Professional League of Ireland

Printable View

26/08/2007, 1:15 PM
pineapple stu

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boh_So_Good

The end of an era - he was a transistion from the old half assed league to the modern professional one. His place in Irish soccer history is assured and history will look on his legacy kindly I am sure.

I echo previous comments that, although I had absolutely no time for him, I certainly don't relish his demise, and sympathise fully with those who knew him at this time.

However, I don't think there's any point in posting revisionist comments like the ones above. Byrne's Shelbourne tenure was dominated by the "half assed", from accounting measures, to tax payments, to business plans. His reign at Shels has seen the club end E12m in debt, in the First Division with little hope of recovery, their ground all but gone and few plans for a new one, still losing money, up in front of the High Court again for over half a million of missing cash, has seen him bring the league into disrepute on numerous occasions, has seen Revenue launch an investigation into the entire league purely on the basis of what they found at Shels. He did nothing to bring the league forward; rather his completely unsustainable and reckless spending caused large wage inflation in the league and forced clubs to recklessly spend themselves if they were to have any hope of competing.

I disagree very strongly with the notion that any of this constitutes a move to a professional era, or that history will reflect kindly on his legacy. However, "good riddances" were said last January when he stepped aside at Shels, not now.

RIP.
26/08/2007, 3:45 PM
A face

I know what your saying there, and you're not wrong technically but i'd disagree with you overall.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

However, I don't think there's any point in posting revisionist comments like the ones above. Byrne's Shelbourne tenure was dominated by the "half assed", from accounting measures, to tax payments, to business plans. His reign at Shels has seen the club end E12m in debt, in the First Division with little hope of recovery, their ground all but gone and few plans for a new one, still losing money, up in front of the High Court again for over half a million of missing cash, has seen him bring the league into disrepute on numerous occasions

As i said, you're not wrong there, but that was all the aftermath of the recklessness. There is also another side to it as well.

Quote:

has seen Revenue launch an investigation into the entire league purely on the basis of what they found at Shels.

Is that not a good thing? In my opinion it was essential. If it didn't happen as a result of this then when would it have happened and who would have instigated it? FAI? get real? the clubs? Turkeys have not, don't, and will never vote for Christmas. A lot of clubs would have tax problems purely as a result of poor book keeping and bad management. It was the push come to shove.

Bare in mind that as the years go on tax issue would have been compounded, and not improved in most cases. This is one situation where 'the sooner, the better' most definitely does apply

Quote:

He did nothing to bring the league forward

He raised the bar in terms of professionalism on the pitch, the first club to go properly full time and we all saw the results of that after two years. I know in Cork under Dolan we simply couldn't beat Shels, the most we got was a point. They were THE best team in the league and played a good brand of football. If you cannot remember that then you have a short memory.

Quote:

rather his completely unsustainable and reckless spending caused large wage inflation in the league and forced clubs to recklessly spend themselves if they were to have any hope of competing.

No, i disagree. I will say that he did contribute to players wages being raised, but if players are getting better money here then they'd be less inclined to move away, obviously they would go abroad given half a chance but they might be more content here if they are earning better money. And City did not recklessly spend to compete and we have always been there and there abouts in that time.

Quote:

I disagree very strongly with the notion that any of this constitutes a move to a professional era or that history will reflect kindly on his legacy.

It had to start somewhere, i'll agree its not best business practice and Shels have paid that price for it but as a result teams have gone professional and are doing well. Funding etc. are questionable in a lot of cases but wouldn't that always have been the case. Anything that encourages clubs to source other sources of revenue and better sponsorship is a good thing. Clubs have started to get their houses in order and this surely is a good thing. We lost Shels as a result of all this but it did give a lot of clubs a much needed kick up the hole.

Quote:

However, "good riddances" were said last January when he stepped aside at Shels, not now.

Agreed.
26/08/2007, 3:59 PM
pineapple stu

You can't just "disagree". Have you any counter arguments to offer?
26/08/2007, 4:09 PM
A face

Quote:

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

You can't just "disagree". Have you any counter arguments to offer?

I was editing the post, read above.
26/08/2007, 4:40 PM
pineapple stu

Quote:

Originally Posted by A face

If it [Revenue's investigations] didn't happen as a result of this then when would it have happened and who would have instigated it?

You overlook the point that it wasn't actually necessary to trade the way Shels and other clubs did. To praise Byrne for being the one to let slip the league's way of trading is perverse. It'd be far more beneficial to do things properly, and there is and never was anything stopping clubs from doing that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by A face

He raised the bar in terms of professionalism on the pitch, the first club to go properly full time and we all saw the results of that after two years. I know in Cork under Dolan we simply couldn't beat Shels, the most we got was a point. They were THE best team in the league and played a good brand of football. If you cannot remember that then you have a short memory.

Shels didn't go "properly full time" - you have to pay your players for that. Their full time status was purely possible because they were selling their ground as they did it. If anything, Shels under Byrne showed just how far away from full time football this league is - they, Drogheda, Bohs and Pat's (not sure how full-time they are though) have only managed it by racking up huge losses which everyone ignores when is suits them.

Also, Shels' style of play (particularly under Fenlon) was much criticised as overly defensive and dull to watch.

Quote:

Originally Posted by A face

No, i disagree. I will say that he did contribute to players wages being raised, but if players are getting better money here then they'd be less inclined to move away, obviously they would go abroad given half a chance but they might be more content here if they are earning better money. And City did not recklessly spend to compete and we have always been there and there abouts in that time.

City were served with a winding up order last year and their programme printers refused to print the UCD issue due to unpaid debts, so evidently City were far from reckless.

The league is only as good as it can afford to be, which you seem to be missing. If Shels went and bought David Beckham, that doesn't mean squat about how the league is improving. If Shels could afford Beckham, that'd be different. If the league can't afford a player (and it evidently couldn't afford the squad Shels assembled), it does not improve the league to have him here. If we can't afford a player, we're better off leaving him go somewhere else rathern than bankrupt ourselves signing him. Your post says you're happy to be fooled about what the league can afford.

Quote:

Originally Posted by A face

It had to start somewhere, i'll agree its not best business practice and Shels have paid that price for it but as a result teams have gone professional and are doing well. Funding etc. are questionable in a lot of cases but wouldn't that always have been the case. Anything that encourages clubs to source other sources of revenue and better sponsorship is a good thing. Clubs have started to get their houses in order and this surely is a good thing. We lost Shels as a result of all this but it did give a lot of clubs a much needed kick up the hole.

This, to be honest, shows a complete lack of understanding about what happened at Shels over the past few years.

"It had to start somewhere" is a completely unbacked up cliche. I've shown numerous ways in which Byrne's reign did not lead to a new professional era. Your comment does nothing to refute my reasons.

"Anything that encourages clubs to source other sources of revenue and better sponsorship is a good thing."? Shels didn't do any of this. Their extra "revenue" was from selling their ground, with a slight raise in prize money as well.

"Clubs have started to get their houses in order"? They have not. Look at Drogheda racking up a million quid debt a year. Look at Pat's doing the same. Look at Longford, in serious financial trouble. Look at Shels, making no attempt to get themselves back on track. That's just what we know about.

Ollie Byrne has done no more to bring the league forward than did Ronan Seery or Louis Kilcoyne.
26/08/2007, 4:48 PM
LeixlipRed

Didn't want to say anything in the other thread but Pineapple, you could have just given the man a day to be dead before you had to get a few digs in at him in a thread designed solely for people to pay condolences. For example, would you go to a funeral and when the priest stated, "he was a good man, liked by all" get up and say "well actually, I'd like to dispute that". Of course you wouldn't. Someone made a silly comment but you didn't have to respond
26/08/2007, 5:00 PM
LukeO

Quote:

Originally Posted by LeixlipRed

Didn't want to say anything in the other thread but Pineapple, you could have just given the man a day to be dead before you had to get a few digs in at him in a thread designed solely for people to pay condolences. For example, would you go to a funeral and when the priest stated, "he was a good man, liked by all" get up and say "well actually, I'd like to dispute that". Of course you wouldn't. Someone made a silly comment but you didn't have to respond

Exactly what I was thinking, bad form IMO. Now is not the time, especially in a thread designed for condolences.
26/08/2007, 5:03 PM
pineapple stu

Quote:

Originally Posted by LeixlipRed

Didn't want to say anything in the other thread but Pineapple, you could have just given the man a day to be dead before you had to get a few digs in at him in a thread designed solely for people to pay condolences. For example, would you go to a funeral and when the priest stated, "he was a good man, liked by all" get up and say "well actually, I'd like to dispute that". Of course you wouldn't. Someone made a silly comment but you didn't have to respond

Actually, I didn't start this thread at all. The original post - which I think is perfectly fair - was copied by A face into this new thread for debate. Nothing to do with me.
26/08/2007, 5:06 PM
LukeO

Quote:

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

Actually, I didn't start this thread at all. The original post - which I think is perfectly fair - was copied by A face into this new thread for debate. Nothing to do with me.

Don't think you read his post correctly, he was referring to your original post in the other thread.
26/08/2007, 5:07 PM
LeixlipRed

Eh, what? That's not what I was getting at all. WHo started this thread is irreleveant. Someone made a comment about Ollie bringing on the proffessional game and you responded. In the other thread. Time and a place ant that wasn't either
26/08/2007, 5:34 PM
A face

Moderation: Lads, this thread was split for the other one to carry on this debate, respecting the need for the other thread. The reason for this thread is above the professionalism of the league. Some people have the opinion that Ollie contributed to that so naturally his name would be mentioned here.

Please do not let this get personal.
26/08/2007, 5:35 PM
A face

Quote:

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

Actually, I didn't start this thread at all. The original post - which I think is perfectly fair - was copied by A face into this new thread for debate. Nothing to do with me.

Stu, if you dont mind, i'm going to delete that part of your post in the other thread. Its in here and its more relevant to the debate here.
26/08/2007, 5:38 PM
A face

Quote:

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

You overlook the point that it wasn't actually necessary to trade the way Shels and other clubs did. To praise Byrne for being the one to let slip the league's way of trading is perverse. It'd be far more beneficial to do things properly, and there is and never was anything stopping clubs from doing that.

Edit: Thread is being locked until later in the week. Foot.ie is a discussion forum, used to debate topics relevant to the league. If people are sensible then this can happen in an orderly manner.

As for Stu's post, there is nothing in there that attacks the person. He has commented on the point in question and not disrespected anyone by doing so. He has not broken any rules by commenting. The content can stay there and will stay there, if some has an issue or takes offense then use the report post facility and it will be dealt with by the moderators.

People, keep level heads and don't storm into a flame war.