Cork Winding up Notice?

[higgins]

I think you've got the wrong end of what PS was saying. He's saying that clubs should present their budget at the start of each season, and if that budget predicts that they won't have enough income to meet their expenses then action should be taken.That's completely different from trying to tell clubs how they spend the money they actually have - it's about ensuring clubs don't spend beyond their means and risk insolvency.

There's a danger that budgets would be manipulated to say anything though, so I'm not sure how truly effective such an approach would be. Also - a 5% loss is insignificant in my view and not worthy of action, as it could easily be made-up in future years.

Your last sentence captures what I'm trying to say. I find it unworkable and unrealistic to deduct points for a business making a 5% loss on a budget you can whip up the night before! Next of all he'll want us to give extra points for who presents the budget in the nicest folder! Maybe a prize for biggest improver

As for your assertion that "it's the right of a business to spend their money any way they like". It is indeed other people's business when it coems to football clubs - shareholders if they're a PLC or Ltd Company; charity commissioners, if they're a trust or charity; the judiciary, if they're acting illegally; and fans regardless of how they're legally incorporated. There are usually rules governing the spending of any business, depending on how it is structured.

Furthermore, as league football is an organisation with its own rules that clubs must agree to abide to, the FAI/League has every statutory right to tell clubs how they should spend their money. Hence it can introduce things like a wage cap.

I am saying it’s the right of the owner of the company who runs the club to spend the money they have, yes. If Bohs want to pocket the 50Million and play in Fairview Park (as long as it meets minimum standards) then its there right to go buy the worlds best player and play him for a couple of months if they want! I'm not saying reckless spending should go unpunished and certainly writing off debt is a big NO but the picture Stu likes to paint is clubs are spending money they don’t have. I presume by money they don’t have he means its money that could not be sustained over the long term. My answer to that is if they want to blow their lot in the space of a month then let them!! As long as they are carrying the debt forward and paying bills then no harm is done.

Clubs are adult enough to understand spending at a faster rate then what they take in will only lead to huge debts and a long period of nothingness where your trying to pay off the debt. If UCD don’t like to go done this route then that’s their choice but why punish other clubs who overspend for a season or two in the hope of breaking out of their division and hitting the big time.

Take Drogheda for example!
I think its great what they have done the past year or two and wish them success but they will quickly realise in a couple of years that if they don’t make any inroads in Europe that they cant spend that amount of money every season and expect to make a profit but I don’t see the harm in giving it a go for a couple of years.

UCD, looking to take the fun out of football

[dcfcsteve]

Clubs are adult enough to understand spending at a faster rate then what they take in will only lead to huge debts and a long period of nothingness where your trying to pay off the debt. If UCD don’t like to go done this route then that’s their choice but why punish other clubs who overspend for a season or two in the hope of breaking out of their division and hitting the big time.

Take Drogheda for example!
I think its great what they have done the past year or two and wish them success but they will quickly realise in a couple of years that if they don’t make any inroads in Europe that they cant spend that amount of money every season and expect to make a profit but I don’t see the harm in giving it a go for a couple of years.

UCD, looking to take the fun out of football

One man's fun is another man's financial impropriety.

I'm broadly with Stu on this one (if only because the fact that we agree on something will floor him..... )

Chasing the dream is all very well, but more often than not it ends in disaster. Having clubs act like footballing versions of the mayfly - rising quickly from obscurity to glory, before withering back to obscurity a short time later - is not in the interests of the game overall. Leeds Utd tried it, and failed spectacularly. Numerous other clubs have tried it and failed as well.

The problem is that failure usually involves recourse to bankruptcy etc, which not only screws over creditors but also creates an extremely negative image of the game. We have enough of an image problem in Irish football without adding the circus of countless financial implosions to the heady mix.

Well-run businesses/football clubs may lack somehwat in glamour. They may preclude the overnight rise and fall of otherwise unfashionable teams (Drogheda ?). But they also don't distort the natural rules of competition with 'unnatural' financial behaviour, they don't creat an image of your industry as reckless, risky dangerous for outsiders to get involved in, and they don't feck off fans by seeing their teams go from glory to disaster in the blink of an eye-lid.

As for clubs beinfg adult in their attitude towards spending money !?!? There is something peculiarly intoxicating about football that makes otherwise sensible/shrewd people take thoroughly reckless financial risks - usally in pursuit of "the dream". This is truie the world over. When it comes to football, I'm afraid history has shown again and again that many individuals and clubs are incapable of acting in an "adult", prudent or sensible manner.

[Macy]

One man's fun is another man's financial impropriety.

Or one man's fun is another man's reckless trading.

[pineapple stu]

Stu, when the criteria for membership of the new top division were being discussed, you and other UCD fans were very vociferous about a club's League standing being determined solely by playing criteria - i.e. that on- and off-the-field issues should be kept separate. Now you're saying that a club's League standing (i.e. the number of points it has) should be subject to non-playing criteria e.g. tax compliance.

Which is it to be?

In fairness Doc, he's never said off the field points shouldn't be taken into it. He's always said if clubs achieve the club license, it should then be down to on the field performance. Set minimum standards and those that don't reach them shouldn't be allowed in. I agree with him 100% BTW.

Exactly.

there is nothing in licensing that asks about debts the only question is do you have a tax clearance cert which is no more than three months old

Wrong. Section 9 deals with finances and notes that no club may have outstanding wages or PRSI unless there's some sort of agreement in place or there's a form of arbitration in place. This, it would appear, means that having a winding-up petition against you is OK under Licencing. Which, of course, makes a mockery of the whole thing.

I'm broadly with Stu on this one (if only because the fact that we agree on something will floor him..... )

Damn you Steve!!! Now I'm all confused! I can't disagree with both you and higgins now!

[pete]

The only place UCD will win anything is on the Balance Sheets

CCFC has been conservatively run in recent years with no massive gambles in expenditure to win titles which implies that if we owe money then must be a lot more clubs that owe the Revemue money.

Whats clubs owe money to the Revenue & what clubs definitely don't?

[Dodge]

Pats do. have had a repayment plan for the last 18 months or so and haven't defaulted once.

[Schumi]

Everyone owes money to the Revenue (except Rovers probably), it's just a matter of who's keeping to their scheduled payments I think.

[pete]

Everyone owes money to the Revenue (except Rovers probably), it's just a matter of who's keeping to their scheduled payments I think.

I think its odds on another clubs will be in the news about this later in the season so.

[Macy]

The Revenue Auditors are doing the rounds of clubs at the moment. The Rovers case exposed all the dubious expense payments that have been going on in the league, hence the audit of all clubs. It's likely that all clubs will be hit with a tax bill, unless they're clubs that have recently been in the shíte like Rovers. Again, it's back to the net pay contracts.

However, a winding up notice will only be issued if payment has been missed or if a club hasn't come to a repayment schedule with the revenue.

[soccerc]

I think its odds on another clubs will be in the news about this later in the season so.

I'd imagine sooner than that

[CollegeTillIDie]

The UCD heads think they're right clever boyos going on about football clubs just because they're not a club. I suppose they're praying a few of the top clubs go out of business so that they have a chance of being allowed into the new Premiership.

No peadar because of all ye feckers go to the wall we won't have anyone to play against

[pineapple stu]

Whats clubs owe money to the Revenue & what clubs definitely don't?

Everyone owes money to Revenue. Some clubs only owe current amounts; some owe more than that.

You can get figures from club accounts - will post when I get home if I remember. It varies from big amounts like Bohs, Pat's, Cork and Dublin City (mentioned on this thread earlier), to smaller amounts of about E20,000 to E30,000 for Bray, Kilkenny, Drogheda (I think) and a couple of others.

This looks like it'll definitely be back in the news - Revenue have been talking to all clubs with a view to sorting out exactly where things are with everyone (I'd tell you what we owed before it was paid, but I wouldn't want to embarrass the "conservatively run" clubs ).

[NY Hoop]

Everyone owes money to Revenue. Some clubs only owe current amounts; some owe more than that.

You can get figures from club accounts - will post when I get home if I remember. It varies from big amounts like Bohs, Pat's, Cork and Dublin City (mentioned on this thread earlier), to smaller amounts of about E20,000 to E30,000 for Bray, Kilkenny, Drogheda (I think) and a couple of others.

This looks like it'll definitely be back in the news - Revenue have been talking to all clubs with a view to sorting out exactly where things are with everyone (I'd tell you what we owed before it was paid, but I wouldn't want to embarrass the "conservatively run" clubs ).

Not everyone

For the first time in our history everything is transparent and done properly.

KOH

[pineapple stu]

Your P30s are paid on the last day of the month every month?

Here's that summary I promised...

		                 Owed to
Club	        Year-end	 Revenue
Bohemians	30-Nov-05	 462,629 
Bray Wanderers	30-Sep-05	 15,000 
Cork City	31-Dec-04	 141,559 
Drogheda United	31-Dec-04	 30,588 
Dublin City	30-Sep-04	 70,528 
Galway United	31-Oct-05	 36,040 
Kilkenny City	31-Oct-04	 1,935 
St Pat's Ath	30-Jun-05	 228,762 
Shamrock Rovers	31-Oct-05	 15,018 
Waterford Untd	31-Oct-04	 61,013

[Battery Rover]

Are these the only teams that owe money or the only ones that have been audited?

Where does this info come from?

[A face]

Are these the only teams that owe money or the only ones that have been audited?

Where does this info come from?

What he said !!

[Dr.Nightdub]

Stu, your figures regarding Pats are way out of date. We paid them a six-figure sum in order to get the tax clearance cert for this season's UEFA licence, what's left owing is considerably under €100k and we've agreed a repayment schedule of either 5 or 6 years - genuinely can't remember which, either way it's less than €2k a month.

[pineapple stu]

Are these the only teams that owe money or the only ones that have been audited?

Where does this info come from?

Apologies - only clubs incorporated as companies are included. The others aren't incorporated (except Kildare, whose accounts don't disclose Revenue liabilities) and Derry (cos I haven't gotten around to looking for them).

Stu, your figures regarding Pats are way out of date.

They're dated when they're dated. Maybe they've come down since then, but the figures above are per the last audited accounts.

[Dodge]

At one stage I think ours was above 500K... As Nightdub said we're closer to 50K than 100K now

Good work though stu

[dahamsta]

Nice bit of research there stu.