"I heard back in 2000, it was in our national media, whether it was better for one team in Louth. Two senior league sides were too many. I thought then it smacked of ignorance and lack of information and ambition. At the time Dundalk were the junior partner" - posted by Spudulika
The reason Dundalk were the junior partner in Louth was 2 fold. The first reason we had no money and had got relegated and secondly the main reason why we were so far behind our neighbours to the south was because they were spending sh*t loads of cash that they didn't have in order that their business owners could make bags of cash by selling houses in a rezoned piece of land.
Now look what happened. We are run like a business (we had land that we were able to sell at our biggest cash crisis point and Drogheda have experienced Examinership were their creditors got sh*g all back and now the club is close to folding.
Morton to Tolka is one of the shortest distances between grounds in the league (Dalymount to Tolka is closer I think but that's all). Tallaght and Belfield are much more isolated from other grounds than Santry. If they'd built the much talked about ground in Lusk, you'd have a point but Santry is hardly a new area for a team. Not to mention that Fingal were/are going to share Dalymount this year.Originally Posted by Charlie Darwin
We're not arrogant, we're just better.
There's a fair chance, that within 5-10 years Pats will be the only team operaring within Dublin City Council's area
54,321 sold - wws will never die - ***
---
New blog if anyone's interested - http://loihistory.wordpress.com/
LOI section on balls.ie - http://balls.ie/league-of-ireland/
Well, Dalyer and Tolka are both sold. We're DLR and Rovers are South County. Not that bold a statement.
Spudulika really I don't need debating lessons. But I'll give you a few debating tips (sorry to other posters): Firstly stay on the topic, you're going of course by bringing up new topics in many of your posts, like one team in Louth has little to do with this (I heard this debate before Louth Wanderers, etc, are you referring to that there is to many teams in Louth and this is similar to Dublin, if so make this more clear). My second tip, stop attacking other debaters phrases and reverting to people as "ignorant" and "such fans", this don't bide well and shows that its more of personal thing than trying to make valid points with regards to the topic. Thirdly, make some valid points with regards to the threads topic because I really don't know what the point is you’re trying to make. So far I've gathered we should look at our own clubs before we point the finger at other clubs and people should stop having such a blinkered view when it comes to the league as a whole - valid point in their own right but this topic is about Sporting Fingal and their inadequacies.
For the record there is nothing ‘ignorant’ or ‘blinkered’ in my view, I’ve said consistently (you will claim otherwise?) that I don’t know how Fingal are funding their club since Gannon was involved with NAMA and eventually pulled out of the franchise. Personally I don’t think the LOI needs another club coming in with wreckless spending - we have enough clubs already at this but the difference is these other clubs have history, tradition & most have a decent fan base (I admit still don’t make it right). If Fingal stayed within their means there would be no problem but they didn’t, all signs show that they have every chance of going boom to bust similar to what happened to Dublin City. I don’t like clubs in this league going into financial difficulties (Fingal included) but really for Fingal it was all in their own making and for that reason its hard to feel sorry for them.
I find the hostility on this board towards sporting fingal hard to understand.
Sporting fingal was founded as a club which **would** work at the grassroots level, working to build a fanbase and an identity in an area (north county dublin) which does have its own seperate identity to that of Bohs and shels northsiders.
Whether or not its good or bad luck that they got parachuted to the first division before they were ready is beside the point (although that was because of a different club collapsing).
As a sporting fingal fan i was almost glad we didnt get promoted the first year because we certainly would not have been ready for it then either.
Just because our footballing ability (ie winning FA cup, getting promoted playing in europe decently and qualifying for europe again) developed at a pace faster than its natural growth of a fanbase is not the clubs fault.
The association with the council was in an effort to build community ties, which it did, setting up fan clubs for kids in local schools, setting up futsal teams, special olympic football teams etc etc
The involvement of Gannon is unfortuanate and his problems obviously became ours.
Likewise in this climate it is understandable that one of our investors took a hit.
If anything Id say we are a victim of a series of unfortuanate events.
As a footballing community why are you rejoicing at the demise of yet another club which had its own identity with a fanbase, small as it is, who were supporting the LOI (and who wouldnt otherwise).
There is obviously major problems within the whole framework of this LOI and the FAI.
We should be coming together, supporting one and other and baying for a major overhaul of the current system.
It is a fair point that clubs like Cork and Shams were saved because of their fans.
But its not the individual clubs that need saving (this year alone we could lose 4), the whole damm thing is rotton and needs to be dismantled and put back together again properly (kind of like our political system).
yes, its great if bohs with their history survives or shams with their new stadium and fans but what does it matter if there is no real competition, no real league to speak of....
Sporting fingal's apparent demise is not something to rejoice in, its an example of everything that is wrong with our League, the fans that are in it, and the people running it.
People shouldnt be taking it as a chance to laugh and scorn but it should be a wake up call that things in our league or **** and we should do someting about it.
Last edited by sparky12345678; 04/02/2011 at 3:16 PM.
There is absolutely NOTHING wrong with fans of LOI clubs. To lump them all together as mere LOI fans, and then to suggest they have done anything to contribute to the current state of league is disingenous (and I'm being kind there...)
Apart from a handful of people moaning on the internet, please explain how fans of LOI clubs are "whats wrong with the league"
54,321 sold - wws will never die - ***
---
New blog if anyone's interested - http://loihistory.wordpress.com/
LOI section on balls.ie - http://balls.ie/league-of-ireland/
Are you having a laugh? Gannon was the only reason the club existed in the first place.
I also think it'd be a good thing for the league to not have people involved who offer players - real people, like - contracts that they can only honour by some vague notions of investment and nothing else.
This improvement in footballing ability happened because you spent lots of money on players - it's not some kind of unexplainable occurence. If you hadn't spent the money, you wouldn't have been as good.
Again, I don't know how much of the club's money was directed to community-building, but according to a few posters of different clubs, real efforts were made. But any club is going to hit the rocks when a main sponsor/investor/financer pulls out, and with Fingal trying to maintain their style and quality of football (and spending money on players to do this), the low attendances was always going to cripple them.
Last edited by osarusan; 04/02/2011 at 3:39 PM.
Arf. Nothing to do with the €1m or so pumped in to sign good players it was just a coincidence was itJust because our footballing ability (ie winning FA cup, getting promoted playing in europe decently and qualifying for europe again) developed at a pace faster than its natural growth of a fanbase is not the clubs fault.
And I hate comments like this - suggesting that the problems Fingal have encountered are somehow endemic to the league and not the fault of the club's set-up. We should do something about it? No, this particular problem is Fingal's and Fingal's alone, and no other club should do things differently purely because of your over-reliance on one individual.
Don't forget licensing.
Not sure where I stand on the licencing thing. There's nothing wrong with people putting money into clubs. I'd do the same if I could. They got through last season without a bother, which is what licencing is supposed to look out for. However, it's hard to see how you can justify a licence for the coming year given that they have set outgoings (contracts) and no incomings (sponsorship not happening at present). So if they get a licence for 2011, it'll be a joke. For now - hard though it may be to say it - I don't think licencing has failed here.
Surely this could have been flagged weeks ago though when having preliminary meetings with clubs??
"Right, that's how much you plan spending on wages, how are you covering this outgoing?"
"Well, we have this fella who said he might give us a few bob in a few weeks"
"M'Kay............"
Four weeks to kick off and no one knows the story with Fingal, Bohs or Drogheda and to a lesser extent Galway.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, the licencing process is a complete sham, whos only purpose is to provide the FAI with excuses to get rid of clubs if they see fit.
It's such a pity it's too late to nominate this for post of the month.Silly question. Dont get too excited, all is well
You can't spell failure without FAI
So long as you feel good about yourself it's all that matters and I'm sure they're very proud of you. It's good you've moved on, if that helps, fair play. If you choose not to learn from making the mistake of digging, then that's your perogative. As I said, if you enjoy it, fair play.
Fair enough, but at least it was outside that fairly narrow triangle of LOI clubs and they were aimed at a part of Dublin that didn't have a "major" club. Even Malahide would have been a decent location. Doesn't look like any of it will matter now, mind you.
I have no hostility or affection towards SF, but having casually browsed this thread, a few observations/questions occur.
Was it? Or weren't all those things ancilliary to its main raison d'etre i.e. the setting-up of the club was an inducement to FCC to persuade it to permit Gannon to receive planning permission for a development which he hoped would make him rather more than he was sinking into SF?
Would tend to agree it should not be held against SF that they were parachuted etc. Imo, responsibility for that hasty decision can only rest with the FAI.
Was it really down to some sort of (inherent) "footballing ability"?
Or was it not actually down to the financial ability of Gannon to write cheques (to attract top players) which led to the team's success, thereby making it vulnerable the moment the cheques started to bounce?
Fair enough if all the other Community and Youth work etc were able to step up with home-grown players to replace the imported talent, but that does not seem to be the case.
No doubt that all that is highly admirable, but surely SF was not set up as some sort of "community project with a football team attached"? Was it not primarily meant to be a football club, which would incidentally also do valuable work in the community, the implication being that if the football club failed, then the community work would likely also end?
In which case, is FCC also not to be criticised for attaching their name and resources to a venture which was inherently unstable (esp since they were so involved in the creation of SF)?
How can you call it "unfortunate", almost as if his involvement was merely coincidental? Gannon effectively was SF, without him there would never have been an SF.
No doubt outside events contributed heavily towards SF's plight.
But do you consider that none of those events could not have been foreseen? Or even if unforeseeable, could not have been reacted to better?
And can you honestly claim that SF didn't also take wrong decisions which were solely down to the club itself and no-one else?
In what way were SF "supporting" the LOI?
Certainly they were participating in the League, but were they not taking out at least as much as they were putting back (eg by the "parachuting-in", at the expense of some other club, which you referred to earlier)?
No harm, but was anyone at SF saying that before the club started to go tits-up?
Surely those are the sorts of concerns Gannon and FCC should have been raising prior to committing so much to SF?
Fair point, except that permitting (arguably) fundamentally unsound clubs like SF to enter the League does not actually lead to greater "real competition" etc.
Rather it merely allows the League to "paper over the cracks" and persuade itself that all is well for another bit.
Imo, when it comes to apportioning blame, first and foremost Gannon must be condemned for reckless speculation, with money he didn't actually have.
But the banks who lent him money they didn't have, for development schemes they didn't properly evaluate, must also take their share of the blame. Ditto the Government, for not regulating the banks properly.
Thereafter FCC must be held accountable for misuse of local public resources in allowing themselves to go along with such an ill-conceived scheme.
Finally, even if they cannot be held accountable for wrong decisions which were made outside their domain, the minute the FAI allowed SF into the League, presumably without asking many (any?) searching questions, it ceased to be solely society's problem and became a footballing problem.
All of which might be tolerable (just), if it was the above bodies who had to carry the can. Instead, Gannon will likely live his life out without having to experience any great hardship; the banks have already been bailed out; the faces in the new Government will likely be much the same as in the old, and FCC will just stick it onto the ratepayers and carry on pretty much as before. And within the FAI, I certainly don't see, or expect, any sign of Delaney and his cronies being forced to step aside.
In fact, the only people who will really suffer from all this will be those who have least culpability for it ever happening - the players and the fans.
Quite honestly, it is all a parable of the times that are in it, sad to say...
<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/grbSQ6O6kbs" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
I wish i did not know then what I dont know now
This thread has become a bit of a Dundalk civil war!
My 2 cents worth - Fingal have, as others have previously, inflated the amounts of money demanded by available players by simply offering huge contracts. This in itself is not a problem if it can be afforded in a long term sustainable manner. Resentment occurs from other clubs and fans alike as it prices them out of the market for players that will ultimately compete! This is particularily hard to stomach by people involved with clubs that have lived with mediocrity, sacrificing short term success to maintain the existance of the club - Monaghan a prime example. Nobody has issue with new clubs entering the league eg Youths, why? cause they are building a sustainable entity. Indeed many fans would hail them as a beacon of how it should be done...should i say a model club!
Now I, as a Dundalk Fan, am only too aware of the follies of our past and how we flirted with our demise. It is arguable that we were reckless but alas survived, seemingly copped on, and are now not spending more than we can afford - removing the big spenders of Bohs and Fingal, that could still have us 4 or so on players budget. I certainly hope that seemingly endless signings for both rovers is that these clubs have, based on past experience, shows evidence of progression rather than anything else. I hope that we continue as we are and in due course will be in a similar state of play.
Spud - i see where you are coming from, but i also see guinneys points too in fairness
Last edited by Nesta99; 04/02/2011 at 5:28 PM.
Posting Permissions
Quote
Bookmarks