A New Low For Cobh Ramblers

djpbarry

CantGetNoSleep wrote: »

A new one should only be started when clubs show that they have budgets to survive without relying on a few thousand people going to watch what is often no better than a pub game each week

Wow, those are some pub teams you've been watching. How many pub teams do you know could hold Dynamo Kiev to a one-goal defeat over two legs? Even if Drogs had beaten Kiev (which they very nearly did) people such as yourself would still dismiss them as a "pub team". Dismissing the league in such a way only shows that you know virtually nothing about it.

And I'd love to hear how clubs are supposed to survive WITHOUT relying on gate receipts? How many clubs in the world are in such a position?

aidan24326 wrote: »

The clubs aren't getting the crowds for one simple reason. It's a crap league and like you say the standard of some of the games isn't much above what you'd see at a Sunday morning district league game.

The clubs aren't getting the crowds because most people would rather go down the pub to watch glammed-up English footy on Sky; simple as that.

If attendances are proportional to the quality of football on offer, why did approximately 55,000 people show up to watch a piss-poor Ireland side struggle to get a draw against Cyprus?

gimmick

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

I couln't care less about your selling club and its asset stripping owners. Its just a case of pots and kettles. Maybe you should be venting your spleen at Argaka not paying players the week after the transfer windo shuts then spreading heresay about Cobh?

Bitter bitter bitter. You are funny. You have a funny way of showing that you could not care less about CCFC judging by the amount of posts you make about the club.

It is not hearsay, and learn to spell by the way. You would have learned that if you ever went to school. But I don't know why I bother anyway with peoples petty agendas :rolleyes:

I have said more than enough about Arkaga in the past, if I were to go on, I would only be repeating myself.

OhNoYouDidn't

gimmick wrote: »

Bitter bitter bitter. You are funny. You have a funny way of showing that you could not care less about CCFC judging by the amount of posts you make about the club.

It is not hearsay, and learn to spell by the way. You would have learned that if you ever went to school. But I don't know why I bother anyway with peoples petty agendas :rolleyes:

I have said more than enough about Arkaga in the past, if I were to go on, I would only be repeating myself.

How could I possibly be classed as bitter? The FAI are inconsistant in applying the rules. Galway were late with wages and hit with a transfer embargo. Cork were not. Why is that?

We will see how much there is to the Cobh rumours, but in the mean time, it would be more credible if Cork City fans on here were open about their issues rather than starting snide threads about CObh.

djpbarry

The PFAI have spoken out against the proposals:

Stephen McGuinness wrote:

The majority of these players are on short-term contracts and might not be at the club at the end of the year. So why should they be taking out loans for a club they might not be playing for? It’s just mad.

It’s most disappointing Cobh would put their players in this position in the first place. How on earth do they feel it’s acceptable?

The club should be looking to investors or sponsors – not the players, some of whom are among the lowest paid in the Premier Division.

The players are bursting their backsides trying to avoid relegation so this is the last thing that should be put to them. It’s ludicrous and farcical.

Publin

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

The FAI took over the league and applied strictt financial criteria. The sanctions are quite clear for failure to pay players or breaching the wage cap. They were quick enough to hammer Rovers and Shels, and put transfer embargos on Galway and Sligo where are they on Bohs and Cork, and if this is true, Cobh?

Transfer deadline is closed now anyway so I don't think a transfer embargo will have much effect at this stage. (The Galway situation was weird though with players taking a wage cut and Kenna then signing 2 new guys a week later).

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

No it isn't. Without the million they didn't get from Liam Carroll they are in the high 90% region. The question is, did they know they weren't getting the money when they submitted their budget to the FAI in March?

Yes, without the Carroll income the wage cap is breached. The FAI accepted the budget in March. The Albion court case has dragged on, but at present the money from Carroll is still due, only the receipt of this money has merely been delayed (unless the court case with Albion renders the Carroll deal null and void). Therefore, the money can still be counted as income (just like in any "normal" business, a debtor who is yet to pay what they owe).

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

If they did, the rules state they should be stripped of prize money and relegated.

I've never seen any document or article to suggest that this was the punishment for breaching the wage cap. Could you elaborate further please (who stated this, where did you hear it etc)? Thought a stop was put on transfers and clubs had to outline to the FAI how they would fix the situation, but never heard/knew about the rules stating relegation, stripping of prize money and relegation as the punishment.

OhNoYouDidn't

Publin wrote: »

Yes, without the Carroll income the wage cap is breached. The FAI accepted the budget in March. The Albion court case has dragged on, but at present the money from Carroll is still due, only the receipt of this money has merely been delayed (unless the court case with Albion renders the Carroll deal null and void). Therefore, the money can still be counted as income (just like in any "normal" business, a debtor who is yet to pay what they owe)..

The money will not be recieved this season, or next from the looks of it. If the Bohs board were aware that this was the case, and it appears they were, hence the boardroom heave, then they have breached the wage cap and are in trouble. Why should clubs lke Rovers stay within the limits and Bohs flout it? Or more importantly, why sould Pats finish second to them? The league will be decided in the four courts I fear.

Publin wrote: »

I've never seen any document or article to suggest that this was the punishment for breaching the wage cap. Could you elaborate further please (who stated this, where did you hear it etc)? Thought a stop was put on transfers and clubs had to outline to the FAI how they would fix the situation, but never heard/knew about the rules stating relegation, stripping of prize money and relegation as the punishment.

Is in the participation agreement, the rules of the league and was reported in the press last week when Bohs were removing pesky directors who wanted the club run within the rules of the game.

Publin

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

The money will not be recieved this season, or next from the looks of it. If the Bohs board were aware that this was the case, and it appears they were, hence the boardroom heave, then they have breached the wage cap and are in trouble. Why should clubs lke Rovers stay within the limits and Bohs flout it? Or more importantly, why sould Pats finish second to them? The league will be decided in the four courts I fear.

The boardroom issues are not solely related to this issue. The money from Carroll will be physically received upon successful conclusion of the Albion court case. The money is still due, it just hasn't been collected/received.

All teams should stay within the limits of the agreement that they signed up to, I'm not disputing that. However, as I'm sure you're aware as you seem knowledgeable about the league, Pats are spending far more than Bohs i.e. over 50% more per week on wages, they just have an Kelleher to pump money in which counts as income. Same goes for Drogs.

If you look at this article http://www.independent.ie/sport/soccer/gypsies-nowhere-near-breaching-fai-salary-rules-1449228.html, you will see that the Bohs secretary stated "We have talked to the FAI financier, Padraig Smith, auditors and lawyers and they all agreed that we are nowhere near it". If these people had any issue with what was said (especially the auditors and lawyers), I can assure you that they'd have been straight onto the papers to correct them.

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Is in the participation agreement, the rules of the league and was reported in the press last week when Bohs were removing pesky directors who wanted the club run within the rules of the game.

I saw no mention of these sanctions in the papers. The rules of the league do not state what happens if the 65% rule is breached. The only article I came across upon a quick google which mentioned sanctions for breaching the cap was this one: http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/sport/2008/0424/1208904413456.html. According to this, a transfer embargo is placed on the club and they are forced to explain themselves to the FAI and propose how they will remedy the situation. No mention of relegation, stripping of title etc.

OhNoYouDidn't

Publin, are you going to get that money this season? No. Did the Bohs board know that in March? Yes. Its a clear breach of the spirit of the rules and one the FAI will have to rule on. I suspect that you will get to keep your title if you play nice and sell Shels the Connaught side, which was what JD wanted the whole time.

I have no doubt that if Carroll does not pay the money in the next 15 weeks, which he won't because the Albion case is to be heard this winter, then you will a: be sanctioned b: the deal above or c: the whole thing will end up in the courts.

The sanctions you are talking about are related to the monthly accounts. I don't have the participation agreement here in work, but I can assure you, if the FAI deem that Bohs have missed the cap by more than 30%, you will be facing more than a transfer embargo.

bohsman

You think JD will threaten to take away the title because we broke "the spirit" of the rules?

Publin

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Publin, are you going to get that money this season? No. Did the Bohs board know that in March? Yes. Its a clear breach of the spirit of the rules and one the FAI will have to rule on. I suspect that you will get to keep your title if you play nice and sell Shels the Connaught side, which was what JD wanted the whole time.

I have no doubt that if Carroll does not pay the money in the next 15 weeks, which he won't because the Albion case is to be heard this winter, then you will a: be sanctioned b: the deal above or c: the whole thing will end up in the courts.

The sanctions you are talking about are related to the monthly accounts. I don't have the participation agreement here in work, but I can assure you, if the FAI deem that Bohs have missed the cap by more than 30%, you will be facing more than a transfer embargo.

I don't know if we'll get the money this season, it depends on the outcome of the Albion court case. As things stand, we are still due the money (albeit it hasn't been received into our bank account yet). I don't want to get into an accounting debate with you, but if we're entitled to/due the money, which at present we are, then it is income.

Delaney would love if us and Shels shared the ground, but that's never going to happen.

As I have already said above, our club secretary said "We have talked to the FAI financier, Padraig Smith, auditors and lawyers and they all agreed that we are nowhere near it".

Now, no offence, but I tend to believe our secretary directly quoted in the press ahead of a fan of another club. In addition, none of the people he mentioned have come forward and said they had any issue or disagreement with what was said. So, I'm going to believe the FAI, auditors and solicitors.

As I've said before, if we're in breach of the wage cap, we should be punished.

OhNoYouDidn't

bohsman wrote: »

You think JD will threaten to take away the title because we broke "the spirit" of the rules?

No - but if it can be proven your board knew full well that the funds were not going to arrive, which expolded at the board meeting last week, it could be argued that you are in blatant breach of the rules.

No doubt Pats lawyers will argue just that.

OhNoYouDidn't

Publin wrote: »

I don't know if we'll get the money this season, it depends on the outcome of the Albion court case. As things stand, we are still due the money (albeit it hasn't been received into our bank account yet). I don't want to get into an accounting debate with you, but if we're entitled to/due the money, which at present we are, then it is income.

Delaney would love if us and Shels shared the ground, but that's never going to happen.

As I have already said above, our club secretary said "We have talked to the FAI financier, Padraig Smith, auditors and lawyers and they all agreed that we are nowhere near it".

Now, no offence, but I tend to believe our secretary directly quoted in the press ahead of a fan of another club. In addition, none of the people he mentioned have come forward and said they had any issue or disagreement with what was said. So, I'm going to believe the FAI, auditors and solicitors.

As I've said before, if we're in breach of the wage cap, we should be punished.

You won't get the money this season. The case is in November I believe.

That means you will have breached the 65%. The only question is, was that due as you say to a creditor not paying up and Bohs the innocent party, or were you fully aware of the situation the whole time and a deliberate manipulation of the accounts. As you say, the judges ruling could null the entire Carroll deal, if the grim reaper or the property slump don't first.

Thats not 'entitled to'. Not by a long shot.

I would not expect you to believe me, as I'm a random internet punter, but is this not the same club secretary that tried to deny that the Albion deal had been struck? Despite him issuing press releases celebrating the deal? The same club sercretary that was involved in selling the same piece of land to two different people? Good luck with that.

Publin

The season ends in November, the court case has been adjourned until November. Just because debts have not been collected, does not mean that this is not income. At the time the accounts were submitted, the Albion case was due to be heard in April 2008, but it has since been adjourned until November. This was beyond our control. And yes "entitled to", as we are entitled to the money under our current deal with Carroll, UNLESS the Albion case goes against us.

I really didn't want to turn this into an accounting-type debate, but for example, say you get your ESB bill in December 2008, and their year end is 31 December 2008. You don't pay this until it's the middle of January 2009. The full amount of the December bill is still included in the ESB's 2008 accounts as income/sales.

I fully accept that the whole Albion case has been a disaster, but again I will say that the FAI, auditors and lawyers have not refuted what Conway said in the papers (that we are compliant).

bohsman

What date does the season end, cup final is in November anyway. I cant see Pats Drogs or Cork speaking up too loudly incase attention turns to them.

OhNoYouDidn't

Publin wrote: »

The season ends in November, the court case has been adjourned until November. Just because debts have not been collected, does not mean that this is not income. At the time the accounts were submitted, the Albion case was due to be heard in April 2008, but it has since been adjourned until November. This was beyond our control. And yes "entitled to", as we are entitled to the money under our current deal with Carroll, UNLESS the Albion case goes against us.

I really didn't want to turn this into an accounting-type debate, but for example, say you get your ESB bill in December 2008, and their year end is 31 December 2008. You don't pay this until it's the middle of January 2009. The full amount of the December bill is still included in the ESB's 2008 accounts as income/sales.

I fully accept that the whole Albion case has been a disaster, but again I will say that the FAI, auditors and lawyers have not refuted what Conway said in the papers (that we are compliant).

Key word there is unless.

Fundamentally the difference in our positions is I see the Carroll money as heavily conditional, you see it as a late payment from a creditor who has promised to pay it. You have heads of agreement with a dying man, not a contract.

We won't solve this here, but Bohs have played a very dangerous game in my opinion. Money they knew full well would not arrive in the season in question and in all probability they will never see should not have been allowed as income. I have a €20 betting slip with Rovers to win the cup at 12 to one. Its not worth €260, although it probably will be. I can't include that in my net worth.

Zebra3

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

The FAI took over the league and applied strictt financial criteria. The sanctions are quite clear for failure to pay players or breaching the wage cap. They were quick enough to hammer Rovers and Shels, and put transfer embargos on Galway and Sligo where are they on Bohs and Cork, and if this is true, Cobh?

You're half right. Shels were hammered by the FAI. Relegated while clearing all their debts.

Shamrock meanwhile walked away from debts over €1,000,000, had no licence to play in the league and got deducted 8 points. They got away with murder.

OhNoYouDidn't

Zebra3 wrote: »

You're half right. Shels were hammered by the FAI. Relegated while clearing all their debts.

Shamrock meanwhile walked away from debts over €1,000,000, had no licence to play in the league and got deducted 8 points. They got away with murder.

I'm half right? The implication being that Shels have cleared their debts. Not true now, is it.

Who are Shamrock?

If you mean Rovers, how having a points deduction that meant relegation 'is getting away with murder' is anyones guess.

I'm not going to apologise because we handled our financial problems better than Shels. We took a perfectly legitimate and legal route.

Zebra3

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

I'm half right? The implication being that Shels have cleared their debts. Not true now, is it.

Who are Shamrock?

If you mean Rovers, how having a points deduction that meant relegation 'is getting away with murder' is anyones guess.

I'm not going to apologise because we handled our financial problems better than Shels. We took a perfectly legitimate and legal route.

Who are Shamrock? Who are Rovers? :rolleyes:

The 8 point deduction did not mean relegation. Losing to Dublin City did.

I wish Shels had an 8 point deduction instead of instant demotion and got to walk away from a seven figure debt.

The "perfectly legitimate and legal route" you took gave you an unfair advantage over the rest of the clubs in the league that actually pay their debts. You actually seem proud of it.

Shamrock were stripped of their licence yet still allowed compete in the league instead of being kicked out instantly as they should have been. As I said, they got away with murder despite the glossy spin you put on it.

gimmick

bohsman wrote: »

What date does the season end, cup final is in November anyway.

Ends weekend of Nov 9th, and the Final is weekend of Nov 23rd I think, in the RDS again.

OhNoYouDidn't

Zebra3 wrote: »

Who are Shamrock? Who are Rovers? :rolleyes:

The 8 point deduction did not mean relegation. Losing to Dublin City did.

I wish Shels had an 8 point deduction instead of instant demotion and got to walk away from a seven figure debt.

The "perfectly legitimate and legal route" you took gave you an unfair advantage over the rest of the clubs in the league that actually pay their debts. You actually seem proud of it.

Shamrock were stripped of their licence yet still allowed compete in the league instead of being kicked out instantly as they should have been. As I said, they got away with murder despite the glossy spin you put on it.

How was it an unfair advantage? Shels could have gone down the examinership route, but chose not to. So can any other club. It is open to every business in the country and not against the FAI's rules.

Also, Shels still owe considerably more than Rovers had written off, so I fail to see where the advantage is.

However badly run Rovers were, and they were, there was no illegality happening. Unlike another club - hence the difference in sanctions imposed.

I also assume that one of the reasons we were dealt with differently was that it was in fact the fans who highlighted the error in the licencing application after their takeover and root and branch change of how the club operates. Something Shels did not do, and have yet to do.

Again, I am not going to apologise for this. We did what we had to do, legally and with FAI permission.

Zebra3

You fail to see where the advantage is by one club paying its debts and another not? :rolleyes:

OhNoYouDidn't

Zebra3 wrote: »

You fail to see where the advantage is by one club paying its debts and another not? :rolleyes:

But Shels have not paid their debts......

CantGetNoSleep

I stand by my point that the league in its current state is a joke

Are there any clubs in the league that are completely stable financially? In the Premier I can't think of many. UCD maybe? Since the end of last season how many clubs have had financial problems? How many fans are worried about where their club will be should something go wrong? (Bohs/Pats/Drogs?) In the last few seasons Shels, Rovers, Dublin City, Cobh, Waterford, Limerick, Kilkenny, Longford, Sligo and a few others have all had problems with money related issues.

I still think that the league should be disbanded. A new amateur league should be created until we see those in charge being capable of handling money and running a club. I mean asking players to take out a personal loan. Spending 50k a week on wages. Where is this money coming from? Even if they were getting 10,000 through the gate every second week this would barely cover this. The level of sponsorship just doesn't exist in this country to get anything from that.

And for the record, I have never subscribed to any sports channel on TV, and have never even been to England, let alone go to a Premiership match. I have been a Waterford Utd season ticket holder all my life up to last season, as I don't live in Ireland full time anymore, and I have been to several Cork City games for each of the past few seasons

OhNoYouDidn't

CantGetNoSleep wrote: »

I stand by my point that the league in its current state is a joke

Are there any clubs in the league that are completely stable financially? In the Premier I can't think of many. UCD maybe? Since the end of last season how many clubs have had financial problems? How many fans are worried about where their club will be should something go wrong? (Bohs/Pats/Drogs?) In the last few seasons Shels, Rovers, Dublin City, Cobh, Waterford, Limerick, Kilkenny, Longford, Sligo and a few others have all had problems with money related issues.

I still think that the league should be disbanded. A new amateur league should be created until we see those in charge being capable of handling money and running a club. I mean asking players to take out a personal loan. Spending 50k a week on wages. Where is this money coming from? Even if they were getting 10,000 through the gate every second week this would barely cover this. The level of sponsorship just doesn't exist in this country to get anything from that.

And for the record, I have never subscribed to any sports channel on TV, and have never even been to England, let alone go to a Premiership match. I have been a Waterford Utd season ticket holder all my life up to last season, as I don't live in Ireland full time anymore, and I have been to several Cork City games for each of the past few seasons

Are you naive enough to think that financial problems are unique to the LoI?

Man City in the wealthiest league in the world are in trouble. Fiorentina nearly went bust in the second.

All you are seeing is the transparancy as the FAI get tough.

djpbarry

CantGetNoSleep wrote: »

Are there any clubs in the league that are completely stable financially?

Yeah, they should all follow the Chelsea model and get billionaires to bankroll them :rolleyes:.

I can't believe that there are people that think that football clubs in other countries are well-run, from a financial perspective. I'd love to see how clubs in the English Premier would cope with a wage cap.

Zebra3

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

But Shels have not paid their debts......

Who have we left out of pocket?

Unlike Shamrock who left various people/companies out of pocket to the tune of over €1,000,000 with no intention of ever repaying them and got off pretty much scot free despite your stupid claim that they were hammered by the FAI. :rolleyes:

OhNoYouDidn't

Zebra3 wrote: »

Who have we left out of pocket?

Unlike Shamrock who left various people/companies out of pocket to the tune of over €1,000,000 with no intention of ever repaying them and got off pretty much scot free despite your stupid claim that they were hammered by the FAI. :rolleyes:

Are you saying that you repaid every cent of the €8m you owed?

You haven't, so give it a rest. This pettyness because your club was unwilling to allow the books go under the scrutiny that the examinership process would have brought.

If you could have done it our way you would.

Gavin "shels"

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Are you saying that you repaid every cent of the €8m you owed?

You haven't, so give it a rest. This pettyness because your club was unwilling to allow the books go under the scrutiny that the examinership process would have brought.

If you could have done it our way you would.

We have never owed €8 million, regardless of what the papers said.

It's including money which we have loaned from Ossie Kilkenny (which when Tolka is sold he gets back). It's an advance on the sale of Tolka, just like what Bohs are doing basically.

SantryRed

We still have debts don't we?

And we're slowly paying them back. That's the impression i was under

OhNoYouDidn't

SantryRed wrote: »

We still have debts don't we?

And we're slowly paying them back. That's the impression i was under

You are correct. So by Zebras logic you have an unfair advantage too