Printable View
I don't buy into the idea that Fyffes are paying player's wages. From my knowledge of the people working in Fyffes, they are very pragmatic business people who view Dundalk FC as a good marketing vehicle.
I don't expect them to be paying over the odds for sponsorship.
My point is, as long as there is financial backing, that does not rely on gate receipts and marketing goods sold, the better players can be attracted and success can follow.
Reading between the lines of a few Dundalk poster's about this subject,on this thread alone, suggests a tiny bit of naivety about how they think their club won't fall into the trap of the bohs/ shels examples mentioned.
Dundalk fans don't really know how dependent the budget is on sponsorship. Personally, I doubt there is any dependence.
Sponsorship was vital when the team was starting to look as if it could be successful. After finishing second in 2013, financing was required to hold on to players like Towell, Hoban, etc who caught the eye that year. In addition, we bought Daryl Horgan at the end of that season. That is where financing from sponsors may have been critical.
However, once success arrived, income went through the roof. Ticket prices were increased by 30%, season tickets rose well above 1,000, and average attendances shot up above 3,000. This is not including European money, which is considerable.
The Bohs/Shels example are not comparable, as their running costs were funded by debt even in the midst of their success.
At the moment, the impasse over the Oriel Park lease ensures that expenditure is well behind income streams. The challenge will come when/(if) that impasse ends and the club starts to invest in Oriel Park and also pay a considerable wage bill. If that coincides with the end of the cycle of success, there could be problems.
I take your point about complacency. Every LOI club is just a few months (if that) away from financial problems.
Success on the pitch should equal success off it.
Success off the pitch does not necessarily equal success on it.
If Dundalk become also rans (or worse) over the next 3 years or so then the attendances will drop. If the attendances drop so will the sponsorship and merchandise sales.
If Dundalk (or any club) were to rely solely on winning leagues to survive then they wouldnt last very long.
The key to survival is attendances. If Dundalk can keep the public interested then the rest (merchandise sales and sponsorship etc) will follow.
If they cant then theyre buggered.
Just on the point re Fyffes, they are an excellent sponsor and work very closely with the club on a lot of things. I think the only time they got involved in any player direct support was to partly assist in Towell's wages during winter 2013 and 2014, as he was probably the only one on a 52 week deal.Quote:
Originally Posted by placid casual
I think they did increase their overall sponsorship package last year, so they appear to be very happy with the arrangement.
On attendances, this is a key part of any clubs success and if Dundalk can manage to maintain their average over 3k they will have a good chance of extending the current sucessfull period. The ground and its limited facilities will remain one of the biggest challenges.
It is splitting hairs I know but Fyffes may have increased sponsorship by enough to cover a 52 week contract. Towell wasnt an 'employee' of Fyffes therefore not paid for by Fyffes. That is not to say that money received by Fyffes wasnt directed to or for the purpose of keeping hold of a team assest like Towell. It has happened before that a supporter provided the means for the club to hold on to a player under Foster ( McKinley or McGinley?) then Foster left him sitting in the stand.Quote:
Originally Posted by placid casual
I would never say never that Dundalk FC could be keeping the wolves from the door again at some time. When a club is riding the crest of a wave income from attendances, sponsorship etc goes up but fundraisers like the Lotto, draws, dinner dances etc are let slide and that is the difference for when the dip in fortunes occur. Ironically it is also a lost opportunity to maximise these fundraisers when there is goodwill toward the club - make hay when the sun shines as they say. Would also lessen the financial burden of ground improvement when they happen and lessen the impact on the playing side of things.
Saying something considering Des Kelly and Mr Kelleher sponsorships.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dodge
Kelleher is the owner, not a sponsor. Big difference.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nesta99
:) I was fishing a bit really, but i'm sure like our own current owners he'd have some company advertisement board or program ad in Richmond, even as a tax break. But I wasnt being serious. I did in the past initially assume that Clune was part of Kelleher's construction group due to Chicago connections with both.
who does Des Kelly sponsor ? :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by Nesta99