Boom or bust

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 ?

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marinobohs

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)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marinobohs

(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.

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ezeikial

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.

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...

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!

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 .

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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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?

---

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:

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. 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

There are unavoidable financial crises. I've yet to see one in this league.

Quote:

---

It was Drogs in trouble this year.

---

From overspending.

Quote:

---

It's Bohs and Cork now.

---

From overspending.

Quote:

---

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!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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. 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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BohDiddley

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ezeikial

KEEP EXPENDITURE BELOW INCOME

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BohDiddley

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BohDiddley

...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.