Dolan- 'Wage Cap is Stupid"

**Mr A** · 07/09/2007, 11:16 AM

Pat Dolan reckons that the 65% of turnover wage cap due to come in next season is stupid and unworkable.

See http://www.elevenaside.com/eircomlea...p?newsid=29213

**Dodge** · 07/09/2007, 11:17 AM

I thought he might. We're still trying to pay off the debts from his last squad of 40+ players

**Schumi** · 07/09/2007, 11:20 AM

He's half right. It's not stupid but it probably is unworkable.

**superfrank** · 07/09/2007, 11:30 AM

It'll be very much unworkable if the figure is set at "65% of turnover". An exact figure calculated for every individual club based on it's financial situation would be a better idea but probably equally as hard to implement.

The wage cap is a brilliant idea though, imo.

**Aaron** · 07/09/2007, 11:55 AM

There's no doubt that the wage cap is an excellent idea. Shels are a prime example of why it is needed. Whether it is workable or not remains to be seen. My main concern would be quality players would go accross to lower standard clubs for more money in ENgland because some of out top clubs here can't break the wage cap to keep them.

**Mr A** · 07/09/2007, 12:00 PM

This has been flagged for a long time. The FAI at this stage should have given careful thought to and taken advice on how to administer this rule. If it can't be enforced there isn't a lot of point, but if it can it'll be a big step forward for the league.

**monutdfc** · 07/09/2007, 12:05 PM

And not only how to monitor/administer the rule but what the penalties are for breaking it

**Mr A** · 07/09/2007, 12:15 PM

Originally Posted by monutdfc

And not only how to monitor/administer the rule but what the penalties are for breaking it

Warnings, were necessary severe ones aplenty methinks will be the height of it.

Personally I think there should be a scale of punishments from fines or points deductions for minor infractions to relegation to the complete withdrawal of a club's license for repeated infringements.

It'd have to be sufficiently well thought out so as not to heavily punish clubs that are generally well-run but have one nightmare season (I'm thinking Harps last season here) which causes the percentages to be artificially altered yet have teeth enough to deter consistent bad practice.

**Jaime** · 07/09/2007, 12:17 PM

Originally Posted by City till I Die

There's no doubt that the wage cap is an excellent idea. Shels are a prime example of why it is needed. Whether it is workable or not remains to be seen. My main concern would be quality players would go accross to lower standard clubs for more money in ENgland because some of out top clubs here can't break the wage cap to keep them.

There is more than one team in this league who have at some stage been extremely close to going to the wall...

**Dodge** · 07/09/2007, 12:32 PM

Originally Posted by Jaime

There is more than one team in this league who have at some stage been extremely close to going to the wall...

Would be surprised if there was more than one team that hasn't gone close to going bust...

**Jerry The Saint** · 07/09/2007, 12:48 PM

Originally Posted by Mr A

Pat Dolan reckons that the 65% of turnover wage cap due to come in next season is stupid and unworkable.

See http://www.elevenaside.com/eircomlea...p?newsid=29213

I think Dolan was actually setting up this joke on purpose but anyway, here goes...

Pat Dolan has some cheek talking about Stupid Caps

**Dodge** · 07/09/2007, 12:55 PM

Easy! Easy! Easy!

**gilberto_eire** · 07/09/2007, 1:24 PM

Originally Posted by superfrank

It'll be very much unworkable if the figure is set at "65% of turnover". An exact figure calculated for every individual club based on it's financial situation would be a better idea but probably equally as hard to implement.

The wage cap is a brilliant idea though, imo.

but is it now put down indivisually considering its 65% of there turnover??.... every club will have differant turn-over!!

**Aaron** · 07/09/2007, 1:25 PM

Originally Posted by Jaime

There is more than one team in this league who have at some stage been extremely close to going to the wall...

I know what you mean but no other club in this island has been sanctioned like Shels were and i'd comfortably say no other team has run up the debts Shels have. We ourselves were extremely close to going bust, but our debts were dwarfed by the enormity of that of Shels

**superfrank** · 07/09/2007, 2:06 PM

Originally Posted by gilberto_eire

but is it now put down indivisually considering its 65% of there turnover??.... every club will have differant turn-over!!

But some clubs could be making a lot of money on transfers, especially with the supposed compensation rule to come in, and very little on attendances. In these cases, a different figure should be calculated, imo.

**passerrby** · 07/09/2007, 2:12 PM

two different issues here firstly pat is wrong again the league needs this if it to be taken seriouly by both investers and by the revenue in terms of future tax breaks but i am weary of the licencing department controling this for example do clubs get punished at he end of the season ater they publish there annaul acounts thereby altering the tables for winners and losers and will the fai have the stomich to penilise certain clubs after the league ends a makeing us look even more silly. a sticky one but neccessary

**superfrank** · 07/09/2007, 2:16 PM

It happens in other leagues. Clubs get thrown out of the league over licensing issues or financial irregularities. La Louvi�re in Belgium where refused a license over a gambling scandal and ended up in the Belgian regional leagues. Ferencv�ros in Hungary were dropped down a few divisions over board corruption, iirc. Then there's the whole Serie A scandal although the punishments were relatively milder.

With the demotion of Shels, it's been shown that the FAI do have some balls and it's up tot he clubs to see they won't get away with it.

**passerrby** · 07/09/2007, 2:21 PM

i would like to think so to but shels was a long time coming and licensing had to be pushed to make any dicision.
i think there is a lot of clubs presently in breach of there licences without any major punishments

**Schumi** · 07/09/2007, 2:23 PM

Originally Posted by superfrank

But some clubs could be making a lot of money on transfers, especially with the supposed compensation rule to come in, and very little on attendances. In these cases, a different figure should be calculated, imo.

There are several issues to be addressed.

The most basic is what counts as turnover. Would a high turnover, low profit addition to the a club (e.g. a pub) allow a club to spend loads of money on wages?

Secondly when would a club's turnover be calculated? If it's after the season, a bad season and subsequent loss of crowds could leave a club having wage commitments above 65% of their turnover through no real fault of theirs. If the turnover figure is calculated before the season, is it based on a projected budget? If so, I'd be concerned given the lack of action on budgets from Dublin City when they went bust that were clearly ridiculous.

There are most likely other issues too but these are the first ones that come to mind.

**superfrank** · 07/09/2007, 2:24 PM

Well I don't think they should remove clubs in the middle of season. In fact, I doubt anyone believes that's the way to go. Points deductions are the best way during the season, imo.

I don't think fining el clubs is the way to go. They're not exactly rich as it is. Demotion and something like the English FA did to Leeds a few days ago would be good. They can't vote on general FA issues and they can't get international tickets for the club.