Statheads - how are we treating Cork?

**Cosmo** · 28/04/2011, 7:17 PM

OF course they're a different club - a quick browse on the cork forum will show that even some of them admit its a new club!

I'll never see them as the same club - but sure probably doesnt matter to most of them anyway seen as they're used to supporting a different franchise from cork every few years!!

**Martinho II** · 28/04/2011, 9:31 PM

for me the clubs are the same... Whats different is for example Home Farm withdrew from the league ten years ago and Dublin City took their place as a new club as Home Farm went back to LSL.. If there was any break in clubs services in the league of ireland then I would classify them as a separate club.. In 1982 Cork Celtic resigned from the league.. Two years later Cork City took their place as a new club.. Derry City,Limerick and Waterford Utd are all the same clubs imo... there may be different trading companies but it doesnt differ a damn...If Cork City Foras hadnt bought the right to use Cork City as their name then it would be a differnt story..

**Dodge** · 28/04/2011, 9:44 PM

Originally Posted by sullanefc

You didn't pee off anyone. Just surprised that you would post such nonsense. Then again, its one way to get to 20,000.

Of course it peed you off, otherwise you wouldn't think its nonsense.

It was a genuine question, but continue to feel defensive

**seand** · 28/04/2011, 9:53 PM

It's a tricky one really. Technically I think they are different clubs, as the original one was officially, legally terminated in the courts. However, seeing as the 'new' Cork City effectively took their place in the league, their fans, ground, colours, crest etc and equally importantly the fans seem to want it to be a continuation of the old club I think we have to give them the benefit of the doubt. Hard to know where the best parallel is... Limerick FC/United/City/FC/37/FC? Cork Athletic/United (very much considered seperate clubs)? Waterford/Waterford (1945)/Waterford United?

A similar example might be Accrington Stanley who went out of business in 1962 after dropping out of the league. A new club was reformed a year or two later and have come to be regarded as one and the same.

Now, when we're on the subject of history and revisionism, who won the league in 2001-02 Dodge? ;-)

**Dodge** · 28/04/2011, 9:59 PM

No revisionism from me. Never claimed anyone but Shels got the title. However unfairly

**sullanefc** · 29/04/2011, 12:18 AM

Originally Posted by Dodge

Of course it peed you off, otherwise you wouldn't think its nonsense.

It was a genuine question, but continue to feel defensive

How does thinking your point of view is nonsense become defensive? And you still haven't explained how you think a change of colours and crest means it is a new club? Are you high?

**Lim till i die** · 29/04/2011, 1:16 AM

Dodge fishing with dynamite ITT

**micls** · 29/04/2011, 3:04 AM

It really depends on how you define a club/new club. It's not a static definition so different people will have different views. There's a few points to consider

1) The liquidation- The company was liquidated, does this make it a new club. If so then it shouldnt be a question of the establishment in 84 because the company was also liquidated in 96. If this is your definition then this should be the 4th Cork City FC in your view, similar applies to Derry etc.

2) The name- The name was changed for a year. If this is your definition of a new club then Limerick/Waterford should fit in the same box. Fair enough if so.

3) The crest- not a real reason for me as we've go through crests every couple of years and have rarely had a steady one.

4) A combination of the above. The fact that all of these happened together will mean for some people it's a new club.

For me it's not. Being personally involved from beforehand to throughout the change, nothing much changed, bar ousting the scum. Same people involved, a lot of same players, same fans, same colours etc. The name thing annoyed me but it had to be done.

But the main reason it's the same club for me is that for me the club is more than just the first team, and our underage teams continued with the original name and history, ran and funded by the club throughout it all. Therefore for me the club never died, the senior team just took a new name for a year before coming back under the umbrella.

Again, it's a personal thing though, and most people won't be swayed from their view. I know City fans who see ti as a new club, it's a gut instinct I guess. Doesn't bother me, each to their own.

**Dodge** · 29/04/2011, 6:55 AM

Good point on the underage set up micls. Although the Home Farm situation shows that their isn't always a direct relationship between schoolboy and LOI football

I guess my main reason for thinking it was a new club was the whole licensing thing. Didn't FORAS apply as a brand new club, with new agreements with Turners Cross (MFA) etc? I believe the intention was just to get in the league at all, and they just happened to have a better application than the other potential A leaguers, nd be placed in the first division.

They weren't relegated, or demoted, or anything like that. So in football terms, it was as if they started fresh.

Derry were placed bottom of the table, and as such were 'punished' by playing in the first division.

I'd agree there's loads of scope for interpretation

(and as much as I like winding up some Cork fans, some of them/you realise how I actually feel about football in Cork. Even doated stuff for a FORAS auction a couple of years ago)

**CityRebel** · 29/04/2011, 6:57 AM

Legally Cork City FC was transferred from one holding company to another so it is the same club, end of story.

**Dodge** · 29/04/2011, 7:07 AM

Originally Posted by CityRebel

Legally Cork City FC was transferred from one holding company to another so it is the same club, end of story.

So how long did that take? And what happened in between?

HOwever much some cork fans might want it to be that simple, it clearly isn't. And this 'end of story' BS just makes you look defensive.

Luckily other Cork fans can discuss it

**CityRebel** · 29/04/2011, 7:20 AM

Originally Posted by Dodge

So how long did that take? And what happened in between?

HOwever much some cork fans might want it to be that simple, it clearly isn't. And this 'end of story' BS just makes you look defensive.

Luckily other Cork fans can discuss it

Come off the stage biy. It's not that complicated, stop being so defensive, I said "end of story" because what I said above is cutting a long story short.

The liquidation process takes months to fully complete, the liquidator takes control of the company (CCIFL in City's case). The supporters' trust FORAS then worked with the liquidator to take over Cork City Football Club. I think everything from the supporters' trusts point of view was wrapped up around May last year, all the equipment and everything useful like that had been acquired too. So, legally, it is the same club.

**Dodge** · 29/04/2011, 8:22 AM

Someone above said you bought the rigths to name etc. Not the same as taking them over, is it.

biy

**CityRebel** · 29/04/2011, 9:10 AM

Originally Posted by Dodge

Someone above said you bought the rigths to name etc. Not the same as taking them over, is it.

biy

It's the way of taking over without taking on the liabilities of a company. It has happened countless numbers of times in world football.

**El-Pietro** · 29/04/2011, 9:20 AM

Originally Posted by Dodge

Good point on the underage set up micls. Although the Home Farm situation shows that their isn't always a direct relationship between schoolboy and LOI football

I guess my main reason for thinking it was a new club was the whole licensing thing. Didn't FORAS apply as a brand new club, with new agreements with Turners Cross (MFA) etc? I believe the intention was just to get in the league at all, and they just happened to have a better application than the other potential A leaguers, nd be placed in the first division.

They weren't relegated, or demoted, or anything like that. So in football terms, it was as if they started fresh.

Derry were placed bottom of the table, and as such were 'punished' by playing in the first division.

I'd agree there's loads of scope for interpretation

(and as much as I like winding up some Cork fans, some of them/you realise how I actually feel about football in Cork. Even doated stuff for a FORAS auction a couple of years ago)

just to clarify the licensing bid.

FORAS applied for a license as a safety net, in case things should get worse - as they did. Theapplication was submitted on the basis that it would only be considered if CCIFL didn't get a license.

I'm not bothered what other fans think, I know what the club means to me. It was an absolute balls having to be named FORAS Co-op last year, but it was a legal necessity. We got the name back only a few months into last season and had hoped that people would refer to us as simply Cork City from then on.

To me, this is the same club, with new owners, that was formed in 1984. If you don't agree thats fine, I won't lose any sleep over it.

**El-Pietro** · 29/04/2011, 9:20 AM

Fiorentina are another example by the way

**Red Army** · 29/04/2011, 9:59 AM

If Cork are claiming to be the same club since 1984 then Sligo Rovers can claim to be the same club since 1910 or 1911 because there was a Sligo Rovers back then... but we don't because we are two different clubs same goes for the new and old cork city. If a club called Belfast Celtic were to set up this year could they claim to be the same club? I don't think so. Derry are another club claiming history of old clubs that died years ago. The first Derry City died when they left the Irish League in the 70s then a new club was set up to join the League of Ireland but that club died in 2009

**CityRebel** · 29/04/2011, 10:27 AM

Originally Posted by Red Army

If Cork are claiming to be the same club since 1984 then Sligo Rovers can claim to be the same club since 1910 or 1911 because there was a Sligo Rovers back then... but we don't because we are two different clubs same goes for the new and old cork city. If a club called Belfast Celtic were to set up this year could they claim to be the same club? I don't think so. Derry are another club claiming history of old clubs that died years ago. The first Derry City died when they left the Irish League in the 70s then a new club was set up to join the League of Ireland but that club died in 2009

The Cork City we have now, which was established in 1984, doesn't claim the history of Fordsons/Cork City from much earlier in that century. As I've said, what City have done has been done countless times by other clubs in Ireland and all over the world. I think it's a credit to the LoI clubs who've done it that fans of other clubs get so wound up over it, it's the only country I know of where fans of other clubs obsess over it.

**razor** · 29/04/2011, 10:55 AM

Originally Posted by El-Pietro

I'm not bothered what other fans think, I know what the club means to me.
To me, this is the same club, with new owners, that was formed in 1984. If you don't agree thats fine, I won't lose any sleep over it.

Exactly, I've been supporting Cork City FC since the late 80's and I will continue to do so, it matters not to me what other people think, especially the Stattos.

**Dodge** · 29/04/2011, 11:20 AM

For the record, I don't mind either way. I just like the discussion. ANd where history is involved, stats follow so its important to get it right...

Just on this

Originally Posted by El-Pietro

FORAS applied for a license as a safety net, in case things should get worse - as they did. Theapplication was submitted on the basis that it would only be considered if CCIFL didn't get a license.

So you're saying that the intention was that FORAS was going to be seperate from Cork City (if Cork City applied for a licence and failed), but as Cork City folded before licensing they just assumed the Cork 'franchise' (as such)