Printable View
Just to back up BohDiddly slightly, a league run completely by accountants would be a pretty uneventful place.
There are times when borrowing is a good idea, and certainly ambition is no bad thing
Its the lack of reality that kills most of these ambitions.
It really wouldn't. Teams would still win, come second and get relegated. Teams would compete on the basis of how well they can coach their players, or how good their scouting network is, and not how many times they can sell their ground.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dodge
(And yes, I'm an accountant...)
No one will argue that. Not even accountants. This is not the kind of borrowing we see in the league.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dodge
Really? You think that even if teams cut their cloth (etc) that the teams with most income wouldn't still be the the dominant forces?Quote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
Even without overspending, the teams with most to offer players would still sign the better players.
I might have to clarify that my comment above about the lack of reality was talking specifically about the amount of borrowing and overspending in our league.Quote:
Originally Posted by John83
I agree 100% with your point
Oh and pineapple argues against it ;)
Yes. I am from a real club that exists in the real world, with real challenges. Much as it might offend you, we have nothing to learn from you and so prefer not to listen to your extra-mural dispatches of wisdomQuote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
Didn't you just do that? Suffice to say that you have things going for you in the survival stakes that do not apply to clubs that exist in the wild. In general, I am a supporter of Government funding for football, however unlikely that is to be in prospect, but I think it should be done in an open and transparent way.Quote:
Do you want to trot out the tired "funded by the Government" line and get it over with?
I'll gladly leave UCD to one side. As I said, your club's position is anachronistic and not relevant. That's why your halo-polishing grates more than most.Quote:
Or how about leaving us to one side and addressing the points which didn't concern UCD but which were made against your argument?
I don't see a problem with many of the points made, as, while they are sanctimoniously expressed, I don't see them as being fundamentally in contradiction of my argument.
They are essentially sound, but painfully obvious. Every club should try to spend less than it earns. Everyone should plan to stay within the salary cap based on realistic projections and not hoped-for revenues. Bohs should have been more sensible, especially when you consider that crowds might be just as good this year if we hadn't won the double last year. Hey, if that knowledge alone could save the league, we'd all be happy.
But I think that, outside of the madness fuelled by property deals, the sport has fundamental strategic problems that are not being addressed. I'm not the one who is in denial about that. Those who think that the problem exists only because clubs are run by 'idiots' are the ones who are in denial.
Strategic problems? The man is like a chess player bemoaning his poor pawn structure while he's being check mated.
Waffle about extra-mural dispatches all you like, but as much as it grates to be lectured about the ridiculous and unnecessary position your club has gotten itself into, it's far more annoying to be told you don't know what you're talking about by someone who has demonstrably failed.
Who has failed?
Bohs.
You must be wearing experimental antennae from one of your labs. Bohs have not failed. We are in peril, but so are most clubs in the league, and so is the game generally.
Our property adventures were foolish and they have blown up in our face. However, we still have a large asset which is the subject of new interest, and we have elected a reforming financial director who can count beans better and say things like spend less than you earn better than anyone on foot.ie.
But those considerations alone will not keep the club alive in the future. That is why I am saying that it is not a question of boom or bust and narrow financial probity. It is a question of survival or extinction.
I'm with Dodge and BohDidley on this subject - both make excellent points
Aye - the Double last season, the Leagues won in previous years would cushion the blow of dropping down to Part-Time if it happens.Quote:
Originally Posted by Claret Murph
I'm going to head over to enjoy the trip to Salzburg as much as I can - it may well be the last we have for a good while
Nice and sensible of course! (Just like my shoes, cant be doing with those new fangled high heeled ones, risk nosebleeds at that height never mind the damage to me feet)Quote:
Originally Posted by seand
Our nice and sensible approach will hopefully pay off in the next 2 years. Revenue generated from our new full sized astro pitch will help to fund not only further development of the Regional Development Centre and provide better coaching for children etc, but will also give us a little extra in the kitty to put towards building stronger teams.
Its all about the long view people.
And we have had our exciting moments, maybe not Europe or Premier Division titles but we have been in the hunt for some glory occasionally!
There'd still be bigger teams - I never denied that - but it'd be a lot more even. The league, realistically and based on crowds and income, should be largely part-time, and someone playing for and living in, say, Sligo, isn't too likely to sign a part-time contract with St Pat's just because they're offering E100 a week more or because they got into the UEFA Cup and Sligo didn't. (It may well still happen, but it'd be much less likely)Quote:
Originally Posted by Dodge
As an experiment, compare turnover among the league's clubs to spending; you should see (and no, I don't have those figures) that clubs are much better matched. And the league would be no less fun for it.
Where'd I say I was arguing against borrowing? (You changed your post, and then said I agreed with it. ;) )Quote:
Oh and pineapple argues against it ;)
Given that you continually fail to address the points made against you, and you continue to talk utter nonsense (which has already been pointed out by previous posters, and which I won't recap), I said I'd just clarify this point for you - UCD AFC is not funded by the Government. I made the reference sarcastically because you seemed like one of those knee-jerk reactionaries who believes things they want to believe without bothering to check if they're true or not. And I believe I have you hook, line and sinker.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bohdiddley
The fact that you can base your dismissal of my (and John83's) argument on something which is completely untrue says a lot about your argument in general.
Is it funded or given facilities or other benefits by UCD?Quote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
In the same way as, for example, Waterford United and other clubs get other benefits from their local council, yes.
I don't think that can be said to "not apply to clubs that exist in the wild", however.
pretty much nail on head for me - trying to balance ambition (you have to speculate to accumalate) V real world economics (not going bust !) has always been a delicate process.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dodge
Interestingly Shels went mad finanacially and are now at top end of Div 1. UCD were controlled, responsible and are now in much the same place as Shels.
For the record the two options I mentioned were extremes, no fun in including "stay solvent and win trophys" option (even if it were currently possible !).
Arguably as it should be, too. (Although they're two years ahead of us in the rebuilding stakes)Quote:
Originally Posted by marinobohs
Interesting to see who else we'll be in the same place as in a couple of years.
Thank you. So, while you may not, as you have loudly protested, receive funds from 'the Government', you do receive funds from the public purse.Quote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
Some clubs also get benefits from their local councils, and rightly so where they represent or are identified with a geographic place (although whether Fingal is a place is another debate). In my view that is a legitimate model.
We don't, however, have a procession of externally-supported experts from Waterford etc. coming on to tut-tut gleefully at the mistakes of those who don't enjoy such supports, while posturing as paragons of standalone financial virtue.
UCD may be resigned to bumping along the bottom and financially playing a 10-man defence for evermore, but there will always be clubs who will look to reach above that, because they and their supporters, a constituency that does not loom large in your arrangement, are interested in competition.
Just saw this point, which I think is a fair comment. But I think it needs expansion. In the 11 years I've been going to games, we've been in two Cup finals, qualified for Europe through the league, only been relegated twice, had the drama of winning a play-off on penalties, walked the First Division with a record number of points (damn Harps...) and been in at least four Cup semis (with another to come next month). It's not exactly La Coruna, but it's far from the boring picture you've suggested. If we can get that again in the next 11 years, I'll be happy enough.Quote:
Originally Posted by seand
Shels' future, by contrast, is still uncertain - where will they play? Will the move to the AUL kill them, as some suggest? Will their existing fan base follow them if they move to Lusk? If there's a drop off in support, will they be able to keep at their current (top of division one) standard? Most people in this league don't think about the medium to long-term future; if they did, there'd be a few more who'd be happy with the UCD model.
As do lots of other clubs. It's not, as you have loudly protested, that "have things going for you in the survival stakes that do not apply to clubs that exist in the wild".Quote:
Originally Posted by BohDiddley
With good cause. How many times have Waterford been bust in the last few years?Quote:
We don't, however, have a procession of externally-supported experts from Waterford etc. coming on to tut-tut gleefully at the mistakes of those who don't enjoy such supports, while posturing as paragons of standalone financial virtue.
The rest of your post is just using big words where an actual point is called for.
What's with the accountant bashing??
Quote:
Originally Posted by BohDiddley
A league of clubs who are being run profitably will no solve all the leagues problems, this much is true but it would certainly go a long way to stopping the leauge being looked on as a laughing stock in certain quarters.
It would allow for proper plans to be implemented to develop the league, rather than constantly worrying about whether there will be 10 viable clubs to make a premier division next season.
It might be part-time but I'd rather be a part-time player with the knowledge that I'll get paid every week than a full time one with 2 months back pay owed.