Boom or bust

**marinobohs** · 02/07/2009, 12:07 PM

Originally Posted by 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.

But what the hell would we all have to talk about then during the mid season break ?

**BohDiddley** · 02/07/2009, 12:11 PM

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

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).

I am only addressing UCD's finances because you frequently berate others from a position of cosseted, dull safety (whether you choose to think that's nonsense or not).
My basic point, made before our college excursion, is that the question as originally posed is wide of the mark. It's a false opposition. Even if clubs are sensible and 'steady', without external support they may still go to the wall. It would be great if it were simply a matter of getting rid of a few so-called idiots, but unfortunately it's not that simple.

**pineapple stu** · 02/07/2009, 12:16 PM

Originally Posted by BohDiddley

Even if clubs are sensible and 'steady', without external support they may still go to the wall.

I'm not sure what that has to do with anything though?

Having or not having external support doesn't cause a club to go off and bankrupt itself on a success trip, and the question was whether you'd prefer that over easy living.

**Dodge** · 02/07/2009, 12:41 PM

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

I'm not sure what that has to do with anything though?

Having or not having external support doesn't cause a club to go off and bankrupt itself on a success trip, and the question was whether you'd prefer that over easy living.

Easy living, eh?

**pineapple stu** · 02/07/2009, 12:43 PM

Haven't you been reading? Government funded, kept indoors and not out in the wild, no-one able to read our accounts - we don't know how easy we have it.

A slack term. And now I can't think of a term which sums up what I mean. But you know what I mean... Steady living, maybe.