Printable View
lots of anti drog posters (the ex anti shels posters no less) talking about how much our budget is etc and how reckless we are etc.
I have a question looking at it from the other side - how many clubs will have a profit at the end of the seaosn and how many had a profit at the end of last season, as if there was no break even at least - then they where and are also operating wreaklessly
So come on who are they
Harps, UCD, anyone else finish with a profit?
galway made a profit didnt they?
UCD made a loss of E11,000 in 2005, and our gate receipts turnover was down E40,000 on budget last year. So we're slightly loss-making at present, but small change compared to others in the league.
I think the Genesis Report said that eL clubs were running up something like E3m losses per year between them? It appears, though, that E2.5m of that was split between Shels, Drogheda and Pat's, which puts things in a bit of perspective at least.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
does not matter, excuses excuses, you made a loss - forget about others and look at your own club - let he who is without sin (probably harps & galway :D and maybe Derry) cast the first stone. Your directors ran a club that made a loss. Were there cut backs in the off season, players let go? What action was taken to prevent another loss this year - if there is another loss will heads roll?
PS thanks for your honest answer in stating that you made a loss.
What about Cork - their posters are very interested in our budget, how did their books do last year was a loss made? if so how on earth were farrelly and Healy signed? Is this not reckless?
I take it at this stage you're WUMming?Quote:
Originally Posted by SeanDrog
A loss is grand if it's controllable. Maybe we have opening reserves, in which case we would still have an overall retained profit. Maybe we have plans for extra income this year, in which case we'll make up the money this year. Maybe we made extra income - player sales like Robbie Martin, Cup runs, more prize money than expected, Fair Play winnings - which offset the reduction in gate receipts (I didn't say we had an overall loss last year).
I trust you're not comparing the rather small, perfectly controllable, loss with Drogs' heinous, reckless, haemmoraging of cash which is sooner or later goig to result in your Shels-like implosion?
We probably made a lose last season because we had a problem with our club sponsor so basically lost on at least one full season of sponsorship which is why we could not sign extra players or even retain some players last year.Quote:
Originally Posted by SeanDrog
We now have new club sponsor to replace the old one on slightly better terms plus new Investor has taken a stake in the club which is why we could sign new players plus we had already reduced the wage budget by removing some high earning players from the budget.
not wumming at all.the point is that people are trying to villianise Drogheda and now Pats due to their budgets and that losses are made. I fail to see the difference if clubs like UCD are also making losses. You saw our books, were our losses put onto the club as debt? no? so how are we going to fold due to our budget?
UCd might have reserves - we have reserves in our directors pockets - again my point on our books - is our spending resulting in debt to the club in the region of these so called millions?
The budget argeuemnts to me are turning into some form of excuse to continually have a pop at the clubs who spend more. For me clubs who made a loss but still signed players acted according to the morals being aired on this forum as being reckless.
My question to the other clubs remains open - who else made a profit last season?
We made a loss too, hence the massive cut in budget. What have Drogs done after running up losses? If you're trying to make a point that we're basically haggling over price, that's your view point, but I think it's flawed. It's like saying a tenner owed on a credit card is the same as someone owing €10k. Other clubs are taking action to address deficits, Drogheda's solution is a Shels-esque attempt to buy their way out of it.
If you really don't care once your team is doing well, like a lot of your fans, that's fair enough enjoy the ride. But I wouldn't come on here looking for bail outs or sympathy if it all goes wrong. There's been enough cases around property sharks and football clubs in this league for youse to know better.
Are you asking me a question, and then answering it yourself, wrongly?Quote:
Originally Posted by SeanDrog
Drogs are over E1m in debt per their last (2005) accounts. So the answer to your question is yes.
By "reserves", I mean profits earned in previous years. If I make E20,000 one year, and then lose E10,000 the next, that's not an overall loss, so it's no big deal.Quote:
Originally Posted by SeanDrog
Directors' pockets are not reserves, especially when your directors are noting that they're getting close to empty.
And again - yes, your accounts show you in debt to the tune of over E1m two years ago. Probably over E2m, maybe even nearer E3m now.
Macy if I owed 10,000 grant on my credit card and I could pay it off , is that not better than a lad who owes 10 euro and can only pay of 9 and has 1e debt.
P Stu - you looked at our books - are we building up debt or losses - come on be honest? as for me this is the point.
The budget is not run on bank borrowings or in shels casespending the money from the land deal. The directors agree the budget, income covers some of it and they invest to cover the rest on the assumption that the new stadium will then provide the extra income in the future (and that is another arguement in itself that we should talk about on another thread :D ).
rovers made a profit
Both.Quote:
Originally Posted by SeanDrog
You're running up losses to beat the band.
You're not running up significant debts to banks or the like - although there is a repayment agreement with Revenue in place, which means you've been in trouble with them already - but the directors are still due their money back. So you are running up debts. If the directors wanted, they could (like, in fairness to them, the directors at St Pat's) put the money in as capital, in which case they can't get it back. But it appears they do intend on recouping the money at some stage. If this happens, or if the directors stop putting cash in, you're screwed.
Stu i was typing the last post as you answered it so not being smart asking it twice.
I find that very interesting that we are apparently 1 million or more in debt - quite amazing, I am not an accountant so I cannot argue for or against your point. Lets take it on face value that we are millions in debt (interest muct be building up) - so drogs are screwed - as if what you say is true, there is no way anyone can carry on with than on their books.
So now we are out of the way - why is it acceptable for clubs to operate continually making a loss for some and not acceptable for others? UCD may have reserves (probably as I was a bit shocked to see they made a loss last year, usually quite a well run place) but there are others continually making a loss who do not have reserves.
Yet and this is the point , yet the Drogs and Pats are the ones singled out (welcoem to the club Pats).
It's all to do with the size of your debts.
E1m a year is not sustainable. End of story. E11k is minimal. We made that loss in 2005; we sold Robbie Martin for E10k in 2006 - that'd make it up on its own. We finished in sixth place in the league, and so got an extra E2,500 prize money over what was budgeted. We a live home game on telly - E5,000 extra. All a drop in Drogs' debt, but almost twice our 2005 loss made up. That's the issue - sustainability and turn-around-ability.
No other club is racking up the losses that Drogs and Pat's are, that I can see. However, 'cos I know Pat's fans will point this out, they have at least got (a) directors who are putting the money in as share capital, (b) large receipts from transfer fees last year and (c) a pub to help them with their debt. Drogs have none of these.
Also, I don't think significant interest is building upfor Drogs. There's a limit to how much interest directors can charge on their loans (something like 13% of issued share capital), and most of the debt is to the directors.
again i was posting at the same time as you. So the money is a debt to the directors - unless they write it off (which I doubt), and our destiny is in their hands (nothing new there tbh).
But being neutral Stu - do you not agree that it is not right on the one hand to be slapping Drogs and Pats due to budgets - which may be large etc while other clubs are themselves making a loss. They are behaving wreaklessly are they not? - at elast if they do it two years running without having made any attempts after the first year to amend the situ?
I accept that not much if any debt being put onto the Drogs books so not the same as Shels.
The problem with the Drogs sizes loses what happens if no stadium in the short term so Directors stop funding the loses. You won;t be able to pay the players wages so if you can't find clubs to take them off your hands (not many clubs will be able to match their high salaries) then you will be unable to cut your expenses enough to balance the books.
Your destiny is not in your hands. It's in your directors' hands. They can pull the plug at any stage they wish, just like Seery did with Dublin City.
Drogs deserve special criticism due to the fact that their losses far outweight anyone else in the league now that Shels are gone. That's the problem. Again, please take note of the fact that there is nothing inherently wrong with making a loss in any one year. The problem is when the losses are large, recurring and nothing appears to be being done about it (as in, Drogs haven't cut back or anything). That's a recipe for bankruptcy. A E10k loss isn't.
So no, I don't agree with your last paragraph at all. No more than I believed Shels and Dublin City shouldn't come in for particular criticism before.
Not the case, pete. Read the thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by pete
Historically, even the best of the EL clubs are effectively well run charities. Very few carry any kind of working capital or any buffer to protect themselves from an adverse shock.
The rest are just run plain recklessly.
Drogs have effectively been gambling that their housebuilding plan comes to fruition. Otherwise they are in serious trouble as their Chairman is on record saying that the current losses are unsustainable.
Before anyone accuses Derry City fans of polishing their halo, the last set of our accounts I saw didn't look particular clever (I had more cash in the bank than the club). Things may have changed since then but I've no reason to doubt that Derry, like most clubs, live a hand to mouth existence.
I won't disagree on bit that the directors control our destiny and also if the stadium does not come through then we are finished - I am certain of that. The way the stadium seems to be going who knows, we could be gone next season. But if we go under where will the 1 million or so owed to the directors go - who would pay it? remember we have no assetts - so it is fully in their interests to get this stadium built asap to try and recoup that money.
We nearly went under due to 100k in debt a few years back - it wasn't millions - and thats my point - others have debt which might as well be millions to them, as tey wouldn't be able to pay them off and others are not running their clubs with due diligence (Drogs IMO included) but the tone of recent posts wuld imply that other clubs are saints.
Not really an issue pete, as this is last chance saloon for us, there will be no one to step into the breach if these guys stop their drive to develop our club. If they can't do it then no one can and it would be time to call it a day - time to stop flogging a dead horse so to speak. Might as well be honest, it is a big gamble but a gamble that has to be taken, our club was dying a slow painful death (as are many clubs if they are honest), these guys have always stated that step one was to invest to bring success. Step two was a new home, to fund the success going forward as they could only kick start it. They have been honest about this from the start. They view the current spending similar to people with a start up business, ie they expect to loose money in the first few years in which time they out structures on and off the field. The key to success is the stadium. Drogs are under no illusions on this point.Quote:
Originally Posted by pete
Its a gamble, a risk but also ambition. They have to date matched this ambition with action and they receive very little credit for this. IMO its very unfair by some to equate them to Shels. We maon aboutpeople not supporting el sides and going to the UK, these guys do it and get lamblasted. Remember its their money at risk not borrowins from the bank etc.
As i stated if we go under who pays the 1m or so owed to directors as we have no assetts (ground will only begiven back to us if we have a new home to go to), no one will pay it, and the directors will lose the 1m. It is clear that they are risking their money on the basis that they will get it back through the stadium development.
Drogheda United will never be "finished".Quote:
Originally Posted by SeanDrog
if the stadium falls through and the directors pull out, who on earth would take it on and cover over 1m debt that someone else built up. No one. Need to be honest with ourselves.
Now maybe not finsihed literally as maybe a non leagueclub woud form under the banner DUFC but that would be it.
Besides we are only halfway through the gamble and with the help of God we will get the stadium that we so desparately need.
Why would you as a football fan care? Would you not be more worried that Drogheda United would cease to exist. The new FAI rules (including lcensing) mean a club can't just fold the holding company behind it and start again (as loads of clubs have in the past (Drogheda being one of the latest). Let the property millionaires worry about getting their money back themselves. They wanr to build a village with 5,000 homes. A couple of million is nothing compared to thataQuote:
But if we go under where will the 1 million or so owed to the directors go - who would pay it?
As for Pats, not one of our fans thought the debt was manageable some months ago and any visitors to our MB will find 100s of threads asking the type of questions stu is asking of Drogheda. Even with Kelleher on board we won't have a bottomless pit of money (he has two of these BTW), his plans for the club are to become self sufficient withina number of years (He's outtng up the money for the capital expenditure at the start of his era)
Its the head in the sand attitude from some fans that buugs the hell out of me. How ****ing dare anybody question any fan on this forum or any other when all they point out are cold hard facts?!
who has a head in the sand?
Wreaklessly run clubs?
'Recklessly' run spelling classes you must have attended so. ;)
Most of your support. I read your MBQuote:
Originally Posted by SeanDrog
Quote:
Originally Posted by SeanDrog
Quote:
Originally Posted by OneRedArmy
Quote:
Originally Posted by SeanDrog
Quote:
Originally Posted by SeanDrog
Could I just say this: THERE'S NO 'W' IN RECKLESS.Quote:
Originally Posted by SeanDrog
Also, wreakless is a very old word meaning unrevengeful or weak.
Thank you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PAURO 7
always was brutal at spelling in school - thanks for the heads up :D
Well from my previous posts I think you will agree that I have tried to give an honest account of the situation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dodge
Thanks for setting that straight, it was wreaking my head.Quote:
Originally Posted by PAURO 7
Than why have a go at stu for giving you the figures you didn't eeven know about? (the €1mill loss)Quote:
Originally Posted by SeanDrog
Dodge am wondering if you now trying to wind me up - where did I have a go at him. I asked him to provide the figure as I know he has some background (from previous posts) in the finanical area and he would be able to provide figures which I know due to his honesty would be factual rather than someone trying to present bulls***te figures just to suit their arguement.
Have a go at Ste - are you for real?
I've argued this point before on other threads, the problem really centres on players contracts, the risk to Drogs is directors willing to invest now, but not undertaking to continue to see out the remainder of players contract after they step down, thats what causes chaos. As they know the situation in the club looking for their money back is not likely to arise as the only option would be to sell the asset, and I don't believe that were going to have a Milltown mark 2 scenario 20 years on.
thanks Ronnie, well put.
But they don't even have the asset yet as the buy back clause for Utd Park is that the sale must go towards a new ground so there is no chance of the getting the hands on Utd Park to pay back the loans - so in essence they are tied into the long term futue of DU or else write off their loans as a bad debt.
You point on contracts is very valid and as I have stated before it would probably destroy us if they did decide to cut their losses and deem the new ground a lost cause etc.
Yes but if DU goes out of business because of losing its licence then the land is all theirs no?
no the fai own the ground not dufc. its only handed over if the club prove it has another ground and the money from the sale of utd park goes towards it.
what is the up to date info on the stadium and housing plan, as these seems central to drogs future
But what would the FAI do with it if there was no club In Drogheda?Quote:
Originally Posted by SeanDrog
last I heard (could be wrong though) some vote in the council (or review) will be made around august. Heard so many things about the stadium at this sage I tend to ignore most of it, I am at the point that I won't beleive it until I see the first blocks laid.
who knows, sell it , give it to another local club , drogheda town maybe? who knows - build a summer house for Delaney ?Quote:
Originally Posted by BohsPartisan