Boom or bust

[Dodge]

Not in the context of the specific question posed in post 1 (as stated in my post)

You're getting very bad at selective quoting lately, Dodge...

I don't think the quote is taken out of contest at all. And I think your dismissive attitude to people questioning UCD is completely at odds at your own, constant, questioning of other clubs.

[pineapple stu]

I've answered all his questions. However, a potentially interesting thread has gone way off track, and I wanted (as a mod) to try and get it back on track.

If you want to split the posts and start (another) new UCD finances thread, fire ahead. I've no bothers discussing it, although BohDiddley is more looking for what he wants to hear rather than actually discuss things.

[Dodge]

The thread is still very much on topic IMO

[Rovers1]

go on the lads!:)

[pineapple stu]

The thread is still very much on topic IMO

It clearly isn't. You can see this by the way we're discussing UCD's finances rather than the question posed in post 1.

In any event, I've answered all BD's questions, and if he wants to ask more, I'll answer them as best I can.

[Dodge]

its a discussion thread, not a poll. Amongst those talked about in the initial post were Bohs finances and UCD's finances. How can talking about them not be on topic?

[marinobohs]

But I think we're gone way off topic. The question is - would you rather win the league a couple of times and then go bust, or be a steady team challenging every now and again for a few cups, but safe in the knowledge that you'll be around in ten years' time. Your views on UCD's finances are irrelevant (as well as being nonsense).

Darn it, I knew those layabout students were ripping us all off :) Think that most clubs have had some assistance from public bodies be they local authorities or linked institutions (FAI) or indeed direct Government grants. Didnt Shams have a sweetheart deal on rent for Milltown before it was sold ? the only problem I have is that there is not enough breaks for clubs (why the Govt don't give some some form of tax breaks....).

Fun though it would be I think its stretching things to suggest Cork/Bohs/Rovers/Drogs/Shels financial woes were as a result of UCD's unfair advantage :rolleyes:

[pineapple stu]

its a discussion thread, not a poll. Amongst those talked about in the initial post were Bohs finances and UCD's finances. How can talking about them not be on topic?

Because they were given as examples which are generally used to indicate financial prudence and financial idiocy, and thus highlight the OP's question, which has fallen by the wayside. It clearly wasn't the intention to drill down into them in detail.

Is discussing the rumour that Cork's wages weren't paid this month staying on topic? Or did you hear that Drogheda's new ground is in trouble?

The nub of the question was -


which [would] most fans [...] prefer

(1) 10-15 years at the top followed by dodgy/ potential meltdown
OR
(2) steady controlled financial approach to club without ever challenging for trophys

And that's what we're gone off topic.

As I said, I've no bothers having the UCD stuff split to a new thread and discussing it there, or resurrecting one of the many old UCD finances threads, but it's clearly taking us off topic here.

[marinobohs]

Fair points Marino but part of the leagues problem is attendances, and at the moment the "mythical hordes" are just that BUT look around the world, there isn't a football club anywhere from Madrid to Monaghan who aren't trying every trick in the book to win over the masses.
More people through the gate means more money. More money equals better facilities, better facilities equals better players, better players means improved standards and therefore (theoretically at least) more people through the gates.
It's the circle of life, at some point you need to get on board.

No aurgument with your points endabob 1 but I think given the (VERY) limited resources that are currently available there needs to be a focus on gradual development rather than the scattergun approach that has prevailed. Small gradual improvement (maybe even just survival) is the only option in the current envoirnment IMO and I think Football here has spent too much time chasing the magic bullet solution.

(apols to MODS for wandering off my own topic !)

[endabob1]

Actually I think you've wandered back on topic!!

Slow and steady wins the race, the original question was would people prefer the rollercoaster Shels/Drogs existence or the UCD/Mons existence.
The answer is as always somewhere in the middle but if the league is to develop and grow, it needs to do it at a pacce that is financially sustainable.

[marinobohs]

Actually I think you've wandered back on topic!!

Slow and steady wins the race, the original question was would people prefer the rollercoaster Shels/Drogs existence or the UCD/Mons existence.
The answer is as always somewhere in the middle but if the league is to develop and grow, it needs to do it at a pacce that is financially sustainable.

But what the hell would we all have to talk about then during the mid season break ?:)

[BohDiddley]

But I think we're gone way off topic. The question is - would you rather win the league a couple of times and then go bust, or be a steady team challenging every now and again for a few cups, but safe in the knowledge that you'll be around in ten years' time. Your views on UCD's finances are irrelevant (as well as being nonsense).

I am only addressing UCD's finances because you frequently berate others from a position of cosseted, dull safety (whether you choose to think that's nonsense or not).
My basic point, made before our college excursion, is that the question as originally posed is wide of the mark. It's a false opposition. Even if clubs are sensible and 'steady', without external support they may still go to the wall. It would be great if it were simply a matter of getting rid of a few so-called idiots, but unfortunately it's not that simple.

[pineapple stu]

Even if clubs are sensible and 'steady', without external support they may still go to the wall.
I'm not sure what that has to do with anything though?

Having or not having external support doesn't cause a club to go off and bankrupt itself on a success trip, and the question was whether you'd prefer that over easy living.

[Dodge]

I'm not sure what that has to do with anything though?

Having or not having external support doesn't cause a club to go off and bankrupt itself on a success trip, and the question was whether you'd prefer that over easy living.

Easy living, eh?

[pineapple stu]

Haven't you been reading? Government funded, kept indoors and not out in the wild, no-one able to read our accounts - we don't know how easy we have it. ;)

A slack term. And now I can't think of a term which sums up what I mean. But you know what I mean... Steady living, maybe.