Mathews gone

**gufct** · 09/12/2008, 11:56 AM

Isnt there also a certain matter of Gareth Farrellys wages lurking over Cork too. Looks like Mr. Coughlan might have bitten off more than he can chew.

**micls** · 09/12/2008, 11:59 AM

On our forum that we may not be liable for compensation because of examinership.

If so then this makes sense as he is on big money we probably cant afford. Although very harsh on Alan

**adamd164** · 09/12/2008, 12:03 PM

No compensation due cos we're a company exiting examinership, not legally obliged to honour contracts offered by previous owners.

**Dodge** · 09/12/2008, 12:12 PM

hmmm, you might wanna check that one out

**Longfordian** · 09/12/2008, 12:16 PM

I dont think that's the case to be honest especially as you honoured the contract post exmainership and evidently tried to renegotiate it. Why do that if you weren't bound by it?. It could have Licencing consequences too. It's defintely an arguable case from Mathews' point of view. If you intend to pay your players their back money you're going to have to pay him too.

**Dodge** · 09/12/2008, 12:26 PM

AFAIk if he was being paid post examinership, there's sucha thing called "implied contract" which basically menas that although he didn't sign anything he could reasonably expect that a contract was in place. Nearly certain this came up with another manager in the last couple of years

**Real ale Madrid** · 09/12/2008, 12:28 PM

i thought he had only one year left on his contract?

Re-negotiating his old contract was surely being done in order to come to some agreement on what the club could realistically afford. There's no way the club will be able to pay his existing contract and im sure under the terms of the examinership they won't be obliged to pay the terms of the old contract either. Why should Coughlan have to pay for a contract he did not negotiate?

Feel desperatly sorry for Matthews but on the upside he should have no problem getting another job fairly quickly.

**Longfordian** · 09/12/2008, 12:28 PM

Yep, spot on Dodge. An employment contract doesn't have to be in writing either. It's not cut and dried from Cork's point of view at all as far as I can see.

**pineapple stu** · 09/12/2008, 12:28 PM

Originally Posted by Dodge

there's sucha thing called "implied contract" which basically menas that although he didn't sign anything he could reasonably expect that a contract was in place.

I'd imagine Bohs could fill you in on it.

**Real ale Madrid** · 09/12/2008, 12:29 PM

Originally Posted by Dodge

AFAIk if he was being paid post examinership, there's sucha thing called "implied contract" which basically menas that although he didn't sign anything he could reasonably expect that a contract was in place. Nearly certain this came up with another manager in the last couple of years

He was being paid, but not fully in terms of the contract he originally signed afaik. All employees were being paid 30% at one stage and im sure Mathews was the same.

**Longfordian** · 09/12/2008, 12:36 PM

Have they not been on full pay since Coughlan took over?. Anyhow, Mathews would have plenty of connections in the legal business, I'd expect to be hearing from some of them shortly if I were Cork City.

**Dodge** · 09/12/2008, 12:46 PM

Originally Posted by Real ale Madrid

Why should Coughlan have to pay for a contract he did not negotiate?

Why is he allowed pick and choose which of Cork's responsibilities he wishes to fulfill

**Real ale Madrid** · 09/12/2008, 12:54 PM

Originally Posted by Dodge

Why is he allowed pick and choose which of Cork's responsibilities he wishes to fulfill

He isn't doing that as far as i know - all contracts are being negotiated to come up with a deal that is affordable and sustainable to everyone going forward. He is not picking and choosing. No one is getting paid the same money as of when Arkaga was in charge. Not Matthews, not anyone.

**tiktok** · 09/12/2008, 12:58 PM

Originally Posted by Longfordian

I dont think that's the case to be honest especially as you honoured the contract post exmainership and evidently tried to renegotiate it. Why do that if you weren't bound by it?

I'd imagine the club's position would be that they were in the process of negotiating a contract with AM, not re-negotiating an old one, hence the wording on the statement. I hope the club looked into this carefully if that's the route we're going down.

**wexfordned** · 09/12/2008, 1:05 PM

Originally Posted by Real ale Madrid

He isn't doing that as far as i know - all contracts are being negotiated to come up with a deal that is affordable and sustainable to everyone going forward. He is not picking and choosing. No one is getting paid the same money as of when Arkaga was in charge. Not Matthews, not anyone.

I'd imagine he probably tried to screw Matthews in terms of money. I KNOW FOR A FACT all the backroom team where promised approx 2/3rds of what was outstanding. Then without so much as a warning they get a cheque for just over 5% of outstanding wages in the post. Not surprisingly this did not go down well.

Probably tried to do the same to Matthews who told them where to go

**Longfordian** · 09/12/2008, 1:06 PM

They'd want to have been very careful with their conduct all along and not just in the last couple of weeks. If it's found that he has an express or implied contract he'll be owed compensation. And such things as telling public meetings and radio interviewers that he's agreed a new two year contract won't help the club's cause. This could get messy.

**Real ale Madrid** · 09/12/2008, 1:18 PM

Originally Posted by wexfordned

I'd imagine he probably tried to screw Matthews in terms of money. I KNOW FOR A FACT all the backroom team where promised approx 2/3rds of what was outstanding. Then without so much as a warning they get a cheque for just over 5% of outstanding wages in the post. Not surprisingly this did not go down well.

Probably tried to do the same to Matthews who told them where to go

what YOU KNOW FOR A FACT really doesn't matter, nor does it matter what was promised. 5% was the terms of the examinership and was binding by the process.

Anyway that's of no consequence. Matthews probably told him where to go and rightly so. But the club simply can't pay what they can't afford. Tough luck and all as it is on Matthews. Not sure what type of legal case he will be able to give. He is only entitled to 5% as per the examinership process.

What id like to know is, as Longfordian says, why the blazes did Tom Coughlan say (to my face, at the last CCOSC meeting i might add) that a two year deal was done with Mathews when evidently that was not the case?

**Longfordian** · 09/12/2008, 1:23 PM

Did the players and staff agree to take 7.5% only and write off their back money? I don't think so. It's going to be genuinely interesting to see what happens at Licencing time if Tom Coughlan decides they're not getting any more money or can't pay them any more money.