Boom or bust

[BohDiddley]

The rest of your post is just using big words where an actual point is called for.

OK, if you don't like the words, let's do the figures.

Are your accounts available in the wild and online? Are you prepared to divulge the numbers that underpin your position and which you hold up as model practice?

I'd be interested in what's in there, and, probably more significantly, what's not, in order to establish the extent of this strictly 'non-Government' support. After all, you and everyone else have had a good look at BFC's...

[pineapple stu]

Are your accounts available in the wild and online?

Nope, but neither are several other clubs' accounts.

I can tell you where our non-matchday income comes from, if you'd like. The Superleague, sponsorship and donations, golf events, club dinner - good old fashioned fundraising, just like normal clubs. There is a relatively small sum - I'm not sure how much exactly - which we receive from the college as part of the grants which all sports clubs receive, but that basically covers the cost of putting out two intermediate teams. It certainly doesn't bankroll us, like you'd want to believe. And it doesn't come from the Government either; it's part of student registration fees. Akin in a way to Bohs boosting their income by charging membership fees.

[marinobohs]

[quote=endabob1;1185742]What's with the accountant bashing??




A league of clubs who are being run profitably will no solve all the leagues problems, this much is true but it would certainly go a long way to stopping the leauge being looked on as a laughing stock in certain quarters.

Not really sure on this point either. For many years the barstoolers knocked LOI as "part time" "rubbish football" etc etc. Now with the (however misguided) investment/spendfest they choose to knock the poor financial side. Personally I see no point in worrying about the "certain quarters" that laugh at Irish football because they are too lazy too get off their backsides but want to kid themselves they are "real fans" of the beautiful game.
The game here needs to focus on what can be done for those genuinely interested in Irish football and not the mythical hoardes that will "decend" on grounds as soon as ..............

[BohDiddley]

I can tell you where our non-matchday income comes from, if you'd like. The Superleague, sponsorship and donations, golf events, club dinner - good old fashioned fundraising, just like normal clubs. There is a relatively small sum - I'm not sure how much exactly - which we receive from the college as part of the grants which all sports clubs receive, but that basically covers the cost of putting out two intermediate teams. It certainly doesn't bankroll us, like you'd want to believe.

I'm interested in the expenditure, or even non-expenditure side:
Who pays for ground and other facilities; groundsman, physio and other overheads, rates, electricity -- all that real world stuff?
And what have I left out? it's the omissions, the stuff that you're let off with, that really matter here.
It would be interesting go get hold of the Bohs accounts and see what figures UCD would put in our boxes. Then, along with the quality of the UCD wisdom that is by contrast so accessible here, we could assess to what extent you are subsidised by public funds relative to Waterford etc.

And it doesn't come from the Government either; it's part of student registration fees. Akin in a way to Bohs boosting their income by charging membership fees.

As discussed earlier, your denial of Government funding is a fig leaf. Student fees cover only a fraction of the cost of running the college. Even if the 'small sum' of direct subsidy comes directly from fees, it is probable that your overhead let-offs matter much more. They come from the college, which is funded by central government.

And I don't think a membership paying fees in any way compares to a general student body being forced to subscribe to support a football club. The fomer group literally are the club; the latter, it seems, don't even know it exists.

[Schumi]

Thank you. So, while you may not, as you have loudly protested, receive funds from 'the Government', you do receive funds from the public purse.

Didn't the FAI buy Dalymount for you? The €65m you would have sold it for, if your board stayed sober, dwarfs anything that UCD, Waterford, Rovers or anyone else have ever received from public funds.

We don't, however, have a procession of externally-supported experts from Waterford etc. coming on to tut-tut gleefully at the mistakes of those who don't enjoy such supports, while posturing as paragons of standalone financial virtue.

Of course not, the same way we don't have Gerorge Bush complaining about people starting wars. You may however have noticed similar views about sustainable expenditure from fans of another Southside club.

[pineapple stu]

Who pays for ground and other facilities; groundsman, physio and other overheads, rates, electricity -- all that real world stuff?

The club. We get the ground rent-free; that's it (a similar arrangement with other clubs). We even pay for the scholarships we award. Some of our players are amateur. We can't afford to pay them more, so we don't.

But I think we're gone way off topic. The question is - would you rather win the league a couple of times and then go bust, or be a steady team challenging every now and again for a few cups, but safe in the knowledge that you'll be around in ten years' time. Your views on UCD's finances are irrelevant (as well as being nonsense).

[Dodge]

Your views on UCD's finances are irrelevant

And your views on Bohs are completely relevant?

[micls]

I'l go with long term stability please.

The last year has made it clear to me and a lot of other city fans that 'chasing the dream' simply isnt worth it. Make the club stable and build your way up, a la shamrock rovers.

Also, when we started spending ridiculous amounts of money, we actually started doing awfully in the league....

[pineapple stu]

And your views on Bohs are completely relevant?

Not in the context of the specific question posed in post 1 (as stated in my post), to which I was trying to return the thread, having bored of BohDiddley's hyperbole.

You're getting very bad at selective quoting lately, Dodge...

[endabob1]

Not really sure on this point either. For many years the barstoolers knocked LOI as "part time" "rubbish football" etc etc. Now with the (however misguided) investment/spendfest they choose to knock the poor financial side. Personally I see no point in worrying about the "certain quarters" that laugh at Irish football because they are too lazy too get off their backsides but want to kid themselves they are "real fans" of the beautiful game.
The game here needs to focus on what can be done for those genuinely interested in Irish football and not the mythical hoardes that will "decend" on grounds as soon as ..............

Fair points Marino but part of the leagues problem is attendances, and at the moment the "mythical hordes" are just that BUT look around the world, there isn't a football club anywhere from Madrid to Monaghan who aren't trying every trick in the book to win over the masses.
More people through the gate means more money. More money equals better facilities, better facilities equals better players, better players means improved standards and therefore (theoretically at least) more people through the gates.
It's the circle of life, at some point you need to get on board.

[Dodge]

Not in the context of the specific question posed in post 1 (as stated in my post)

You're getting very bad at selective quoting lately, Dodge...

I don't think the quote is taken out of contest at all. And I think your dismissive attitude to people questioning UCD is completely at odds at your own, constant, questioning of other clubs.

[pineapple stu]

I've answered all his questions. However, a potentially interesting thread has gone way off track, and I wanted (as a mod) to try and get it back on track.

If you want to split the posts and start (another) new UCD finances thread, fire ahead. I've no bothers discussing it, although BohDiddley is more looking for what he wants to hear rather than actually discuss things.

[Dodge]

The thread is still very much on topic IMO

[Rovers1]

go on the lads!

[pineapple stu]

The thread is still very much on topic IMO

It clearly isn't. You can see this by the way we're discussing UCD's finances rather than the question posed in post 1.

In any event, I've answered all BD's questions, and if he wants to ask more, I'll answer them as best I can.

[Dodge]

its a discussion thread, not a poll. Amongst those talked about in the initial post were Bohs finances and UCD's finances. How can talking about them not be on topic?

[marinobohs]

But I think we're gone way off topic. The question is - would you rather win the league a couple of times and then go bust, or be a steady team challenging every now and again for a few cups, but safe in the knowledge that you'll be around in ten years' time. Your views on UCD's finances are irrelevant (as well as being nonsense).

Darn it, I knew those layabout students were ripping us all off Think that most clubs have had some assistance from public bodies be they local authorities or linked institutions (FAI) or indeed direct Government grants. Didnt Shams have a sweetheart deal on rent for Milltown before it was sold ? the only problem I have is that there is not enough breaks for clubs (why the Govt don't give some some form of tax breaks....).

Fun though it would be I think its stretching things to suggest Cork/Bohs/Rovers/Drogs/Shels financial woes were as a result of UCD's unfair advantage

[pineapple stu]

its a discussion thread, not a poll. Amongst those talked about in the initial post were Bohs finances and UCD's finances. How can talking about them not be on topic?

Because they were given as examples which are generally used to indicate financial prudence and financial idiocy, and thus highlight the OP's question, which has fallen by the wayside. It clearly wasn't the intention to drill down into them in detail.

Is discussing the rumour that Cork's wages weren't paid this month staying on topic? Or did you hear that Drogheda's new ground is in trouble?

The nub of the question was -

which [would] most fans [...] prefer

(1) 10-15 years at the top followed by dodgy/ potential meltdown
OR
(2) steady controlled financial approach to club without ever challenging for trophys

And that's what we're gone off topic.

As I said, I've no bothers having the UCD stuff split to a new thread and discussing it there, or resurrecting one of the many old UCD finances threads, but it's clearly taking us off topic here.

[marinobohs]

Fair points Marino but part of the leagues problem is attendances, and at the moment the "mythical hordes" are just that BUT look around the world, there isn't a football club anywhere from Madrid to Monaghan who aren't trying every trick in the book to win over the masses.
More people through the gate means more money. More money equals better facilities, better facilities equals better players, better players means improved standards and therefore (theoretically at least) more people through the gates.
It's the circle of life, at some point you need to get on board.

No aurgument with your points endabob 1 but I think given the (VERY) limited resources that are currently available there needs to be a focus on gradual development rather than the scattergun approach that has prevailed. Small gradual improvement (maybe even just survival) is the only option in the current envoirnment IMO and I think Football here has spent too much time chasing the magic bullet solution.

(apols to MODS for wandering off my own topic !)

[endabob1]

Actually I think you've wandered back on topic!!

Slow and steady wins the race, the original question was would people prefer the rollercoaster Shels/Drogs existence or the UCD/Mons existence.
The answer is as always somewhere in the middle but if the league is to develop and grow, it needs to do it at a pacce that is financially sustainable.