End of Season Pay Protocol

**Rovers Maniac** · 30/10/2008, 9:25 AM

Independent.ie
Thursday October 30 2008

Eircom League chief Fran Gavin says he is open to renegotiating the 65pc salary cost protocol.

Gavin is anticipating difficulty at the end of the season, with clubs desperately negotiating wage cuts in order to come in under the threshold.

And he acknowledges that the method of deciding who has met the requirement is not ideal - it has infuriated the PFAI and those clubs who have not budgeted erroneously, who argue there should be monthly sanctions in accordance with regular checks - but says that the clubs need to agree on a suitable alternative to enforce the rule.

"Yes, we will review it. Our concern is that they stay under the 65pc,"said Gavin.

Gavin insists that some clubs must remain full-time if progress is to be made.

With 79pc of the players out of contract at the end of the year, it remains to be seen if that will happen.

http://www.independent.ie/sport/socc...s-1513108.html

So the FAI are not going to get strict on teams that are over 65% !

**Dodge** · 30/10/2008, 10:27 AM

Originally Posted by Rovers Maniac

Gavin insists that some clubs must remain full-time if progress is to be made.

Sounds like the FAI will be funded Pats or Bohs...

**Macy** · 30/10/2008, 10:33 AM

Originally Posted by Rovers Maniac

So the FAI are not going to get strict on teams that are over 65% !

The FAI fudged it when they allowed donations and promises to be made to breach the 65%. Renegotiate it? The FAI stamped all over it from the get go.

**holidaysong** · 30/10/2008, 10:41 AM

It's a farce.

The FAI moving the goalposts again.. They don't have the balls to follow through with their own rules and punish the offenders. If they bend the rules in the first year of the rules then the wage cap has had it!

**pineapple stu** · 30/10/2008, 10:52 AM

This was always coming, in fairness. The FAI couldn't punish ten or so clubs, so they'll just tell them they'll be serious from next year, and publicly praise themselves for the progress they've made towards their goal going forward in the family of football.

**holidaysong** · 30/10/2008, 10:55 AM

If I was involved in UCD, I'd be considering legal action..

**jebus** · 30/10/2008, 10:56 AM

This league is a jokeshop, that is all

**dublinred** · 30/10/2008, 11:07 AM

I think each club and the FAI should agree a % in advance and adhere to it , 65% is harsh on clubs who have very few outgoings except for players wages.

**thischarmingman** · 30/10/2008, 11:16 AM

Originally Posted by holidaysong

If I was involved in UCD, I'd be considering legal action..

Couldn't agree more.

**pineapple stu** · 30/10/2008, 11:18 AM

Originally Posted by holidaysong

If I was involved in UCD, I'd be considering legal action..

No you wouldn't, because the league rules expressly forbid that. And also, legal action is expensive (even with the contacts we have). And also also, we've enough on our plate chasing clubs who owe us money without looking to take more action to try and stay up when ultimately, we've been pish poor this season anyway.

Londonred - there's not a shred of evidence that the 65% rule is too constrictive. There's not much evidence the other way either, but you can't say that it's too low for no reason. That's what all the clubs who want to overspend and kill themselves are saying, so we can immediately discount their arguments.

**Battery Rover** · 30/10/2008, 11:22 AM

Originally Posted by londonred

I think each club and the FAI should agree a % in advance and adhere to it , 65% is harsh on clubs who have very few outgoings except for players wages.

Personally I believe it is not harsh enough. Somewhere about 50% should be enforced and include all staff including managers etc. It would force club to putting money into club structure, development etc.

**stann** · 30/10/2008, 11:23 AM

Originally Posted by Rovers Maniac

Eircom League chief Fran Gavin says he is open to renegotiating the 65pc salary cost protocol.

Originally Posted by londonred

I think each club and the FAI should agree a % in advance and adhere to it , 65% is harsh on clubs who have very few outgoings except for players wages.

Maybe Gavin's opening shot is quite deliberate so.
With so many clubs publicly struggling, there might be a bit of a conflab, a re-jiggle "in the interests of the league going forward", then the FAI can say 'we're serious starting from this year, and it'll be 75%'.

Edit: Personally I think two thirds is plenty, BTW.

**Dodge** · 30/10/2008, 11:42 AM

Originally Posted by holidaysong

If I was involved in UCD, I'd be considering legal action..

If I was Galway I'd be considering legal action. They're the only club "sanctioned" under the 65% thing (when the league imposed a transfer sanction on them)

**MariborKev** · 30/10/2008, 12:10 PM

Originally Posted by Dodge

If I was Galway I'd be considering legal action. They're the only club "sanctioned" under the 65% thing (when the league imposed a transfer sanction on them)

Dodge,

Other clubs were sanctioned, Galway were the only one to go public about it.

**Dodge** · 30/10/2008, 12:35 PM

Cheers Maribor, didn't realise that.

Any details

**Mr A** · 30/10/2008, 12:53 PM

Sligo had a transfer embargo enforced as well.

**jinxy lilywhite** · 30/10/2008, 2:55 PM

Originally Posted by londonred

I think each club and the FAI should agree a % in advance and adhere to it , 65% is harsh on clubs who have very few outgoings except for players wages.

I don't think it goes far enough. I can't see how 65% is harsh on clubs. Clubs need to learn to stand on their own two feet and they have to become viable entities.
If i had my way I'd step the wage cap. Clubs with high debts would have their wage restriction at 50%, clubs with normal or average debts @ 65%.
Because of some clubs blatant disregard for the wage cap teams that have abided by the rules are ultimately the ones that will suffer.
I hope for next season the FAI stop these sugar daddys directly paying for players wages. Gate receipts, season tickets should do that.
I'm all for investment into clubs but they should really be used to improve the infrastructure of the club and not for the day to day running of it

**pineapple stu** · 30/10/2008, 2:58 PM

Originally Posted by jinxy lilywhite

I hope for next season the FAI stop these sugar daddys directly paying for players wages. Gate receipts, season tickets should do that.

I don't. If they want to pay wages and improve the league, let them. I do hope that the FAI stop these sugar daddies saying they'll pay for wages, and then bailing out leaving the club high and dry.

**Bald Student** · 30/10/2008, 3:06 PM

I think Gavin has a point. Bray are clearly cutting wages to try to duck in under the 65% limit. They might well have planned properly at the start, only to have crowds dip near the end of the season leaving them a little on the wrong side of the law.

It's reasonable enough to notice that and adjust the rules for next year. The rules for this year should be enforced as they're written down but It'd be better next year for Bray (or whatever equivalent mid-table club) to be allowed finish the season on 70% (or whatever), with some agreed sanction, than to have a club drastically change its structures in the few weeks before the season ends.

**Ronnie** · 30/10/2008, 3:06 PM

The protocol is not the problem. It needs to be done almost on a case by case basis - if a club can turnover 1m, the 65% is too high. If a club is only going to turnover 300k, the 65% is too low.