Sporting Fingal Gone Belly Up

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

10/02/2011, 9:42 PM
MariborKev

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shedendinvisibl

so long as a club puts forward a set of proposed figures and a projected income that is theoretically plausible then the FAI are powerless to object to the figures that the clubs show them bar for the 65% cap, even when they know it's dodgy.

Yer mate is talking through his hat.

Clubs have had budgets rejected on criteria other than the 65% cap.
10/02/2011, 9:45 PM
peadar1987

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlie Darwin

Other countries get by just fine with much less stringent rules than the FAI's. We seem to have the dual-problem of small and poorly-organised supporters (at most clubs) and owners/boards who are intent on following the English spend spend spend model without any of the stabilisers (huge TV revenue, larger crowds) that English clubs enjoy.

Hopefully this is the last of the big-spending, given that so much of the madness that engulfed the league in the last decade was driven by the property boom.

Other countries' clubs don't seem quite so hell-bent on exterminating themselves though. The LOI clubs have shown time and again that when left to their own devices, they overspend and get into trouble. They also don't have a long queue of billionaires looking for a plaything, which is the main thing that has prevented several major English clubs from going under recently.
10/02/2011, 9:55 PM
passerrby

while the league will be no worse off by the departure of sporting it will however be the worse for losing supoorters like lamper and the lep . really am sorry we are at this point
10/02/2011, 10:14 PM
legendz

I hope Fingal can rebuild. Clubs have rebuilt before. I know other clubs have been around for longer which helped but still, it'll be great to see Fingal comeback as a a club for their area to promote the game in that region. Any club falling from the league like this is sad to hear.
Castlebar's withdrawal from the A Championship didn't receive much news. It seems to be a good level for clubs to find out if they can make it in the league. Cobh have used it as well. Where would they be without it? The FAI needs to work with clubs at this level, not just bring the curtain down on this league.
10/02/2011, 11:27 PM
monkey9

I have to say, i'm not gonna come on here and be all hypocritical and say how sorry i am to the Fingal fans for the fact that their four year 'project' as Liam Buckley put it has come to an end. There was always one way the Sporting Fingal franchise was gonna end and here we are now. The inevitable abyss.

Feeling sorry for the fans?? Were we not told by Fingal fans around November or so that "i know something that you don't :) ) Well, what the f*ck was that?

This sh!t needs to end and i just wish the FAI would get a f*cking interest in it's own league to stop bullsh!t franchises like Fingal getting a first stop to nowhere!!
10/02/2011, 11:54 PM
Lamper.sffc

Quote:

Originally Posted by John83

I don't know about that. (1) There were, what, 8 or 9 full time players on existing contracts? Even if some of those guys had been offloaded (possibly Fingal would be left topping up their wages for the season), I would have anticipated the club making a substantial loss this year, though the resulting debt might have been manageable (Longford, for example, seem to have been a good model for this in the past few years). (2) I guess it depends on how much notice they had that Gannon was going.

(1) With little or no effort in trying to offload them. Williams being a prime example when we seemingly turned down an offer and then on top of all that we offer O Neil a two year 52 week contract just so he will stay with us. We also payed for Dalymount up front if reports are to be believed.

(2) Believe me when I tell you, they had plenty of time and thats fact also. They gambled with the future of the club and they knew they where doing it. It was an all or nothing decision on their part. God forbid we would of had to put up with some seasons of mediocrity possibly at a lower level, at least the fans would have a club right now.

Edit: Apologies John. Rant not at you btw
11/02/2011, 12:05 AM
Charlie Darwin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lamper.sffc

(1) With little or no effort in trying to offload them. Williams being a prime example when we seemingly turned down an offer and then on top of all that we offer O Neil a two year 52 week contract just so he will stay with us. We also payed for Dalymount up front if reports are to be believed.

(2) Believe me when I tell you, they had plenty of time and thats fact also. They gambled with the future of the club and they knew they where doing it. It was an all or nothing decision on their part. God forbid we would of had to put up with some seasons of mediocrity possibly at a lower level, at least the fans would have a club right now.

Edit: Apologies John. Rant not at you btw

Seriously??
11/02/2011, 12:48 AM
SkStu

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buile Shuibhne

Presumably the rent money was included in Bohs budget for their licence application.

I'd imagine it will now have to be swiftly revised downwards before Sunday?

only if we havent already spent it. We received the first year up front AFAIK (though lampers post suggests we received the whole lot) and the rest would have been for future seasons budget id say.
11/02/2011, 12:56 AM
Charlie Darwin

There's no way you'd have got the whole lot up front. I think Lamps was suggesting the first year was paid up front (which is still bogey as hell, especially for a club that was still trying to secure sponsorship).
11/02/2011, 1:02 AM
Lamper.sffc

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlie Darwin

There's no way you'd have got the whole lot up front. I think Lamps was suggesting the first year was paid up front (which is still bogey as hell, especially for a club that was still trying to secure sponsorship).

Sorry yeah. From what iv been reading it was the first year up front. Again if its to be believed. But iv heard it from multiple sources so there seems to be some truth to it.
11/02/2011, 1:33 AM
SkStu

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlie Darwin

There's no way you'd have got the whole lot up front. I think Lamps was suggesting the first year was paid up front (which is still bogey as hell, especially for a club that was still trying to secure sponsorship).

i didnt think we did. I was just pointing out Lampers comment. The first year up front may have been something we insisted upon due to our precarious cash flow issue at the time. Again, nobody seems to know for sure if we did receive a payment from Fingal.
11/02/2011, 1:37 AM
nigel-harps1954

All I can say is...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DrUB0g8Vjgg
11/02/2011, 2:02 AM
bullit

Quote:

Originally Posted by nigel-harps1954

All I can say is...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DrUB0g8Vjgg

"What you gonna do when the money runs out"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3duCIFbA5k
11/02/2011, 8:31 AM
Shedendinvisibl

Quote:

Originally Posted by MariborKev

Yer mate is talking through his hat.

Clubs have had budgets rejected on criteria other than the 65% cap.

Well oddly enough I never mentioned any other criteria, just the 65% cap. Or in Derrys case, the 85% cap as well.
11/02/2011, 8:51 AM
pineapple stu

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jicked

Amazing that it could come to an end so quickly.

Yeah, it is. I think it shows that there was no appetite for struggling along with an amateur team. It does seem to have been about winning more so than the taking part. No harm that the people involved in running the club are gone.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peadar1987

Surely this is a sign that the 65% cap just isn't enough. We've lost at least 4 clubs since it's come in, and many more have gone close. We need more stringent financial rules, and we need them to be enforced.

I don't think Fingal's problems would have been caught by the 65% rule in fairness. Last year, one person gives them enough money that they make the 65% rule. This year, he goes and they've no money. That can't really be caught by the 65% rule.
11/02/2011, 9:51 AM
drummerboy

Have to say I'm sorry for the players and supporters of SF. However I'm not sorry for the people who run the club or their partners in Fingal Co Co. The club who had played in Morton for 15 years were shafted by these people, who told us we couldn't share the pitch because it wasn't practical. Then they planned to rent Dalymount from Bohs. A fitting end.
11/02/2011, 10:19 AM
marinobohs

Quote:

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

(1) Yeah, it is. I think it shows that there was no appetite for struggling along with an amateur team. It does seem to have been about winning more so than the taking part. No harm that the people involved in running the club are gone.

(2) I don't think Fingal's problems would have been caught by the 65% rule in fairness. Last year, one person gives them enough money that they make the 65% rule. This year, he goes and they've no money. That can't really be caught by the 65% rule.

(1) I suspect SF business model was to attract support by immediate success and they acknowledged that they did not have the traditional support base (ie Lifers :o) to stick around if things were not going well on the field. Hence, just competing was never going to be enough.
(2) As Stu says 65% rule was not the problem for SF. The departure of one invester/sugar daddy/SF loving soccer fan (delete as appropriate) in Gannon led to them seeking an alternative money tree ant indeed thinking they had found one in the UK company. Unfortunately they spent/commited before making sure that the deal was done and when the UK benifactor withdrew they were stumped.
The only way the FAI could have prevented this was (a) foresee that the sponsorship deal would not go ahead (not sure how this would occur - crystal ball ?) or (b) change the rules so that clubs must have more income streams and not be dependent on one. While in theory this may be a great idea, anything that makes life more difficult for clubs is likely to meet opposition from clubs. Given the eggs in one basket model of SF and others there is always a risk if the source dries up (especially when commitments have already been made). not sure what the FAI can do to prevent it.

In respect of the players, some form of insurance against clubs collapsing (income continuance) would help but who would pay the premiums ? Clubs/FAI/Pfai ? Not sure if any of them could afford it
11/02/2011, 12:47 PM
Martinho II

Quote:

Originally Posted by drummerboy

Have to say I'm sorry for the players and supporters of SF. However I'm not sorry for the people who run the club or their partners in Fingal Co Co. The club who had played in Morton for 15 years were shafted by these people, who told us we couldn't share the pitch because it wasn't practical. Then they planned to rent Dalymount from Bohs. A fitting end.

forgot drummerboy that drumcondra were shafted from morton stadium for fingal.. where did ye move to in the end and will ye move back to the morton?
11/02/2011, 12:55 PM
drummerboy

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martinho II

forgot drummerboy that drumcondra were shafted from morton stadium for fingal.. where did ye move to in the end and will ye move back to the morton?

I'm not involved any more but Drums are playing down beside Home Farm in Whitehall and managed by Gary Howlett. Think they have been sounded out about a return but thats all I know. Thankfully Fingal Co Council no longer have any interest in the stadium.
11/02/2011, 1:37 PM
passerrby

one of the nicest guys in the game

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page