Printable View
If we're only differing by semantics, I'm sure you can take back your assertion that my opinion was horsesh!t so. Or would that be too grown-up for you?Quote:
Originally Posted by placid casual
As for Cork City, as micls said, it's clear now that we should have faced a lot more questions and challenges before we were granted a licence. That's the only control the FAI really have that they can exert, they should take that responsibility more seriously.
I think placid is considering that you were claiming that well run clubs were all being kept down by the other ones, whereas he's noting that one well-run club isn't being kept down.
I think a lot of people need to realise that if it wasn't for the FAI and their regulation of the league most of these problems would be getting swept under the carpet and the clubs would be building up bigger and bigger debts. With the recession hitting the way it has I think a lot more clubs would be facing winding up orders without any hope of surviving them if it wasn't for the fact that the FAI has forced them towards more transparent financial system. The process is taking time and maybe the FAI haven't been harsh enough, but hopefully that will come and those that refuse to fall into line will be left behind.
I think the Revenue have done far more to clean up the league than the FAI have.
The Revenue getting their act together has certainly made a major contribution too. I still feel like the league is a work in progress and if clubs don't throw the toys out of the pram and the FAI stops clinging to the idea of a fully professional premier division, then we're not too far away from a decent quality, and most importantly, sustainable league.Quote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
Quote:
Originally Posted by passinginterest
But isn't that exactly what is happening? A couple of months into the season we were being wound up by the revenue!!
I should point out that I was disagreeing with your post in that I think the Revenue have done pretty much everything that's been done recently to expose financial problems and avoid stuff being swept under the carpet. I can't really see a huge amount of evidence of the FAI doing anything, bar rejecting a couple of budgets which, while a good start, doesn't really do much in itself.Quote:
Originally Posted by passinginterest
I don't think anyone could have predicted what Coughlan did. He was given control of the club in good faith and proceeded to run it into the ground. Unless the FAI actually take over the day to day runnings of the clubs they have to place some trust in those running them.Quote:
Originally Posted by micls
That's simply not true. Coughlan was running the club into the ground long before he license was handed over. The tax bill was already there, we were signing players left, right and centre etc etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by passinginterest
There's no way the FAi didn't know he was on a downwards slope, we all knew it.
The litmus test for the FAI has yet to come. Clearly they have fudged "moments of truth" in the recent past and that does not auger well for the hard actions that face them this winter. But clear statements, such as that made by Padraig Smith in his Indo interview, gives some grounds for optimism that they are prepared to make good on their threats regarding sanctions.Quote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
The litmus test has been had for the last decade we've had licencing. I don't see any reason to believe this year's lip service will be more meaningul than last year's lip service. I'd love to be proven wrong, but the litmus paper has dissolved at this stage, the FAI have had so many tests. Half the league doling out wage cuts last year was the obvious one.
Maybe I have my timeline a bit out then, I didn't think the licence was granted while Coughlan was in charge. Even at that Coughlan was claiming to have the money to finance the whole gig, he lodged his €500,000 bond to get control of the club in the first place, I think the FAI acted in good faith allowing him to sign players and continue in the manner he did, even if questions were starting to be asked. I'd imagine there would have been uproar if an owner claiming to have the funds (and more importantly displaying he had them)to sign theses players was prevented from doing so.Quote:
Originally Posted by micls
Quote:
Originally Posted by passinginterest
You have your timeline out. Coughlan was given the club last October.
Coughlan submitted a budget and blew it out of the water long before the licences were handed out.
We also had a huge tax bill then
i think stu is right there is no indication that the fai will in the future be any more able to control mindless idiots ruining clubs than they were in the past ..do hope im wrong but there is nothing to hang that hope on
For how long?Quote:
Originally Posted by placid casual
This type of claim seems pretty regular here, but I don't understand the basis for it. It is pretty obvious that most clubs are experiencing various levels of financial difficulties, but there are hardly 7 premier clubs who are likely to have breached licencing rules.Quote:
Originally Posted by placid casual
Corks problems are obvious, Bohs and Derry may have issues with the 65% rule, but what are the non-compliance issues with Dundalk, Galway, Sligo and Drogheda?
from all the breaking news from Dundalk, id say you are complying by the skin of your teeth (thanks to your players taking a pay cut). Galway Sligo and Droghedas problems are ongoing since last season but they would appear to be complying.
Surely it is important to remember that compliance to an arbitrary percentage of a budget does not mean that a club is financially sound or is being run well necessarily.
Id venture to suggest that Rovers may overextend themselves (AGAIN) in the next couple of seasons if they continue to sign the players they have signed on the money that is being touted. Im not saying its inevitable but they need to be careful. To be fair, Rovers are lucky they screwed up when they did - 4% of debts and no sanction? Id take that in an instant if it came to Bohs!!
Ok - so you think that all bar Bohs, Derry and Cork appear to be complying, even if all other clubs are not necessarily financially sound or well run?Quote:
Originally Posted by SkStu
Sounds about right to me.
Dream on. We were below 50% wage:turnover ratio before the transfer window so we could afford to increase the wage budget a bit during the window. Don't get too hopeful though we're still well below the 65% and don't forget our crowds have just gone up from 3000 to 5000. If you actually think the people running Rovers will wildly overspend in the next few years you are living in dreamland, the entire membership is united from top to bottom on this subject. No silly wages to players and no back of the beermat budgets using voodoo economics. The two Slovak lads we had on trial with us and played in the summer friendlies were let go because they demanded mad money we weren't willing to pay. If the bubble ever bursts in Tallaght (which I don't think it will) budgets will be cut back long before we are in serious trouble.Quote:
Originally Posted by SkStu
fair enough HulaHoop - we'll have to wait and see. If Rovers can prolong the Tallaght effect and remain steadfast in their principles over the next 5 years then i will be the first to say well done (with some choice expletives thrown in).
Ezeikial, i am not the authority on who is and who is not complying. I suspect Dundalk arent but they could be. Ditto Galway and Sligo. Im not going to know for sure until i hear from the FAI. My main point was that even if your team and the others who are living on the edge are complying with an arbitrary percentage of a predetermined budget, this does not mean that they arent already screwed or will be very shortly.
For sure, Cork, Derry and Bohs are in the most visible danger but i think Dundalk, Galway, Drogheda and Sligo are right behind them 65% or no 65%.