GoalPost Colonialism

http://www.football365.com/faves/7424487/Go-To-Ireland-For-Value-Not-Scotland

According to this article, Reading made an 800% profit on Kevin Doyle when they sold him on to Wolves.

Looks like history's stuck on repeat - Karl Shepherd gone to Reading on a free transfer (I suppose he's out of contract...)

I posted this on another forum, but I thought I'd post it here as some of youse seem like yis have read bukes and might know something about economics.

It's a bit annoying - the country's sovereignty is gone right now anyway but the LoI is, economically speaking, a colony of England.

Back in the day, as a country, we did something about being a colony. Question is: can LoI clubs do anything to strengthen their hands in the buyer's market of football players being sold to England?

By the way, this is by no means a hidden Brit-bashing question - it's economics, stupid.

players need to make their mark in England before we'll get any value - were not exactly selling these players to the top clubs, and the smaller clubs aren't going to spend half a million or more on Irish players when they aren't sure of the standard here.

progress seemed to have been made when City sold Alan Bennett and Roy O'Donovan but they didn't quite manage the highs of Doyle, Long etc and fees have taken a step back

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El-Pietro

players need to make their mark in England before we'll get any value - were not exactly selling these players to the top clubs, and the smaller clubs aren't going to spend half a million or more on Irish players when they aren't sure of the standard here

---

Roy Keane, Paul McGrath etc etc etc
English clubs know the standard of the players here - they also know how financially screwed most LoI clubs are and so they exploit that. (I would too, if I was managing an English club)

I suppose my question is naive - it could be rephrased as: "Can Irish clubs do anything to defy the basic rules of the free market?"

The answer to that is 'no', isn't it? But that makes for a very short discussion.

Sell-on clauses that demand a high percentage of the sell-on fee should be the way to go. They're not in a position to demand big fees when very few players are on long term contracts these days.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by born2bwild

Roy Keane, Paul McGrath etc etc etc
English clubs know the standard of the players here - they also know how financially screwed most LoI clubs are and so they exploit that. (I would too, if I was managing an English club)

I suppose my question is naive - it could be rephrased as: "Can Irish clubs do anything to defy the basic rules of the free market?"

The answer to that is 'no', isn't it? But that makes for a very short discussion.

---

2 players who you could argue are World Class in 30 years or more?

The likes of Coleman and Long, as well as McLean and Meyler if they can kick on will definitely help. Sheppard has just signed for Reading, it would be great if he banged in about 8 or 10 goals before the end of the season over there

Contracts definitely don't help our situation. Clubs should realise the only assets they have are young players. If you have a promising young lad get him on a 2 or 3 year deal, don't let him get to the last year of his contract, once hes 24 or 25 then the chances of you selling him for much are gone anyway.

Graham Cummins is a case in point, hes 24 now this season, and hes never really scored at the Premier Level. We put a price tag of €100,000 on him, Wolves had him on trial but at his age hes not worth the money for a club like Wolves because there are so many similar players in England, who are younger and even better. Lower level clubs where he might start can't afford to take a risk that hed make it at €100,000.

Now if he scores 14 goals by the start of July he will be gone, but failing that I think he will see out his career in Ireland. We have the likes of Morrisey, Horgan and Spillane on two year deals because they are potentially worth something, but older players like Kevin Murray, Mark McNulty and Davin O'Neill will have to make do with one year deals unless they are our very best players. (Danny murphy signed a 2 year deal at the start of last season but hes the exception)

The only way this will change is if clubs can somehow manage to be more financially stable, allowing them to offer their best players longer contracts. Not highly paid contracts, just reasonable ones with a longer time-frame. It gives players stability of income and gives the club protection from losing their best on a free transfer every November. It won't work that way in every case, but I think it something that should be worked toward if possible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El-Pietro

2 players who you could argue are World Class in 30 years or more?

The likes of Coleman and Long, as well as McLean and Meyler if they can kick on will definitely help. Sheppard has just signed for Reading, it would be great if he banged in about 8 or 10 goals before the end of the season over there

Contracts definitely don't help our situation. Clubs should realise the only assets they have are young players. If you have a promising young lad get him on a 2 or 3 year deal, don't let him get to the last year of his contract, once hes 24 or 25 then the chances of you selling him for much are gone anyway.

Graham Cummins is a case in point, hes 24 now this season, and hes never really scored at the Premier Level. We put a price tag of €100,000 on him, Wolves had him on trial but at his age hes not worth the money for a club like Wolves because there are so many similar players in England, who are younger and even better. Lower level clubs where he might start can't afford to take a risk that hed make it at €100,000.

Now if he scores 14 goals by the start of July he will be gone, but failing that I think he will see out his career in Ireland. We have the likes of Morrisey, Horgan and Spillane on two year deals because they are potentially worth something, but older players like Kevin Murray, Mark McNulty and Davin O'Neill will have to make do with one year deals unless they are our very best players. (Danny murphy signed a 2 year deal at the start of last season but hes the exception)

---

I was going to make a list but I thought 'etc etc' would do.

Yeah - I think your point about clubs covering themselves by offering decent players longer contracts is a good one. Of course, you need cash to offer a longer contract.

Still, though, at the height of the madness in the country a few years back, Kevin Doyle, a player with European experience and obvious quality, was sold for 100k - a pittance.

Karl Sheppard is going for sfa.

Are we so screwed that we can't find ways to poker face the English clubs into handing over serious, serious cash? (Obviously, I'd prefer if the best players stayed here)

Kevin Doyle went for so little because of one man. Pat Dolan wanted revenge on Lennox for his sacking and he got it

still if it werent for TNB wed have gotten close to 1million with all our add ons, but he sold the sell on clause for 200k or so (which went into his pocket) about 6 months before Doyles move

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gufcfan

The only way this will change is if clubs can somehow manage to be more financially stable, allowing them to offer their best players longer contracts. Not highly paid contracts, just reasonable ones with a longer time-frame. It gives players stability of income and gives the club protection from losing their best on a free transfer every November. It won't work that way in every case, but I think it something that should be worked toward if possible.

---

I know I said it in another thread very recently, but I still like the idea of paying a player a proportion of the 65% wage cap instead of a fixed cash wage. The club can then sign the player up for a few seasons, knowing that even if their income drops, having the player on the books isn't going to break the bank, and the player gets a nice performance related bonus if the club finish higher up the league, or qualify for Europe. And, depending on how it was worked, also perhaps a cut of his own transfer fee, meaning players would prefer the English clubs paid money for them, and didn't just snap them up on a free transfer.

Peadar, that's the kind of creative thinking that - even if ideas don't/can't work - at least gets people thinking of alternatives to the 40 week contract. I know cashflow is a problem that prevents retention of players, but could it be alleviated if 52/104/156 week contracts were front-loaded for the duration of the season, with players paid a lower sum during the off-season?

There's far too much stale thinking in the league, and it stifles development. When clubs don't have a pot for the proverbial and let their only assets walk away for free every season is frustrating and really, really bad business. In a full squad, surely it must be possible to have 4 or 5 promising young players tied down for 2-3 years?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by born2bwild

Are we so screwed that we can't find ways to poker face the English clubs into handing over serious, serious cash? (Obviously, I'd prefer if the best players stayed here)

---

It's been said a few times on thread already, but I think it's worth repeating again. The low transfer fees are a direct consequence of the Bosman ruling and the dominant single year contracts in the LoI. If players aren't tied to the clubs for at least two years, they can't command decent fees. That, unfortunately, is the long and short of it.

EG and Peadar - the clubs can retain the players on lower salaries in the off season under the SW scheme (part payment) which then is eliminated in the full season. Also the player will, normally, be working, so offering a portion of the salary in the off season would be handy, even if the 40weeks were slightly reduced. Unfortunately our clubs ape the British model and it's all or nothing. So players go for free. We won't see joined up thinking soon in the LOI.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spudulika

EG and Peadar - the clubs can retain the players on lower salaries in the off season under the SW scheme (part payment) which then is eliminated in the full season. Also the player will, normally, be working, so offering a portion of the salary in the off season would be handy, even if the 40weeks were slightly reduced. Unfortunately our clubs ape the British model and it's all or nothing. So players go for free. We won't see joined up thinking soon in the LOI.

---

I'm not sure if that scheme applies to footballers though? Unless we're talking about different things, it's about getting people into full-time employment, which the LOI probably won't offer any time soon.

As for Sheppard, as far as I know Rovers (and Galway) will be due some sort of payment under tribunal as he's only 20. Perhaps Reading have already settled with Rovers, I'm not sure.

Right now, I'd settle for having the LOI seen as a good value source of players by the EPL. I know people will say that Paul McGrath/Roy Keane/Kevin Doyle didn't change anything, but if a steady stream of half a dozen of the leagues top players go across the water every year and get established in Premiership/Championship sides then that might be the tipping point for greater LOI success. I'd like to see the day when a good young player sees Sligo Rovers as a real alternative to Blackburn Rovers for getting their career started, or people turning out to Gortakeegan to see a future Irish no.1 goalie. That could get clubs to a stage where they can give 2-3 year contracts and be able to demand modest transfer fees. Even short-term, imagine if Galway had an ex-player at Barcelona or Man Utd that they could ask for help from?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by born2bwild

http://www.football365.com/faves/7424487/Go-To-Ireland-For-Value-Not-Scotland

According to this article, Reading made an 800% profit on Kevin Doyle when they sold him on to Wolves.

---

Cork signed him for nothing from Pats 2 years previously to selling him to Reading. So their infinity% profit trumps Reading's measly 800%

Ah, but were we really a colony?

http://www.victorianweb.org/history/ireland2.html

(Don't worry everyone - we can still feel victimized).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Straightstory

Ah, but were we really a colony?

http://www.victorianweb.org/history/ireland2.html

(Don't worry everyone - we can still feel victimized).

---

Dude,honestly!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Straightstory

Ah, but were we really a colony?

http://www.victorianweb.org/history/ireland2.html

(Don't worry everyone - we can still feel victimized).

---

please say you dont believe that!:confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bennocelt

please say you dont believe that!:confused:

---

There is a grain of truth in it, albeit differently to how the author of that entry means it.

Legally speaking, its partly correct. From the Act of Union to Irish independence, Ireland was part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Prior to the Act of Union Ireland could properly be called a colony.

Even though it may be legally correct, it ignores the reality that Ireland was treated as a colony, notwithstanding the spurious title of "United Kingdom". In many ways Ireland was treated worse than other colonies, because the British ruling elite knew that if Ireland, which was so close to "home" became "unruly", then they'd have trouble keeping other colonies in line.

However, the bigger truth is that huge parts of England, Scotland and Wales were treated like colonies also. The British Empire was a CLASS project, not a "national" one. They (the English ruling class, with able help from their warlords in Scotland, Ireland and Wales) didn't care who they ****ed - Irish, American, indian, even their own people in England, as long as it propped up their power and decadent lifestyle.

Woooo. Glad to get that off my chest! :) As you were.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by peadar1987

I know I said it in another thread very recently, but I still like the idea of paying a player a proportion of the 65% wage cap instead of a fixed cash wage. The club can then sign the player up for a few seasons, knowing that even if their income drops, having the player on the books isn't going to break the bank, and the player gets a nice performance related bonus if the club finish higher up the league, or qualify for Europe. And, depending on how it was worked, also perhaps a cut of his own transfer fee, meaning players would prefer the English clubs paid money for them, and didn't just snap them up on a free transfer.

---

I've been thinking really hard about this for a few days now, and the only main drawback I can think of is if a club really push on, and make the step up from division 1, to a European campaign, for example, the income will increase, and they will end up paying far higher wages than they originally intended to players signed while still in division 1. However, I'm sure paying a little over the odds for a mediocre player's wages will strike most fans as a small price to pay for being so far ahead of where they were three seasons previously.

The idea is still up for criticism, but if people think it would work, feel free to fire an email off to your clubs about it. I doubt I'm the first to think of it, but it still could be useful.