Originally Posted by
shellyriver
Not necessarily, for example, Sligo Rovers want to build a new stand. That costs money. There is no hand out from either local authorities - so it has to self-financed. If you had a benevolent landlord to build same, you retain your liquidity without nightmare of fund-raising your ambitions.
So, Sligo understandably want success. That costs money. So while the committee could refuse to shell out the budget, with the calibre of necessary players it won't happen.
These are just of the considerations of running a club, its a balancing act.
So it is courageous or challenging etc to financially extend the club further.
But hopefully, a few of the 15K or so Sligo supporters who attended the Cup Final will continue to support home side.
You need to show a vision and confidence to progress.
What would you like going back to complete part-time set up, that's called regression.
I mean how many clubs, without pointing figures, either play crooked and go under the water, refuse to pay bills and/or have local authorities paying their way. Sligo certainly isn't one - ever.
So, whilst one or two here got a bit excited with word 'courageous' and there is a bit of spin in word usage -- having linked the article its obvious to see the journalist has given this description and not the Chairman or anyone associated with the club.
As was stated, the AGM will give an indication of finances. Considered steady upward curve over last 5 years, the club is hardly going gung-ho.
Shamrock Rovers provide a tidy profit? Rightly so, they are tenants.
Contrast that with the millions that would be required to build Tallaght etc and service the mortgage. Nah, let the Council build it and take full advantage. Yeah, that's real courageous.