Sporting Fingal Gone Belly Up

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bullit

:teeth:As predicted this thread has turned into the "ive the biggest knob" thread.The same arguments over and feckin over.
Lazy days and a thread 20 pages+ over its sell by date.
roll on the season

---

I actually find it amazing that a thread on Fingal can generate more posts than the amount of Fingal fans regulary going to matches.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marinobohs

Actually, PB I agree with your point in principle although think there should be provision for rare exception(s). Probobly off thread but unfortunately until we introduce a formal promotion/relegation structure between the leagues there will continue to be a disconnect.
RE Dublin I recall - probobly wrongly - the Genesis report (that old chestnut) recommended two decent stadia in Dublin (one Northside one Southside) presumably hosting at most 4 teams (two each). To be honest my own view is that such an approach (geographically siting clubs) really only works in a green site League set up. To be fair the FAI did try and "facilitate" this approach by backing a Shels proposal to buy into Dalymount, unfortunately due to cack handed approach and oppurtunism it ended up leading to the downfall of both clubs.There was also talk of St Pats moving to SDCC stadium tallaght which (had it succeeded) would have had Bohs/Shels playing from a redeveloped Dalymount and Shams/Pats from SDCC Sadium. St Pats opted not to pursue this option and the "restructuring" of Dublin clubs appeared to be abandoned.

---

definitely for the best that these mooted groundshares didnt happen in my opinion. Would have been detrimental to Pats/Shels i think.

It all depends on the clubs, stadia and also the handling of the authorities. We all know that of all the sports in Ireland football has the most gypsy-like attitude when it comes to location. Added to this that clubs are essentially run as businesses (and badly so in the majority of circumstances), they are entitled and enforced to do what they can to survive. Of course a defined area is needed to ensure a community link, though when the final decision is made the owners will always do what suits the bottom line. Shared stadia/facilities is one definite way to go in Irish football, however while the supporters might roll into it and see sense, the clowns directing the circuses that constitute our senior clubs and our governing bodies will always find reasons (usually brown envelopes) as to why they each need their own "home".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SkStu

definitely for the best that these mooted groundshares didnt happen in my opinion. Would have been detrimental to Pats/Shels i think.

---

Actually SkStu the proposed Shels/Dalymount option would have been infinitely more attractive to Shels than Bohs and, to be fair, Pats to SDCC ground was stifled fairly early (to the best of my knowledge) by opposition among Pats fans.

(Apols for dragging thread off topic :))

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marinobohs

Actually SkStu the proposed Shels/Dalymount option would have been infinitely more attractive to Shels than Bohs and, to be fair, Pats to SDCC ground was stifled fairly early (to the best of my knowledge) by opposition among Pats fans.

(Apols for dragging thread off topic :))

---

i realise that MB. I deleted a similar comment from my initial post actually. Thats why we decided to "go it alone". It would have been bad for Shels in the long term i think.

And ye would have missed us. It'd get lonely in northside Dublin without us.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SkStu

. Thats why we decided to "go it alone".

---

Let's call a spade a spade, the reason Bohs didn't want Shels in Dalyer was because Ollie Byrne was running them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BonnieShels

And ye would have missed us. It'd get lonely in northside Dublin without us.

---

They'd have Drum Farm Sporting Fingal City to keep them company

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hoopy

Let's call a spade a spade, the reason Bohs didn't want Shels in Dalyer was because Ollie Byrne was running them.

---

No it wasnt. It was because we would have given up ownership of 50% of the stadium for e1million. I know hindsight is a wonderful thing but thats not an attractive proposition when you have an asset worth alot more than that. Oh well, all history now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hoopy

Let's call a spade a spade, the reason Bohs didn't want Shels in Dalyer was because Ollie Byrne was running them.

---

Complete and utter crap. The deal was financially bad for Bohs and that is why the members voted to reject it. the board was mandated to (and subsequently did) offer Shels a long term rental agreement for the use of Dalymount (it was becoming clear even at that stage that Shels had major problems) the offer was rejected out of hand by Ollie Byrne.

Fair enough. But your Chairman at the time, off the record, said he was afraid Ollie would be running the ground within a couple of years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hoopy

Fair enough. But your Chairman at the time, off the record, said he was afraid Ollie would be running the ground within a couple of years.

---

Yes I know, hoops know more about Bohs blah blah blah. As I was present at meetings - including where the tenancy offer was agreed - and spoke to people at both clubs I do know a lot about what occured. At one point Ollie Byrne offered to withdraw from any role in the management of Dalymount (a joint management committee was to be part of the plan) if it made any difference. It didn't, because it was not the issue at all.
The only club bohs members have objected to in Dalymount was a proposal for shams to return (during the building of SDCC Stadium) although I think this was via an information meeting and never went to a formal vote given the strenght of views expressed.

is this thread not about fingal!, any news on their budget for the season.

Should be passed by now, no doubt some genius will claim they're going to go under or some other such wishful thinking, though sadly the parallel thread to remove gossipmongers, or those wishing to glory in the crapulence of their own blinkered view doesn't seem to be keeping them on track - good to see Bohs and Rovers arguing across the land. :-)

Players still under contract to have their 52 week contracts honoured, new signings to be on 4(2?) week contracts. Disregard if this is old news.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hoopy

Players still under contract to have their 52 week contracts honoured, new signings to be on 4(2?) week contracts. Disregard if this is old news.

---

4 week contracts? How will that work with the player registration periods?

42 or 44 week, hence the question mark at the 2! I think things have moved forward for them since this however due to Bucko getting in sponsorship, meaning that Sligo, Rovers and Fingal are basically after all the same new players and Fingal may well be able to offer new signings the full 52 week contracts.

The Celtic Tiger lives!

Foster pointed to the imminent signing of Greg Bolger by Sporting Fingal as proof of how other club's can outbid Dundalk for players."I wanted to bring Greg here", said Foster. "However his move boils down to finances, pure and simple. We can't compete with Sporting Fingal.
There is a lot being said about their financial demise yet they have offered, and are offering huge contracts to players.
They have ten players signed from last season whose wages exceed my total budget. I would love a demise like that."
http://www.dundalkdemocrat.ie/dundal...?articlepage=2

Fingal and Shams seem to be way ahead of everyone else budget wise.

Are Fingal in the Red or Black at the moment?

(They were down 75K the season they won the cup so I cant see them clearing that debt aswell as breaking even in a average season last year)