2009 Licensing - Where the clubs stand (from Indo)

**Dodge** · 31/01/2009, 7:31 PM

yeah, he's a **** poor journo with a dredful knowledge of our game.

par for the course with that rag unfortunately (the exception being McDonnell)

**paudie** · 02/02/2009, 12:37 AM

Surely City's situation with Mathews is the same as Bohs this time last year with Connor, unless the licencing rules have changed.
Don't remember any question about Bohs licence last year.
Am I right?

**brianw82** · 02/02/2009, 1:04 AM

Originally Posted by paudie

Surely City's situation with Mathews is the same as Bohs this time last year with Connor, unless the licencing rules have changed.
Don't remember any question about Bohs licence last year.
Am I right?

I think you're right on that.

**Dunny** · 02/02/2009, 1:17 AM

Agree on that.

**adamd164** · 02/02/2009, 9:19 AM

Originally Posted by paudie

Surely City's situation with Mathews is the same as Bohs this time last year with Connor, unless the licencing rules have changed.
Don't remember any question about Bohs licence last year.
Am I right?

Absolutely, which is the point I was trynna make at the start of this thread: the courts, and not the licensing committee, will decide if that money is owed.

**Mr A** · 02/02/2009, 9:39 AM

I don't think it's quite the same. Bohs claimed to have reason to dismiss Connor for gross misconduct, and even if that later proved to be utter BS, Cork don't seem to have any reason for sacking Matthews other than plain not wanting to pay him.

**paudie** · 02/02/2009, 11:07 AM

Originally Posted by Mr A

I don't think it's quite the same. Bohs claimed to have reason to dismiss Connor for gross misconduct, and even if that later proved to be utter BS, Cork don't seem to have any reason for sacking Matthews other than plain not wanting to pay him.

I'm sure Tom Coughlan (and his solicitor) will strongly disagree with you that. The point is the courts will decide that, not the LC

**A face** · 02/02/2009, 11:41 AM

Originally Posted by Mr A

Cork don't seem to have any reason for sacking Matthews other than plain not wanting to pay him.

Yeah we do, we didn't win the league

garyderry · 02/02/2009, 11:54 AM

Originally Posted by Mr A

I don't think it's quite the same. Bohs claimed to have reason to dismiss Connor for gross misconduct, and even if that later proved to be utter BS, Cork don't seem to have any reason for sacking Matthews other than plain not wanting to pay him.

As much as id love to see harps stay up (purely selfishly for the derby matches), there isnt a leg to stand on as regards cork, only hope is Drogheda.

**Schumi** · 02/02/2009, 4:33 PM

Originally Posted by Trainee

Waterford United have responded to suggestions that they may be in danger of receiving a license to participate in the League of Ireland this season.
http://www.eleven-a-side.com/first/news.asp?n=35695

Are they refuting these scurrilous allegations?