Whats up with shels fans

[Santry_Goonshow]

You say that small clubs fold because of small gate receipts. Incorrect IMO - they fold because of a resultant lack of people to run the off-field side of things.


Calling someone a tosser while ignoring all the points they raise may just constitute a personal attack, don't you think?

1. The gate receipts thing is right. Even in the shoestring financing of the LOI most income is from sponsorship, promotions and player sales combined and the trend is going even more in that direction.

2. Your points weren't ignored, I just don't agree with them. You and six others flaming me and accusing me of ignorance isn't fun, especially as I know a good deal and just want to discuss. I cannot pick your replies out from the other eight and give individual answers. I have the same motivation as everyone else here - discuss and learn. Pineapple Stu saying you are toying with people is arrogance. If you don't like frank excahnges of views then just ask "the moderator" to cut off new memberships. No fun when people falsely accuse me of Wumming either, especially when he uses choice language as well, doesn't quite care about flaming and has a false definition of TROLLING. Oh well we can but try.

[Lamper.sffc]

Don't know if you're aware, but Gretna have effectively gone tits up following the same plan

Gretna = very small fish in a very large pond

The difference between SF and the rest of the clubs around us is not as vast

Id imagine the costs of running gretna in the top flight of the scottish league
is a little more than here.

[pineapple stu]

Gretna = very small fish in a very large pond

The difference between SF and the rest of the clubs around us is not as vast

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

[osarusan]

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

It depends what you mean by 'sustainable', but how about Chelsea?

[Lamper.sffc]

Doesn't matter how big or not a club and its league is

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.

[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. 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. 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.