Hopefully there are good add ons.....youd have to think so... but 300k (if that's the number) for a guy we signed for free 18 months ago is a decent result when you look at the going rate for players from here and the fact that in many cases clubs get no fee at all.
This could set a new bar for all clubs , if someone offers Cork money for Sadlier or Dundalk money for McGrath they can refer to this as a benchmark.
Its good news for the league.
It should encourage clubs to offer their best prospects longer contracts and that has to be good also.
Might even make a few barstoolers think we have a league that's worth taking a look at.
I'm inclined to agree with Nigel. It might also depress prices if this becomes the benchmark for capped internationals with experience. I often think clubs are too quick to snatch the first offer that comes along because it stands in the young lad's way of giving it a real go. It might be the closeness of boards to players, and a good reason for clubs to have stronger corporate structures off the pitch.
Edit
I'm with Sbgawa on the benefits of long-term contracts.
Hello, hello? What's going on? What's all this shouting, we'll have no trouble here!
- E Tattsyrup.
The length remaining in a contract is obviously a huge issue in determining a fee where a UK club is interested. But it is a difficult one for clubs - they may offer longer term deals, but it is not automatic that a player will accept it.
Jamie McGrath had just agreed a 1 year extension, following a similar pattern from Towell, Boyle and Horgan who were all able to negotiate sweeter deals for themselves because they were out of contract.
Maybe the era of offering promising 20 year olds four year deals is on the horizon, but it is fraught with all sorts of risks
The flip side I suppose is that it's 300k for a guy who flopped at Notts County (5 goals in 52 games, mostly in League Two)
The goal v USA wasn't really his as such, and the call up in the first place said as much about our lack of forwards than Burke's ability.
I could understand Preston looking at this as a bit of a risk.
For Rovers to turn zero into 300000 in 18 months is decent business.
And obviously best of luck to the guy if he does move.
By all accounts Rovers could do with the money and sooner rather than later as general running costs have them in need of another directors loan if other income isnt attained. European money this season with the transfer income will plug the hole in the finances. Even with larger average gates the club was running at a loss year on year so this year has been damaging. One of the reason for not giving Bradley the shove is the liklihood of it costing them added to the cost of signing a new man who will probably want to have a budget to bring in his own players too. With the possibility of no Europe next season, and unless a couple of transfers materialised to bolster the books then the supporters owned model was going to finish as a condition to additional director loans. This is from the horses mouth too, an actively involved member that I work with who is pretty worried about things. 300k + add ons and accepting that the full amount isnt being paid up front in one lump would back up the claims of an urgent need for money in. Time maybe to make the player budget the 6th highest in the league or lower!!Originally Posted by nigel-harps1954
Have to laugh reading this, so much made up sh*t!
Which parts?
Director's loan?
Gates down on last season?
Having to pay Bradley off if sacked, then paying a new manager?
Possibility of no Europe next season?
You're a bully.
Directors loan was for the new youth Academy and training facility - not day to day running of the club.
http://www.intallaght.ie/rovers-acad...l-footballers/
We're really proud of it!
Possibility of no Europe next season? Possibly, we'll adjust budget accordingly.
Schlingermann is leaving Sligo.
Waterford will be in need of a keeper come the transfer window, aye?
You would know all about made up sh!t Asterix!! I am repeating what was said to me but lets break it down for you and answer yes or know to keep it simple for you.
If the directors loan for the academy isnt paid back within an agreed time frame then the loan becomes shares in the club, yes or no?
Registered accounts have shown that year on year debts are being accrued, yes or no?
Part of the loan for the academy also paid accrued general expenses?
Budgeted income is down this season and this will be compounded by a lack of European football next season?
The budget shortfall is growing as season progresses and there is a split board on what to do about Bradley due to the cost of removing him and appointing a new manager as this will compound the growing 2018 debt.
Another directors loan was considered and this will increase the control over the club by the diretor if taken up essentially removing the 800 club's majority ownership?
The transfer fee for Burke is not required to be paid in one lump up front as cash flow is tight and that this is a timely development?
Additional transfers are hoped for for next season to cover the financial hole left by the absence of European income?
Dan Cleary had no release clause demand in his contract proposal with Rovers and Bradley just didnt rate him?
The Rover's project is going backwards right now and it is a worry especially as Bradley will be a costly dismissal?
Simple yes or no answers will suffice Asterix, it wont be too taxing on you!
Last edited by Nesta99; 07/06/2018 at 9:49 PM.
I think id probably add according to Nigel our gates this year per last update are 2914 and last year was 2809....attendances are up which isn't bad considering results/mid week games....
This is the same old rabbit hole though .....
I suspect this is the single most pressing issue.
Not qualifying for Europe and any resultant budget cut would be a big backward step. The current squad plus Mannus is well fit to get 4th place and hope its good enough.
The results over the last 2 months however point in the opposite direction.
No directors loan for additional stake in the club can be considered without the majority of the members club voting to approve it at an AGM/EGM and personally I seriously doubt this will happen.
As i have said "Another directors loan was considered (by the board) and this will increase the control over the club by the diretor if taken up essentially removing the 800 club's majority ownership?" If the previous loan isnt paid back - when is that due to be recalled, then its a formality to increase shareholding as 50% will go out of the supporters hands so .1% of the supporters vote is all that is needed for a basic majority on any decision!? Unless there is a clause that requires a 2/3 majority to make certain structural or ownership changes?
The initial loan had to be, and was approved by the members before the board could do anything. Same goes for any additional loan that would involve extra stake in the club. The board simply can't accept it without our approval and I can't see anything being approved as the members club would lose control of the club. Your pal who knows everything about rovers obviously isn't a member or else doesn't understand how things work.
As I recall, Ray Wilson gave Rovers a loan of €1.5m and it is repayable by 2026. If not, he takes a 50% stake in the club.
That is my recollection from a couple of years ago.
Dundalk fans on here have a real penchant for talking our of their ar$e.
If this was USA they'd be trump supporters I'd wager.
Fair play to Burke in getting a chance across the water, and fair play to the manager/board in tying him down to a deal that would reap some financial benefits.
The first part is as precise as a Pico Lopes tackle. If there is something to refute then say so specifically.
I agree with the second part. Fair dues to both player and club.
Dundalk fans really clutching at straws in order to put the boot in on Shamrock. Wouldn't it be the case that the 51% of the club that is owned by members is a single block in terms of voting. The idea that one member going against the rest of the membership and swaying a decision is laughable.
Nesta has a better understanding as to the significance of a single owner owning 50% as opposed to 299 owning the other 50%.
Posting Permissions
Quote
Bookmarks