Wages at 65% of Turnover

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Macy

Well the FAI have left enough wriggle room to suggest that it might not be the straight turnover figure, but now they're saying it might be net income rather than turnover anyway!

---

Well thats a different arguement.

Most Clubs are working off the fact that its straight turnover. Which is the way it should be. No more Shelbournes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pablo

Most Clubs are working off the fact that its straight turnover

---

What are you basing that statement on Pablo? The only club I know a bit about were seeking clarification on the matter, and clubs who are currently spending more than 65% of turnover on wages (all of them I presume) will not wish to have that curtailed. If they think they'll get away with spending 65% of net income, they will.

All clubs that have asked the FAi for clarification and received no response can quite legitimately claim they are doing nothing wrong by spending 65% of income.

Most of us (fans) agree its a good thing and I'm sure in time the clubs will agree, but as ****ing usual the implemention of this by the FAi has been a shambles

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pablo

In all fairness the FAI dont define what turnover is! Dear Oh Dear.

Standard accounting practice does.

---

Actually, standard accounting practice does not provide comprehensive definitions on what constitutes turnover, it just provides genaral guidance, hence some of the major accounting scandals over the years (e.g. Enron).

If it's simply "turnover" what's to stop directors of a club "sponsoring" the club for, say, €100,000 and then have the club "sponsor" them for the same amount? "Turnover" for the club would be €100,000 under standard accounting rules and the club could thereby spend €65,000 on player costs that it doesn't actually have.

It's for that reason that the FAI have to define what they will allow to be included as "turnover" in their 65% formula.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dodge

What are you basing that statement on Pablo? The only club I know a bit about were seeking clarification on the matter, and clubs who are currently spending more than 65% of turnover on wages (all of them I presume) will not wish to have that curtailed. If they think they'll get away with spending 65% of net income, they will.

All clubs that have asked the FAi for clarification and received no response can quite legitimately claim they are doing nothing wrong by spending 65% of income.

Most of us (fans) agree its a good thing and I'm sure in time the clubs will agree, but as ****ing usual the implemention of this by the FAi has been a shambles

---

According to our chairman in a fans forum last season we are working under 65% of turnover from this year. It wont hit us as hard next year, and it also give time to increase turnover.


I'm not sure why people think its a shambles. Its quite straighforward.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pablo

According to our chairman in a fans forum last season we are working under 65% of turnover from this year. It wont hit us as hard next year, and it also give time to increase turnover.


I'm not sure why people think its a shambles. Its quite straighforward.

---

:rolleyes: Which is why this thread is so long and the FAI can't answer questions put to them by the club