A Serious Thread....

......Although i'm not quiet sure, a serious intelligent debate could be carried out on here anymore but i'll give it a bash.

Dundalk players have been asked to take a 25% pay cut, having only brought in new players last month.

Stephen McGuinness where are you? Surely this is breaching licencing agreements? Does anyone even care anymore?

Statement on home page of Dundalks website here - http://www.dundalkfc.com/home.asp

EDIT: Just seen the "things that make you go mmm" thread. Mods feel free to merge

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hairy Bowsie

......Although i'm not quiet sure, a serious intelligent debate could be carried out on here

---

Down with this sort of thing!:mad:

A shambles yes, a poor way to treat players yes, an example of poor budgeting yes. Not sure how it 'surely' breaches licencing though?

[QUOTE=Hairy Bowsie;1219493]......Although i'm not quiet sure, a serious intelligent debate could be carried out on here anymore but i'll give it a bash.

Dundalk players have been asked to take a 25% pay cut, having only brought in new players last month.

Stephen McGuinness where are you? Surely this is breaching licencing agreements? Does anyone even care anymore?

Statement on home page of Dundalks website here - http://www.dundalkfc.com/home.asp

Where did you see 25%?? (Reported on Oriel Web as 15%)
Anyway its not in breach of licencing if both parties agree.

The pay cut agreed until rest of season is 15%

Not all players are taking a 15% cut, some are not being deducted at all, its only the big earners

Will this be to keep within the budget, due to tightening finances, or a wage cap thing?

If boneym is right, and it is for one of the first two reasons I have listed, it does actually suggest that the Dundalk Board have their heads on, though signing new players when you have to drop salaries is not the right way to go about it, ensuring that no-one loses their job is, albeit at a cost to the higher earners. I would imagine that Cork City fans would be happy with that situation.

However, if it is being done in order to stay within the wage cap, what on earth are they at with money that they essentially do not have. In my opinion, the wage cap is reasonably generous, and for a small club (in financial terms, I mean), 65% of turnover is more than plenty to spend. Indeed, if anything it is a dangerously high amount in a high risk industry.

Are Dundalk currently full time, and if so, is that changing now?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bluebeard

... Are Dundalk currently full time, and if so, is that changing now?

---

Yes, they are full time this year. I've heard nothing about a change yet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bluebeard

Will this be to keep within the budget, due to tightening finances, or a wage cap thing?

---

Dundalk are well within the 65% protocol - it is directly related to balancing the books and trying to avoid an operating deficit

A further more detailed statement from the board is due this evening or tomorow morning

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bluebeard

Are Dundalk currently full time, and if so, is that changing now?

---

Most players are full time, and the voluntary wage cuts will not mean that their training commitments will be reduced - so no change currently from full time. It doesn't automatically follow that lower wages will mean part time players next season either - although the majority of the players only have contracts to November anyway.

the club is well under the 65% rule, as someone posted on another thread they lost money on the Athletico Madrid game and then put all their eggs in the one basket re the Barcelona game. Their was also one player sponsored by a business man who has since renaged on his agreement. The players at the time were signed in good faith but now the club wants to try and reduce the losses that they will incur for the current season.

How can you be under the 65% for the year and making a loss?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by micls

How can you be under the 65% for the year and making a loss?

---

By having your other expenses exceed 35% of your income.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by John83

By having your other expenses exceed 35% of your income.

---

Good point :o

Does this seem very high to anyone else though? What other expenses do ye have that are costing this much? The pitches are making ye money aren't they? And the bar?

the 65% rule is for players only

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boneym

the 65% rule is for players only

---

I thought it included backroom staff too? i.e manager etc

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by micls

I thought it included backroom staff too? i.e manager etc

---

No, it just players.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by micls

I thought it included backroom staff too? i.e manager etc

---

No - but I understand that this is the FAI intention for next season.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ezeikial

No - but I understand that this is the FAI intention for next season.

---

Ok.

Seems a bit ridiculous that they arent included, how amny players are down as being paid for being a coach or something like

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by micls

Ok.

Seems a bit ridiculous that they arent included, how amny players are down as being paid for being a coach or something like

---

Or barmen

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by micls

Ok.

Seems a bit ridiculous that they arent included, how amny players are down as being paid for being a coach or something like

---

I don't know of any apart from Rossiter at Bohs.

If you are asking specifically about Dundalk - definately zero. At a fans forum in earlier in the season the weekly players wage bill, excluding management was confirmed at €12,500. The wage bill has not increased significantly since then.

From memory the percentage of players wages against projected revenue was estimated then at being circa 55%. Complaince with the 65% rule is not the issue at Dundalk - not having an operating deficit is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ezeikial

Complaince with the 65% rule is not the issue at Dundalk - not having an operating deficit is.

---

Well good luck on that anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by micls

Good point :o

Does this seem very high to anyone else though? What other expenses do ye have that are costing this much? The pitches are making ye money aren't they? And the bar?

---

You can download Cork's 2008 (I think) accounts from the CRO; they show what was spent between player wages and other costs. Ditto Bohs. You'd be surprised how quickly other stuff'll build up. To be honest though, I'd say if you are spending 35% of your turnover as one of the larger clubs in the league, you've got problems anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by micls

Good point :o

Does this seem very high to anyone else though? What other expenses do ye have that are costing this much?

---

Repaying old debt possibly. That was a part of the FAI's rationale for bringing in the rule as far as I remember.

there were always going to come into some sort of financial trouble singing a whole new team, singh, turner, burns,mansaram all on big wages

Does groundsmen count as well as youth team coaches?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Candystripe

Does groundsmen count as well as youth team coaches?

---

Nope. Will. Don't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CF1989

there were always going to come into some sort of financial trouble singing a whole new team, singh, turner, burns,mansaram all on big wages

---

There probably should be some sort of rule about signing 4 former Sligo players alright!

A piece in Yesterday's Star Newspaper said 8 Cork players are still owed money from July and the players are threatening strike action again.The players have been assured they will be paid on Friday though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eamo1

A piece in Yesterday's Star Newspaper said 8 Cork players are still owed money from July and the players are threatening strike action again.

---

August's money was due yesterday too

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eamo1

The players have been assured they will be paid on Friday though.

---

I'm sure they've never heard that one before.....Would be shocked if they get full payment Friday

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hairy Bowsie

......Although i'm not quiet sure, a serious intelligent debate could be carried out on here anymore but i'll give it a bash.

Dundalk players have been asked to take a 25% pay cut, having only brought in new players last month.

Stephen McGuinness where are you? Surely this is breaching licencing agreements? Does anyone even care anymore?

Statement on home page of Dundalks website here - http://www.dundalkfc.com/home.asp

EDIT: Just seen the "things that make you go mmm" thread. Mods feel free to merge

---

Is it coincidence that the players have been asked to take this pay cut after Dundalk lost the chance to win any trophies after going out of the cup? Am I just being a little bit cynical here?

Sorry, I don't mean to jibe when I say that. What I mean is, were the players going to be asked to take this cut anyway, even if Dundalk had still been in with a shout of winning the Cup (and associated prize money)?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brianw82

Is it coincidence that the players have been asked to take this pay cut after Dundalk lost the chance to win any trophies after going out of the cup? Am I just being a little bit cynical here?

Sorry, I don't mean to jibe when I say that. What I mean is, were the players going to be asked to take this cut anyway, even if Dundalk had still been in with a shout of winning the Cup (and associated prize money)?

---

It's hard to know, as the club have not quantified the current potential shortfall.

Although it is obvious that if Dundalk were still in the cup, the additional revenue would help, and may have avoided this action. The fact that the wage cuts have only been proposed since elimination from the cup suggests that this may have been the case.

Would this explain why Sean Connor was so happy with a draw against Bohs in the first game in the cup?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

To be honest though, I'd say if you are spending 35% of your turnover as one of the larger clubs in the league, you've got problems anyway.

---

I would be interested if you could expand on this - how much do you think is reasonable in the context of expenditure, excluding players, to operate a "large" club?

Hpyothetically, if a club had a revenue of say €800,000 - 35% would equate to €280,000. Lets say management/coaching/physio/medical staff costs were €125,000 leaving a balance of €155,000 to cover all the operating costs.
Is this sufficient or extravagent?

Any opinions on typical costs of
Match day operations
Promotions
Travel
Administration
Light / heat
VAT

What are the other major expenditures typically?

I presume that the 65% rule cover is based on gross income and not net of tax obligations. Can anyone clarify?

Here's a part of Bohs' accounts from last year; it shows all the expenses outside of the basic playing side of things (i.e., it shows the 35%). You'd have to imagine all that expense isn't necessary. By way of contrast, UCD run a Premier Division budget of about E500k all in. Obviously, if we could spend more money, I'm sure it'd be beneficial to us, but you'd imagine the "ideal" spending would lie somewhere in between.

It gives an idea of what's involved anyways.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

Here's a part of Bohs' accounts from last year; it shows all the expenses outside of the basic playing side of things (i.e., it shows the 35%). You'd have to imagine all that expense isn't necessary. By way of contrast, UCD run a Premier Division budget of about E500k all in. Obviously, if we could spend more money, I'm sure it'd be beneficial to us, but you'd imagine the "ideal" spending would lie somewhere in between.

It gives an idea of what's involved anyways.

---

The first 3 expenditure items alone (Match day/Away matches/Referee expenses) amount to over €185,000 according to these Bohs' accounts for 2008. While Bohs would hardly be held up as the model for financial prudence, I suspect that these costs can hardly vary dramatically for typical premier clubs. These alone would significantly exceed the 35% of turnover in the hypothetical example suggested!

I'm struggling to understand your earlier statement about clubs spending 35% of revenue on non-player costs being bound for trouble. Is it not inevitable? Can you expand on this?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ezeikial

Hpyothetically, if a club had a revenue of say €800,000 - 35% would equate to €280,000. Lets say management/coaching/physio/medical staff costs were €125,000 leaving a balance of €155,000 to cover all the operating costs.

---

If you think away match expenses wouldn't vary between clubs, you want to have a word with the Derry board.

Similarly, home match expenses could easily be racked up by, say, renting a hotel room for the day to sequester players. That's just an example; there's ways and means to spend money, and there's ways and means of cutting back on non-essentials. I'd be shocked if we were spending that much on matchday expenses, for example.

Perhaps I was naive in thinking that you might be able to expand on your original statement:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

. if you are spending 35% of your turnover as one of the larger clubs in the league, you've got problems anyway.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

If you think away match expenses wouldn't vary between clubs, you want to have a word with the Derry board.

---

It's pretty obvious that travelling expenses will be significantly different for clubs like Cork or Derry, then say the Dublin based clubs - typically more, not less!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

I'd be shocked if we were spending that much on matchday expenses, for example.

---

With respect to UCD, your original reference was to the "larger" clubs. Matchday costs for clubs with small crowds in the first division, will obviously bear little relationship to costs associated with significantly larger gates at these premier clubs.

I apreciate your response, and the link to the Bohs accounts, but really I'm none the wiser about the veracity of your earlier claim.

28 August 2009: DUNDALK FC PLAYERS STATEMENT
The players, management and staff of Dundalk Football Club have accepted a pay-cut until the end of the season following open and frank discussions with the board. We fully accept the club’s current financial position during these difficult times for everyone in the country.

As a squad, along with our management team and staff, we have decided to play our part and work with the board between now and the end of the season. We are fully supportive of the club’s fundraising efforts that will help claw back any financial deficit facing Dundalk FC.

We hope that you, the supporters, will get behind us as we continue our efforts on the pitch. We believe that a strong finish to the season can secure European football for our club. As a squad we are fully united behind our manager and staff and you can rest assured that our ambition and drive will not be affected by the difficult circumstances that we find ourselves in.

We took this decision to enable our manager to keep this squad together next season and beyond. We believe that with the correct investments and efforts on all of our parts we can deliver long-term success to Dundalk Football Club.

Finally, the players would like to thank the fans for your superb support this season. We would encourage you all to please support the fundraising efforts being undertaken by the Board and the DFC Trust for the remainder of the year.

Yours in Sport,
The Dundalk FC Squad.


http://www.dundalkfc.com/news/090828_Statement.asp

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ezeikial

It's pretty obvious that travelling expenses will be significantly different for clubs like Cork or Derry, then say the Dublin based clubs - typically more, not less!

---

But you can make them much more by having overnight stays in top hotels for every game, like Derry supposedly do. UCD, on the other hand (being the example I know of) get a bus straight back after these games. The overnight option is obviously more expensive, and so Derry going to UCD will spend more money than UCD going to Derry. Obviously there's other factors affecting costs like distance, but that still doesn't mean some clubs aren't running up what appear to be excess costs.

My comment on spending 35% of income on non-wage expenses wasn't a claim as you suggest, it was a supposition on my part. You've very selectively quoted me, leaving out the important words "I'd say".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

My comment on spending 35% of income on non-wage expenses wasn't a claim as you suggest, it was a supposition on my part. You've very selectively quoted me, leaving out the important words "I'd say".

---

pineapple stu - apologies if I inadvertently left out those words.

If you are unable or unwilling to expand on why "you say" that, I'll just leave it alone.

I was really hoping that I might learn something from hearing any substance behind your opinion!