End of Season Pay Protocol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ronnie

The protocol is not the problem. It needs to be done almost on a case by case basis - if a club can turnover 1m, the 65% is too high. If a club is only going to turnover 300k, the 65% is too low.

---

I disagree. One rule across the board.

If your turnover is only 300K what are you doing paying 200K in wages?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

I don't. If they want to pay wages and improve the league, let them. I do hope that the FAI stop these sugar daddies saying they'll pay for wages, and then bailing out leaving the club high and dry.

---

Fair point Stu but they need a far better cast iron guarantee and not have another Arkaga. In essence I feel that their money could be better served than to be blown on players wages.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bald Student

I think Gavin has a point. Bray are clearly cutting wages to try to duck in under the 65% limit. They might well have planned properly at the start, only to have crowds dip near the end of the season leaving them a little on the wrong side of the law.

It's reasonable enough to notice that and adjust the rules for next year. The rules for this year should be enforced as they're written down but It'd be better next year for Bray (or whatever equivalent mid-table club) to be allowed finish the season on 70% (or whatever), with some agreed sanction, than to have a club drastically change its structures in the few weeks before the season ends.

---

Was their not a safety zone of 55%. If Bray where going below this over the season then i can't see how in one month they would be under threat of breaking the 65% unless there was drastic dramatic results.

Someone posted on some other thread before that cash is king. Some of the accounts I think that be presented are just made to suit the FAI and are not giving a true and fair reflection of their true status.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr A

Sligo had a transfer embargo enforced as well.

---

We were 1% over it

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by londonred

I think each club and the FAI should agree a % in advance and adhere to it , 65% is harsh on clubs who have very few outgoings except for players wages.

---

I thought it was acknowledged that clubs are not investing enough into their structures and facilities and spending too much on current expenditure and that setting the cap at 65% left funds for developing the club in the long term. You can always invest the money in youth structures, facilities, club promotion etc. Clubs outgoings shouldn't only just consist staff wages.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr A

Sligo had a transfer embargo enforced as well.

---

True, although it only lasted for a number of days.

These are the kind of things that will always happen in the league, clubs are not planning ahead, and neither are the FAI, and as Stu said, if anything good comes of it, then the FAI will be the first to come out and congratulate themsleves on how they have saved the day again!:mad:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

I do hope that the FAI stop these sugar daddies saying they'll pay for wages, and then bailing out leaving the club high and dry.

---

After Cork and Drogheda, they have to insist on a bond rather than a written guarantee.

I was always of the opinion that trying to implement and run a wage cap in what is bascally a Semi-Pro / Amateur League is madness.

It's like trying this whole thing in the British Gas Business Southern League back in England - and you'd get laughed out of town by those clubs if it was attempted...