Petition to wind up: Cork City Investment FC Ltd

**p�l-dcfc** · 13/05/2009, 4:16 PM

Originally Posted by sonofstan

No they didn't - they negotiated an option to buy, subject to lots of things: he money they paid us was to secure that exclusive interest. (and they're not 'funding' us at the moment either)

In the accounts that were leaked a while back, did it not show �1m from Danninger? And was this payment not made again this season? I'm not posting this in an arsey way, but that's what I have gleaned from the stuff I've seen.

With regards to the option to buy, why were Bohs fans running about when the deal was announced as if they had won the Lotto?

**pete** · 13/05/2009, 4:21 PM

Threads merged.

Not 100% sure of the deal secured coming out of Examinership. I think we had to pay 15% but not sure if in installments or not.

**Longfordian** · 13/05/2009, 4:47 PM

Ah anybody who's anybody in this league has at least been threatened with being wound up at some stage!. Pay the money and you'll be fine but I wouldn't bank on them agreeing to any instalments too easily.

**MariborKev** · 13/05/2009, 4:57 PM

Originally Posted by Dodge

If they're not paid, and cork haven't kept to any agreements that may be in place, then yes they can do that

Exactly Dodge,

Cork will struggle with this one if they haven't keep to the agreed payment schedule,which the petition would indicate they haven't.
- The Revenue will push a lot harder and Cork will have used up whatever goodwill they have
- The judge will look upon any breach unfavourably.

**Dodge** · 13/05/2009, 5:14 PM

Particularly as this is the 2nd winding up order served in 3 years, and in between was an Examinership

**thesilverfox** · 13/05/2009, 6:37 PM

what are the odds of survival?

**eamo1** · 13/05/2009, 6:59 PM

Is'nt there more stringent and strick penalties this year for any club that goes up the creek moneywise?Its not just a big pts deduction but transfer embargo or instant demotion.
Hopefully they pull through,they always seem to.

**sheao** · 13/05/2009, 7:50 PM

Club statement:

Cork City Football Club wish to confirm that the club is currently in negotiation with the Revenue regarding the club’s tax liabilities. When the club emerged from Examinership, a settlement was reached with Revenue. Additional tax liabilities subsequently emerged which result from the club’s previous ownership, and the club is currently addressing this matter with Revenue in a bid to bring the issue to a swift and successful conclusion. The fact that these liabilities have arisen subsequent to the Examinership is an issue which the club intends to pursue with the Examiners. The club’s legal and financial advisers intend to meet with the Revenue as a matter of urgency in order to come to an agreement with regard to our current tax liabilities.

Having successfully emerged from the Examinership, Cork City Football Club has embarked on a rebuilding programme in order to create a sustainable club which is grounded in the community and is capable of achieving success on and off the pitch. While the first team is currently enjoying an excellent run and is now joint top of the League of Ireland Premier Division, the current economic conditions have meant that the goals set by the club off the field are taking longer to achieve than was originally foreseen.

While income levels have proved to be less than were originally projected, the club is working hard to address this shortfall. Cork City Football Club is this year celebrating its 25th anniversary, and the club is working hard at every level to build a sustainable, successful club of which Cork city and county can be proud. This Friday night, Cork City FC face Derry City at Turner’s Cross in a top of the table clash, where the passion and commitment of the Rebel Army will once again be on show. Cork City Football Club is confident that any short-term problems affecting the club will be overcome as a result of the determination and ability of the club and its supporters, and that a bright and successful future lies ahead for the club.

**p�l-dcfc** · 13/05/2009, 7:54 PM

Less than reassuring. Sounds like a load of waffle to be honest.

Additional tax liabilities subsequently emerged which result from the club�s previous ownership

Followed by

The fact that these liabilities have arisen subsequent to the Examinership is an issue which the club intends to pursue with the Examiners

How does that make sense? Maybe I'm not reading it right.

**KianD** · 13/05/2009, 8:01 PM

Originally Posted by p�l-dcfc

How does that make sense? Maybe I'm not reading it right.

They're going to try and get the examiners to explain why those tax debts weren't deal with at the time of examinership. I think.

**Mr A** · 13/05/2009, 8:04 PM

Blaming the examiner?

That's weak. Powerful weak.

**p�l-dcfc** · 13/05/2009, 8:12 PM

Originally Posted by KianD

They're going to try and get the examiners to explain why those tax debts weren't deal with at the time of examinership. I think.

It seems to contradict itself. How can liabilities arising post-examinership be blamed on the previous regime?

**A N Mouse** · 13/05/2009, 8:25 PM

Originally Posted by p�l-dcfc

It seems to contradict itself. How can liabilities arising post-examinership be blamed on the previous regime?

Think they're trying to claim that these liabilities, from the previous regime, only came to light after the examinership process. Which doesn't sound good, whether you accept it at face value or not.

More worrying is when they touch on current finances. Economic conditions... yada yada... shortfall. We know they've been been paying people late, but has the taxman been getting paid on time?

**MariborKev** · 13/05/2009, 8:31 PM

Pol,

The Examiner runs the company whilst in charge.

Therefore when he would have presented Coughlan with a picture of the state of the company including tax liabilities etc. I was reading it that additional liabilities, over and above those shown by the Examiner have now emerged. Therefore Coughlan will be arguing that the Examiner didn't present him with a true picture when he looked at buying the club ergo that he can't be blamed.

However it is still worrying for the Cork fans. I'd assume the Revenue work the same as the HRMC in that they don't slap a petition on you as their first option, they write to you and look for meetings to resolve the issue. The fact that the Revenue have gone the route of the petition means that there has been no resolution.

Dunno how the rest of you see it, but from that statement it would appear that Cork will still have to pay it, but the semantics relate to whether the Examiner may be liable for it and Coughlan could potentially recover damages(equal to the liabilitiy plus more) from the Examiner.

As Mr A says, it is a dangerous game to play. This examiner has overseen examinership of LOI clubs before so they'd know where to look.

**Dodge** · 13/05/2009, 8:39 PM

Originally Posted by Maribor

I'd assume the Revenue work the same as the HRMC in that they don't slap a petition on you, they write to you and look for meetings to resolve the issue. The fact that the Revenue have gone the route of the petition means that there has been no resolution.

Without knowing the facts about the Cork case, it is usually the case that Revenue seek a winding up order as a last resort, after trying to arrange payment schemes/meetings etc etc

**Umberside** · 13/05/2009, 9:34 PM

I've heard so many things now that I can't possibly get worried.

Already this season there was the "Cork City likely to fold" thread which claimed that Coughlan was gone after the Galway game, there was the Danny Murphy's wages thing at the end of March so I really can't be expected to fear this new worry.

Obviously it has to be sorted out, but I think that's just what will happen.

**p�l-dcfc** · 13/05/2009, 9:52 PM

Originally Posted by Umberside

I've heard so many things now that I can't possibly get worried.

Already this season there was the "Cork City likely to fold" thread which claimed that Coughlan was gone after the Galway game, there was the Danny Murphy's wages thing at the end of March so I really can't be expected to fear this new worry.

Obviously it has to be sorted out, but I think that's just what will happen.

The difference between the earlier rumours and this, is that a petition has been submitted to wind up the club. This is official. I hope the money is found - if it's not I wouldn't expect the judge to offer the club any leniency.

**sligoman** · 13/05/2009, 9:55 PM

I'm fed up of all these stories about Cork now...where do I sign this petition?

**peadar1987** · 13/05/2009, 10:38 PM

You don't need a petition to wind them up, just call them a bunch of classless savages from beyond the Pale. That usually does the trick!

**pete** · 13/05/2009, 10:47 PM

Originally Posted by Maribor

Pol,

The Examiner runs the company whilst in charge.

Therefore when he would have presented Coughlan with a picture of the state of the company including tax liabilities etc. I was reading it that additional liabilities, over and above those shown by the Examiner have now emerged. Therefore Coughlan will be arguing that the Examiner didn't present him with a true picture when he looked at buying the club ergo that he can't be blamed.

However it is still worrying for the Cork fans. I'd assume the Revenue work the same as the HRMC in that they don't slap a petition on you as their first option, they write to you and look for meetings to resolve the issue. The fact that the Revenue have gone the route of the petition means that there has been no resolution.

Dunno how the rest of you see it, but from that statement it would appear that Cork will still have to pay it, but the semantics relate to whether the Examiner may be liable for it and Coughlan could potentially recover damages(equal to the liabilitiy plus more) from the Examiner.

As Mr A says, it is a dangerous game to play. This examiner has overseen examinership of LOI clubs before so they'd know where to look.

I think that is a reasonable assessment. Itsd all very complicated. Hopefully it is a case of the club unwilling to pay the money as it disagrees with the liability as opposed to being unable to pay the money.