clueless....!!
2) Coughlan is financially naive
He admits he doesn't understand the whole process, thinks that he can just sit down with the Examiners and tell THEM how much is owed.
I'm not sure where this guy came from, but on the basis of that interview there's only one place he should be going.......
Presumably into Government or head of Anglo Irish Bank?Quote:
Originally Posted by dcfcsteve
Coughlan for NAMA!Quote:
Originally Posted by passinginterest
No it doesn't - as has been said, they would've if that was an option. Examinership isn't an option for clubs that own assets, since those can be sold. It wasn't because of some moral obligation they paid a 100% back - if they were so ethically minded they wouldn't have run up the debts in the first place.Quote:
Originally Posted by Real ale Madrid
in fairness, "they" was one man, Ollie Byrne. Moral? Ethical?
They've paid the price for his stupidity, time to let the Shels issue lie, i think.
It was Shels fan who brought it back up...Quote:
Originally Posted by SkStu
then my post applies to him too.... :oQuote:
Originally Posted by Dodge