Boom or bust

[marinobohs]

Given the precarious position of my own club (and many others) I got to wondering which most fans would prefer

(1) 10-15 years at the top followed by dodgy/ potential meltdown (Bohs, Cork, Shels, Drogs)
OR
(2) steady controlled financial approach to club without ever challenging for trophys (UCD for example.

Would Shels fans swop the success they enjoyed in the 90's to avoid the financial meltdown that ensued ? Would UCD fans risk thier undoubted stability for a year or two of challenging for the League/europe ?

[John83]

Boom and bust has hurt the league. Players don't trust that they'll get their next paycheck, the public only ever hears of the league as a financial basket case, and infrastructure has been pitifully underfunded. Shels fans may think fondly of their few years of success, but it's cost them Tolka. Tolka! One of the finest stadiums in the league going to seed, and eventually to be a set of crappy apartments.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. There's no room for UCD in a well run top flight. We've not the money to compete with clubs with ten times our fanbase. Your own incompetence keeps us competitive. Think on that.

[pineapple stu]

Would UCD fans risk thier undoubted stability for a year or two of challenging for the League/europe ?
Not a chance. What's a year or two in the greater scheme of things?

(And also, we've already risked our undoubted stability for a year or two of challenging for the League/Europe. Nearly killed us. And I'm thankful that didn't happen)

[Ezeikial]

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


None of the above thank you.

Implementation of the 65% rule, facilitating clubs with a decent fanbase to persue a "steady controlled financial approach" and challenge for trophies.

[seand]

Obviously 'neither' is the preferred option, but if it's black and white I'd rather have been following a team like Shels - millions of league titles, cups, Champions League, massive games then scary moments, relegation, rebuilding in the First than a team like UCD, midtable, relegation battle, midtable, relegation, promotion, relegation.

At the end ofthe day their both top of the First Division- would you rather be there via solid financial planning or via Deportivo La Coruna?

Take another example... has it been more fun following crazy-ass Drogheda or nice and sensible Monaghan over the past 10 years?

[Sunny Jim]

None of the above thank you.

Implementation of the 65% rule, facilitating clubs with a decent fanbase to persue a "steady controlled financial approach" and challenge for trophies.

What he said.

Bottom line - I would rather have a club to support than not.

[Dodge]

Fair question marinobohs. I know that I enjoyed times were we won on borrowed money and wouldn't swap them for anything.

I've also come very, very close to Pats dying at least twice and thats not a feeling I want to feel again.

Being stuck in no mans land struggling to field competitive teams is horrible too.

Bottom line is that following a LOI time the exact moment of juxtapostion of hating football, and being completely in love with it.

God this 2 week break is killing me...

[pineapple stu]

I think for the purposes of the thread, the obvious "success and not going broke" isn't an option. It's a rhetorical question like "Would you rather your club won the league or Ireland won the World Cup?" kind of thing. Saying "I'd rather both" kind of defeats the point!

[Claret Murph]

Good question , I do recall some Longford fan on here a while back when they took the drop, he said something like "well it's all gone but who wouldn't swap our two FAI Cup wins" . Sometimes one or two moments of glory make's it all worth while .

[pineapple stu]

Will it be all worthwhile in ten years' time though?

[Macy]

One of my main issues with the FAI over the complete mess they've made of licencing is the fact that this remains a question. I probably wouldn't swap the days out/ memories/ trophies for financial stability*, but, if there was proper regulation we wouldn't have to as we would've been competitive anyway.

*It still wouldn't have been worth sending the club under though, at least we seem to have pulled back from the brink earlier than other clubs had to be dragged kicking and screaming from the brink.

[mandrake]

Obviously 'neither' is the preferred option, but if it's black and white I'd rather have been following a team like Shels - millions of league titles, cups, Champions League, massive games then scary moments, relegation, rebuilding in the First than a team like UCD, midtable, relegation battle, midtable, relegation, promotion, relegation.

At the end ofthe day their both top of the First Division- would you rather be there via solid financial planning or via Deportivo La Coruna?

Take another example... has it been more fun following crazy-ass Drogheda or nice and sensible Monaghan over the past 10 years?

fun watching crazy-ass drogheda, because we nearly went broke in 1999 as well and we hadnt won a single thing in 30 years, well a league cup, (funnily we beat dundalk twice in a whole season and no other games!!) so i have to say the last 7 years have been great(and dundalk in the graveyard put the icing on it) ok we went broke , but most clubs do and that can happen without even going crazy to win things :eek:

[BohDiddley]

There seems to be a cosy assumption, by those here who see themselves on the 'right' side of this discussion, that clubs have an option.

It was Drogs in trouble this year. It's Bohs and Cork now. Bohs policies over the last few years certainly have accelerated our financial decline, but we are not unique in getting caught in the property bubble.

Next year, or the year after, it'll be someone else, when their sugar daddy tires as the crowd slump continues.

Clubs everywhere outside the circle of hype are in crisis (http://www.twohundredpercent.net/?cat=27). The basic problem is that football has moved to television. The only places where things are healthy in smaller leagues are where public subvention is part of the mix -- in Scandinavia, of course, and in Tallaght.

[John83]

There seems to be a cosy assumption, by those here who see themselves on the 'right' side of this discussion, that clubs have an option.
There are unavoidable financial crises. I've yet to see one in this league.


It was Drogs in trouble this year.
From overspending.


It's Bohs and Cork now.
From overspending.


Bohs policies over the last few years certainly have accelerated our financial decline, but we are not unique in getting caught in the property bubble.
Caught in the property bubble? Ha!

[pineapple stu]

There seems to be a cosy assumption, by those here who see themselves on the 'right' side of this discussion, that clubs have an option.
Have an option what?

Are you suggesting Bohs, for example, didn't have an option but to go broke? Because that'd be one of the most risible arguments I've ever heard.


The only places where things are healthy in smaller leagues are where public subvention is part of the mix -- in Scandinavia, of course, and in Tallaght.
Simply not true. Things are - relatively speaking - healthy in Belfield for a start. The problem is that in football, success is seen as everything, and as such the nature of the industry makes is a healthy breeding ground for people who value success above anything else. Everyone can't win all of the time, which makes this plan ultimately flawed. You can't blame football's ills on TV. I blame it on idiots running clubs.


Bohs policies over the last few years certainly have accelerated our financial decline, but we are not unique in getting caught in the property bubble.
Edit - Missed this one - thanks John83. I'm not sure if :D or :rolleyes: answers it better.

[Ezeikial]

There seems to be a cosy assumption, by those here who see themselves on the 'right' side of this discussion, that clubs have an option.

It was Drogs in trouble this year. It's Bohs and Cork now. Bohs policies over the last few years certainly have accelerated our financial decline, but we are not unique in getting caught in the property bubble.

Next year, or the year after, it'll be someone else, when their sugar daddy tires as the crowd slump continues.

Clubs everywhere outside the circle of hype are in crisis (http://www.twohundredpercent.net/?cat=27). The basic problem is that football has moved to television. The only places where things are healthy in smaller leagues are where public subvention is part of the mix -- in Scandinavia, of course, and in Tallaght.

Clubs always have an option - it's a rather sophisticated concept, and not easily grasped by many in the "circle of hype" -

KEEP EXPENDITURE BELOW INCOME

[BohDiddley]

If you think I'm about to defend Bohs' financial dealings in recent years you are mistaken.

My point is that the problems facing football are generalised. You can score small-time points off Bohs, and others, for sure, but the fundamental problems in the game are not going to go away. The best 'make more money than you spend' bean-counters in the world will not save the league, no matter how much they preach the obvious.

As for UCD, they are not in a normal situation and can lecture no one on sensible conduct. I'd rather have no league than a league full of college clubs, thanks.

[pineapple stu]

As for UCD, they [...] can lecture no one on sensible conduct.
Are you for real?!

Do you want to trot out the tired "funded by the Government" line and get it over with?

Or how about leaving us to one side and addressing the points which didn't concern UCD but which were made against your argument?

[Ezeikial]

KEEP EXPENDITURE BELOW INCOME


The best 'make more money than you spend' bean-counters in the world will not save the league, no matter how much they preach the obvious.



Perhaps you just can't see the difference between the two statements :confused:

[John83]

...the fundamental problems in the game are not going to go away. The best 'make more money than you spend' bean-counters in the world will not save the league, no matter how much they preach the obvious...
I'm sorry, but I can't take this argument seriously. We can argue about fluctuating dimensions and material costs after the clubs have learned to cut their cloth to fit.

Until then, I'm reading your posts and feeling exactly the same as I do when I read Steorn's CEO trying to argue that the lights from the cameras caused Orbo to stop working.

[Dodge]

Just to back up BohDiddly slightly, a league run completely by accountants would be a pretty uneventful place.

There are times when borrowing is a good idea, and certainly ambition is no bad thing

Its the lack of reality that kills most of these ambitions.

[pineapple stu]

Just to back up BohDiddly slightly, a league run completely by accountants would be a pretty uneventful place.
It really wouldn't. Teams would still win, come second and get relegated. Teams would compete on the basis of how well they can coach their players, or how good their scouting network is, and not how many times they can sell their ground.

(And yes, I'm an accountant...)

[John83]

...There are times when borrowing is a good idea...
No one will argue that. Not even accountants. This is not the kind of borrowing we see in the league.

[Dodge]

It really wouldn't. Teams would still win, come second and get relegated. Teams would compete on the basis of how well they can coach their players, or how good their scouting network is, and not how many times they can sell their ground.

Really? You think that even if teams cut their cloth (etc) that the teams with most income wouldn't still be the the dominant forces?

Even without overspending, the teams with most to offer players would still sign the better players.

[Dodge]

No one will argue that. Not even accountants. This is not the kind of borrowing we see in the league.

I might have to clarify that my comment above about the lack of reality was talking specifically about the amount of borrowing and overspending in our league.

I agree 100% with your point

Oh and pineapple argues against it ;)

[BohDiddley]

Are you for real?!

Yes. I am from a real club that exists in the real world, with real challenges. Much as it might offend you, we have nothing to learn from you and so prefer not to listen to your extra-mural dispatches of wisdom


Do you want to trot out the tired "funded by the Government" line and get it over with?

Didn't you just do that? Suffice to say that you have things going for you in the survival stakes that do not apply to clubs that exist in the wild. In general, I am a supporter of Government funding for football, however unlikely that is to be in prospect, but I think it should be done in an open and transparent way.


Or how about leaving us to one side and addressing the points which didn't concern UCD but which were made against your argument?


I'll gladly leave UCD to one side. As I said, your club's position is anachronistic and not relevant. That's why your halo-polishing grates more than most.

I don't see a problem with many of the points made, as, while they are sanctimoniously expressed, I don't see them as being fundamentally in contradiction of my argument.

They are essentially sound, but painfully obvious. Every club should try to spend less than it earns. Everyone should plan to stay within the salary cap based on realistic projections and not hoped-for revenues. Bohs should have been more sensible, especially when you consider that crowds might be just as good this year if we hadn't won the double last year. Hey, if that knowledge alone could save the league, we'd all be happy.

But I think that, outside of the madness fuelled by property deals, the sport has fundamental strategic problems that are not being addressed. I'm not the one who is in denial about that. Those who think that the problem exists only because clubs are run by 'idiots' are the ones who are in denial.

[John83]

Strategic problems? The man is like a chess player bemoaning his poor pawn structure while he's being check mated.

Waffle about extra-mural dispatches all you like, but as much as it grates to be lectured about the ridiculous and unnecessary position your club has gotten itself into, it's far more annoying to be told you don't know what you're talking about by someone who has demonstrably failed.

[BohDiddley]

Who has failed?

[John83]

Bohs.

[BohDiddley]

You must be wearing experimental antennae from one of your labs. Bohs have not failed. We are in peril, but so are most clubs in the league, and so is the game generally.

Our property adventures were foolish and they have blown up in our face. However, we still have a large asset which is the subject of new interest, and we have elected a reforming financial director who can count beans better and say things like spend less than you earn better than anyone on foot.ie.

But those considerations alone will not keep the club alive in the future. That is why I am saying that it is not a question of boom or bust and narrow financial probity. It is a question of survival or extinction.

[Réiteoir]

I'm with Dodge and BohDidley on this subject - both make excellent points


Good question , I do recall some Longford fan on here a while back when they took the drop, he said something like "well it's all gone but who wouldn't swap our two FAI Cup wins" . Sometimes one or two moments of glory make's it all worth while .

Aye - the Double last season, the Leagues won in previous years would cushion the blow of dropping down to Part-Time if it happens.

I'm going to head over to enjoy the trip to Salzburg as much as I can - it may well be the last we have for a good while

[Magicme]

Take another example... has it been more fun following crazy-ass Drogheda or nice and sensible Monaghan over the past 10 years?

Nice and sensible of course! (Just like my shoes, cant be doing with those new fangled high heeled ones, risk nosebleeds at that height never mind the damage to me feet)

Our nice and sensible approach will hopefully pay off in the next 2 years. Revenue generated from our new full sized astro pitch will help to fund not only further development of the Regional Development Centre and provide better coaching for children etc, but will also give us a little extra in the kitty to put towards building stronger teams.

Its all about the long view people.

And we have had our exciting moments, maybe not Europe or Premier Division titles but we have been in the hunt for some glory occasionally!

[pineapple stu]

Really? You think that even if teams cut their cloth (etc) that the teams with most income wouldn't still be the the dominant forces?
There'd still be bigger teams - I never denied that - but it'd be a lot more even. The league, realistically and based on crowds and income, should be largely part-time, and someone playing for and living in, say, Sligo, isn't too likely to sign a part-time contract with St Pat's just because they're offering E100 a week more or because they got into the UEFA Cup and Sligo didn't. (It may well still happen, but it'd be much less likely)

As an experiment, compare turnover among the league's clubs to spending; you should see (and no, I don't have those figures) that clubs are much better matched. And the league would be no less fun for it.


Oh and pineapple argues against it ;)
Where'd I say I was arguing against borrowing? (You changed your post, and then said I agreed with it. ;) )


Suffice to say that you have things going for you in the survival stakes that do not apply to clubs that exist in the wild.
Given that you continually fail to address the points made against you, and you continue to talk utter nonsense (which has already been pointed out by previous posters, and which I won't recap), I said I'd just clarify this point for you - UCD AFC is not funded by the Government. I made the reference sarcastically because you seemed like one of those knee-jerk reactionaries who believes things they want to believe without bothering to check if they're true or not. And I believe I have you hook, line and sinker.

The fact that you can base your dismissal of my (and John83's) argument on something which is completely untrue says a lot about your argument in general.

[BohDiddley]

UCD AFC is not funded by the Government.
Is it funded or given facilities or other benefits by UCD?

[pineapple stu]

In the same way as, for example, Waterford United and other clubs get other benefits from their local council, yes.

I don't think that can be said to "not apply to clubs that exist in the wild", however.

[marinobohs]

Just to back up BohDiddly slightly, a league run completely by accountants would be a pretty uneventful place.

There are times when borrowing is a good idea, and certainly ambition is no bad thing

Its the lack of reality that kills most of these ambitions.

pretty much nail on head for me - trying to balance ambition (you have to speculate to accumalate) V real world economics (not going bust !) has always been a delicate process.

Interestingly Shels went mad finanacially and are now at top end of Div 1. UCD were controlled, responsible and are now in much the same place as Shels.
For the record the two options I mentioned were extremes, no fun in including "stay solvent and win trophys" option (even if it were currently possible !).

[pineapple stu]

UCD [...] are now in much the same place as Shels.
Arguably as it should be, too. (Although they're two years ahead of us in the rebuilding stakes)

Interesting to see who else we'll be in the same place as in a couple of years.

[BohDiddley]

In the same way as, for example, Waterford United and other clubs get other benefits from their local council, yes.

I don't think that can be said to "not apply to clubs that exist in the wild", however.
Thank you. So, while you may not, as you have loudly protested, receive funds from 'the Government', you do receive funds from the public purse.

Some clubs also get benefits from their local councils, and rightly so where they represent or are identified with a geographic place (although whether Fingal is a place is another debate). In my view that is a legitimate model.

We don't, however, have a procession of externally-supported experts from Waterford etc. coming on to tut-tut gleefully at the mistakes of those who don't enjoy such supports, while posturing as paragons of standalone financial virtue.

UCD may be resigned to bumping along the bottom and financially playing a 10-man defence for evermore, but there will always be clubs who will look to reach above that, because they and their supporters, a constituency that does not loom large in your arrangement, are interested in competition.

[pineapple stu]

a team like UCD, midtable, relegation battle, midtable, relegation, promotion, relegation.
Just saw this point, which I think is a fair comment. But I think it needs expansion. In the 11 years I've been going to games, we've been in two Cup finals, qualified for Europe through the league, only been relegated twice, had the drama of winning a play-off on penalties, walked the First Division with a record number of points (damn Harps...) and been in at least four Cup semis (with another to come next month). It's not exactly La Coruna, but it's far from the boring picture you've suggested. If we can get that again in the next 11 years, I'll be happy enough.

Shels' future, by contrast, is still uncertain - where will they play? Will the move to the AUL kill them, as some suggest? Will their existing fan base follow them if they move to Lusk? If there's a drop off in support, will they be able to keep at their current (top of division one) standard? Most people in this league don't think about the medium to long-term future; if they did, there'd be a few more who'd be happy with the UCD model.


Thank you. So, while you may not, as you have loudly protested, receive funds from 'the Government', you do receive funds from the public purse.
As do lots of other clubs. It's not, as you have loudly protested, that "have things going for you in the survival stakes that do not apply to clubs that exist in the wild".


We don't, however, have a procession of externally-supported experts from Waterford etc. coming on to tut-tut gleefully at the mistakes of those who don't enjoy such supports, while posturing as paragons of standalone financial virtue.
With good cause. How many times have Waterford been bust in the last few years?

The rest of your post is just using big words where an actual point is called for.

[endabob1]

What's with the accountant bashing??


the fundamental problems in the game are not going to go away. The best 'make more money than you spend' bean-counters in the world will not save the league, no matter how much they preach the obvious..


A league of clubs who are being run profitably will no solve all the leagues problems, this much is true but it would certainly go a long way to stopping the leauge being looked on as a laughing stock in certain quarters.
It would allow for proper plans to be implemented to develop the league, rather than constantly worrying about whether there will be 10 viable clubs to make a premier division next season.
It might be part-time but I'd rather be a part-time player with the knowledge that I'll get paid every week than a full time one with 2 months back pay owed.

[BohDiddley]

The rest of your post is just using big words where an actual point is called for.

OK, if you don't like the words, let's do the figures.

Are your accounts available in the wild and online? Are you prepared to divulge the numbers that underpin your position and which you hold up as model practice?

I'd be interested in what's in there, and, probably more significantly, what's not, in order to establish the extent of this strictly 'non-Government' support. After all, you and everyone else have had a good look at BFC's...

[pineapple stu]

Are your accounts available in the wild and online?
Nope, but neither are several other clubs' accounts.

I can tell you where our non-matchday income comes from, if you'd like. The Superleague, sponsorship and donations, golf events, club dinner - good old fashioned fundraising, just like normal clubs. There is a relatively small sum - I'm not sure how much exactly - which we receive from the college as part of the grants which all sports clubs receive, but that basically covers the cost of putting out two intermediate teams. It certainly doesn't bankroll us, like you'd want to believe. And it doesn't come from the Government either; it's part of student registration fees. Akin in a way to Bohs boosting their income by charging membership fees.

[marinobohs]

[quote=endabob1;1185742]What's with the accountant bashing??




A league of clubs who are being run profitably will no solve all the leagues problems, this much is true but it would certainly go a long way to stopping the leauge being looked on as a laughing stock in certain quarters.

Not really sure on this point either. For many years the barstoolers knocked LOI as "part time" "rubbish football" etc etc. Now with the (however misguided) investment/spendfest they choose to knock the poor financial side. Personally I see no point in worrying about the "certain quarters" that laugh at Irish football because they are too lazy too get off their backsides but want to kid themselves they are "real fans" of the beautiful game.
The game here needs to focus on what can be done for those genuinely interested in Irish football and not the mythical hoardes that will "decend" on grounds as soon as ..............

[BohDiddley]

I can tell you where our non-matchday income comes from, if you'd like. The Superleague, sponsorship and donations, golf events, club dinner - good old fashioned fundraising, just like normal clubs. There is a relatively small sum - I'm not sure how much exactly - which we receive from the college as part of the grants which all sports clubs receive, but that basically covers the cost of putting out two intermediate teams. It certainly doesn't bankroll us, like you'd want to believe.
I'm interested in the expenditure, or even non-expenditure side:
Who pays for ground and other facilities; groundsman, physio and other overheads, rates, electricity -- all that real world stuff?
And what have I left out? it's the omissions, the stuff that you're let off with, that really matter here.
It would be interesting go get hold of the Bohs accounts and see what figures UCD would put in our boxes. Then, along with the quality of the UCD wisdom that is by contrast so accessible here, we could assess to what extent you are subsidised by public funds relative to Waterford etc.


And it doesn't come from the Government either; it's part of student registration fees. Akin in a way to Bohs boosting their income by charging membership fees.

As discussed earlier, your denial of Government funding is a fig leaf. Student fees cover only a fraction of the cost of running the college. Even if the 'small sum' of direct subsidy comes directly from fees, it is probable that your overhead let-offs matter much more. They come from the college, which is funded by central government.

And I don't think a membership paying fees in any way compares to a general student body being forced to subscribe to support a football club. The fomer group literally are the club; the latter, it seems, don't even know it exists.

[Schumi]

Thank you. So, while you may not, as you have loudly protested, receive funds from 'the Government', you do receive funds from the public purse.Didn't the FAI buy Dalymount for you? The €65m you would have sold it for, if your board stayed sober, dwarfs anything that UCD, Waterford, Rovers or anyone else have ever received from public funds.


We don't, however, have a procession of externally-supported experts from Waterford etc. coming on to tut-tut gleefully at the mistakes of those who don't enjoy such supports, while posturing as paragons of standalone financial virtue.Of course not, the same way we don't have Gerorge Bush complaining about people starting wars. :rolleyes: You may however have noticed similar views about sustainable expenditure from fans of another Southside club.

[pineapple stu]

Who pays for ground and other facilities; groundsman, physio and other overheads, rates, electricity -- all that real world stuff?
The club. We get the ground rent-free; that's it (a similar arrangement with other clubs). We even pay for the scholarships we award. Some of our players are amateur. We can't afford to pay them more, so we don't.

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).

[Dodge]

Your views on UCD's finances are irrelevant
And your views on Bohs are completely relevant?

[micls]

I'l go with long term stability please.

The last year has made it clear to me and a lot of other city fans that 'chasing the dream' simply isnt worth it. Make the club stable and build your way up, a la shamrock rovers.

Also, when we started spending ridiculous amounts of money, we actually started doing awfully in the league....

[pineapple stu]

And your views on Bohs are completely relevant?
Not in the context of the specific question posed in post 1 (as stated in my post), to which I was trying to return the thread, having bored of BohDiddley's hyperbole.

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

[endabob1]

Not really sure on this point either. For many years the barstoolers knocked LOI as "part time" "rubbish football" etc etc. Now with the (however misguided) investment/spendfest they choose to knock the poor financial side. Personally I see no point in worrying about the "certain quarters" that laugh at Irish football because they are too lazy too get off their backsides but want to kid themselves they are "real fans" of the beautiful game.
The game here needs to focus on what can be done for those genuinely interested in Irish football and not the mythical hoardes that will "decend" on grounds as soon as ..............

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.