Clubs want format changed

[Acornvilla]

dont agree with any of this crap saying 400-500 isnt enough!? dont know what you people are getting paid id love the chanct to play football professionally for that much! most run of the mill jobs will be less than that for much more hours

[boneym]

One of the problems is that our full time professionals do not train hard enough. They only train 3/4 days a week for a few hours. Most part-time teams especially Rovers train as much as them if not more than them.

[Acornvilla]

dont most professional european teams train twice a day 5 days a week?

[pineapple stu]

Are you serious?!
€40k pa would be considered a very good income for most of us with a real job, never mind for kicking a ball around a couple of time a week for 9 months!!!
(I have no problem with players earning as much as they can if the clubs could afford it).
But football has a much higher risk associated with it, for which a player needs to be compensated.

If you were offered, say, a job in a shop for E35k where you knew you'd be kept for years if you wanted and a job as a footballer for E35k where you could be relegated or injured or released after one season and effectively made redundant, you'd take the safer job.

[Ezeikial]

But football has a much higher risk associated with it, for which a player needs to be compensated.

If you were offered, say, a job in a shop for E35k where you knew you'd be kept for years if you wanted and a job as a footballer for E35k where you could be relegated or injured or released after one season and effectively made redundant, you'd take the safer job.

That may be logical, but not necessarily the reality.

[A face]

One of the problems is that our full time professionals do not train hard enough. They only train 3/4 days a week for a few hours. Most part-time teams especially Rovers train as much as them if not more than them.


dont most professional european teams train twice a day 5 days a week?

The rest and recovery is as important as the training, but i'd agree, and its only by comparison, it seems that our pros are not at the same level as other European leagues, and i'd be saying that we are not getting the return for our money.


But football has a much higher risk associated with it, for which a player needs to be compensated.

If you were offered, say, a job in a shop for E35k where you knew you'd be kept for years if you wanted and a job as a footballer for E35k where you could be relegated or injured or released after one season and effectively made redundant, you'd take the safer job.


That may be logical, but not necessarily the reality.

But it has to be the reality. You cant expect players to play fulltime ball for anything under €50,000 if you want a player who is going to give a meaningful contribution, be technically able, who isn't looking to jump ship asap (contracts for 3 years as opposed to 1), and possibly be good enough to get a return on the investment i.e. be able to sell on to other clubs if other clubs are willing to pay obviously (and that definitely is the case, even if Irish clubs haven't capitalised on it yet)

The primary benefit to having a pro setup is players can concentrate on the technical side of their game instead of struggling with fitness half the season. The club then has a better product and can market it better. Having a pro setup allows the club to develop the club and implement structures to enable more streams of revenue to fund the pro setup.

[A face]

Me neither, especially given the patchy success that full time teams have had.

I disagree with that, there definitely has been successes directly from the pro setup, both tangible and intangible. The reason its been patchy is because the penny seems to be dropped into a bottomless pit and clubs haven't grasped that they cant spend money that they aren't earning. Its basically 1st accounting and the lack of common sense or logical reason that is causing the patchiness.


A part-time Rovers team is ahead of full-time Cork, Derry, Dundalk and Sligo teams this year. Galway had a full-time team last year or the year before and only finished midtable, Drogheda took years to get anywhere with their full-time team

Are they all part-time at Rovers? I didn't think so. And even still City as a club has come on leaps and bounds as a result of the full time setup, and it is now something that investors consider investing into as opposed to selling thousands of raffle tickets to fund a part time setup. And that's still on top of two completely disastrous take overs (Arkaga and TNB) and 3-4 years of off the pitch mayhem.

If you take City as a product at the end of 2005, and look at the status/state of it then as regards it being a viable self-sustaining club and tried to analyse how it got to be as such then it would definitely have at least some correlation to us going pro.

For me its proof enough that City is without doubt a club that if run properly, within its means, prudently managing the books, and maximises on the resources available to it then it can be a viable self-sustaining club.

If FORAS and Brian Lennox had teamed up before Arkaga then we wouldn't have had to go through the last 3-4 years, but its lessons learned and valuable lessons that will not be made again.

[Ezeikial]

But it has to be the reality. You cant expect players to play fulltime ball for anything under €50,000 if you want a player who is going to give a meaningful contribution, be technically able, who isn't looking to jump ship asap (contracts for 3 years as opposed to 1), and possibly be good enough to get a return on the investment i.e. be able to sell on to other clubs if other clubs are willing to pay obviously (and that definitely is the case, even if Irish clubs haven't capitalised on it yet)

The primary benefit to having a pro setup is players can concentrate on the technical side of their game instead of struggling with fitness half the season. The club then has a better product and can market it better. Having a pro setup allows the club to develop the club and implement structures to enable more streams of revenue to fund the pro setup.

I agree that say €35k for a full time professional is insufficient to ensure a player finds pro football more enticing then an alternative career, and that €50k is probably more like the minimum benchmark.

Thats in an ideal world, and its starting at the wrong place. It's really a question of what the club can afford and what is sustainable. In simple terms, if a club can sustain a player budget of say €560k (16 players at €35k) then the issue is whether this will attract the desired players to be full time. It may of course mean a mix of full time and part time.

On the other hand if the decision is to be full time at the "fair" money, the club is stretching to find an additional €240k, and hence the "wishfull thinking" model of budgeting that has become so common in the league in recent years.

[A face]

Thats in an ideal world, and its starting at the wrong place. It's really a question of what the club can afford and what is sustainable. In simple terms, if a club can sustain a player budget of say €560k (16 players at €35k) then the issue is whether this will attract the desired players to be full time. It may of course mean a mix of full time and part time.

On the other hand if the decision is to be full time at the "fair" money, the club is stretching to find an additional €240k, and hence the "wishfull thinking" model of budgeting that has become so common in the league in recent years.

And for the record, you are obviously completely right. Clubs have to cut their cloth accordingly. The boom and bust is far more expensive for clubs in the long run. Clubs have to build themselves into a position where it is possible to go full time, when everything is in place to enable it to happen, and to get the best return for that investment if they do go pro.

As someone said earlier, clubs have to walk before they can run. And clubs would do well to concentrate more of their energy into off the pitch efforts so they can bring in the revenue needed to make the move to pro, which would be last on the list.

Thats why i really think that Supporters Trusts are the only way to go in Ireland. Its that level of intervention into clubs and how they are run that is needed for ALL Irish clubs. Its a means of put a horse after the cart and set clubs up to move down the road. Clubs have always been fed hand to mouth and there has never been a long term mechanism for clubs to prosper through fans input, fans who are the biggest group of stakeholders for clubs.

[John83]

...As someone said earlier, clubs have to run before they can walk...
I've a horrible feeling I'm missing some terribly clever pun here.

[pineapple stu]

In simple terms, if a club can sustain a player budget of say €560k (16 players at €35k) then the issue is whether this will attract the desired players to be full time. It may of course mean a mix of full time and part time.
Look what happened Galway when they went exactly this route last season. They signed rubbish players purely because they'd go fully-pro,and ended up well adrift at the bottom of the league. Then they can't afford to pay them any more, changed the team to include local part-time players and did much better.

If a player is offered E35k to play full-time football in Ireland or to stack shelves in Tesco, he'll stack shelves. Don't be under any illusions about that.

[Ezeikial]

Look what happened Galway when they went exactly this route last season. They signed rubbish players purely because they'd go fully-pro,and ended up well adrift at the bottom of the league. Then they can't afford to pay them any more, changed the team to include local part-time players and did much better.


I'm not sure what point you are making about Galway, or how it relates to the previous post. If you are saying that the only full time players available to them were poorer quality then the part time players available, clearly this is a reflection on the manager for signing them.

In any case their player budget was clearly not realistic or sustainable if If they could not pay them. If they were paying the players an average of €35k, clearly paying them €50k would not have improved their solvency.



If a player is offered E35k to play full-time football in Ireland or to stack shelves in Tesco, he'll stack shelves. Don't be under any illusions about that.

Some would and some would not.

[pineapple stu]

Some would and some would not.
Which is exactly my point. You will need to offer people more money to be full-time footballers because of the risk involved. That's reality, which is shown by the fact that Galway tried to sign only full-time players and ended up with a rubbish squad. So when you described my post as "logical, but not necessarily the reality", I'm actually showing you that it is the reality, and has already happened.

[Ezeikial]

Which is exactly my point. You will need to offer people more money to be full-time footballers because of the risk involved. That's reality, which is shown by the fact that Galway tried to sign only full-time players and ended up with a rubbish squad. So when you described my post as "logical, but not necessarily the reality", I'm actually showing you that it is the reality, and has already happened.

No you have not shown this to be the reality. Your posts inferred that all would opt out of full time football at €35k.

While there are loads of examples where players have opted for part time football because of inadequate financial rewards, similarly there are loads of examples where players are playing full time at the level of €35k. The vast majority of full time players at Dundalk are on less then €35k.

Pay circa €50k a year and more (but not all) will opt for full time - Shane Barrett is one example that comes to mind where €50k is unlikely to entice him full time.

But the starting point is not what players would like - it's what is sustainable for the club. This, along with issues like the general economy and jobs market, determines whether a club can go full time, part time or a mix of the two.

[pineapple stu]

Your posts inferred that all would opt out of full time football at €35k.
No they haven't. Firstly, the figure I'm picking is arbitrary, and secondly, I've clearly indicated that a few will take it - see the Galway example - but that the reality is that many won't take full-time football at E35k (unless, obviously, they're unemployed or students). Also, I don't believe that the Dundalk players are all full-time on E35k.


But the starting point is not what players would like - it's what is sustainable for the club.The starting point is absolutely what the players want; if they don't want to sign, your plan's out the window.

Actually - just looking back at your posts and mine; you actually by and large agree with me (you set a "minimum benchmark" at E50k), yet you're still arguing? Very strange person!

[A face]

I've a horrible feeling I'm missing some terribly clever pun here.

I'm sure there are loads there, and i do see the irony in my opinion given the absolutely disastrous situation we are in right now but you have to take into account that Arkaga and TNB & co are two groups of people who should never be let into a football ground not to mind run a football club. Every City fan right now will tell you that we have a whole lot of walking to do, and running isn't even on the radar when we do start.

[pineapple stu]

Read his post. You put "run before we walk" in error.

[A face]

Actually - just looking back at your posts and mine; you actually by and large agree with me (you set a "minimum benchmark" at E50k), yet you're still arguing? Very strange person!

But he is for a pro setup (from what i gather) and you are not, hence the debate.

[pineapple stu]

I'm for a pro set-up if it can be achieved too. We both agree that you'll have to pay higher to get it (he sets the benchmark at E50k; I suggested E40k).

However, full-time players aren't necessarily better than part-time players, as Galway proved.

[Ezeikial]

Actually - just looking back at your posts and mine; you actually by and large agree with me (you set a "minimum benchmark" at E50k), yet you're still arguing? Very strange person!

You very easily slot into personal stuff, and have the hard neck to warn others when they do so. Nevertheless I will try to refrain from responding at your level.

Its also hypocritical of you to accuse me of arguing. If I disagree with you, or you misrepresent me, I am entitled to respond.

Go back and re-read my post on how I defined the "minium benchmark" of €50k.


No they haven't. Firstly, the figure I'm picking is arbitrary, and secondly, I've clearly indicated that a few will take it - see the Galway example - but that the reality is that many won't take full-time football at E35k (unless, obviously, they're unemployed or students).


Your previous posts (below) spell out clearly your belief that "you" (whoever the heck that is) would take a job stacking shelves in preference to pro football at the same money. I wouldn't, and IMO the vast majority of people would play full time football given this option



If you were offered, say, a job in a shop for E35k where you knew you'd be kept for years if you wanted and a job as a footballer for E35k where you could be relegated or injured or released after one season and effectively made redundant, you'd take the safer job.


If a player is offered E35k to play full-time football in Ireland or to stack shelves in Tesco, he'll stack shelves. Don't be under any illusions about that.


Also, I don't believe that the Dundalk players are all full-time on E35k.


As usual, you will choose to believe whatever suits your thesis. What you want to believe is up to you, but the facts are that the majority of full-timers at Dundalk are on less then this money.






The starting point is absolutely what the players want; if they don't want to sign, your plan's out the window.


Complete and utter nonsense, and appears to me to be a complete 360 degree turnaround on what you have previously banged on about!

If any player won't sign at an amount that the club is able and willing to pay, the club have no sustainable option but to find an alternative player. If the starting point is player demands, clubs will continue to live beyond their means, and the Shelbourne, Cork, Drogheda, experiences will be repeated over and over again.

The starting and finishing point is what the clubs can sustain.

[dahamsta]

Lads, just drop the interpersonal stuff and concentrate in the topic in hand, both of ye, ok?

[Acornvilla]

kids these days i tells ya.... back in my day id make a fiver a week and i'd be delighted......

on a serious note 40k is complely acceptable to get for playing football regardles of risk. there are lots of people with regular jobs on less pay and have jobs which are arguably less secure at the moment

[pineapple stu]

Your previous posts (below) spell out clearly your belief that "you" (whoever the heck that is) would take a job stacking shelves in preference to pro football at the same money. I wouldn't, and IMO the vast majority of people would play full time football given this option
This, then, is our fundamental difference. I wouldn't touch a full-time football job at a wage I could get elsewhere given that -

(a) Playing full-time football doesn't build a career if your footballing career ends; even stacking shelves in Tesco offers promotion possibilities.
(b) You can't trust that, in this league, the wage you sign up to will be the wage you'll receive and
(c) I could supplement the hypothetical E35k I earn from my regular job with money from playing football part-time - in other words, playing football part-time is more often worth more than playing it full-time.

It's easy to be young and foolish and think that playing football is a dream job. Get older and get financial obligations, and you'll find people very quickly dropping out.

(BTW - dahamsta, when did you start visiting the LoI forum? :p )

[Ezeikial]

This, then, is our fundamental difference. I wouldn't touch a full-time football job at a wage I could get elsewhere


Great - I have no quibble with that view! In such a hypothetical situation you personally would opt for part time football.

In the real world, some will and some won't.

If clubs extend their outlay beyond what they can afford, to entice those that won't, they are headed for financial meltdown.

[gufc2000]

I agree with pineapple stu as regards as us being an example with full-timers. We found it extremely hard to entice good players to come and give up their jobs and play full-time football. Those that came were either rubbish or spent most of their time on the treatment table, besides a small minority who did well.

We are far better off this season, as the league table suggests. Full-time football isin't the be all and end all imo

[sheao]

I agree with pineapple stu as regards as us being an example with full-timers. We found it extremely hard to entice good players to come and give up their jobs and play full-time football. Those that came were either rubbish or spent most of their time on the treatment table, besides a small minority who did well.

We are far better off this season, as the league table suggests. Full-time football isin't the be all and end all imo
It is probably the only way forward for out league, we don't get the gates sadly for full time football to be sustainable.

[brianw82]

This, then, is our fundamental difference. I wouldn't touch a full-time football job at a wage I could get elsewhere given that -

(a) Playing full-time football doesn't build a career if your footballing career ends; even stacking shelves in Tesco offers promotion possibilities.
(b) You can't trust that, in this league, the wage you sign up to will be the wage you'll receive and
(c) I could supplement the hypothetical E35k I earn from my regular job with money from playing football part-time - in other words, playing football part-time is more often worth more than playing it full-time.

It's easy to be young and foolish and think that playing football is a dream job. Get older and get financial obligations, and you'll find people very quickly dropping out.

(BTW - dahamsta, when did you start visiting the LoI forum? :p )

I don't think most footballers in this league would give it that much thought! :D

[A face]

(c) I could supplement the hypothetical E35k I earn from my regular job with money from playing football part-time - in other words, playing football part-time is more often worth more than playing it full-time.

That whole post is a point well made but on the third point, you will get burnt out faster holding down a full time job and playing, travelling all over the country and your football will suffer as well.

Clubs will not be able to bring their standard of football up a level unless a manager can work with players on full time basis, and a players value, as an asset to a club, will not increase as much if still part-time. So as a result a part-time player will not realise his full potential, so like some people in other careers, they will take a hit on their wages if it means enabling them to progress within their industry.


One other thing on the topic that hasn't been said is that we all know the players playing career is a short one but they aren't rendered paralysed the minute they stop playing. They aren't on the scrapheap and only fit for the knackers yard. They have alot of opportunities when they finish up, one being they are fitter than most at the same age, which counts for alot. Also, for the most part, they are fairly well known in their home town and alot of the time they are known around the country. There is also the ability to work within a 30+ team, etc. which alot of HR managers will say is invaluable. Players can also study while they are playing, its up to themselves if their are motivated or not.

I think people make too much of this 'short playing career' thing given that nowadays people normally have 2-3 different careers during their working lifetime anyway.

[Acornvilla]

thank you a face you so eloquently put everything i wanted to say into words and better than i would have been able to! bravo!:D

[davidatrb]

But football has a much higher risk associated with it, for which a player needs to be compensated.

If you were offered, say, a job in a shop for E35k where you knew you'd be kept for years if you wanted and a job as a footballer for E35k where you could be relegated or injured or released after one season and effectively made redundant, you'd take the safer job.

If I was to choose between working in a shop for 35K or playing football for 10K, I would play football.

Every career you chop and change jobs. I feel a bit like an LOI footballer, dont think I've worked for the same employer for more than 2 years.

[Bluebeard]

I feel a bit like an LOI footballer, dont think I've worked for the same employer for more than 2 years.

Bit of a big statement. Can you prove you went about 4 months waiting on your wages?

[pineapple stu]

If I was to choose between working in a shop for 35K or playing football for 10K, I would play football.
And how would you pay the bills on a salary of E10k?

Also, "professional footballer" is awful on a CV. At least in regular employment, you're (supposed to be) gaining skills which may be useful to future employment. That also goes for A face's post on the short careers of footballers. It's not just that they're short - it's that you come out of it with nothing. You're in your mid 30s with no real job experience, and you're not exactly an attractive employee proposition. I know of one former footballer - Irish international in his day - who applied for a job where my sister works, but had nothing pertinent to show on his CV.


That whole post is a point well made but on the third point, you will get burnt out faster holding down a full time job and playing, travelling all over the country and your football will suffer as well.
Not sure what the point of that is? There's plenty of players who've played part-time football until their mid 30s.

[davidatrb]

And how would you pay the bills on a salary of E10k?


Rent a small apartment. Shop at Tescos. Drive an old banger. Get a second job.

It's a short career, I'd manage for a few years or so like that - just like regular ppl manage at college for four years on next to nothing.



Also, "professional footballer" is awful on a CV. At least in regular employment, you're (supposed to be) gaining skills which may be useful to future employment. That also goes for A face's post on the short careers of footballers. It's not just that they're short - it's that you come out of it with nothing. You're in your mid 30s with no real job experience, and you're not exactly an attractive employee proposition. I know of one former footballer - Irish international in his day - who applied for a job where my sister works, but had nothing pertinent to show on his CV.


Not sure what the point of that is? There's plenty of players who've played part-time football until their mid 30s.

The average salary for a college graduate is something like 24K. The average irish salary for a person with 10-19 years experience in their job is something like 50K.

The average number of careers anybody has is fairly high. It is not just a phenomenon with footballers that they reach the end of a career and have to retrain or start again from scratch. And if they are smart they will have been studying/training while still playing.

I know Premiership players pick up huge wages. I accept that, I prefer to see them pocket the vasts amount of cash that goes around there than to see the Media Corporations or the Rich club owners line their pockets. After all they are the stars, they make the money.

But in the LOI there is just not the money. And I dont accept that the top teams need to keep going bust competing to pay the biggest wages. I reckon the young lads just gone pro should be happy with anything from 20K to 30K with the hope that during their career they might hit a maximum of 50K or so. So with a mixed squad of young players and experienced players I would imagine its possible to have a full time outfit for an average of 35K plus bonuses.

Anybody that wants to earn more let them go to where the money is, and see if they are worth it, or change their careers and play part time football to keep up their passion.

"Professional Footballer" doesn't look awful on a CV. If I apply for a job as a fitness trainer or sports journalist then "Software Developer" looks awful on a CV. Depends on what jobs you go for, and as I said they can be working on separate qualifications during their football career.

[pineapple stu]

I don't think football is a four-year career though. And even then, good luck living on ten grand a year if you're renting a flat and driving a car.

And we're still not factoring in the likelihood that you could be let go at the end of the season, or be injured and have your career brought to a sudden end. And then there's also the fact that you can earn more money by playing part-time. What's the big incentive to go full-time?

I know we've had several players who've been offered full-time contracts - mainly in the LoI - but turned them down.

[dahamsta]

Are we talking ten grand before or after tax?

[pineapple stu]

No tax on ten grand a year, Adam. Minimum wage is outisde the tax bracket and is E20k or so.

(Unless you were parodying that oft-repeated mantra about nett and gross wages, in which case I'm beginning to get worried about your sudden interest in the league!)

[davidatrb]

No tax on ten grand a year, Adam. Minimum wage is outisde the tax bracket and is E20k or so.

(Unless you were parodying that oft-repeated mantra about nett and gross wages, in which case I'm beginning to get worried about your sudden interest in the league!)

Forget about the 10K. I said that I would do it. It's not relevant to any of the points I make after that. I wish I never said it :)

[Titan]

Are we talking ten grand before or after tax?

If you were on 10K a year you wouldn't be liable to pay tax.

So back on topic. Is there going to be a change of format or not?

How about this?

One season
One division
24 teams
2 sections of 12
Play the teams in your section twice
Play the teams in the other section once
Total 36 games each (18 home 18 away including playoffs)
Top 8 teams in each section make up following years Premier division
remaining 8 teams plus 4-8 others make up following years 1st division
Two leg play offs to determine overall final position

Sorted lets go to the pub!

[John83]

... I wish I never said it :)
Ah, I see you posted something facetious that PS jumped on. ;)

If the league clubs could successfully go full time pro on the kind of budgets which have been mentioned here, Shams would be full time pro.

[pineapple stu]

Maybe jokes don't come across well on the internet. I think it's fair to assume this isn't being facetious -


If I was to choose between working in a shop for 35K or playing football for 10K, I would play football.

Rent a small apartment. Shop at Tescos. Drive an old banger. Get a second job.

It's a short career, I'd manage for a few years or so like that - just like regular ppl manage at college for four years on next to nothing.
But anyways, if it's been retracted, we can forgive and forget.

I think then the money issue has arrived at this point -


And then there's also the fact that you can earn more money by playing part-time. What's the big incentive to go full-time?

Whereas the format issue was, I think, cleared up by MariborKev earlier in the thread (i.e. the article was nonsense)

[Bluebeard]

10K pa is too little to live on - that wouldn't even pay for a First Division quality WAG? And as we all know, the First is a depressing muddy hole you just cannot get out of, with b*gger all grass on the pitch, and about six men and a dog watching on from the sidelines...

[dahamsta]

No tax on ten grand a year, Adam. Minimum wage is outisde the tax bracket and is E20k or so.You'll pay PAYE and PRSI on any wage, won't you?

[pineapple stu]

Nope. At minimum wage, your tax credits cover all your PAYE. Your first E127 (I think) or pay a week is PRSI free. That comes to E6,600, so there'll be some small PRSI, but E150 would be as much as it'd get.

Your employer would still have to pay ER's PRSI obviously.

[dahamsta]

That's the point though stu, it's not 10 grand to the employer.

I don't know who suggesting living on 10k/year, but given what I pay myself - very little, to keep overheads down on the business - I don't think anyone could live comforably on it. You'd want to to be very committed to the game, and given Ireland's level, who would?

(No offense to Irish football in general intended, see my previous posts for context.)

adam

[pineapple stu]

Agree about the cost to the employer obviously.

Take a squad of 16 full-time players and three coaching staff - no other players at all, no reserve team, no nothing. Pay them an average of E40k per year, E50k a year for the coaches (being older and much less secure in their job) and you're talking a wage bill alone of E875k (E16k a week, not the E12k a week originally suggested). Assume that's 65% of your costs, and you get a total income needed to cover everything of E1.35m. Again, your A-team, U-20s and fringe squad players are all amateur on that. Rovers are apparently turning over E1.3m. That's where full-time football in this country stands.

[davidatrb]

That's the point though stu, it's not 10 grand to the employer.

I don't know who suggesting living on 10k/year, but given what I pay myself - very little, to keep overheads down on the business - I don't think anyone could live comforably on it. You'd want to to be very committed to the game, and given Ireland's level, who would?

(No offense to Irish football in general intended, see my previous posts for context.)

adam

Nobody is suggesting paying pro footballers 10K per year. I merely said I would jump at the chance to play for that. It's an irrelevant point and I regret putting it in!

[Ezeikial]

Agree about the cost to the employer obviously.

Take a squad of 16 full-time players and three coaching staff - no other players at all, no reserve team, no nothing. Pay them an average of E40k per year, E50k a year for the coaches (being older and much less secure in their job) and you're talking a wage bill alone of E875k (E16k a week, not the E12k a week originally suggested). Assume that's 65% of your costs, and you get a total income needed to cover everything of E1.35m. Again, your A-team, U-20s and fringe squad players are all amateur on that. Rovers are apparently turning over E1.3m. That's where full-time football in this country stands.

Perhaps you could clarify - there seems to be some gaps in your figures:

16 x 40k = 640k
3 x 50k = 150k
Total 790k

65% = required turnover of €1,215,000 (based on 65% including coaches in 2010)
Equivilant Weekly player cost -over 52 weeks = 12k or over 42 weeks = 15k (not that the weekly equivilant is relevant)


If you reduce player and coaching costs by 12.5% (16 players x 35k average, coaches total 131k) this reduces the cost by almost €100,000, and crucially the turnover / revenue required for 65% complaince reduces by €152,000 to €1,063,000.

This makes it feasible for more clubs. For example the current top 5 clubs plus Sligo and St Pats (if there was no historic debt or other special circumstances) could possibly operate at this level or close to it. Alternatively a mix of full time and part time could be feasible.

[dahamsta]

Nobody is suggesting paying pro footballers 10K per year. I merely said I would jump at the chance to play for that. It's an irrelevant point and I regret putting it in!No offense, but you should; it's not irrelevant, it's illogical. How would you survive?

[Schumi]

If I was to choose between working in a shop for 35K or playing football for 10K, I would play football.
I know you're not being serious about that but the option is there to do both if you play part-time which must be a better option all round. If I was good enough to play at LOI level, I'd jump at it even at small money but I wouldn't want to rely on it to eat.

[pineapple stu]

Perhaps you could clarify - there seems to be some gaps in your figures:

16 x 40k = 640k
3 x 50k = 150k
Total 790k
Employer's PRSI @ 10.75% on top of all that.