Creditors meeting today and they accepted 7.5% plus 50% of sell on clauses e.g. Doyle.
High Court tomorrow
Printable View
Creditors meeting today and they accepted 7.5% plus 50% of sell on clauses e.g. Doyle.
High Court tomorrow
Good piece by John Riordan in Todays Examiner
Ouch.
What does that mean for the future? I assume the club'll have to operate at break even? Can't imagine the club getting much in the way of credit in the coming months.
More ouch. Some problems encountered. Start lighting candles ladsQuote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
Who's causing the problems? :confused:
If the creditors are happy, it must be to do with the people taking over and their plans for the future?
It would seem that the Revenue have rejected the deal according to the CCFC forum.
Mr A has it in one.Quote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
Revenue turned down the deal they were offered(15% + the same sell on thing is the rumour). Up to the judge now
That doesn't sound too promising. The Revenue had their fingers burned with Rovers and have warned clubs not to expect any big favours so I think you're going to have to come up with a much better deal. Having said that CCFC itself doesn't really have any assets that would enable the Revenue to recover their money in receivership so it remains to be seen whether they are determined enough to forego what they're being offered and just punish Cork or are just forcing them into the best deal they can get out of them. Either way you've another battle to get through.
Anyone know what happened with the court case today?????
Have a wild guess.
How much do you owe revenue ?
I'd imagine the fact you continue to trade and build up a debt with them is not helping either ? I couldn't see why you made every effort to keep the players over the last few months. I still can't.
To be honest you should have to pay the tax and players back wages 100%
Then if you pay the rest of the creditors less than 100% you should be kicked out of the league.
I'm not being smart here but the rules should apply fairly to all clubs.
What is it you owe revenue ?
Not heard today. backlog of casesQuote:
Originally Posted by corkboy360
DunnoQuote:
Originally Posted by higgins
We are a business. A business is within its rights to do deals with creditors if the creditors agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by higgins
Relegate us fair enough but thrown out of the league. Come off it.
You mean the same way Rovers were thrown out of the league.....Quote:
Originally Posted by higgins
there are rules in place. If we break them we will be punished accordingly e.g. going into examinership, wage cap etc.
Points deduction or relegation is fair enough but kicking us out altogether is just ridiculous
Higgins .... you're a Shels fan yeah?Quote:
Originally Posted by higgins
I can only assume the players are being paid more than the other creditors if not all their money as they would be ahead of the Revenue. Calls to kick us out of the league would set an unsustainable precedent as could be less than 15 clubs left.Quote:
Originally Posted by higgins
I am disappointed with the 15% offer to the Revenue as would have been amazed if they accepted. I don't know if 50% of sell on clauses was offered but again would be very surprised if the Revenue had any interest in a stake in what essentially is our only "asset".
I read somewhere today that it's about €360,000. I can't vouch for that figure.Quote:
Originally Posted by higgins
Shels were given a time and a date to pay the tax debt in full or else the hearing into us even getting a First Division licence would not have happened.
We also had to come up with that couple of hundred thousand in the space of a couple of weeks (if even) and that was only so the licence committee would review the case for a First Division licence.
As we know now after the tax was paid we still only got a First Division licence by the smallest of margins.
Those rules not apply to Cork ?...
I'd imagine you were given a deadline to get a tax clearance cert, not necessarily have all the debt paid?. That's the usual procedure. It would depend on the Revenue's attitude to issuing one i.e they may have said they wouldn't give one without full payment which is slightly different than the FAI demanding full payment.
Well I was talking about the Premier Division sorry should have made that clear. However that was only on the basis you pay the tax and players 100% of what they are owed.Quote:
Originally Posted by micls
On the rest of the creditors it's very well saying you're a business and so on but the facts are you are playing in a competition run by the FAI. 21 others clubs are also signed up and one member not paying their debts in full has a bad knock on to other clubs. It's not like you're a corner shop trying to stay alive. You are involved in sporting competitions with other member clubs who also need to survive in business.
Certain actions can not go unpunished.
The way I see it...
A) you fail to pay the tax man 100% . You should be kicked out of the league
B) you fail to pay staff/players 100% . You should be kicked out of the league
C) you fail to pay other crediotors 100% . You should be demoted at least
However, I think if you can come to some agreements where you pay these debts off over time (100%) you should be allowed continue as you are in the premier division with only the 10 points taken away already for entering the examinership process.
It amounts to the same thing really. I suppose it was to do with a TCC but facts were we had to pay a few hundred thousand like Cork. We had a deadline or else we had no team.Quote:
Originally Posted by Longfordian
No 15% or 7.5% or anything like that.
Cork have already had a winding up order against them from revenue. I don't think they would mind too much doing that again. They didn't seem to care you had no assets the last time they tried to get their money ?
Paying less than 100% of your debts is a kick in the nuts to everyone else in this league that have to pay their bills.
As have a lot of clubs to be fair, including ourselves, coming up to licensing decision day. I'm kind of ambivalent about the 100% of the debt thing, I mean sometimes you can do a deal with a creditor whereby you can give him sponsorship or something in lieu of money. I do think 7.5% is way too low though definitely.Quote:
Originally Posted by higgins
If the creditors accept then fair enough leave them in the First Division. They will have gained a sporting edge on everyone else if the debt was cleared through 7.5%. That's not fair, certainly not worth just 10 points from a mid table team ?
Why should they have a clean slate at the start of next season ?
Clubs like shels and Longford have overspent and will go through the next few seasons paying for it! ... Working off the debts fairly.
I just think in terms of sporting competitions the FAI have the right to punish Cork for making it an unfair playing field.
We'll see what happens. Probably nothing if I know the FAI!!
Settle down Higgins, take deep breaths and think happy thoughts, it'll all be over soon :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by higgins
If they clear the wages, and revenue are happy, nothing should happen (other than any licensing issues)Quote:
Originally Posted by higgins
If Cork's creditors are happy, then thats the matter finished with.
Business doesn't work like that. Their name is now mud with businesses all over Ireland. They will not get creditQuote:
Why should they have a clean slate at the start of next season ?
And you can shove your righteous "sporting" angle too.
Don't worry, I'm not worked up about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by A face
Only worry about one club these days....
Just find some of the reaction to this strange. I also find some of the actions of Cork to be strange considering what they are facing.
One minute you are talking about just wanting a club, the next you're discussing plans for next season and what players should be brought in!! One read of your message board confirms that you're not really too interested at the end of the day. Most posts now are about teams matters, the trouble you are in has taken a back seat which is a shame.
Bit like Shels too, we're still in serious trouble yet our board is full of talk about promotion and team selection. I suppose life moves on...
I do wonder how somebody was able to get control of your club for what seems to be little or nothing ?
I mean just what is the investment valus from Tom ? Seen as he now owns a football club and is offering just 7.5% of the existing debts it would appear that he has bought in at a great time ?
and Shels creditors ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dodge
If they were happy what should have happened us ?
It's a league with 22 member clubs, you can't simply just say it's a matter for Cork. Sure why dock them the 10 points for examinership if that is the case ??
Some posters on our forum are not living in the real world, that thread about players for next season is either a WUM or an idiot.Quote:
Originally Posted by higgins
The realists amongst us are seriously worried and preparing for the First Division.
From Coughlans perspective its probably a case of why pay 100% when you can get away with payng 7.5?Quote:
Originally Posted by higgins
As he hasn't been ratified as the new owner yet and the fact that everyone involved in the Examinership process is bound to confidentiality means that not a whole lot is known about his plans for next season. (if there is to be one)
I oculdnt care less if were in the premier or first division to be honest. But an agreement between us and the creditors is just that, between us and the creditors. If they accept there is no reason to be kicked out of the league.Quote:
Originally Posted by higgins
Otherwise the entire examinership process was pointless.
:):ball:Quote:
Originally Posted by Dodge
And Higgins: If you think everyone on your forum realised what was going on while you were in trouble you are delusional.
Some people dont have a clue whats going on, some are kids.
To say we dont care is simply stupid. At this minute there is absolutely nothing we can do. The matter is in the hands of the judge
I freely admit that I don't know all the details of either case but would the difference between the Shels and Cork situations be that Shels had a (valuable) asset in Tolka Park which they could sell and use the proceeds to pay off their creditors? Cork (and Rovers previously) effectively have no assets so if their creditors insisted on being repaid all the money owed, the club would be forced to go out of business. Given the choise of x% or 0%, the creditors agreed.
Pretty much as far as I can see. Higgins doesnt seem to think the examinership process should have any affect at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Schumi
If shels had gone into examinership ye might have paid less(dunno with Tolka) but it would ahve cost ye teh title.
You know damn well that there were/are huge differences between Cork adn Shels situation. You were not demoted because you owed money to creditorsQuote:
Originally Posted by higgins
Please try and make sense. They were docked 10 points for entering examinership. If they successfully come out of examinership, you think they should face further sanctions? Seems pretty stupid to me.Quote:
It's a league with 22 member clubs, you can't simply just say it's a matter for Cork. Sure why dock them the 10 points for examinership if that is the case ??
If they face further sanctions for licensing issues, fair enough.
I really doubt it. The asset was there. The problem was liquidity. Creditors would wait.Quote:
Originally Posted by micls
possibly, I dont know how much they Tolka was worth to them at the time. We had no choice but to enter examinership, which as a process is usually going to end up with creditors accepting a portion of the amount or the club going to the wall.Quote:
Originally Posted by John83
In Higgins scenario we either go to the wall in the court or the FAI kick us out. What would the point of entering examinership ahve been.
We entered because we CANT pay the debts.
Higgins is just bitter imo, clearly ignoring basics of the process so he can spew his bile. I dont think he cares what actually happens just as long as its bad.Quote:
Originally Posted by micls
That's not true A Face...
I want Cork to survive. I'm just interested to see what makes the two cases different?
Seems to me when you get down to it that things are more or less the same.
Tolka is our asset and as such we can't very well go into examinership but from a sporting point of view things are pretty similar.
Shels built up massive debts which they couldn't really afford under Ollie.
Cork built up massive debts which they couldn't really afford under Arkaga.
Shels were left to pick up the pieces after Ollie.
Cork were left to pick up the pieces after Arkaga.
The FAI knew at the time Ollie was going to be no longer involved with Shels.
The FAI know at this time Arkaga is no longer involved with Cork.
Shels owed a few hunderd thousand to revenue and the players.
Cork owe a few hunderd thousand to revenue and the players.
Here's where things are a little different.
Shels will pay all creditors 100% of what they are owed.
Cork will pay all creditors less than 100% of what they are owed.
Shels didn't go into examinership.
Cork did go into examinership.
Our accounts with the FAI would have been all wrong, I'll grant you that. The projections made and figures would have been plucked out of the air by Ollie. I'd imagine given what has happened that Corks figures are also pretty worthless!!
And yet this is the part you are ignoring.Quote:
Originally Posted by higgins
Quite simply even after being 'screwed over' you were in a position to pay off your debts, we arent, hence examinership.
Punish us as much as is deemed necessary, relegation starting the first division on - points etc.
But to kick us out all together is just ridiculous.
If we make it through this decision, and theres a srong chance we wont, what good would kicking us out of the league do. Surely relegatione tc would be a strong enough deterent to other clubs.
I'm trying to work out how much Tom has paid to get his hands on your club ?Quote:
Originally Posted by micls
Having an owner where you had no control is what got you into this mess... Now you have an owner and no control.
I'm not interested in how much Tom will put in next season.
I was trying to work out why the fans of the club couldn't take over seen as the debts you have are slashed by 92.5% in most cases!!
All I can work out is that Tom has some promise to keep the club full time and that's great news according to your fans ??? I'm lost here trying to work it out. I will accept that reading a message board is pretty much pointless as not everything is explain in public forums. I do know that from the time of the Shels meltdown.
With the money you have made since the examinership process started you wouldn't have added much to those initial debt.
A figure of under 700K was reported in a paper yesterday ?
7.5% to 15% of that go gain control of a football club is nothing!!!
I suppose it will all come out in time so maybe I should just sit and wait for the answers..
This has nothing to do with football Higgins.
The Revenue has a responsibility of balancing the risk of businesses going to the wall versus the moral hazard in accepting such poor deals on outstanding taxes (from a Revenue perspective). Accepting 7.5% sets an expectation that businesses can get away without paying the vast majority of outstanding taxes.
For this reason I was staggered at the deal they accepted with Rovers. The UK revenue would laugh at you for this (and have laughed at Derry and others for proposing much higher amounts in the past).
Coughlan isnt interested in pumping money into the club. Basically from what I can make out he's willing to come in to help steady the ship, get things in order and make the club a self sustaining entity beofre handing it over to FORAS. Or course this could all be bull but thats what he has proposed.Quote:
Originally Posted by higgins
AFAIK we will have a share in the club(FORAS) We have been helping pay the wages and have money aside to buy shares also.
The high court said our debts were 1.3million afaik.
To be honest I think you could work at paying those debts off over the next X amount of years. I don't see why they should be wiped. Also I've already said if Players and Revenue get 100% that the First Division demotion for avoinding full payment to other creditors would be fair enough.Quote:
Originally Posted by micls
On the bit you think i'm ignoring,, I'm actually not ignoring that!!!
In fact that is the part where I think Shels come away with more credit that Cork. We ARE paying our debts off... Every week one item or another comes along and we've to pay. We're not operating on what we should be due to these old debts. It's going to be tough for years to come,, still a strong chance we'll go under too if things don't work out.
Again... I don't want Cork to go out of business. I want them to pay the debts in full if possible over time and remain in the Premier Division, that would be my preferred option.
If that was an option we wouldnt have had to go into examinership.....I trust that the examiner knows what he's doing.Quote:
Originally Posted by higgins
Why are players or Revenue more important than other creditors?Quote:
Originally Posted by higgins
Again ignoring the fact that you HAD AN ASSET with which to pay teh debts. We dont. Creditors could make a deal with ye to pay it off over so money years because they knew theyd get the money eventually.Quote:
Originally Posted by higgins
They ahve no such guarantees with us as we have no definite assets or income and therefore wouldnt ahve been happy with teh same. Hence examinership
Do you think Rovers should ahve been kicked out of he league? In what way woudl that ahve benifitted the league.