Sporting Fingal Gone Belly Up

**OneForTheFuture** · 05/02/2011, 7:50 PM

Please, OneFor will do.

**The Lep** · 05/02/2011, 7:51 PM

What are you going on about? You know full well the players have been paid, so now can i finish my ham sandwich please hibs?

**Charlie Darwin** · 05/02/2011, 8:12 PM

Originally Posted by chigg89

How in the name of God are Dundalk inflating wages!?What a stupid thing to say!!!

Well if Fingal are inflating wages and Dundalk outbid them for a player...

**Dunny** · 05/02/2011, 8:14 PM

Originally Posted by Charlie Darwin

Well if Fingal are inflating wages and Dundalk outbid them for a player...

They outbid us for Bolger

**The Lep** · 05/02/2011, 8:17 PM

That doesnt mean Dundalk was offering him top money to start with.

**Charlie Darwin** · 05/02/2011, 8:20 PM

Originally Posted by Dunny

They outbid us for Bolger

The person I was originally responding said that Fingal offered a deal to either Byrne or Quigley but the player chose to join Dundalk. I can only assume therefore that Dundalk offered more money (and probably a decent bit more to justify the extra travel involved). One team can't inflate wages by themselves - others have to join in and the implication is that Dundalk have.

**chigg89** · 05/02/2011, 8:42 PM

no offense mate but ur talking through ur ass...sorry but somebody had to say it...

**oriel** · 05/02/2011, 9:02 PM

Originally Posted by Charlie Darwin

The person I was originally responding said that Fingal offered a deal to either Byrne or Quigley but the player chose to join Dundalk. I can only assume therefore that Dundalk offered more money (and probably a decent bit more to justify the extra travel involved). One team can't inflate wages by themselves - others have to join in and the implication is that Dundalk have.

I can tell you one thing, if a player is looking for big money in 2011, he wont be getting it with us, he will stand to get a better chance of getting paid, but travel expenses as you are suggesting, and big wages ? Are you nuts.

Our budget is so strict, we currently cant even recruit one, never mind two central defenders.

This policy of paying only what we can afford is not popular with some fans, but it is an idea that a lot of other clubs should give a go sometime.

**Ezeikial** · 05/02/2011, 9:03 PM

Originally Posted by Charlie Darwin

The person I was originally responding said that Fingal offered a deal to either Byrne or Quigley but the player chose to join Dundalk. I can only assume therefore that Dundalk offered more money (and probably a decent bit more to justify the extra travel involved). One team can't inflate wages by themselves - others have to join in and the implication is that Dundalk have.

I understand your line of logic, but in this case the assumption happens to be incorrect. What actually happened here is that the player in question had offers from both clubs (the higher one being from SF). The difference was that Dundalk were prepared to sign him straight away, whereas SF were stalling on making good their offer (possibly the player in question was chastened by his recent experience of contracts not being honoured to team-mates)

The overall point is that when a number of clubs are bidding for players services it inflates the market (this is fairly obvious). With SF "offering" high value contracts when there was a strong possibility of not being in a position to honour, this effects other clubs who are trying to compete for these players.

**Charlie Darwin** · 05/02/2011, 9:14 PM

Originally Posted by oriel

I can tell you one thing, if a player is looking for big money in 2011, he wont be getting it with us, he will stand to get a better chance of getting paid, but travel expenses as you are suggesting, and big wages ? Are you nuts.

Our budget is so strict, we currently cant even recruit one, never mind two central defenders.

This policy of paying only what we can afford is not popular with some fans, but it is an idea that a lot of other clubs should give a go sometime.

I doubt anybody is paying big money to be honest, with the possible exception of a couple of well-known marquee players. Wage inflation doesn't necessarily mean paying more than you can afford either (it usually does though).

Originally Posted by Ezeikial

I understand your line of logic, but in this case the assumption happens to be incorrect. What actually happened here is that the player in question had offers from both clubs (the higher one being from SF). The difference was that Dundalk were prepared to sign him straight away, whereas SF were stalling on making good their offer (possibly the player in question was chastened by his recent experience of contracts not being honoured to team-mates)

The overall point is that when a number of clubs are bidding for players services it inflates the market (this is fairly obvious). With SF "offering" high value contracts when there was a strong possibility of not being in a position to honour, this effects other clubs who are trying to compete for these players.

Ah, OK. As I said I was specifically responding to a question asked by the original poster whose name escapes me now. Your scenario is very plausible, but even matching Fingal's terms would still count as inflation based on the rumours going around this thread. However, wouldn't either deal begin on the first week of the season rather than straight away?

My main point really is that Fingal can't unilaterally inflate wages - they'd have to be offering contracts to every player in the league to do that. It's not as if wages are massive in the league anymore anyway.

**The Lep** · 05/02/2011, 9:15 PM

What high value contracts are you on about? Do you know for sure or are you just reading between the lines ? Its simple Dundalk was paying the player from before xmas so he wasn never going to sign for Fingal then was he. He is on a 52 week contract with Dundalk from that date.

**Ezeikial** · 05/02/2011, 9:49 PM

Originally Posted by Charlie Darwin

Wage inflation doesn't necessarily mean paying more than you can afford either (it usually does though).

Agree totally. It is up to clubs to be responsible and not pay more then what fits with the budget.

Originally Posted by Charlie Darwin

Your scenario is very plausible, but even matching Fingal's terms would still count as inflation based on the rumours going around this thread.

As it happens in this case, the Fingal offer was not matched - it was lower (see post above)

Originally Posted by Charlie Darwin

My main point really is that Fingal can't unilaterally inflate wages - they'd have to be offering contracts to every player in the league to do that. It's not as if wages are massive in the league anymore anyway.

Theoretically correct, but in practise?

Player A has a "phantom" offer of say €1,000 a week from one club. Another club wants to offer him say €600. If the original "phantom" offer was not there the 2nd club is more likely to be able to sign him closer to €600 then €1,000. That is wage inflation IF the 2nd club complete the signing. It also creates the vacum where an alternative player for the position can possibly negotiate a higher wage then what would otherwise be the case.

We have witnessed this in practise over the years from when Shels started the "arms race" and others tried to keep pace.

Originally Posted by The Lep

He is on a 52 week contract with Dundalk from that date.

I think the Beatles were a promising little skiffle band when this last happened at Dundalk

**The Lep** · 05/02/2011, 9:59 PM

Its inflation if wages are more than last year which isnt the case with us.

When did he actually sign for Dundalk?

**Guinney** · 05/02/2011, 10:00 PM

Originally Posted by The Lep

What high value contracts are you on about? Do you know for sure or are you just reading between the lines ? Its simple Dundalk was paying the player from before xmas so he wasn never going to sign for Fingal then was he. He is on a 52 week contract with Dundalk from that date.

Dundalks players only got paid from 20th January. In fact Dundalk where the first to start pre-season training in the league which began on the 10th January to accommodate the fact we will be starting earlier than expected as where playing Linfield in the Setanta cup, however they trained for these 10 days without been paid.

Source: http://dundalkfc.com/news/110111_Foster.asp

**The Lep** · 05/02/2011, 10:04 PM

Then why was the player in question being paid before xmas by dundalk? Was this to make sure he signs or to make it difficult for anyone else to sign him?

**Guinney** · 05/02/2011, 10:19 PM

Originally Posted by The Lep

Then why was the player in question being paid before xmas by dundalk? Was this to make sure he signs or to make it difficult for anyone else to sign him?

Don't know where this is mentioned, maybe it is but can't see it anywhere. As I already said no Dundalk player was paid before 20th January no matter when they signed their contract. If this was otherwise stated it is wrong, the link I put up previously would prove this.

**Ezeikial** · 05/02/2011, 10:22 PM

Originally Posted by The Lep

Then why was the player in question being paid before xmas by dundalk? Was this to make sure he signs or to make it difficult for anyone else to sign him?

Crikey.....Fosters cunning plan has been cruely exposed........ sign all available LoI players to make it difficult for other clubs.

Jeez he is 16 signed already - only about 100 more to go

**Charlie Darwin** · 05/02/2011, 10:23 PM

Originally Posted by Ezeikial

Theoretically correct, but in practise?

Player A has a "phantom" offer of say €1,000 a week from one club. Another club wants to offer him say €600. If the original "phantom" offer was not there the 2nd club is more likely to be able to sign him closer to €600 then €1,000. That is wage inflation IF the 2nd club complete the signing. It also creates the vacum where an alternative player for the position can possibly negotiate a higher wage then what would otherwise be the case.

We have witnessed this in practise over the years from when Shels started the "arms race" and others tried to keep pace.

That's just a function of contract negotiations though - it only works if it's plausible to believe that the other club will pay what's been quoted. Seemingly Dundalk called this player's bluff because they (rightly it appears) doubted Fingal's ability to pay. The press release of the last week (even though it's been resolved) will have weakened Fingal's position further.

That's not to say Fingal aren't involved in inflating wages - just saying that if clubs keep their heads then wages don't necessarily get inflated. Wage inflation is only really a big issue when a lot of clubs are going for the same players. Quigley and Byrne probably wouldn't interest the top two, and Pat's have priced themselves out of the established players market, so really Fingal and Dundalk are the only teams competing for that level of player.

**The Lep** · 05/02/2011, 10:24 PM

Originally Posted by Ezeikial

Crikey.....Fosters cunning plan has been cruely exposed........ sign all available LoI players to make it difficult for other clubs.

Jeez he is 16 signed already - only about 100 more to go

Nobody is talking about all the players are they.

**Ezeikial** · 05/02/2011, 11:03 PM

Originally Posted by Charlie Darwin

so really Fingal and Dundalk are the only teams competing for that level of player.

Sporting Fingal and....
Shamrock Rovers - Gary O'Neill
Sligo Rovers - Alan Kirby
Dundalk - Greg Bolger

Shall I go on....

Sporting Fingal and......
Sligo Rovers - Jason McGuinness
Sligo Rovers - Killian Brennan
Shamrock Rovers - Ken Oman