Cork City denied a licence; club to be wound up; FORAS to enter First Division

[OneRedArmy]

Unlike most people on here, I honestly don't profess to know what will happen.

To me its clear there is an incentive for the FAI to ensure there is a team in the League from Cork city (small c), in some way shape or form. Thats not in doubt.

That said, I'm not at all clear there is any incentive whatsoever for the INDEPENDENT licensing authority to fudge it. They have all professional reputations and are presumably getting paid a relatively small amount, therefore there is almost no upside and a huge potential downside (their reputation) to them not following the process.

[pineapple stu]

Unlike most people on here, I honestly don't profess to know what will happen.

Anyone who says they know what'll happen here is lying.

Even on the Cork forum, there's a post at 9am this morning saying the documents for the due diligence haven't arrived.

I do think though that you're overstating how independent the ILC are, and how little people outside the LoI care what happens. I can't imagine many people getting a new accountant because their current one, Mr P Smith, gave Cork a licence. I was also amused by how many times the word "Independent" appears in FAI press releases (think the acronym is rarely used because we have to know the Independent Licencing Committee is Independent)

If the window closes on Monday, Cork are screwed anyway with hardly any players signed (at least until the mid-season transfer window anyway). It seems possible that the best thing for FORAS to do is to withdraw from the takeover, accept a First Division licence from the FAI and spend the coming week trying to put together some sort of competitive team.

[Longfordian]

If they were following their own process they shouldn't be taking into account a takeover that may or may not happen in the future. It's been said many times by those involved in the process when seeking to justify their decisions that the Licence is almost a snapshot of how a club's affairs look on a particular date and they can only go on what's submitted.

[blackholesun]

But as a Foras member my over-riding duty is to the saving of my club. If the club gets a premier license the consortium takes over. If not Foras runs a club in the first. There may be further penalties and conditions but to be honest that's up to the FAI's licensing process.

The consortium seem to me to be chancing their arm here and playing the kinda games that TNB has been playing ... cant blaim them for chancing their arm but it is a bit cheeky!

In my opinion, I think the long term future of CCFC would best be served by a spell in the first division under the control of Foras where they can rebuild properly from scratch.

bhs

[Dodge]

Fair point ORA, but the licensing committee, are basically only there to rubber stamp the FAI's decision. The FAI informed clubs last week of their "likely" verdict, and AFAIK the licensing committee have not once gone against the FAI's "projection"

[derm]

The consortium seem to me to be chancing their arm here and playing the kinda games that TNB has been playing ... cant blaim them for chancing their arm but it is a bit cheeky!

In my opinion, I think the long term future of CCFC would best be served by a spell in the first division under the control of Foras where they can rebuild properly from scratch.

bhs

There's no point in taking over the debts if no license is to awarded, and it appears that the license application is failing on the financial side; so insisting on a premier license is more of a gun to Tom's head than the FAI imo, especially as a premier license is no guarantee of premier status.

As to what's best, the remaining time makes it difficult for either option. Team, sponsors, manager (?), coaches, training ground, pitch, etc etc will have to be found or renegotiated with, plus thousands of of other details that have yet to be thought of. In the premier there's a chance that the players that Shoddy has sniffing around may sign, they may not in the first. Given the amount to be done in such a short time I think it a real possibility that we could be fighting relegation in the first.

[tippex]

There's no point in taking over the debts if no license is to awarded, and it appears that the license application is failing on the financial side; so insisting on a premier license is more of a gun to Tom's head than the FAI imo, especially as a premier license is no guarantee of premier status.

As to what's best, the remaining time makes it difficult for either option. Team, sponsors, manager (?), coaches, training ground, pitch, etc etc will have to be found or renegotiated with, plus thousands of of other details that have yet to be thought of. In the premier there's a chance that the players that Shoddy has sniffing around may sign, they may not in the first. Given the amount to be done in such a short time I think it a real possibility that we could be fighting relegation in the first.

Derm your points above also apply to us.
ok maybe not on the manager/training ground end of things but certainly on the sponsors and players.

With our current squad we would be cannon fodder in the premier and we would need to sign about 6 decent players to be competitive in the premier. We cannot do this until we know what division we are playing in.
Also it is tough securing sponsors at the best of times but I'm sure there are sponsors who would be happy to be on board if we were in the premier but less so if we are in the first.

[pineapple stu]

There's no point in taking over the debts if no license is to awarded

So why isn't the takeover pending the receipt of any licence? Why specify a Premier licence?

[centre mid]

Its my understanding that we have been planning all along and budgeting for first division football, the club was always going to get a premier licence but of course that doesnt qualify you to play in the premier divison. Its galling the situation that presents itself that the governing body cant make a deadline and stick to it and it make a mockery of not only the licencing process but of the league in general. The fai were applaueded for the way they handled the Derry contracts but have again lost a good chunk of credibility with these last few weeks have panned out. There has been little if any communication from them (presume that clubs were being kept up to date unoffically).

[dcfcsteve]

Why don't FORAS just bring the whole farce to an end now - withdraw their support from the existing CCFC on the grounds of the ongoing impasse, let it collapse, and then start afresh in the Firs Division with a democratic fan-owned club ?

Yes - it may mean creditors not getting honoured, but there's a strong possibility of that not happening anyway with the current never-ending brinkmanship saga, so what's the deifference ? Plus - the 'new' Cork City could do what the new DCFC did and voluntarily seek to honour some of the old club's financial commitments anyway.

As for European football - the club will be a shell if it gets that far, so is in danger of putting in a 1980's LOI performance anyway.

I know the usual heads will whinge about what happened about City, but at least what happened to our club happened quickly and everyone was able to move on. The Cork farce was already months old when our problems came out, and months later the zombie corpse is still staggering on headless whilst our situation is long sorted.

[yiddo]

Why don't FORAS just bring the whole farce to an end now - withdraw their support from the existing CCFC on the grounds of the ongoing impasse, let it collapse, and then start afresh in the Firs Division with a democratic fan-owned club ?

Yes - it may mean creditors not getting honoured, but there's a strong possibility of that not happening anyway with the current never-ending brinkmanship saga, so what's the deifference ? Plus - the 'new' Cork City could do what the new DCFC did and voluntarily seek to honour some of the old club's financial commitments anyway.

As for European football - the club will be a shell if it gets that far, so is in danger of putting in a 1980's LOI performance anyway.

I know the usual heads will whinge about what happened about City, but at least what happened to our club happened quickly and everyone was able to move on. The Cork farce was already months old when our problems came out, and months later the zombie corpse is still staggering on headless whilst our situation is long sorted.

#

FORAS board of management can't withdraw without a mandate from the FORAS members. The mandate the b.o.m. was gven last Friday night to ener into a consortium wih O'Connel and Grey still stands.

[kid creole]

Seems like your spitting the dummy unless you get prem football , a guy over on btid kinda sums up th foras attitude when he said

Because it would make no sense whatsoever to buy a club that's not guaranteed a Premier Division licence, when we could take up our First Division licence, without the added debt.

[dcfcsteve]

#

FORAS board of management can't withdraw without a mandate from the FORAS members. The mandate the b.o.m. was gven last Friday night to ener into a consortium wih O'Connel and Grey still stands.

That throws up more questons than it answers though to be honest.

- What mandate from the members did the FORAS BoM have beforehand ? If none, why didn't they seek one earlier ? This has been going on for months.
- FORAS have had a league application in since approx November (?) so the possibility of setting-up a fan-run club has been live since then. Why hasn't it been progressed in the meantime from concept to reality ? It seems that FORAS have been hoping that everything would just work out with the current club, and the fan-run idea was only a doomsday scenario. Events have suggested it may have been better treated as a runner from the start.
- I'm sure the FORAS membership voted on whatever mandates were presented to them by the BoM. Therefore - whilst it's easy to say 'this is the membership mandate', I suspect it was a mandate that the BoM actively proposed/sought. If so - then it's their own mandate. If not - what were the circumstances behind that mandate ?

As I said, more questions than answers.

[dcfcsteve]

Seems like your spitting the dummy unless you get prem football , a guy over on btid kinda sums up th foras attitude when he said

So it's all a gamble to keep Premier Division football ? Regardless of the damage being caused to the existing club in the pursuit of that aim ?

Derry City found a lot of new goodwill emerged locally once the old Wellvan club was killed-off. It would probably have been the same with a swift euthanasia of the old Cork and a focus on a new fan-run one. But it's difficult to think of any good that has come out of the saga of last few months for Cork City to be honest, and it's probably just alienated some natural goodwill locally.

[yiddo]

That throws up more questons than it answers though to be honest.

- What mandate from the members did the FORAS BoM have beforehand ? If none, why didn't they seek one earlier ? This has been going on for months.
- FORAS have had a league application in since approx November (?) so the possibility of setting-up a fan-run club has been live since then. Why hasn't it been progressed in the meantime from concept to reality ? It seems that FORAS have been hoping that everything would just work out with the current club, and the fan-run idea was only a doomsday scenario. Events have suggested it may have been better treated as a runner from the start.
- I'm sure the FORAS membership voted on whatever mandates were presented to them by the BoM. Therefore - whilst it's easy to say 'this is the membership mandate', I suspect it was a mandate that the BoM actively proposed/sought. If so - then it's their own mandate. If not - what were the circumstances behind that mandate ?

As I said, more questions than answers.

the offer to join the consortium only came on Tuesday last week. On Friday night we voted on several other motions relating to the setting up of a foras run div 1 club but that option has always been a fallback position if the current club failed to get a licence. As for the BOMs position on the consortium just like the rest of the members some are in favour and some are against. I know of at least 2 who like me voted against it and would have prefered to go down the totally run supporters club in division 1.

[tippex]

the offer to join the consortium only came on Tuesday last week. On Friday night we voted on several other motions relating to the setting up of a foras run div 1 club but that option has always been a fallback position if the current club failed to get a licence. As for the BOMs position on the consortium just like the rest of the members some are in favour and some are against. I know of at least 2 who like me voted against it and would have prefered to go down the totally run supporters club in division 1.

Yiddo just out of interest are you in a position to give details on the percentage that voted in favour?

[yiddo]

Yiddo just out of interest are you in a position to give details on the percentage that voted in favour?

was sitting at the back of the room and thought it was slightly over 2 to 1 in favour.

[HammerNThongs]

was sitting at the back of the room and thought it was slightly over 2 to 1 in favour.

I would have said about the same. Perhaps a little more.

[passerrby]

I may be missing something, but admidst all the wailing and gnashing of teeth, didn't Celdrog provide the closest to an "answer" as to why the Licensing Committee deferred their decision (a quote from the Licensing Manual that allowed for deferral where a particular issue was sub judice).

Clearly if natural justice, fairness and equality ruled, TNB would have tarred and feathered a long time ago, BUT it is standard practice, where something is sub judice, for an administrative process to defer decisioning until the legal process has run its course. You may not like it, but it is the way things work in most areas, not just sports. Administrative rules are subservient to the law and everyone has a right to due process, no matter how repulsive their actions are (i.e. Tom).

This thread is full of experts on the Licensing process many of whom I guarantee couldn't find the Licensing manual, never mind profess to know it. I've known people who've sat on the Independent Licensing Committee and they are that, independent professionals who have nothing to gain by fudging or taking a decision that favours one party or another.

Cor city have broken more rules and deadlines than a pakistan traindriver this delay is nothing more than a attempt to keep cork in premier football and to ensure some creditors get there mone back i would not impune the integraty of the licence committe but i dont belkieve anything in abbotstown is independant.
if this was any number of clubs other than the super six they would have been gone.

[micls]

- What mandate from the members did the FORAS BoM have beforehand ? If none, why didn't they seek one earlier ? This has been going on for months.

Previous mandates were to withdraw support for Coughlan and to apply for the first division licence
-

FORAS have had a league application in since approx November (?) so the possibility of setting-up a fan-run club has been live since then. Why hasn't it been progressed in the meantime from concept to reality ? It seems that FORAS have been hoping that everything would just work out with the current club, and the fan-run idea was only a doomsday scenario. Events have suggested it may have been better treated as a runner from the start.

It was made very clear from the start that the FORAS licence application was a fallback. That said, all the work needed to get a licence and to be ready if granted the licence all still had to be done.

Weve never claimed otherwise than to hope it worked out for the current entity, that was always our number one aim, as per our rules.

- I'm sure the FORAS membership voted on whatever mandates were presented to them by the BoM. Therefore - whilst it's easy to say 'this is the membership mandate', I suspect it was a mandate that the BoM actively proposed/sought. If so - then it's their own mandate. If not - what were the circumstances behind that mandate ?

Rubbish.

When a proposal is put to the BOM it is then put to members.

The deal was presented to members in a completely unbiased way and explained by someone with a legal background.
Then a member of the BOM spoke for the deal and another member of the BOM spoke against.
The floor was open to discussion and that continued for hours.

In the end it was voted on and some of the BOM voted for, some against and some abstained, like all the other members.