Cork City Examinership

**stann** · 20/08/2008, 9:02 AM

Originally Posted by jinxy lilywhite

You know what. the first person to pay after examinership is the examiner. The Mooney deal is to pay the examiner and you still have a 1.3m debt

Don't know about the numbers being bandied about, but that first bit is correct. The examinership process is extremely expensive, and the examiner and their team will be top of the list of preferential creditors.
Even the Revenue only goes onto the secured creditors list, IIRC, the first division if you will.

**pineapple stu** · 20/08/2008, 9:07 AM

Yeah, that's right. After Revenue I think come some special creditors like the ESB. The thinking is obviously that no-one would be an examiner if they knew they wouldn't get paid for it.

**stann** · 20/08/2008, 9:15 AM

Sorry, the above is correct too, but I got the terms the wrong way around, the examiner, and then the banks I'm sure, are in the first group, and that lot are known as 'secured'. They will get full whack of what they are owed.
The next group are the preferential creditors; the Revenue, and special creditors like the ESB as Stu says. I think any wages outstanding would come under this category too.
Then the poor sods who supply the club come last, Hummel, any sandwich makers and the like.
Of course, if the process is successful all will be paid, even if it's some agreed fraction of what they are owed.

**Blanchboh82** · 20/08/2008, 11:49 AM

Originally Posted by seanDCFC

Are clubs in this league run by complete fukin morons, what do these people think when they do out their budget for the season? Do they think that if they throw money at the top players in the league that fans will suddenly flood through the gates. I hope that Cork get hammered for this because it's beyond a joke now, Cork should be taught a lesson and the lesson should be so severe that no club will want to follow in their footsteps, and waste money like they have been. Clubs like Cork, Bohs and all other clubs who are wasting money on ****e would be no big loss to this league. These clubs are not only making it difficult for themselves but they are making it difficult for everyone else in the league. I think that these clubs should live within there means or simply fck off out of existance.

Thats a bold post. Its not long since Derry had their cap in hand around the city and were only short of Jim Roddy busking outside the Brandywell or am I wrong!!

Long time browser, first time poster

**derm** · 20/08/2008, 11:59 AM

Originally Posted by DmanDmythDledge

I think I saw somewhere that it is relegation. I don't know how true this would be though.

I think higgins kinda answered this. I'm not 100% sure but I think there's no penalty for going into examniership per se, the penalties apply to licence breaches.

Originally Posted by DmanDmythDledge

Not having a go here at all but why has it taken so long for it to be launched? I thought it was first meetings about it were in early 2006?

Not sure of the details but there was a lengthy process of first getting a minimum number of people to sign up, but the real delay was in legal matters, ie setting it up as a legal entity.

**razor** · 20/08/2008, 12:01 PM

Originally Posted by stann

There's no guarantee Cork will get one likewise.

We have the same Examiner Rovers had.

**SeanDrog** · 20/08/2008, 12:03 PM

Originally Posted by derm

I think higgins kinda answered this. I'm not 100% sure but I think there's no penalty for going into examniership per se, the penalties apply to licence breaches.

Given the article in todays indo in which the FAI state their disappointment regarding Arka not abiding by their agreement to guarantee the club debts, can we assume that this then amounts to a breach of the licence and may indeed result in relegation?

**derm** · 20/08/2008, 12:09 PM

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

And Arkaga have reneged on all debts, and the FAI have said "Alright so".

Really serious cloud over licencing; Cork only got the licence because Arkaga would cover all debts. Going to have to change the rule to, at a minimum, ensure that money must be put in as the season goes along. Won't happen, of course.

The panacea for the league is wealthy owners investing in clubs according to the FAI and indeed most fans (myself included until recently). City did not go over budget, all expenditure was approved by the owners and met the licencing criteria. No rules were broken.

But, like you said, Arkaga decides to pull out, renege on debts that it promised to honour, and there is nothing the FAi can do but punish the club (assuming it survives).

**derm** · 20/08/2008, 12:13 PM

Originally Posted by SeanDrog

Given the article in todays indo in which the FAI state their disappointment regarding Arka not abiding by their agreement to guarantee the club debts, can we assume that this then amounts to a breach of the licence and may indeed result in relegation?

That's what I'm afraid of. I would settle for that if we could end up with a club owned by fans but that's not guaranteed.

**SeanDrog** · 20/08/2008, 12:25 PM

Given the sale of players and cash being used to xclear most of the debt I would say Cork will see this through and may end up in the 1st div as a punishment - I would expect their supporters to do a Rover job and really get behind the club and get promoted within a season. Pain in the backside but at least the club survives and maybe in the long becomes stronger.

**jinxy lilywhite** · 20/08/2008, 12:28 PM

Originally Posted by derm

, Arkaga decides to pull out, renege on debts that it promised to honour, and there is nothing the FAi can do but punish the club (assuming it survives).

Arkaga can't realisticlly do that. The implications for the Directors involved would be serious enough. For one they wouldn't be allowed to be directors of furture companies and if they where currently directors of other companies they would have to step down.
CCFC articles of accosiation or memorandum of association (I can't rememeber which) dictates the limited liability of the company of the company, but the limited liabity can't be less than the companies liabilities. ( I hope someone can correct me if I am wrong but it's been a while since I looked a company law)
If Arkaga have acted anyway inappropriately(Arkaga first duty is the well being of CCFC and not to themselves, CCFC is a person in itself in the eyes of the court) then the 'veil of incorporation' that they are hiding behind will be lifted and they will become personally liable.

**RonnieB** · 20/08/2008, 12:31 PM

See ya real soon guys

**Calcio Jack** · 20/08/2008, 1:14 PM

Originally Posted by jinxy lilywhite

Arkaga can't realisticlly do that. The implications for the Directors involved would be serious enough. For one they wouldn't be allowed to be directors of furture companies and if they where currently directors of other companies they would have to step down.
CCFC articles of accosiation or memorandum of association (I can't rememeber which) dictates the limited liability of the company of the company, but the limited liabity can't be less than the companies liabilities. ( I hope someone can correct me if I am wrong but it's been a while since I looked a company law)
If Arkaga have acted anyway inappropriately(Arkaga first duty is the well being of CCFC and not to themselves, CCFC is a person in itself in the eyes of the court) then the 'veil of incorporation' that they are hiding behind will be lifted and they will become personally liable.

All very good points...however is it not also possible that Arkaga have set up a structure whereby another of their companies has lent monies to Cork City and are in effect a secured creditor, thus would have a lien on any transfer funds received...so in a nutshell Arkaga might end up getting some money back and one thing for certain is that Cork city will be left with nothing....

As for the FAI saying that Arkaga had guaranteed Cork's liabilities..well let's face it unless you have a way of enforcing a guarantee then that wasn't worth the paper it was written on... it's a side issue but will be interesting to see how the FAI handle this and what if any penalties they dish out to Cork

**jinxy lilywhite** · 20/08/2008, 1:28 PM

Originally Posted by Calcio Jack

All very good points...however is it not also possible that Arkaga have set up a structure whereby another of their companies has lent monies to Cork City and are in effect a secured creditor, thus would have a lien on any transfer funds received...so in a nutshell Arkaga might end up getting some money back and one thing for certain is that Cork city will be left with nothing....

As for the FAI saying that Arkaga had guaranteed Cork's liabilities..well let's face it unless you have a way of enforcing a guarantee then that wasn't worth the paper it was written on... it's a side issue but will be interesting to see how the FAI handle this and what if any penalties they dish out to Cork

I think there is a precendent case in this. *uck I cant remember the name but it went along the lines of a company going into liquidation but it was owned by another company which was successful and profitable. The profitable company was made liable for the losses of the liquidated company.
Birmingham council v something I think. I need to check my books for the correct title.

**derm** · 20/08/2008, 1:46 PM

Originally Posted by jinxy lilywhite

Arkaga can't realisticlly do that. The implications for the Directors involved would be serious enough. For one they wouldn't be allowed to be directors of furture companies and if they where currently directors of other companies they would have to step down.
CCFC articles of accosiation or memorandum of association (I can't rememeber which) dictates the limited liability of the company of the company, but the limited liabity can't be less than the companies liabilities. ( I hope someone can correct me if I am wrong but it's been a while since I looked a company law)

Can you give those articles in English please? Is the second "of the company" a typo or legalese?

Arkaga set up Cork City Investments, a limited company, to run the club. Before the club went into examinership two directors resigned (Brian Lennox and his mother-in-law if I'm not mistaken). So it seems to me that Arkaga are in the clear, hiding behind the company they set up.

**soccerc** · 20/08/2008, 1:50 PM

Originally Posted by derm

Arkaga set up Cork City Investments, a limited company, to run the club.

Eh, No they didn't

**derm** · 20/08/2008, 2:04 PM

Originally Posted by soccerc

Eh, No they didn't

Fair enough, it seems to have been registered in 2003. Therefore Arkaga bought Cork City Investment FC Ltd. Thanks for the in-depth clarification.

However examinership is going to affect the directors of that company, not those of Arkaga.

<edit>

Also, the letter to the FAI guaranteeing all debts was from another company owned by Arkaga according to the Irish Times

**jinxy lilywhite** · 20/08/2008, 2:20 PM

Originally Posted by derm

Can you give those articles in English please? Is the second "of the company" a typo or legalese?

When a company is about to begin the shareholders a company sets up its Memorandum of Association. These are legally binding and dictate the objectives of the company (trade, business), captial of the company, limited liability clause, name of the company. The Articles of Association at the rules for the entire management of the comapny. A copy of these is set out in the 1963 Companies Act Table A. This is what an articles of association would look like. http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1963/...16.html#gen_16

There is a lot of reading and jargon but without my notes I'm useless. I'll be able to cite cases and relevant articles tomorrow if you want.
Btw the second "of the company" was a typo. I am sorry

**passerrby** · 20/08/2008, 2:46 PM

but if a company say cork city investments sign an agreement with the league in licensing does that mean that arkaga are liable and if not does that mean any club who may have a parent company that did not sign any agreement be excused also

**derm** · 20/08/2008, 2:56 PM

Originally Posted by jinxy lilywhite

Btw the second "of the company" was a typo. I am sorry

Thank **** for that, I know my brain is frazzled right now but I couldn't make head nor tail of it and thought it was legalese

That precedent that you mentioned, Birmingham Council v a.n.other, would that apply or is it a different juristiction? Seeing as a company owned by Arkaga, which itself may or may not be profitable, guaranteed the debts and not Arkaga itself, does this protect Arkaga? I mean does it matter how manner layers of abstraction are between Arkaga and the club?

Sorry for asking you to hit the books ...