Petition to wind up: Cork City Investment FC Ltd

**higgins** · 17/06/2009, 2:41 PM

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 ?

**Dodge** · 17/06/2009, 2:41 PM

Originally Posted by higgins

The FAI won't touch any of the big clubs apart from Shels.

makes me smile

**A face** · 17/06/2009, 3:26 PM

Originally Posted by higgins

Are Cork able to sign players at the moment ?

Yeah, we are. Why wouldn't we though? All our issues are with the tax man not the 65% rule.

**Mr A** · 17/06/2009, 3:36 PM

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.

**pete** · 17/06/2009, 4:25 PM

Originally Posted by higgins

The FAI won't touch any of the big clubs.

Fixed that.

**higgins** · 18/06/2009, 5:02 PM

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!

**Martinho II** · 18/06/2009, 5:25 PM

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?

**Hairy Bowsie** · 19/06/2009, 9:07 AM

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.

**pineapple stu** · 19/06/2009, 9:30 AM

Originally Posted by Martinho II

didnt realise higgins that ye had to pay back 100% of their wages. what happened?

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.

**Martinho II** · 19/06/2009, 9:33 AM

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

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.

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.

**pete** · 19/06/2009, 9:53 AM

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

Shels like to play the martyr...

Agreed, the 'we paid back everyone line' is getting tiring now.

**Real ale Madrid** · 19/06/2009, 10:31 AM

Gives them a hell of a lot more credibility than any of the clubs who hide behind administration.

**pineapple stu** · 19/06/2009, 10:34 AM

Don't think they wouldn't have hidden behind it if they had a chance.

**dcfcsteve** · 19/06/2009, 10:58 AM

Originally Posted by SeanDrog

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.

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.......

**passinginterest** · 19/06/2009, 11:35 AM

Originally Posted by dcfcsteve

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?

**John83** · 19/06/2009, 12:05 PM

Originally Posted by passinginterest

Presumably into Government or head of Anglo Irish Bank?

Coughlan for NAMA!

**Macy** · 19/06/2009, 1:33 PM

Originally Posted by Real ale Madrid

Gives them a hell of a lot more credibility than any of the clubs who hide behind administration.

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.