He wasnt signed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlie Darwin
Printable View
He wasnt signed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlie Darwin
No, no it wasn't. It was decision time. They could have scaled bak and been in a good position as they had no debt. Restructured, had a few tough years but been at the same level, income wise, as UCD. Or, they could close their eyes, cross their fingers and keep signing players.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spudulika
They went for option B and those running the club ran it into a wall and cost the fans their club.
Letting them off the hook as if it were inevitable is absolute ********.
Micls, you know yourself that clubs can go on signing and acting like nothing's wrong until suddenly it goes bang - Cork City last year were a prime example. The main difference is that Sporting had a team of players under contract for another season, so the options were slightly more and slightly tougher. They could go down the route Stephen McGuinness loves (and justifies his place at the FAI trough) - haggle with players to cut wages, cry poor mouth and behave in a thorough LOI fashion. Or they could work on trying to secure a budget that would not have them in the news for a long drawn out period of player battles. No matter what way we look at it, it was going to be a losing battle as investment and sponsorship in the LOI has flown away on the wings of year in year out mismanagement. And once the FCC stepped back, then there was a certain amount of inevitability (correct response to your assertion of inevitable)that it was going to collapseQuote:
Originally Posted by micls
How many players were under contract at the end of last season? How many did they add after that?Quote:
Originally Posted by Spudulika
Your Cork City comment makes my point for me. We kept going and going until it all went bang because we had a razy egomaniac in charge who had no interest at all in what was best for the club. We all say it coming, as did those at Fingal. We could have easily stopped it, as could Fingal.
Again I challenge you claim it was inevitable.They could have gone mostly amateur, tried to offload those under contract, like Williams and worked like hell to make the club self sustaining. They didn't. It wasn't inevitable, they made a choice
The exact number is posted earlier, I believe it was 9-11, they added 2 players. With Cork the supporters (the sensible majority) in all fairness did all they could but there was TNB pulling the strings and making a mockery of the club and LOI, he had his friends higher up and with all that it made it worse.Quote:
Originally Posted by micls
You mentioned inevitable in your first response, I didn't. You need to challenge yourself on it. You said "as if it were inevitable", I didn't. I simply stated that with everything that happened in the lead up to the final decision it ended as it did. The positive aspect is that there were no debts left hanging or firms out of pocket, the issues with players is going to be different (as per Stephen McGuinness' wishes - not knocking him, he has a job to do).
It is possible to look at the options in many different ways, lingering on until death was one, getting a new licence application in while going amateur and having contracted players still to take care of - not quite an option. Plus I don't know if you've accounted for the fact that the FCC as the sole existing shareholder closed down the company and sent out the letters of termination, the only other option was to start a new company, start negotiating with players and try to get the FAI to accept the entity into the league in record time. It may well have worked, it's something to address with the club administrators themselves rather than on a forum, I would believe.
so when they found out in November that Gannon was gone for good and the FCC were looking to run (the closer it got to an election being called), it was game over.[/QUOTE]Quote:
Originally Posted by Spudulika
You posted this, implying it was game over because Gannon was gone and the FCC were leaving. That is what I challenged. This did not mean it was inevitably game over, the decisions that followed did.
so when they found out in November that Gannon was gone for good and the FCC were looking to run (the closer it got to an election being called), it was game over.
If all of this had happened out of the blue last week you might have a point. However, they knew from the middle of last season that Gannon was gone, they knew the economy meant getting sponsorship and investment would be difficult. They had months to talk to players, pimp them to other clubs and set up a fundraising plan to fund the coming season. Instead they carried on with their heads in the sand hoping it would all work out until the last minute.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spudulika
Why did the FCC do this? Who was running the club?Quote:
Originally Posted by Spudulika
If a prudent plan had been made for the coming season for the club to be self sustaining do you really think the FCC would have closed down the company? Honestly?
You seem to be defending them on the basis that they had no chance and couldn't have predicted what was coming. That's a load of rubbish. They made poor decisions whihc led to people losing the club that they loved, to me that's unforgivable.
You posted this, implying it was game over because Gannon was gone and the FCC were leaving. That is what I challenged. This did not mean it was inevitably game over, the decisions that followed did.Quote:
Originally Posted by micls
so when they found out in November that Gannon was gone for good and the FCC were looking to run (the closer it got to an election being called), it was game over.
If all of this had happened out of the blue last week you might have a point. However, they knew from the middle of last season that Gannon was gone, they knew the economy meant getting sponsorship and investment would be difficult. They had months to talk to players, pimp them to other clubs and set up a fundraising plan to fund the coming season. Instead they carried on with their heads in the sand hoping it would all work out until the last minute.
Why did the FCC do this? Who was running the club?
If a prudent plan had been made for the coming season for the club to be self sustaining do you really think the FCC would have closed down the company? Honestly?
You seem to be defending them on the basis that they had no chance and couldn't have predicted what was coming. That's a load of rubbish. They made poor decisions whihc led to people losing the club that they loved, to me that's unforgivable.[/QUOTE]
You seem to back away from mentioning the word "inevitable" which was your own conclusion to draw on what I'd written, which is fair enough as it is your own viewpoint, though please don't try to make it mine.
If I were defending them I'd have taken an entirely different tack, defensiveness is not an issue here, it's a dead issue after all. It's very interesting how you have such an insight into the club, it would be even more interesting if you could elaborate on the decisions, plans, work being done as this is something that probably should be in the public domain.
As regards a sustainable plan, in the LOI? Not in any climate. When it was the boom time our clubs ran up debts, when crowds were flocking to games they were still losing money. No matter which option to take, they were still going to be hit, maybe they could have been braver, maybe they could have been heroes, though the graveyard is full of them.
On a related point, it's great to see fans of other clubs now looking for reasons to castigate those involved for not keeping the club going. Of course if they had, and made a dogs mess of it, it'd be a different point of view, with alot less "feeling" for the people who loved the club.
In all honest micls, are you sad that Sporting Fingal are no longer in business, does it bother you? Personally for myself I'd say yes, though only because it's another sad story for the LOI, nothing else.
Oh, and FCC were the controlling hand in the club after Gerry Gannon pulled out, and all along they were very strongly involved, I thought that was clear enough from this and oterh posts.
spudulika are you being deliberately obtuse?
Clearly they made horrible decisions. They knew they wouldn't have the same funding and made little to no effort to scale back their expenditure.
If you knew you were getting a pay cut would you go out and buy a new TV? If you were running a club would you sign new players and a new commercial manager?
Or would you start scrimping and saving and trying to cut down on your expenditure?
I mean they turned down a bid from Celtic for one of their better players. Thats just plain stupid.
If they knew last season that Gannon was pulling out, and we've all known that to be true for some time, then surely the sensible thing to do would have been
a) look for new investment
b) cut back until the point that investment had been secured.
As the season approached they should have been doing everything they could to offload their highest earners and focus on surviving, particularly as has been mentioned when relegation is actually going to be difficult this season.
They could have run the club for a fraction of the cost they were intending with a mostly amateur set up. I#m sure they would have found takers for the majority of their players, even if they had to give them up for next to nothing.
Ridiculous decision making from whomever was in charge.
In fairness Spud. What She is saying rings true and you have nt really addressed any of the points she made in your last post. Plus her interest in this issue has no relevence to what is being discussed and maybe it just discust her to see what happened at her club happen to another. The fact still remains that if the club had acted when it was evident that their was trouble ahead their would be a much better chance the club would be still here today. By taking the club in the direction they did they reduced that chance significantly and now we are gone. I think if it was put to a poll on which was the better option then I think the cutting back one would win hands down. Its seems their is now a movement to just blame the council and yes they deserve the criticism but the buck stops with the Fingal Two and these are the ones to blame for ultimately running the club into the ground when they where repeatedly given advice to reduce the budget and I know that for a fact.Quote:
Originally Posted by SpudulikaYou posted this, implying it was game over because Gannon was gone and the FCC were leaving. That is what I challenged. This did not mean it was inevitably game over, the decisions that followed did.
so when they found out in November that Gannon was gone for good and the FCC were looking to run (the closer it got to an election being called), it was game over.
You seem to back away from mentioning the word "inevitable" which was your own conclusion to draw on what I'd written, which is fair enough as it is your own viewpoint, though please don't try to make it mine.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spudulika
If I were defending them I'd have taken an entirely different tack, defensiveness is not an issue here, it's a dead issue after all. It's very interesting how you have such an insight into the club, it would be even more interesting if you could elaborate on the decisions, plans, work being done as this is something that probably should be in the public domain.
As regards a sustainable plan, in the LOI? Not in any climate. When it was the boom time our clubs ran up debts, when crowds were flocking to games they were still losing money. No matter which option to take, they were still going to be hit, maybe they could have been braver, maybe they could have been heroes, though the graveyard is full of them.
On a related point, it's great to see fans of other clubs now looking for reasons to castigate those involved for not keeping the club going. Of course if they had, and made a dogs mess of it, it'd be a different point of view, with alot less "feeling" for the people who loved the club.
In all honest micls, are you sad that Sporting Fingal are no longer in business, does it bother you? Personally for myself I'd say yes, though only because it's another sad story for the LOI, nothing else.
don't know if MICLS will be happy to be called a guy!
Oops :) Apologies. Silly assumption on my part. Sorry MICLSQuote:
Originally Posted by El-Pietro
Lamper I'm not disagreeing with the basic tenet, we both know that there was more going on behind the scenes than has come out yet and idle speculation is not going to make it better. Micls is correct to say that there was a chance to put out an amateur club, though given the FCC pulling the plug in the manner they did, it was a battle I don't know if there was the stomach to fight. It's just all a disappointment.
Thats pretty much the argument people were trying to get across to youQuote:
Originally Posted by Spudulika
Dodge, lord god that was obvious all along - why does anyone have to get the argument across when there is no argument. There was so much going on and more happening that by the end it was a maelstrom of madness. How Bohs are coping I don't know, but if it's any consolation it looks like poor Thomas Davis are in serious trouble (I am sure some Rovers fans will be sniggering at their troubles, however distasteful it has a basis in stupidity from Davis).
Plenty of people other than Rovers fans would be happy to see the back of Thomas Davis. Which is awkward because a family member works for the club.
Wrong thread?Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlie Darwin
I didn't in truth think the roof would cave in so spectacularly quickly when writing this but, nevertheless I told you so!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Chief
Didn't we all. Though your assertion about Mervue and Salthill might be wrong. Without them Galway would have no LOI club! Tremendous foresight on behalf of the FAI. :o
You have no idea what being a football fan is aboutQuote:
Originally Posted by The Lep