Sorry I was going by what Id heard on the radio. EDIT. I was actually mixing it up with the Irish version of administrationQuote:
Originally Posted by micls
The bit about the 10 points is kind of my point! Damned if you do and damned if you dont!
Printable View
Sorry I was going by what Id heard on the radio. EDIT. I was actually mixing it up with the Irish version of administrationQuote:
Originally Posted by micls
The bit about the 10 points is kind of my point! Damned if you do and damned if you dont!
I agree with this, although it's worth noting that Harps and Sligs are ahead of us because they're overspending too, so you've got the same problem lower down the league too, whereas your post consigns it to the top four.Quote:
Originally Posted by Student Mullet
Edit - and on reflection, I don't think you're right to say the top four would be ahead of us regardless of spending. The last time Bohs and Pat's spent sensibly (and by that I mean running up a loss equivalent to half our turnover instead of three times our turnover) was in 2006, when we finished ahead of both. And we both recall what Drogheda were like before Hoey started pouring money in. In fact, the only team I don't recall finishing ahead of is Cork. So while I agree with the gist of your post, I don't agree with your summary dismissal of other clubs' spending as the cause of it, at least in part.
Your most recent accounts show a loan of E2.6m from one of Kelleher's company, so I think it is fair to say that if he goes, you're screwed. Best case is that you go back to the way you were (you can decide if that constitutes "screwed" for yourself!), worst case is you get lumped with a load of bills (PAYE arrears in particular) which you suddenly can't afford to pay.Quote:
Originally Posted by soccerc
Harsh; I think you've not taken Titan's point fully. We've four U-21 internationals in the team, and Brian King's better than any of them, for example. We have a couple of poor players; we've no "terrible, terrible" players. But Titan's point in part was that if clubs were spending sensible amounts, players would be asking for sensible wages and so we'd be able to afford a forward who would have us a few extra points. That's all. It's like the way Dublin City were able to outbid us for players, creating false wage inflation even at our level. We're clearly deservedly fighting relegation, but if the sillier clubs weren't bankrupting themselves signing forwards so that we can't afford them, we'd be better off.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dodge
As it happens, we'll probably go down, regroup, come top four next year, come up the year after and be back annoying people soon enough. Just like the last time. :)
And as I said earlier then Cobh could get better defenders, Galway could get better midfielders, Harps could get a keeper etc etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
And this is UCD is the worst I've ever seen. You are way more than a striker away from being decent
Not in a sensible league, they couldn't. They'd have cut back so much they'd lose their best players rather than sign new ones, which is the point.
We're an attacking unit away from being a decent team - two strikers and two attacking mids. At this stage (4 points in 15 games), you can clearly see morale is at zero, which really doesn't help.
Obviously, on the pitch, we are where we deserve to be. But we don't have "some terrible terrible players".
I disagree. I couldn't name names and I'm basing it solely on performances against Pats but several players were not premnier division standard. Both full backs were abysmal, and not a single midfielder could tackle.
The left back hasn't played since; we often throw players a bit too early into the first team. The right back has been around for years and is a solid player. Kinger and McFaul will throw in plenty of tackles.
What you're probably observing though is the fact that as clubs like youz (and Bohs and Drogheda and Cork) double your budget by losing E2m a year, we simply can't keep up and so the gap gets bigger between us. In that case, you're not observing the worst ever UCD team, you're observing the biggest gap ever between us. That's because you're spending millions you don't have, it's not because our team has suddenly gotten worse.
Get off the soapbox, wll you? This current Pats team isn't fit to lace the boots of previous championship winning teams. Our standard has not increased significantly and IMO, UCD have got poorer (pun very much intended).
You can console yourself with the fact you may be doing OK budget wise, but regardless of money, you have plenty of players who aren't premier division quality and thats reflected in your league position
We'll have to agree to disagree so.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dodge
That is NOT the foot.ie way!Quote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
And I don't agree to it...
We'll have to agree to disagree so. :)
[bite]I don't think you can say a team who've beaten Elfsborg don't deserve to lace the boots of one who lost 10-0 to Zimbru, for example. Bit of nostalgic improvement there, I think. [/bite]
I must say I do agree and sympathise with UCD supporters and their plight for survival. Its the same old story in this league where clubs try to do things right and end up getting ****ed on.
Whatever division UCD are in next season they will be better off than most clubs. Say if you are relegated along with Galway and Cobh, UCD will still have their financial structures in place and will also be better placed than 3 of the 4 remaining in the first.
If clubs have breached the 65% rule then sanctions must be enforced. An example needs to be made of those who constantly flout the rules.
Summer football, don't you see? :p And as ridiculous as this sounds, we should've beena couple of goals up before Zimbru scored, and then just fell to pieces.Quote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
In all probablility we're going to lose both legs to hertha. I'd say they're a similar level to the Celtic side we drew with in Glasgow (before losing at home).
The difference is that Harps' and Sligo's debts are within their ability to trade out of them. Sligo needed 130k and got most of that already from their supporters. If they want to run at a loss for a while and them pay off that loss I don't really have a problem. UCD did similar when we went down. We ran at a loss for a season to keep most of the premier division squad together and the gamble paid off.Quote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
The big problem for me is that the 4 big spending clubs are running up bills that they have absolutely no chance of repaying from normal footballing income. This is a big problem for the league but it's not related to UCD getting a well earned relegation.
Its only a problem if backers pull out. Most leagues in the world are based around clubs with outside investmentQuote:
Originally Posted by Bald Student
That's true and the backers pull out often enough for it to be a big problem in this league.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dodge
What backers have pulled out? I can only remember Arkaga and the Kilcoynes pulling out? Maybe the Donnollys at Shels but that was a different situation
Dublin City and the property developers hanging around Tallaght (McNamara?) are another 2. Looking forward I wouldn't count on The Bohs getting much money from Liam Carrol and the owners of Drogs have been talking about pulling the plug.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dodge
Well Dublin City didn't have any outside backers they were basically a pet project. Closer to Kilkenny or Wexford than Bohs or Cork.
Rovers weren't buggered by outsiders over Tallaght they (maguire et al) ballsed it up from start to finish. lack of money was their problem rather than anyone pulling out (McNamara was the guy who brought them to the RDS)
Bohs would be a land deal that ****ed them over, rather than a backer pulling out.
Drogheda and Pats, AFAIK, are the only one who would be in real danger
FFS ucd fan if your gonna come out with your usual nonsense at least get your facts right :mad: vincent hoey has been around for a long time and didnt just start pumping money into DUFC , hes a life long supporter and has done more than anyone for the club .He brought in investors and is doing everything in his power to keep the club alive and hopefully prospering .But you just dont wanna hear it do you :confused: Dont compare him to some money grabbing investor who dosent give a toss as he cares more than anyone i know about his local club .Its a pity theres nobody who gives a toss about your poxy little school team and the vast majority of your posts are about other clubs and there investors and how we are all fcuked .GET A LIFE :mad:
I think we're getting a little sidetracked into a discussion on who counts as an outside backer or whether the various backers are good guys like Wallace or bad guys like the Kilkoynes. The point I was making originally was that I'd draw a distinction between clubs like Sligo or Cobh who run up a loss but are able to trade out of it and clubs who run up losses so big that they can't possible trade out of them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dodge
I think running up big debts leaves a club vulnerable but that it's not the cause of UCDs likely relegation.
Yeah, apologies to all for getting it off topic.
UCD are gick...
Seems like 1.3 million wasn't enough in Corks case ?Quote:
Originally Posted by micls
Wonder how far they would have let it go before they nipped it in the bud :)
The FAI have come out saying they put restrictions on certain clubs (Galway at least) for going over the 65% during the season.Quote:
Originally Posted by micls
I'm pretty sure the rule was meant to be implemented each month. In fact at a meeting on the issue before the season started and in an article on the eloi website they said that there were different punishments for the amount of time you spend over the 65%. I imagine had Galway stayed over the 65% much longer they would have lost pints. They hit the panic button and put players up for sale.
There are no rules.Quote:
Originally Posted by micls
It would be just my opinion that not paying people 100% of what you owe them is cheating other clubs as you have players earning a wage and playing for you on the basis you have the money and other clubs don't.
Shels have had to pay 100% of the debts.
We're still paying them off and will be for a long time to come.
We're effectively crippled for the next X amount of years due to paying back the debts built up winning league titles.
We were demoted on the back of that yet we've not turned away from any debts. In fact paying the FAI back what we owe them was part for the deal!!
If Cork are going to pay all debts then they should remain in the Premier Division. If not I think it's only fair on the other sides you're ahead of that you are demoted.
Ooooh Ted, they wouldn't like that now.Quote:
Originally Posted by higgins
They wouldn't like that one bit.
(Great to see the FAI hitting clubs where it hurts though)
Do you now have to agree with me after last night? ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Dodge
Yep, that one game changed my mind
we had restrictions placed on us too when the FAI finally copped on.Quote:
Originally Posted by higgins
but breaking teh wage cap over months isnt breaking licensing and cant get you your license revoked...only doing it over the year can.The punishments in between are to stop this from happening.
Who said any differently? Hence us being deducted 10 points for entering examinership.Quote:
Originally Posted by higgins
And if we dont pay players the back pay there will be no license
Ye didnt get a license becuase ye owed players money, as will be true of any other club. Even if you owed no one else money you wouldnt have gotten a license.Quote:
Originally Posted by higgins
If ye had gone into examinership as we did ye would have been punished for doing so and it would have cost ye the league. ye didnt, so the situations are different
As I said above we cant complain either way imo.Quote:
Originally Posted by higgins
But itl be interesting to see if the 10 point deduction was for teh entire examinership process(including sorting a deal with creditors) or just for entering examinership.
It will have an effect on whether we stay up or not
Excellent.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dodge
(That was a joke, just in case...)
(And just to put it on record, I don't think our current team is significantly worse than the one which got into Europe in 2000, except that team had a proven goalscorer in Mick O'Byrne. Éamon McLoughlin, Rob Dunne, Eóin Bennis and Ken Kilmurray all started the TotoToto games and wouldn't get into our team now, I'd say. We also had Glen...)
Eamon McLaughlin certainly would. Always thought Rob Dunne was alright too.
Anyway, its not really relevent to the Pats team of the time though
It is relevant to your point about this being the worst UCD team ever, which I countered using the argument that Pat's had improved instead.
I'd have Bermo ahead of McLaughlin any day. Agree Dunne was alright, but wouldn't think he'd be in our team though.
Oh right, forgot about that argument. Stand by what I said mind.
Just saying the first thing you think of, eh? :p
Also (final word - promise!) - the 2003 team was far worse, particularly under Doolin. That's the worst UCD team I've ever seen by a distance.
Player-by-player perhaps. Collectively this one is at least as bad.Quote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
Agree with you. But my point is that "collectively" is a function of a few things, including the quality of the opposition, which has improved in recent years. (Obviously you can add morale and balance, of which we don't have much either at present). If you took our team now and put it into the Premiership, it'd look a lot worse, but that doesn't mean the team's any worse. (Extreme example obviously)
Restrictions ?Quote:
Originally Posted by micls
You were signing players up until transfer deadline day !!
What restrictions ?
Also, of course the FAI can take your licence away!
You seem to think it's a once off event that and when you get it you have it for 12 months. It's not like a test once a year, it's an ongoing process.
For your information Shelbourne were awarded a Premier Division licence for the 2007 season. It was a couple of months into the year when they decided to take it away again.
We had deals with ALL players and staff owed money and had cleared the masive tax debts and still were only awarded a First Division licence.
I'm not complaining as we probably deserved to go down but seems it's different rules for everyone else.
Also there was no wage cap of any sort in the league when Shels decided to offer contracts they couldn't pay! Not that it shoudl have mattered...
Eh...who? We had people on trial we couldnt sign.Quote:
Originally Posted by higgins
You're wrong. The licensing agreement of the wage cap is that you meet it over the year, not on a monthly basis.Quote:
Originally Posted by higgins
If we owe any players money at teh end of the year we'l be relegated just like ye wereQuote:
Originally Posted by higgins
How so?Quote:
Originally Posted by higgins
hence ye not being stripped of the title or a points deduction.Quote:
Originally Posted by higgins
Its the money ye still owed that was the problem
Did Dudfield not come in just before the window closed ?
Why issue the FAI with monthly accounts ?
Why have a press release at the start of the season saying there will be different punishments for the amount of time you stay over the 65%
Why call the clubs to a meeting to state the same ?
Why punish Galway for going over the 65% ?
Seriously think the 65% rule is an ongoing issue.
Otherwise after the final set of league games the FAI sit down and then work out point deductions and issue a lovely new table!!
Where are you getting your information ?
Again you seem to miss the point were I said we were issued a licence. We had our premier division licence yet it was then taken away.
We still owe a hat full of cash!!!
We would owe this regardless of what division we were in. We were not demoted for being in debt. If that was the case we'd not be able to get promoted for the next few years. We've massive debts....
You seem to have this magic end of the year date that you have to have your house in order or else ? Like an NCT or something that comes round and you need to pass.... That's not the way it works. If it was we would have passed the test and had 11 months to get our house in order before we were up again!
They can act when and how they like.
Weeks before. Before we(or the FAI) knew we were in troubleQuote:
Originally Posted by higgins
So tehy can try to stop clubs from breaking it over the year.Quote:
Originally Posted by higgins
There will be punishments for going over monthly but you are not breaking the licensing agreement. Its a preventative measure by the FAIQuote:
Originally Posted by higgins
If you break it over the year Id imagine itl just be relegation.Youl have been warned during the year with sanctions such as transfer blocks and possibly points deductionsQuote:
Originally Posted by higgins
Same place everyone else n the thread who has said the same is Id imagineQuote:
Originally Posted by higgins
If you owe players money you cannot get a premier license. Regardless of other debtsQuote:
Originally Posted by higgins
It is, in the case of the wage cap anyway. Ye couldnt pass cos ye owed players moneyQuote:
Originally Posted by higgins
You can owe players money as long as they sign off a waver on it agreeing to deferral.
We were told if any money is owed to players we will not be getting a licenseQuote:
Originally Posted by Mr A