LoI 2nd & 3rd August

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sullanefc

Apparently motions voted at FORAS meetings are not binding for the board and so it is legal to ignore them.

---

It was a policy motion that was voted on not a rule change because you can't tie the hands of a Board of Mangement with regards to money. This has been expalined multiple times now at this stage.

I agree that the spirit of the policy should have been adhered to, but I can understand why the Board backed the double winning manager to the extent that they did - it was a mistake for sure but easy to say this in hindsight.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sullanefc

. That said, the board should be ashamed for 1. Ignoring the members and 2. For not being prudent in having a nest egg. Especially given the recent Arkaga and Tom Coughlan mismanagement of finances.

---

Again, I don't agree with the some of the actions of each board but to call out unpaid volunteers who gave an incredible amount of time up to the running of our club as shameful is wrong imo - its easy for people to moan into thier keyboards without sitting at the coalface.

And so we are doomed to repeat the same boom bust cycles forever. Plus ca change...

I know a BoM cant be running to call meetings with the membership for day to day decisions within a budgetry framework but I find it surprising that at least some aspect of the policy decision wasnt adhered to. Imo there should have been provision to keep some of the cash reserve in hand rather than completely row in behind whatever the manager wanted - every manager would want to eek out every cent for the player budget. It is what it is now but it would have to disillusion a good section of FORAS and if they dont renew subscriptions as a result the the net draws tighter again.

Again I say this while also feeling that Dundalk fans are resting on their laurels in not being proactive in the event of owners having a change of heart down the line. We would be caught cold whereas at least with a previous owner backing out there was already a functioning supporters trust active that is all but defunct now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nesta99

I know a BoM cant be running to call meetings with the membership for day to day decisions within a budgetry framework but I find it surprising that at least some aspect of the policy decision wasnt adhered to. Imo there should have been provision to keep some of the cash reserve in hand rather than completely row in behind whatever the manager wanted - every manager would want to eek out every cent for the player budget.

---

I agree really and the spirit of the motion was not adherred to but what bugs me are the revisionists who come along after and castigate the volunteers running the club for making these mistakes. These are the same people who , if we did put all this money away for a rainy day would be front and centre calling out the club for lacking ambition.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nesta99

I know a BoM cant be running to call meetings with the membership for day to day decisions within a budgetry framework but I find it surprising that at least some aspect of the policy decision wasnt adhered to. Imo there should have been provision to keep some of the cash reserve in hand rather than completely row in behind whatever the manager wanted - every manager would want to eek out every cent for the player budget.

---

Agreed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Real ale Madrid

I agree really and the spirit of the motion was not adherred to but what bugs me are the revisionists who come along after and castigate the volunteers running the club for making these mistakes. These are the same people who , if we did put all this money away for a rainy day would be front and centre calling out the club for lacking ambition.

---

Mistakes? It's brain dead given our recent history.

The same people would be giving out if the money wasn't spent? That's bull. Yes there were some calling for signing better players, but all within budget. Everyone also assumed there was a rainy day fund that was outside of day to day spending.

For me, that motion was passed at a GM and the decision to spend it should have been decided at a meeting. I would have disagreed, but at least it would have been democratic.

To go on a solo run and spend the money was shameful. I don't care if they were volunteers or not. Shameful.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sullanefc

The same people would be giving out if the money wasn't spent? That's bull. Yes there were some calling for signing better players, but all within budget. .

---

Nonsense. Revisionist to say otherwise. If we had put all our transfers fees away like we should have the Board would have come under massive pressure to use it as soon as we fell behind Dundalk.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sullanefc

Everyone also assumed there was a rainy day fund that was outside of day to day spending.

---

Anyone that assumed that within the FORAS membership either couldn't read or willfully ignored what was presented to them. Either way to say that portions of the membership thought there was a rainy day fund after the fact is yet more revisionist nonsense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sullanefc

To go on a solo run and spend the money was shameful. I don't care if they were volunteers or not. Shameful.

---

I'm not saying that any BOM is above criticism.
I'm not saying that people can't be allowed criticise the Board when they make mistakes.
But cries of shame shame shame is easy to do with the benefit of hindsight and behind a keyboard in fairness.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Real ale Madrid

Nonsense. Revisionist to say otherwise. If we had put all our transfers fees away like we should have the Board would have come under massive pressure to use it as soon as we fell behind Dundalk.

---

So "massive pressure" is an excuse to ignore the democratic wishes of the members? If they weren't able to cope with their responsibilities then they shouldn't have been there.

My own opinion is that some of them were close to Caulfield and like billy big heads liked keeping in with him and would bow to his budget wishes. But that is just my feeling on it.

Also, to blame the spending of money that shouldn't have been spent on pressure from supporters is a cop out. Why accept blame? Just deflect it elsewhere. This is Ireland after all...

I got banned from the Cork City forum for suggesting that Cork City were not getting value for money.....

(and yes I thought it was harsh!!).

Repeal the Nesta 1 :)
He's served his time

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nesta99

I got banned from the Cork City forum for suggesting that Cork City were not getting value for money.....

(and yes I thought it was harsh!!).

---

whereas now you would be hailed as a visionary for the very same view :D clubs run by supporters always have the same difficulty - because you cant act like a business man AND a fan. usually member/fan/directors are too close to the match by match whinging of fans and their decision making can be affected by it. That 'one more player and we are set for Europe/league/Cup etc glory' mantra that every fan t every club regularly churns out. sometimes having an owner / decision maker that doesn't mix with supporters allows for more rational, realistic decision making.

Visionary? Certainly not!! Common sense when you looked at signings in, size of squad, releasing players that could turn a game like Sadlier and McNamee (if ever played in position). Wasnt there was also Kenny Shiels like signing of players and paying them off to leave before contract was out? Throw in te rumours o budgeting for 4k attendances, general supporter discontent, and then finally the decline in results. Issues at Cork were looming large from a long way out and the board I'd imagine saw it all in slow motion. The froze, hoped that the manager would wave a magic wand, or they could throw additional money at the squad. You are spot on that supporters find it very hard to be ruthless at running a club. I'm sure the huge respect for Caulfield's achievements meant that as supporters there was a loyalty there that made it very hard to pull the trigger until there was no choice. When it did happen then there wasnt the resources to make real changes count as the coaching staff couldnt be payed off. Id guess that Caulfield is still being payed so Cork end up paying two managers and 'cause of that Cotter was the only financially viable option. As mentioned above by someone Cork FORAS badly needed a director of football at minimum and a very strong CEO/General Manager that isnt a supporter that the board will listen to. I'm genuinely not having a dig but I really though of all clubs Cork were driven to being financially conservative due to past experience - it was a source of often mentioned pride by Cork fans on here. The reality is though that they fell victim to what is the classic issue of supporters running a football club - blind optimism! 4k average gate??? nuts considering how divided thet Cork support were on the manager and style of football alone and Im surprised the the membership didnt call that out!??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sbgawa

Repeal the Nesta 1 :)
He's served his time

---

Noooo I value my sanity!! It was very much a paranoid forum, with exceptions, that believed everything was a sneaky jibe when really it was reasoned pointing out that people werent seeing the wood for the trees. I have said more above in discussion, albeit with the benefit of hindsignt sitting in beside now. Im sure there was full on civil war not long after! I dont know what the average age of members were but it was like a schoolyard namecalling frenzy, a rinse and repeat of the Drogheda stuff from mid noughties on here. Silly stuff not worth engaging with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nesta99

Noooo I value my sanity!! It was very much a paranoid forum, with exceptions, that believed everything was a sneaky jibe when really it was reasoned pointing out that people werent seeing the wood for the trees. I have said more above in discussion, albeit with the benefit of hindsignt sitting in beside now. Im sure there was full on civil war not long after! I dont know what the average age of members were but it was like a schoolyard namecalling frenzy, a rinse and repeat of the Drogheda stuff from mid noughties on here. Silly stuff not worth engaging with.

---

It remains the most entertaining forum board going

If you can ignore the name-calling and childish insults, there is great great craic from some of the most bat$h!t crazy commentators going. Paranoia and delusion makes for great fun, mixed in with some very witty self-deprecation

(Naturally I'm banned, but I'm currently lurking under an alter-ego pseudonym)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marinobohs

whereas now you would be hailed as a visionary for the very same view :D clubs run by supporters always have the same difficulty - because you cant act like a business man AND a fan. usually member/fan/directors are too close to the match by match whinging of fans and their decision making can be affected by it. That 'one more player and we are set for Europe/league/Cup etc glory' mantra that every fan t every club regularly churns out. sometimes having an owner / decision maker that doesn't mix with supporters allows for more rational, realistic decision making.

---

Some might say having your board as a 50/50 split fans and businessmen would be the ideal setup :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ezeikial

It remains the most entertaining forum board going

If you can ignore the name-calling and childish insults, there is great great craic from some of the most bat$h!t crazy commentators going. Paranoia and delusion makes for great fun, mixed in with some very witty self-deprecation

(Naturally I'm banned, but I'm currently lurking under an alter-ego pseudonym)

---

Ezequeel? They'd never cop!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RathfarnhamHoop

Some might say having your board as a 50/50 split fans and businessmen would be the ideal setup :)

---

Touché marino..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nesta99

and the board I'd imagine saw it all in slow motion. The froze, hoped that the manager would wave a magic wand, or they could throw additional money at the squad.

---

2 different boards. The 2018 board set the 2019 budget at the end of 2018. The 2019 board have to deal with it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RathfarnhamHoop

Some might say having your board as a 50/50 split fans and businessmen would be the ideal setup :)

---

Works for ye 😁 but “some” couldn’t then claim to be a 100% members owned club now could they ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nesta99

Ezequeel? They'd never cop!!

---

I tried 'Stephen Napier' as a nom de guerre, he being the closest Cork/Dundalk link I could think of.

That didn't really work as lads kept asking me how things were going in Clonmel and sending private messages of congratulations on being inducted into Cork City Hall of fame.

Must try Dave Barry myself then so for some entertainment value;)