No. Afaik its just the people we currently have sell on clauses with i.e. Doyle, Long, Bennett and O Donovan.Originally Posted by BulmersKid
They are unlikely to be sold for enough to cover 100%(or at all in some cases)
It's 50% of the sell-on clause on players we've already sold only, for as long as those sell-on clauses are active. No time period, if Doyle is sold tomorrow 50% goes to creditors, if he's sold in 10 years time 50% goes to creditors.
Creditors have agreed to accept 7.5% and 50% of sell-on clauses now held, the amount of their money that they receive will vary, we are not required to pay all the money back, the credtors have agreed this.
What do you mean by legally binding?
Cork City applied for protection under examership, and through that legally process they are able to present new arrangements with their creditors, exactly when are the FAI expected to 'go after them'? (please give a date.)
To reaffirm, the examinership decision by the Irish High Court trumps an agreement between two parties.
Regarding Liam Brady/FAI and Arkaga it is both normal and usual for employees of the FAI to be involved with League of Ireland clubs.
" I'll go right up to here,
it can't possibly hurt.
All they will find is my
beer and my shirt."
Are you joking here ?
You seriously think you don't have the ability to pay off those debts over time ?
You will have income of some sort,, cutting the expenditure by X amount will leave you with cash to pay those debts.
It is true that most of our debts will be paid off by the ground sale when it is eventually complete but it's not like we won't pay for it ?? We'll be left with next to nothing to go find another ground.
Also, we have had to pay off a lot of the debts from before 2006 already. In order to continue to trade we had to pay certain companies what we owed so as they would continue to deal with us. That money came from income through the 2007 and 2008 seasons. If we didn't have to do that we'd have had that bit extra to put into the playing side of the club and would probably be more than +1 goal away from Dundalk...
You've gained a sporting advantage this season by out spending teams that will finish below you in the table. You will also gain a sporting advantage next year when you start with a clean balance sheet yet other teams won't. The FAI simply have to punish this sort of behaviour as it is unfair on other clubs.
It's simply not true that you couldn't pay off those debts over time.
Last edited by higgins; 18/10/2008 at 12:07 PM.
John Delaney!! GET OUT!!!
www.ssdg.ie
Depends on who 'you' is Higgins.
Arkaga could have cleared the debt if Gerard Walsh had sold a few of his trinkets, like the Bentley he sent to collect Alan Mathews the last time they met, Walsh is reported worth 500million.
When Arkaga refused to put any more money into the club, there wasn't enough money coming in to cover day to day running nevermind historical debt, and just to get through people were laid off and the remaining staff took a 70% paycut.
The point of the examinership process is to give the business an opportunity to steady itself without the threat of legal action by creditors, which is the stage we were at, our application for examinership could have been denied and we would have been put into receivership but it was approved and we've managed to strike a bargain with creditors and don't forget that the deal we've struck could well end up paying off our debts over time.
Once again, what Shels have done and are doing is completely irrelevant, it's a completely different situtation. We didn't and don't have any assets bar player contracts from which our players could walk away from due to our failure to pay them. You chose not to go down the examinership route, if we, rovers and drogs can use what is a procedure run through the High Court to get ourselves back on our feet, we have to do it, if it ends up working out better for us than the procedure you chose to go down, that was down to your own choice (which was the right one for you as you probably wouldn't have gotten a creditor deal, have gone into receivership and have Tolka sold from under you).
As for further punishment, you'll see that most of us are readying ourselves for it and will accept it when it comes, we may well be in the first division next season, we still have significant hurdles to get through.
As to the unfair advantage over other clubs, I agree with you, but it's a different issue to that regarding repaying creditors. I've repeatedly said on our own forum that if UCD are relegated it'll be a disgrace, all the teams around them and particularly ourselves and Drogs have pulled strokes and gained advantages and should drop before a club that is well run is made to suffer. That's for the licensing committee and the FAI however, and we're obviously not going to volunteer to relegated ourselves.
The other side of it is that we had a bunch of *****s running our club into the ground and now that we've managed to get rid of them, and now that the FAI have failed to pursue them properly, it seems harsh to us (like it did to Rovers before us) that we and our new owner would be punished after the event. [Drogs are differnet in that respect because the people who got them into the mess want to retain control].
Well said tiktok..
About time someone said it like it is, Fair play to you.
Ragarding the legal process you went through open to business, I've no problem with you getting the business back on track. However, you're the first person here to openly say you gained an unfair sporting advantage over other clubs. Most here fail to see the difference between the two. The FAI are there to punish those who gain an unfair sporting advantage. I think you're Premier Division place is safe enough with them!!
May I remind you that Ollie Byrne was at deaths door when the FAI decided to allow us play in the First Division. It was very clear Ollie wasn't going to make it and even if he did his condition was so serious that he'd have nothing to do with the club ever again. A change in owner didn't have any effect on the Shels situation.
It seems harsh to you that you may be punished ??
It was and is harsh on us that we were punished but what can we do ?
The FAI have to punish the club involved. They can't really take the ownership into the equation can they? They didn't with us so why would it be any different with Cork?
By the way....
Rovers were not punished so I'm fully expecting Cork to get away with it and Drogheda too.
John Delaney!! GET OUT!!!
www.ssdg.ie
Don't get me wrong, it seems harsh, but I know we'll deserve what we get.
I think an important difference between our two clubs' situations was that we all know that Ollie always acted with Shels foremost in his heart. Arkaga owned us for 18 months and made a royal mess of it, but ultimately they didn't give a flying ****, when the going got even slightly tough, they ran (when they could have comfortably covered the debts with two weeks interest on Gerard Walsh's reported worth). In my head, these are Arkaga's debts (which they'd agreed to underwrite but later reneged on that) and Arkaga's mistakes, though I know legally (and in terms of punishment) no distinction can be made.
Whatever comes our way, we'll take it.
In the long run it may serve us and the league as a whole well.
Some very tough times ahead, I wouldn't be as confident as you that we'll be in the Premier next season.
Last edited by tiktok; 19/10/2008 at 12:14 PM.
maybe you and I know that if someone else took over eventually we may have paid off the debts. However what guarantees would the creditors have had of this? We had nothing to guarantee it against. They were not happy to wait and do this as Arkaga did not look like they had any interest in paying them.Are you joking here ?
You seriously think you don't have the ability to pay off those debts over time ?
The creditors were on the brink of liquidating us therefore examinership was our ONLY option.
Once that had started no one was willing to come in and take over debts Arkaga had decided they didnt want. The normal process of examinership went ahead i.e. making deals with creditors. if this hadnt happened(the 7.5%) coughlan wouldnt have gotten involved and the club would be gone bust now. FORAS didnt have the money to cover the debts or to guarantee them.
So again, paying off the debts over time was not an option
Well if Shels don't go up this year I'll hope that the FAI do the wrong thing and keep you in the Premier
I've also thought about the senario if you do go down along with Drogheda. Shels (assuming we don't go up) will be paying off old debts even next season and therefore won't have the ability to spend that bit extra on the players. Yet Cork and drogheda may drop in and have no debt and play on as normal?
Hardly seems fair either...
John Delaney!! GET OUT!!!
www.ssdg.ie
Correct me if I'm wrong but for the examinership process to be a success the Creditors would of had to agree to the proposal put to them i.e. they agreed to 7.5% now.
If they agreed to 7.5% now then I take it they would have agreed to 10% each season for the next 10 seasons ? That would have been about 100K per season? I know for a fact you could comfortably take that from your managers yearly salary and still hire a good LOI manager with the leftovers.
You went into examinership because Arkaga put you into examinership not because you couldn't make long term arrangments with creditors.
I've no problem with you clearing your debts as a business. However, you've gained an advantage over a lot of other clubs in the process and you'll carry that advantage into next season.
John Delaney!! GET OUT!!!
www.ssdg.ie
Shelbourne were stupid enough to leave the ground in their name, so that's tough. It's quite common in business to move property (ground, shop, etc) into a director's name or another company's name precisely so it's untouchable if things go wrong. Can we move on please?
Proving yet again you know nothing of the Shelbourne situation.
Before we do move on (a conversation between myself and others not involving you) can you post up a brief history of the Tolka Park situation ??? I'd be very interested to know what happened ???
John Delaney!! GET OUT!!!
www.ssdg.ie
Ah yes, the old refutal through hinting you know stuff, not through actually knowing stuff.
(Technically, they left the lease in their name, not the ground. Same difference when it comes to the actual point).
As I said, can we move on please? The last page of this thread has been you moaning about the same thing.
I didn't make any claims Stu, you did...
When I asked for more information you couldn't give it. Same old rubbish with you. Do you have any more information on Tolka Park ?
As for moving on,, Are we running out of cyberspace or something ??? Seems you decided to get involved in this conversation. If it's not interesting you then maybe you shouldn't post ?
John Delaney!! GET OUT!!!
www.ssdg.ie
Because we went into examinership Tom Coughlan is involved, the creditors were willing to trust him that they will get the 7.5%.
Had we not gone into examinership Arkaga would still be in charge and had said they were under no condition putting in more money.
Coughlan would not have gotten involved if we had to pay 100% and we'd have gone bust.
micls, I love the way you're able to substitute Cork City FC with Arkaga and Tom Coughlan.
You see Cork City FC could have approached creditors and offered longer term restructured deals. You choose not to and went into examinership. Arkaga were Cork City.
Bit like Shels saying all that went wrong with Shels was Ollie Byrne and he's gone now so really we couldn't do anything.
I think were we disagree is that you seem to see Cork, Arkaga and now Tom as all very different.
It's all Cork City to me. Just because your previous owners were unwilling to restructure debts does not mean you couldn't.
Ollie Byrne was unwilling to cut expenditure despite being told to on many occasions by many people. Shelbourne still deserved to get punished for his actions as he was the owner of Shelbourne FC.
John Delaney!! GET OUT!!!
www.ssdg.ie
Higgins who at Cork City was supposed to go and offer this deal exactly? It may sem all the one to you and fair enough but were talking about practicalities here.
Arkaga owned our club. They refused to put any money in our make any deal with the creditors to pay it off long term. Arkaga were Cork City at the time, they owned us they ran us. I completely agree they SHOULD have agreed to pay off the debts over time but they didnt, had no interest and doing so would have seen the club go to the wall before doing so.
With the stuff coming out about Walsh and Arkaga they're bigger conmen than we ever knew.
They/Cork City whatever you want to call it pulled out and refused to pay any more money. No city fan is going to disagree that they should have.
You say we could have. How exactly? We didnt own the club. How exactly could we organise paying stuff off from a club we had no ownership of?
Where did I say we didnt deserve to be punished?
Higgins,
There is a distinction because Arkaga was a completely separate trading entity, one that CCFC formed a miniscule part of, and in this respect funds available was a distinction, Cork city were making a loss week on week at the time. Arkaga could have paid off all the creditors including the revenue in full without making the slighest dent to their finances, if our owners had been interesting in putting together a realistic budget and trimming costs, we would certainly have been able to organise a staggered payment of all debts, but once it became clear that Arkaga would put no more money in, the creditors, kept at bay until then started to agressively look for money owed (and that wasn't there).
If your argument is that 'we should have paid all our creditors in full' you'll get no argument from a single Cork City fan, of course we should have.
We can do little about the path that Cork City (for the record it was Cork City CEO Pat Kenny who applied for examinership) chose to follow.
As for the comment about taking 100k of Alan Mathews salary, we couldn't (I'd wager now can't) afford that salary either, so it's not like it was spare cash we had lying around, the budget all our outgoings were based on was fantastical and completely unsustainable.
Last edited by tiktok; 21/10/2008 at 3:16 PM.
Mathews was not on 100k btw
Should have and could have was my argument. They choose not to and you are left to deal with it. Ollie choose not to stop spending every single cent he could get his hands on and we're left to deal with it.
Therefore I think you should be punished for gaining an unsporting advantage. Had you agreed with all creditors to pay them off over time (take 20 years if you like) then I'd 100% back your right to stay in the premier.
I agree with what you have said on this by the way. I just micls is kind of defending the actions of Cork City FC.
John Delaney!! GET OUT!!!
www.ssdg.ie
Posting Permissions
Quote
Bookmarks