Whats up with shels fans

[pineapple stu]

It does matter. If the running costs for gretna in the SPL are far greater than SF in the EL. Then when the money from an investor dries up its a much further fall for gretna than it would be for SF

Blackburn didnt go out of business when Jack walker died. They did have a slump but they came back from it.
That's because Walker set up a trust fund to help them after he died.

Gretna's running costs were much higher than Dublin City's; by your logic, Dublin City should still be around today.


It depends what you mean by 'sustainable', but how about Chelsea?
I noted them in my original post too.

[Lamper.sffc]

Gretna's running costs were much higher than Dublin City's; by your logic, Dublin City should still be around today.

Em no. Man you have a great way of twisting words or the meaning in what someone is trying to say. You originally made the comparison with gretna. I was just saying that the comparison between gretna and SF is not a fair one.
I didnt say that SF wouldnt go out of business if we lost our investor. I just made the point that gretna had further to fall after losing their investor and because of this it is not accurate to compare gretna with SF and that it was more likely that gretna would suffer more than SF.
And then you state by my logic that dublin city would still be around. Im talking about unfair comparisons, not whether dublin city should still be around because gretna have more to lose.


Doesn't matter how big or not a club and its league is; any club being bankrolled by a millionaire is not sustainable.


That's because Walker set up a trust fund to help them after he died.

[Lamper.sffc]

Gretna's running costs were much higher than Dublin City's; by your logic, Dublin City should still be around today.

Em no. Man you have a great way of twisting words or the meaning in what someone is trying to say. You originally made the comparison with gretna. I was just saying that the comparison between gretna and SF is not a fair one.
I didnt say that SF wouldnt go out of business if we lost our investor so in turn by my logic this means i didnt think dublin city should still be around today. I just made the point that gretna had further to fall after losing their investor which in turn makes them more vulnerable than SF and because of this it is not accurate to compare gretna with SF.


Doesn't matter how big or not a club and its league is; any club being bankrolled by a millionaire is not sustainable.


That's because Walker set up a trust fund to help them after he died.

So they where sustainable

[pineapple stu]

You originally made the comparison with gretna. I was just saying that the comparison between gretna and SF is not a fair one.
Course it's fair. How far they have to fall (as per your comment) is irrelevant when it comes to determining sustainability.



So they where sustainable
Has Gannon set up a trust fund to keep you in the money after he leaves?

[passerrby]

[B]
6. The only point I can take seriously, however, there are 55 clubs now going in Fingal at all levels and the SFFC (if you care to find out about it) is to Unite them under the SFFC flag.

I believe that is exactly where your plan will founder and is naive to say the least

[Lamper.sffc]

Course it's fair. How far they have to fall (as per your comment) is irrelevant when it comes to determining sustainability.

Man are you for real:rolleyes:. If Gretna's expenses for a year where 5 Million
( i dont know what they are its just an example)
And SF where 1 million and both lost their investor. Who would be more likely to fold.
Thats just an example dont start questioning me on the figures.





Has Gannon set up a trust fund to keep you in the money after he leaves?

Again my friend you dodge the point I was making. You said any "ANY club being bankrolled by a millionaire is not sustainable." I pointed one out to you in blackburn ( again i know they had a slump but survived it). And you turn it as if im talking about blackburn in the same context as SF. I wasnt.

Neither of us know what Gannon is going to do after 5 years. He may leave and we may fold. Or he may carry on and we might survive. I dont know but neither do you.

[Lamper.sffc]

I believe that is exactly where your plan will founder and is naive to say the least

Why do you believe this. (just interested)

[osarusan]

Man are you for real:rolleyes:. If Gretna's expenses for a year where 5 Million...
And SF where 1 million and both lost their investor. Who would be more likely to fold?

If Gretna's expenses are 5 million, I guess their investor will be investing 5 million.

If Fingal's expenses are 1 million, I guess their investor will be investing 1 million.

If their investors pull out, they're both left with zero.

I think, but I'm not sure, that this is Pineapple Stu's point. If the investment is relative to the amount of money needed to run the club, which it usually is, then each club is equally affected by the loss of that investment.

[passerrby]

beacuse lamps its impossible to get two clubs to agree to anything never mind asking 55 clubs to support there plan for world domination, its the nature of football as someone who has been on league committees all my life, and not only will they not support you they will go out of there way to undermine everything you do

[Lamper.sffc]

If Gretna's expenses are 5 million, I guess their investor will be investing 5 million.

If Fingal's expenses are 1 million, I guess their investor will be investing 1 million.

If their investors pull out, they're both left with zero.

I think, but I'm not sure, that this is Pineapple Stu's point. If the investment is relative to the amount of money needed to run the club, which it usually is, then each club is equally affected by the loss of that investment.

Fair point if thats the case, but for gretna to still keep running they have to get 5 million from somewhere for sf to keep running they just need 1 million. ( again i know the figures are probably way out, but the point still stands)
What i have been trying to point out is that it is More likely that SF would have a better chance to survive than getna after the loss of their investor. Beacause of the vast difference in running a club in the SPL compared to EL. So his comparison between the two is not a sound one. Its not like for like.

[Lamper.sffc]

beacuse lamps its impossible to get two clubs to agree to anything never mind asking 55 clubs to support there plan for world domination, its the nature of football as someone who has been on league committees all my life, and not only will they not support you they will go out of there way to undermine everything you do

Ok, SF are not trying for world domination, not this year anyway:)

Fair enough this maybe the case. I hope its not.

[pineapple stu]

If Gretna's expenses are 5 million, I guess their investor will be investing 5 million.

If Fingal's expenses are 1 million, I guess their investor will be investing 1 million.

If their investors pull out, they're both left with zero.

I think, but I'm not sure, that this is Pineapple Stu's point. If the investment is relative to the amount of money needed to run the club, which it usually is, then each club is equally affected by the loss of that investment.
Of course that's my point. Really straightforward, I would have thought, but it seems it's still too confusing for lamper to follow.

Expenses are irrelevant in this context. It's how much of the club's budget is being bankrolled by one person. If you've no money, you've no money, regardless of whether you're short one million or five million.

The opposite of sustainable is not bankrupt. In other words, if the investor pulls out, the club doesn't necessarily have to go belly up for it to be deemed unsustainable. Shels were unsustainable, their bankroller pulled out and yet they're still around.

And as for explaining the difference between a trust fund and a person. :rolleyes:

[passerrby]

Ok, SF are not trying for world domination, not this year anyway:)

Fair enough this maybe the case. I hope its not.

the rest of the plan is yours and could possibilly work however the part involving other clubs ,teams ,managers etc is outside yours or anybodys control and it does not matter what you tell them they will not want to trust you they are obsessive about protecting "there players" from outsiders and you will find that any real good lads with potential will bypass your academy to so called bigger clubs .and then you,ll have a case where one of your managers meets the father of some kid in a supermarket and asks how he is doing and the next you,ll hear is that club has boycotted your academy for trying to poach there players and nothing you say or do will placate them I could go on and on but this is a real minefield that will sap your will to live but best of luck anyway.

[Raheny Red]

Could a mod change the thread title please.

What's up with Fingal fans?!

[Lamper.sffc]

Of course that's my point. Really straightforward, I would have thought, but it seems it's still too confusing for lamper to follow.
Ah again my friend you start to get personal and dodge the point.
I understand perfectlly. If his point is so simple why did you not say that.
As i said, just because investor is gone doesnt mean the clubs expenses suddenly dissapear they still have to make up that money somehow. Harder for gretna than SF. Simple really


Expenses are irrelevant in this context. It's how much of the club's budget is being bankrolled by one person. If you've no money, you've no money, regardless of whether you're short one million or five million.

No there not, if you have a bill for 5 million or 1 million, which do you think is harder to pay off when investor has gone. Running costs of the club remain when the investor leaves. Gretna have higher running costs



The opposite of sustainable is not bankrupt. In other words, if the investor pulls out, the club doesn't necessarily have to go belly up for it to be deemed unsustainable. Shels were unsustainable, their bankroller pulled out and yet they're still around.

Ah finally he tries to explain what he means about Sustainable.
I never said bankrupt was the opposite of sustainable, you implied it was. But thats what you do you imply something and then when cornered change what you mean. I merely gave an example of a club that survived the loss of a major investor and didnt just survive they are doing quite well. But you seem unable to actually talk about this point


And as for explaining the difference between a trust fund and a person. :rolleyes:


Neither of us know what Gannon is going to do after 5 years. He may leave and we may fold. Or he may carry on and we might survive. I dont know but neither do you.

I presume you are talking about this comment. You stated balckburn survived the loss of their investor because of a trust fund. So jack walkers money carried on after he passed away. Im simply stating Gannon might want to carry on investing in the club after the 5 years.

Stu, this is what you want so im not going to play any more.
You already talked about enjoying messing with Santry Goonshow.
This is obviously what you are into, so i will comment on you no more.
The rest of the comments from others i have appreciated ( even if we dissagreed):)

[Rovers fan]

Ding ding ding. Round one goes to pineapple stu.

[Lamper.sffc]

Could a mod change the thread title please.

What's up with Fingal fans?!

Its simply a question, Not meant to be offensive. Plus i also invited Shels fans to comment from the very beginning.

[Lamper.sffc]

Ding ding ding. Round one goes to pineapple stu.

Yep, stu wins