I agree with you about Finn and the point is true about most of our good players. That's what it is to be a University club. If we tried to compete with the other clubs on the basis of spending money to buy better players we'd pretty quickly end up in the first division or worse. It's a different model to other clubs but it suits us quite well.
-
-
That wasn't a dig I totally respect UCD for what they are. I just don't think looking for loads of money for players is the right thing to do for them. Lets say UCD don't let the players in question go, for less than 100k and no english club goes for them. They end up back at home and sitting it out, or UCD let the two lads go and set up some kind of deal that gets them a nice back end. They go away. Young players coming from top schoolboy clubs see this and want to sign for UCD knowing that they have a chance just like Quigley and Dicker. It's a fine line for UCD to get this right do they over price there players for the sake of future players.Comment
-
thegit, I think Irish football is entering a phase where they won't accept crap money for players any more. UCD can use the extra funds to invest in infrastructure (stadium, advertising, marketing etc.). I don't think the club will hold young players back looking for ridiculous fees, we've never stood in the way of a player who wanted to leave when we were due what was reasonable to the best of my knowledge. Dicker and Quigley are out of contract and if someone won't pay what we want and they decide they want to go to a club then arbitration will sort it out.
I don't think the flow of quality young players has to stop anytime soon. We also have Kenna, Hurley, Sammon and Byrne making an impact and the possibility of Forsyth and others coming through. Mahon and Wallace are constantly looking for more talent to bring through and have a good knowledge of upcoming kids. It's to do with the staff in place. Doolin basically unearthed no one while he was at UCD (maybe just McWalter?).Comment
-
I didn't think you were having a dig and I agree with you that seeing the lads do well is more important in the long run that getting money but at the same time, if there's the potential for money we should try to get it. We won't be buying any big name players to replace the lads gone but even a small bit of money can go a long way.
It wouldn't do UCD any harm either if the schooboy clubs get their cut. If UCD are to ever grow past the mid table ceiling we're currently hitting it'll be by building stronger links with the local clubs, the students certainly aren't going to start coming to matches in any numbers.Comment
-
You trying to engineer yourself a free transfer?
Anyway, first off, the fee wouldn't be set by the clubs (unless they agree otherwise). It'd be set by independent arbitration, based on set factors (length of time at the club, wage level, etc). So once it goes to arbitration, both clubs have no choice but to accept this value. (Obviously the buying club can then decide not to buy the player if they want). So it's not a case of us trying to milk things for what they're worth; it's just a case of us getting what we deserve.
Secondly, the player isn't the only party to consider here, as you have ("is the right thing to do for them"). The club has to look after its own interests too. There's no point in the club letting a player go for free because it's good for the player. We want Dicker, Kavanagh and Quigley to play for us next season as well, and so should be compensated if we can't have that.
With regards your other comment, obviously it'd be better to keep the players. I noted that getting money is the worst case scenario, and as worst case scenarios go, it's pretty good. Obviously, you could attract players by saying they'd be playing alongside two U-21 internationals. However, say the two boys go for a combined E200,000 (pure hypothesis here). What can the club then do with that?
(a) - Pay off debts, thereby reducing the costs of servicing these, and freeing up more money for wages
(b) - Increase Pete's wages budget. Say something like put the E200,000 on deposit and transfer E40,000 a year extra for five years guaranteed to the wages budget. For E40,000, you'd get one experienced player who could really move the club along a la Derek Swan/Brian Mooney/Peter Hanrahan did around 2000. Or you might get a better quality of youngster back from England. Either way, club moves up => more prize money => more money on wages => attract better players => sell players for more money => more money. It's a nice circle. Add in extra exposure, extra gates, etc.
(c) - Employ a second full-time staff to work purely on marketing the club. Say pay them E30,000 a year and give them a marketing budget of E10,000 a year. That person can focus purely on getting more people through the turnstiles. Hoped-for effect - increased gates => increased turnover => more money for wages => back to step (b).
So while we'd rather the players stayed, there's a huge benefit to the club in getting in transfer fees for them. E200,000 would be about 40% of our annual turnover in one go, so it could make a huge difference.Comment
-
Come on wake up. All you talk about is money money money. You could spend the entire 200k on marketing and I bet you wouldn't get 20 more people to go to UCD matches. Not everything in football is win win win, sometimes the little guys get s*** on, if thats the case UCD should have to pay the schoolboy club for signing the player why should they get him for free?
What debts? are there any, I taught UCD was a tight ship?
Attract better player, sell bette player more money blah blah blah and then you say more money for winning things.... Are you sure this isnt chelsea.
Comment
-
Yeah, Schumi's right, the wage budget could be expanded a bit to bring in a few extras experienced heads, something Pete Mahon is dying to do. I think Keith Doyle and Paul Crowley helped the squad a lot in the second half of the season. It also lifts the pressure off the younger players.Comment
-
Not true. Have explicitly stated I want to keep the players, but as a consolation, money isn't bad.
That I don't know. It's come up before and whatever way we're doing it, we're in the right. It might be because the players come from underage football, and clubs don't have the option of retaining players as they're gone too old, I don't know. Obviously Cherry Orchard (?) would get a percentage of any fee here as well.Originally posted by thegit
Sometimes the little guys do get shat on. But we have UEFA on our side. Sometimes the renegade players don't get things all their own way too.
Comment
-
Darren Quigley would be better off long term going to Falkirk and making a name for himself in the SPL. If West Ham are still interested they will sign him from there and has a much better chance of making it in the Premiershi* after a spell in the Scottish Premier.
Better the SPL than the West Ham Reserves.Comment
-
Agreed.... Just look at Quigleys competition in the Irish Side, Darren Randloph. Charlton have loaned him out to Accrington Stanley, who are they ? Exactly !
SPL would be a much better option for him and would also give him much better exposure if he wanted to sign for a bigger club down the line.Comment
-
There's a fair bit of talk in Scotland about Quigs. A buddy of mine who was a trialist with Ross County as a keeper a few years back was asking about him yesterday. Seems to be lot of interest from the Bairns.Check out my new sports blog http://www.action81.comComment
-
Would KCFC be entitled to any money? He spent a season or two on our books before joining you guys.Comment
llocks.
Comment