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

**marinobohs** · 11/09/2009, 9:50 AM

Originally Posted by Sam_Heggy

Mental stuff, I suppose banking on bigger gates is pretty silly in the first place. I mean, the good will is draining from the club by the second and it's all down to one man at the end of the day.
Only option is for foras to apply to A League now for next season. Sad situation.

As cork do not own the ground and have no assets apart from the players can they "do a rovers" IE walk away from what they owe, appoint a new board and maintain a place in the Prem ? I think the rules may have altered since but am not sure (something I share with FAI/League admin

)

**CuanaD** · 11/09/2009, 9:53 AM

Originally Posted by GalwayRed

You cant make somebody redundant unless you can prove you dont need them or anyone else to do the job theyre doing anymore afaik. Ie. if cork city make a midfielder redundant to cut the wage bill and then replace him with a player on amateur terms than thats grounds for unfair dismissal as cork city did actually need a midfielder they were just trying to cut costs. They would have to pay off the midfielders contract in full to release him.

Exactly - they can't be replaced for something like 18 months I think

**marinobohs** · 11/09/2009, 10:02 AM

Originally Posted by CuanaD

Exactly - they can't be replaced for something like 18 months I think

There is no time limit on it, the matter can be referred to the Employment Appeals Tribunal under the Redundancy Payments Act (as stated redundancy applies to the job not the worker). In the event that a club replaced a player with a cheaper option it could be declared a non redundancy situation by the EAT.
This is far from cut and dried however (SEE Irish ferries / SIPTU case) and each case is examed individually.

**Sam_Heggy** · 11/09/2009, 10:02 AM

Originally Posted by marinobohs

As cork do not own the ground and have no assets apart from the players can they "do a rovers" IE walk away from what they owe, appoint a new board and maintain a place in the Prem ? I think the rules may have altered since but am not sure (something I share with FAI/League admin

)

I would say at best they would be allowed to re-enter into the A league but as you say, does the FAI have a set rule on this or can it be altered to suit?

**pineapple stu** · 11/09/2009, 10:13 AM

Yeah, licencing (allegedly) makes it impossible to be wound up and keep your spot in the Premier.

**John83** · 11/09/2009, 10:39 AM

The case is different from Shams, who pretty much resemble Coughlan's Cork. If the company's actually wound up, they're gone from the Premier, barring some spectacular new FAI fudging.

**pineapple stu** · 11/09/2009, 10:40 AM

Originally Posted by John83

The case is different from Shams

True. It's the same as Cork in the mid-90s (among other Munster examples)

**Schumi** · 11/09/2009, 10:45 AM

Originally Posted by John83

The case is different from Shams.

I think he was referring to previous cases of Rovers winding up holding companies and continuing in the league under a new holding company. I'm not sure of the details but this was the general jist of what happened as far as I'm aware.

**pineapple stu** · 11/09/2009, 10:47 AM

Think MB was specifically talking about the examinership in 2005.

**Schumi** · 11/09/2009, 10:50 AM

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

Think MB was specifically talking about the examinership in 2005.

They didn't keep a place in the premier that year though. They lost the play off to Home Farm.

**pineapple stu** · 11/09/2009, 11:03 AM

Originally Posted by Schumi

They didn't keep a place in the premier that year though. They lost the play off to Home Farm.

That had nothing to do with "winding up holding companies and continuing in the league under a new holding company", as you put it, though.

**Schumi** · 11/09/2009, 11:30 AM

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

That had nothing to do with "winding up holding companies and continuing in the league under a new holding company", as you put it, though.

Huh?

I'm saying that in 2005 they didn't

walk away from what they owe, appoint a new board and maintain a place in the Prem

so I assume that that refers to a previous case of walking away from what they owe.

**pineapple stu** · 11/09/2009, 11:38 AM

They did maintain their place in the Premier, though. They played the whole rest of the season, in fact. If Cork were to be wound up now, they could (in theory) play no further games in the Premier this season. However, in the mid-90s, Cork were wound up, started a new company the next day and kept their place in the Premier as a result. That's not allowed now.

**marinobohs** · 11/09/2009, 11:44 AM

Originally Posted by Schumi

They didn't keep a place in the premier that year though. They lost the play off to Home Farm.

true, but they lost the prem place on the pitch (they were not reegated). cork are unlikely to be relegated on the pitch. my question was has the rules changed to prevent a club "doing a Rovers" i.e. winding down one holding company and starting afresh and retaining their place in the Prem (this is not a dig at Rovers by the way just quoting an example - so save the hate mail !).
I think the rules may have changed since but am not sure of the position.

**Schumi** · 11/09/2009, 11:45 AM

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

They did maintain their place in the Premier, though. They played the whole rest of the season, in fact.

Ah, of course, the examinership wasn't at the end of the season. I'd forgotten that.

I'm aware of the rule change on winding up holding companies and I assume they can't go into examinership twice. This seems to about a much smaller amount than the revenue one though so they'll probably get the money from somewhere and something else will blow up later.

**pineapple stu** · 11/09/2009, 11:49 AM

You'll remember they were docked all the points (8) that they had at the time, setting a precedent for docking Longford six points two years later.

Rumour on the Cork forum is that the "mystery loaner" - allegedly a married couple going under the name Frank And Irene - will allow the gate receipts from the Celtic friendly to pay this month's wages and the Farrelly bill, meaning Cork would be in debt to Frank And Irene to the tune of roughly the whole loan amount. And all this would come out of future prize money, and there's still two months of the season to go.

Only a rumour, obviously. But it's believable.

**thischarmingman** · 11/09/2009, 11:51 AM

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

the "mystery loaner" - allegedly a married couple going under the name Frank And Irene - will allow the gate receipts from the Celtic friendly to pay this month's wages and the Farrelly bill, meaning Cork would be in debt to Frank And Irene to the tune of roughly the whole loan amount. And all this would come out of future prize money, and there's still two months of the season to go.

Only a rumour, obviously. But it's believable.

I'd imagine that would be filed under "Sound Business Plan" in more than a few boardrooms in Ireland.