Reading FC - Scabby bast**ds?

Welcome to Kerrydale Street. We hope you enjoy your visit.

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use.

If you decide to register, please be aware that we don't accept email addresses from free web accounts like gmail, Hotmail, live.co.uk etc. Sorry, but almost all of the abuse and spam that we get is from free web accounts. The software on the forum will automatically block any requests using a free email account.

Upon Registration, you will be given access to all our varied Forums, and you will be expected to comply with our fairly stringent Rules and Regulations. Meantime, enjoy your visit

If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Pages:
1
…
5
6
7
8
9

Reading FC - Scabby bast**ds?; You decide
Topic Started: 2 Jul 2009, 05:20 PM (7,534 Views)
Blocker	2 Jul 2009, 10:26 PM Post #101
Not got much to say Posts: 484 Group: Members Member #2,511 Joined: 15 December 2005 Favourite all-time player John Collins	Why Don't the Cork fans help Cork? It's not a huge sum of money and Reading donated their share last year before Doyle LEFT FOR WOLVES. Sporting chance for Cork City FC and Setanta 17 June 2009 By Larry Ryan Cork City FC was back in the High Court this week where the League of Ireland club received a final deadline for settlement of its tax affairs with the Revenue Commissioners. Ms Justice Mary Laffoy agreed to a final four-week adjournment to give the club more time to avoid being wound up. The club produced evidence that it had made a number of payments totalling more than €100,000 in respect of its liabilities, but the Revenue clams that around €225,000 remains outstanding. Cork City insists that its actual debt is lower, claiming some of the total should be written off as part of the club’s examinership settlement last October. A club statement read: “Cork City FC has made payments to the Revenue totalling €102,000 and is continuing to work to clarify the exact amount outstanding. The club's auditors are working to arrange a meeting with the Revenue in order to resolve the issue fully, and it is hoped that this meeting will take place before the end of the week.” Edited by Blocker, 2 Jul 2009, 10:44 PM.



kmc67	2 Jul 2009, 10:46 PM Post #102
Occasional Substitute Posts: 359 Group: Members Member #4,046 Joined: 16 June 2006	kmc67 2 Jul 2009, 10:03 PM why did the tic not bale them out for doyle



jim62	2 Jul 2009, 11:16 PM Post #103
the voice !!! Posts: 14,082 Group: Backroom Staff Member #312 Joined: 26 October 2004	Mmurph...you seem to be labouring under a misapprehension that if Cork had gone to the wall that the "sell-on" clause would have been an "asset" available to the receiver/administrator...I am struggling to see how it could have been given that the sell on fee could only be payable when Doyle was actually sold..it was not a "debt" due to Cork in the legal sense.. so...answer this one...we bought Petrov for about £1.5 mill...sold him for £8mill...how much of that profit should we have bunged to his former club??



Westbelfast_Tim	2 Jul 2009, 11:33 PM Post #104
Club Captain Posts: 3,798 Group: Snr. Member Member #1,325 Joined: 23 June 2005	Right from the Peter Lawwell school of business



Bawman	2 Jul 2009, 11:39 PM Post #105
Class is permanent Posts: 15,641 Group: Senior Member Member #106 Joined: 1 September 2004	Might be an idea tae manage their finances a bit better and put a band aid on the obvious bleeding that has allowed them tae be caught on the hop twice in successive seasons.



charlie1888	2 Jul 2009, 11:48 PM Post #106
Getting noticed in the reserves Posts: 69 Group: Members Member #5,567 Joined: 14 November 2006	Reading are 100% right, Cork city should manage their money better so they don't end up in financial strife.



pablyuchenko	3 Jul 2009, 12:34 AM Post #107
First team training Posts: 260 Group: Members Member #23,842 Joined: 15 June 2009 Favourite all-time player The king	remy mcswain 2 Jul 2009, 08:41 PM murphio 2 Jul 2009, 08:38 PM remy mcswain 2 Jul 2009, 08:30 PM So Reading bail them out once and they are scum? They've done nothing wrong. It's hardly their fault Cork are skint. If you were losing everything you had and I jumped in and offered you one third of something I owed you if you took it early, would I be bailing you out or ruthlessley capitalising on your misfortune? If you were my only realistic option (and I'm assuming Cork's bankers and board members didn't stump up here ), then you are bailing me out.. There is always a huge discount for early payment. If Cork thought it was that bad a deal, they should have said no. For me the issue is whether or not the 200k was the FAIR value of the clause - regardless of who approached who. Reading have an financial obligation to their shareholders but they also have a moral obligation (in this instance not to kick a club when they are down). Given that the clause was inserted at 6.5M it is clear this is the price reading envisaged selling Doyle at, this was their valuation of the players worth. If you take that as your starting point the the logical conclusion is that the clause was worth 650K to Cork at some point in the future (although there was a very small chance it would be worth jack). Based on this i'd say 350K would have been a fairer settlement so yes reading do have to take a long look at themselves in the mirror - but thats just my opinion. Its very easy to sit and say cork only have themselves to blame when its not your hometown club.



murphio	3 Jul 2009, 04:45 AM Post #108
Older than dirt Posts: 29,733 Group: Snr. Member Member #127 Joined: 2 September 2004	jim62 2 Jul 2009, 11:16 PM Mmurph...you seem to be labouring under a misapprehension that if Cork had gone to the wall that the "sell-on" clause would have been an "asset" available to the receiver/administrator...I am struggling to see how it could have been given that the sell on fee could only be payable when Doyle was actually sold..it was not a "debt" due to Cork in the legal sense.. so...answer this one...we bought Petrov for about £1.5 mill...sold him for £8mill...how much of that profit should we have bunged to his former club?? It was a 'possible' asset - one which would have been legally enforceable under certain conditions - ie Doyle being sold or someone meeting the value of his release clause. You see this all the time in football. Rangers, for example, had a 'possible' legal obligation to pay Everton extra money in the event of Michael Ball playing a certain number of games. He had to meet the criteria but the additional fee was still legally enforceable in the event of the conditions being met. Re the Petrov example - Jim I know this may be an alien concept to someone who deals with the absolutes of the law but not everything in life is governed by something covered in a big red book. The point is not what profit Reading made. The amount of profit would be completely irrelevant if Cork had not negotiated a sell on clause in the first place. They did though, 10 per cent, which was worth 650k from the fee stated in the release clause in Doyle's contract. Putting legalities aside for one second - and I know being a lawyer thats a toughie for you - morally speaking, imo, Reading were wrong to capitalise on Cork's predicament by fleecing them for two thirds of what they were due. They saw an opportunity to save themselves half a million pounds - because at that stage they were completely aware of the amount it would take to buy Doyle from them - and in doing so deprived Cork of money, to which they were originally entitled, which would have secured their future. To directly answer your question - Levski Sofia were due nothing from Petrov's transfer to Villa because it was a flat 2.2m fee - quite a big outlay for a 19 year old - and didnt include a sell on clause. Doyle, on the other hand, changed clubs for just 70k and the sell on clause was an integral part of any potential recompence for Cork. But, thanks to the greed which typifies the modern game, this was negotiated down to 200k quite simply because Cork needed the cash quickly. That, to me, is wrong but hey, if people want t see it differently that is up to them.



Finnerbahce	3 Jul 2009, 05:43 AM Post #109
Aarrgh Posts: 2,008 Group: Senior Member Member #10 Joined: 31 August 2004	Meh. Don 't spend what you can't afford.



chicorico	3 Jul 2009, 06:21 AM Post #110
Deid rat Posts: 1,081 Group: Members Member #4,407 Joined: 7 August 2006	murphio 3 Jul 2009, 04:45 AM jim62 2 Jul 2009, 11:16 PM Mmurph...you seem to be labouring under a misapprehension that if Cork had gone to the wall that the "sell-on" clause would have been an "asset" available to the receiver/administrator...I am struggling to see how it could have been given that the sell on fee could only be payable when Doyle was actually sold..it was not a "debt" due to Cork in the legal sense.. so...answer this one...we bought Petrov for about £1.5 mill...sold him for £8mill...how much of that profit should we have bunged to his former club?? It was a 'possible' asset - one which would have been legally enforceable under certain conditions - ie Doyle being sold or someone meeting the value of his release clause. You see this all the time in football. Rangers, for example, had a 'possible' legal obligation to pay Everton extra money in the event of Michael Ball playing a certain number of games. He had to meet the criteria but the additional fee was still legally enforceable in the event of the conditions being met. Re the Petrov example - Jim I know this may be an alien concept to someone who deals with the absolutes of the law but not everything in life is governed by something covered in a big red book. The point is not what profit Reading made. The amount of profit would be completely irrelevant if Cork had not negotiated a sell on clause in the first place. They did though, 10 per cent, which was worth 650k from the fee stated in the release clause in Doyle's contract. Putting legalities aside for one second - and I know being a lawyer thats a toughie for you - morally speaking, imo, Reading were wrong to capitalise on Cork's predicament by fleecing them for two thirds of what they were due. They saw an opportunity to save themselves half a million pounds - because at that stage they were completely aware of the amount it would take to buy Doyle from them - and in doing so deprived Cork of money, to which they were originally entitled, which would have secured their future. To directly answer your question - Levski Sofia were due nothing from Petrov's transfer to Villa because it was a flat 2.2m fee - quite a big outlay for a 19 year old - and didnt include a sell on clause. Doyle, on the other hand, changed clubs for just 70k and the sell on clause was an integral part of any potential recompence for Cork. But, thanks to the greed which typifies the modern game, this was negotiated down to 200k quite simply because Cork needed the cash quickly. That, to me, is wrong but hey, if people want t see it differently that is up to them. Suppose it's been well covered already, but the sell on clause wasn't worth 650k when Cork took the money from Reading. On a purely simplistic basis it was worth, say, a 40% chance he's sold for 6.5m and you get 650k, 50% chance he's not sold and you get nada, 10% chance he gets crocked and you get nada, so (40% x 650k) + (50% x 0) + (10% x 0) = 260k. Factor in a discount for early payment, illiquidity etc and Cork did well out of it. If it was worth much more than Reading were offering they could have sold the right or borrowed against it. Reading owe them nothing IMO, legally or morally, they've got enough worries about surviving of their own and they never took the decisions that put Cork on the skids. Haven't followed the story, but is there no prospect of the Cork fans bailing them out (€20 each?) and taking control of the club? Edited by chicorico, 3 Jul 2009, 06:22 AM.



aidensboots	3 Jul 2009, 08:03 AM Post #111
hallelujah! Posts: 15,072 Group: Snr. Member Member #17,570 Joined: 2 April 2008	I fail to see what Reading done wrong Neitehr organisations are charities and both have to run their respective organisations within budget or face being put out of business. I knwo there is a tendency to moralise football but as both parties agreed to this and would have been happy enough at the time then there is no point in any retrospective souldsearching from the chairmen. Yes, i can see how Cork may ba a bit pissed off considering they are back in the doodoo again but that is their fault for not learning from previous experience.



herbert viola	3 Jul 2009, 08:17 AM Post #112
Club Captain Posts: 3,436 Group: Snr. Member Member #11,925 Joined: 9 November 2007	murphio 2 Jul 2009, 10:01 PM herbert viola 2 Jul 2009, 09:43 PM youre taking the final point of law (that they went into administration) and using that as a definitive difference. Its not as black and white as that, much more complex, and Im sure you know that Murphio, but that doesnt suit your argument in criticising Reading. Tolouse agreed a fee for Balde and in the meantime went bankrupt meaning that ALL their players became free agents. This was entirely down to laws which govern the game and has little or nothing to do with what has transpired between Cork and Reading. Had Celtic picked up Balde for 70k, sold him to Bayern Munich for 6.5m and then - on the back of a crisis at Tolouse which could have meant their extinction - attempted to renegotiate our previously agree deal then I would have felt exactly the same as I do re Reading. I understand that the nature of business is dog eat dog and survival of the fittest. But, like I said above, football clubs imo cannot and should not be considered just 'businesses'. There are people behind them and when you capitalise on the misfortune of others for financial gain then, business or not, I think that is wrong. If Cork go to the wall how many players lose their jobs? How many staff become unemployed? How many supporters lose something they love? But thats okay because Reading seen an opportunity to trouser an extra half a million which would have avoided all of the above? Its not like its charity - its simpy doing what is right on the back of a huge profit and giving them the money which they agreed to back in 2005 whether Cork, in their financial predicament, were forced to accept less or not. You are again though hanging on a technicality. Celtic took legal advice at the time to attempt to squirm out of making payment, it wasnt as cut and dried as you suggest (they hadnt gone into liquidation, or whatever the french equivalent is when celtic got wind of it). Thats just as exploitative. Murphio, you take a very honourable position. If only the rest of society, including our own football club did the same, itd certainly be a better place. I raised a thread months ago when I heard some of the psh that celtic are doing with my nephew's employment in one of their posher restaraunts, and I got slated for it on here. This included the usual tricks of giving them 20 mins break in a 12 hour shift, not providing food for them during that 20 minute break, making them clock off work 5 minutes before they are required to pay for a taxi etc etc. If you want exploitation, have a look at that treatment of a 17 year old. Cork overspent, end of subject, didnt run their business as effectively as they should have done. They now need to deal with the consequences of that. Oh, and by the way, on the subject of 'charity', the irish state isnt one. Cork should take out a loan to repay the taxes they owe the state, currently they are using money which is really the people's money to subsidise their business. If only we could all do the same. And thats just as capitalist as anything Reading have done. Edited by herbert viola*, 3 Jul 2009, 08:20 AM.



thebhoyalan	3 Jul 2009, 09:26 AM Post #113
Mourning your decline with some Thunderbird wine Posts: 7,261 Group: Backroom Staff Member #316 Joined: 27 October 2004	So Cork, who are currently trying to rip off the Irish taxpayer (me at a time when I'm stumping an extra income levy), struck a deal with Reading which suited them both. Cork accepted a lesser payment to get the money there and then and Reading stumped in money when they didn't have to, in the hope that it would be less than they'd have to stump up in the long run. Are you saying that Reading should have entered a "Heads you win, Tails I lose" agreement with Cork? What if Reading had signed that agreement, 3 months later Doyle gets a career ending injury, Reading up at the wrong end of the table and face doing a Southampton and face extinction, meanwhile Cork are in rude health, would you argue that Cork where scum if they didn't offer to pay the money back?



pablyuchenko	3 Jul 2009, 09:47 AM Post #114
First team training Posts: 260 Group: Members Member #23,842 Joined: 15 June 2009 Favourite all-time player The king	chicorico 3 Jul 2009, 06:21 AM On a purely simplistic basis it was worth, say, a 40% chance he's sold for 6.5m and you get 650k, 50% chance he's not sold and you get nada, 10% chance he gets crocked and you get nada, so (40% x 650k) + (50% x 0) + (10% x 0) = 260k. Factor in a discount for early payment, illiquidity etc and Cork did well out of it. If it was worth much more than Reading were offering they could have sold the right or borrowed against it. Reading owe them nothing IMO, legally or morally, they've got enough worries about surviving of their own and they never took the decisions that put Cork on the skids. Haven't followed the story, but is there no prospect of the Cork fans bailing them out (€20 each?) and taking control of the club? Point is correct but the probabilities are all wrong, was more than likely he was going to be sold for the 6.5M clause price or thereabouts (6M) there is decent chance his value would have gone down due to injury, performance etc (3M) and there is a small chance the contract would be ran down or injury would end his career (0M) so.... (70% x 600K) + (20% X 300K) + (10% X 0K) = £480K then you factor in prudence on readings part, take maybe 50K, early payment of "asset", take another 80K thats 350K in anyones terms in short, reading short changed cork city fc because they could I doubt if both parties were happy with the figure agree but it was a case of Cork having to take what was on offer.



murphio	3 Jul 2009, 01:28 PM Post #115
Older than dirt Posts: 29,733 Group: Snr. Member Member #127 Joined: 2 September 2004	Finnerbahce 3 Jul 2009, 05:43 AM Meh. Don 't spend what you can't afford. Ya fecker. If it was the hurling mob youd feel different Edited by murphio, 3 Jul 2009, 01:32 PM.



Boabacca	3 Jul 2009, 01:46 PM Post #116
First-team starter Posts: 944 Group: Members Member #4,775 Joined: 2 September 2006	Finnerbahce 3 Jul 2009, 05:43 AM Meh. Don 't spend what you can't afford. Its the white knight riding to Murphio's rescue.......................................



jim62	3 Jul 2009, 01:52 PM Post #117
the voice !!! Posts: 14,082 Group: Backroom Staff Member #312 Joined: 26 October 2004	Finnerbahce 3 Jul 2009, 05:43 AM Meh. Don 't spend what you can't afford. you know Murph's argument is utterly gubbed when even the Cork "biy" doesn't agree with it!! will I close ths one now?



Boston Celt	3 Jul 2009, 07:37 PM Post #118
First team training Posts: 129 Group: Members Member #23,305 Joined: 18 April 2009 Favourite all-time player Chris Sutton (Chris Morris when I was a wee bhoy)	murphio 2 Jul 2009, 07:15 PM Roland 2 Jul 2009, 07:02 PM murphio 2 Jul 2009, 06:58 PM Quoting limited to 3 levels deep Cheers. Just found this. What a bunch of huns At the time the hun were almost universally derided on here over what immoral, repugnant repties they were for their actions over Khizanishvili. Yet, they really did nothing other than capitalise on another clubs misfortune for their own selfish financial advantage. Little difference imo. Hot on the heels of this, they went back and took Gavin Rae on the cheap. If i remember correctly, when Dundee went into administration Minty Moonbeam was one of the main creditors chasing Dundee's cash in those days.



Finnerbahce	3 Jul 2009, 10:14 PM Post #119
Aarrgh Posts: 2,008 Group: Senior Member Member #10 Joined: 31 August 2004	murphio 3 Jul 2009, 01:28 PM Finnerbahce 3 Jul 2009, 05:43 AM Meh. Don 't spend what you can't afford. Ya fecker. If it was the hurling mob youd feel different Ah but the hurlers are amateur. Cork City were a well run club a few years back and when Brian Lennox arrived he'd big ideas for the club but on a step by step scale. Lennox owns a cracking chip shop in Cork and mucks in himself but as the years rolled on he used to even get abuse in there and started to overspend to please the fans. The biggest mistake he made, imo, is pandering to the fans. Even when it seemed that they could no longer maintain the level of spending the fans kicked up and it led to the sale and eventually, to where we are now. I think the club is badly run and I don't mean in a financial sense, rather in an operational sense (kids running about on match day etc). They've made their bed, now lie in it. Sorry murph, but absolutely no sympathy here.



The Maestro	3 Jul 2009, 10:19 PM Post #120
Skateaway Posts: 7,040 Group: Snr. Member Member #77 Joined: 1 September 2004 Favourite all-time player Paul McStay	Finnerbahce 3 Jul 2009, 05:43 AM Meh. Don 't spend what you can't afford. Good shout Finner, any chance you can tell Gordon Brown that



1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)

Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Celtic Football Club Discussion Forum · Next Topic »

Pages:
1
…
5
6
7
8
9