St. Pats going back part time!

**SMorgan** · 20/12/2008, 7:13 PM

Originally Posted by Dundalkjames

I'd say Fingal will spend an enormous amount of money and win the 1st division

I may take a run up the road to Drogheda next season and take in a couple of First Division matches!!

**BohsPartisan** · 20/12/2008, 7:15 PM

Originally Posted by holidaysong

Eh yeah, it peaked at 28th in 2010 and has slipped away since..

How long have I been asleep for?

**sonofstan** · 20/12/2008, 7:27 PM

Anyone beginning to discern a pattern here? we ask players to take a 30% cut, then Cork re-sign most of their players on 'substantially reduced' contracts, and now Pats do this - it must be, by now, clear to even the densest player that the gravy train has stopped and holding on to what you've got mightn't even be an option. Perhaps that meeting in Sligo achieved something after all?

Assuming our board- or their successors - can be trusted to stick to their guns (a big assumption....), I would expect Pats to do so also: and I don't think anyone else has any option but to try and scrape by this year. Oddly, we may end up spending most this year, while still being well down on last year. it should also mean that instead of a big 5 there be a relatively level playing field of about 6-7 teams (Us, Pats, Cork, Derry, Sligo, Rovers, maybe Galway or Dundalk) with Bray and Drogs - if they survive - (otherwise Harps) as the poor relations. Either way, it'll be interesting.

**AnnaghRed** · 20/12/2008, 10:46 PM

Originally Posted by holidaysong

Eh yeah, it peaked at 28th in 2010 and has slipped away since..

Figures are computed over 5 seasons. My bad, should have pointed that out for the slow-witted.

**Celdrog** · 21/12/2008, 12:05 AM

Originally Posted by SMorgan

I may take a run up the road to Drogheda next season and take in a couple of First Division matches!!

I'd check the fixtures first Sid, last time I checked we were a Premier division side.
Mind you, it must be exciting to be back in the premier league after soooooo long. Guess that's why you are so giddy

**holidaysong** · 21/12/2008, 2:00 AM

Originally Posted by AnnaghRed

Figures are computed over 5 seasons. My bad, should have pointed that out for the slow-witted.

I'm quite aware that the figures are done over five years. That dip post 2010 assumes that the points picked up in the future won't be better than the years we lose. That might happen of course but I don't think you can claim that the league ranking has peaked and has started slipping away based on the assumption that we won't get higher points in the further than we got in the seasons we lose.

**pineapple stu** · 21/12/2008, 11:36 AM

We didn't do as well this year compared to the last two years is his point, I think. But only marginally. And mainly because countries below us (like Belarus) had a superb year rather than us slipping noticeably.

Co-efficients determine seeding and ultimately progress in Europe (as about 80% of ties are won by the seeded teams). Progress means better chance of a Hertha Berlin style bumper pay day, so the co-efficients are important.

But ultimately, the "glory days" of the league in Europe seem to be over, I think. Next year's shaping up to be a very interesting season.

I wonder also to what extent the wage cut has been brought about by the fact that everyone is cutting back, so Pat's don't need to offer the same high wages as everyone else to keep the same players?

**pete** · 21/12/2008, 12:33 PM

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

I wonder also to what extent the wage cut has been brought about by the fact that everyone is cutting back, so Pat's don't need to offer the same high wages as everyone else to keep the same players?

Are the people running LOI clubs that smart? History would not seem to back it up...

Coefficients are important up to a point but more importantly we need a vibrant league. Next season could be interesting as clubs will definitely have smaller squads which will allow the smaller clubs to challenge if they can stay free of injuries. Think we will also see a lot of younger players in the league.

**Dodge** · 21/12/2008, 12:49 PM

Originally Posted by sligoman

Didn't Dodge say that even if yer man cut back on money, Pat's wouldn't be affected for another year or so? Surely he wasn't wrong?

I said if he pulled out. And he hasn't. They just realised they were spending far too much money on wages. Something everyone else already knew.

I'd expect us to till be the top spenders next year, as everyone else is cutting back.

**oriel** · 21/12/2008, 12:53 PM

Originally Posted by sonofstan

Anyone beginning to discern a pattern here? we ask players to take a 30% cut, then Cork re-sign most of their players on 'substantially reduced' contracts, and now Pats do this - it must be, by now, clear to even the densest player that the gravy train has stopped and holding on to what you've got mightn't even be an option. Perhaps that meeting in Sligo achieved something after all?

Assuming our board- or their successors - can be trusted to stick to their guns (a big assumption....), I would expect Pats to do so also: and I don't think anyone else has any option but to try and scrape by this year. Oddly, we may end up spending most this year, while still being well down on last year. it should also mean that instead of a big 5 there be a relatively level playing field of about 6-7 teams (Us, Pats, Cork, Derry, Sligo, Rovers, maybe Galway or Dundalk) with Bray and Drogs - if they survive - (otherwise Harps) as the poor relations. Either way, it'll be interesting.

I dont think full time football will ever work in this country, we simply dont have the population or interest to substain it. Most football people at everyones work are mainly interesed in english football first, then the ireland team then maybe the odd few on LOI. I think there is no harm having half full time and the rest part time in each team. Besides its better for players to have a job so they have something to fall back into when they hit their mid 30's.

For full time footoball to work, we would need avg attendances of 5,000. Have we even half that ?

Also from your list of clubs above and the level playing field, i agree with you to a certain extent, even now there is no clear favourite to win the lge. With so many club facing difficulties, we could well finish higher than expeted (but cant say more as we only have 6 players !!!)

**dcfcsteve** · 21/12/2008, 9:01 PM

Originally Posted by oriel

I dont think full time football will ever work in this country, we simply dont have the population or interest to substain it. Most football people at everyones work are mainly interesed in english football first, then the ireland team then maybe the odd few on LOI. I think there is no harm having half full time and the rest part time in each team. Besides its better for players to have a job so they have something to fall back into when they hit their mid 30's.

For full time footoball to work, we would need avg attendances of 5,000. Have we even half that ?

Also from your list of clubs above and the level playing field, i agree with you to a certain extent, even now there is no clear favourite to win the lge. With so many club facing difficulties, we could well finish higher than expeted (but cant say more as we only have 6 players !!!)

There is no magical attendance figure at which full-time football would work.

All you have to do is spend on players' wages what you can afford. Hey presto - affordable full-time football.

It's when clubs spend more on players than they can afford that it goes wrong. But there is nothing inherently wrong with the concept of full0time football - just the way it's usually done.

**sonofstan** · 21/12/2008, 10:12 PM

I think Oriel's figure of 5k crowds is accurate enough, actually. The sums are easy enough: 20 full time players/ Staff at an average of €50k PA (gross including PRSI etc) =€1m. 20 gates (18 league 2 home cup games) of 5,000 at €10 per head (to allow for conc. and season tickets) = €1m - all other income going towards non- footballing overheads.

Given that Cork must be the only club in the country to come near that kind of gate income whilst at least 4 clubs must have had a wage bill over the €1m mark last year and the root of the problem is obvious.

You can't really employ someone full time in this economy for less than €50k all in (that's not €50k gross - it includes employers PRSI, insurance, etc.) and you can't compete with fewer than 18 full time players, a manager and a coach, so any lower figure is unrealistic.

**Student Mullet** · 21/12/2008, 11:57 PM

This discussion is like the Celtic Tiger under the microscope. Instead of buying what we want and then trying to find the money, we should look at how much money we have and then buy what we can afford.

**pineapple stu** · 22/12/2008, 8:40 AM

Originally Posted by joey4ireland

Look at Linfield they have a few full time players don't they?

Linfield rent their ground to the IFA though, so they're not really a fair comparison (though your point about spending what you have is valid obviously).

You can't really say 5000 is the magic marker for full-time football as that completely ignores ancillary income - bar income, sponsorship, etc - which is the most part of a football club's income.

**Dodge** · 22/12/2008, 9:29 AM

Yeah, but if we were getting crowds of 5,000 ancillary income would be sure to rise in tandem

**pineapple stu** · 22/12/2008, 10:21 AM

Probably, but not certain to the extent that you can ignore it and settle on any one arbitrary figure. A decent bit of fundarising depends on who the board know, for example, which is separate from attendances.

**OneRedArmy** · 22/12/2008, 11:58 AM

Some of the posts on here are hilarious.

Even if Pats had the money to continue to spend as they have, given the armageddon thats happening around them in the League you'd be a fool not to take the opportunity to cut back.

Its a shame that the full-time experiment is effectively over, as European results will probably take a bit of a hit, but it was the only logical outcome given the fact that full-time football has been unsustainable and the days of sugar daddies subsidising clubs is over.

Next season should be very interesting.

**blackholesun** · 22/12/2008, 12:51 PM

Originally Posted by Dodge

Yeah, but if we were getting crowds of 5,000 ancillary income would be sure to rise in tandem

If your auntie had balls, she'd be your uncle etc ...

What was Pats average gate last season? It was no where near 5,000.

The turnout at some of the games was terrible considering the money being spent / wasted on the team.

bhs

**pineapple stu** · 22/12/2008, 12:54 PM

Completely not the point though.

**Dodge** · 22/12/2008, 1:11 PM

Originally Posted by blackholesun

If your auntie had balls, she'd be your uncle etc ...

What was Pats average gate last season? It was no where near 5,000.

The turnout at some of the games was terrible considering the money being spent / wasted on the team.

I wasn't talking about Pats, and I've never argued against anything you say there.

Not really sure why you're quoting me...