Shels players not getting their wages?

**Poor Student** · 14/06/2006, 11:01 AM

Higgins, you're gonna love me for this.

I have heard nothing about this myself but there's threads doing the rounds on various club boards and boards.ie with people saying they've heard Shels are having difficulty paying players wages. There's all sorts of rumours about players walking out for free due to payments due to them not happening (like Foley at Bohs). Cork fans in particular seem to be suggesting Kearney will come back to Cork and there's also rumours about a raft of players (Crowe, Ndo, Moore) heading to Drogs and that Hawkins won't play again until he is paid. As I say, I haven't heard this myself but read it in a few places, so don't shoot the messenger. Anyone know anything about this?

**Macy** · 14/06/2006, 11:19 AM

Seen that myself - isn't there talk of Fenlon being owed nearly €20k too?

**sonofstan** · 14/06/2006, 11:29 AM

Heard all of this too - although the names mentioned were slightly different; either way, there would appear to be a haemorrage of players to Drogheda on the cards come July

**manic da hoop** · 14/06/2006, 11:32 AM

If true wouldn't the tactful Mr Fran Gavin of the PFAI have gone running crying to the national media by now to kick up a fuss the way he always does?

**gufct** · 14/06/2006, 11:45 AM

12 weeks wages allegdly so i guess the players are in the same boat. Maybe the answer to above is too closely connected.

**Peadar** · 14/06/2006, 11:47 AM

Isn't going to drogs just like going from the frying pan to the fire?
Sure drogs will be the next club unable to pay their players wages!
I suppose they might get a season and a bit out of them yet though.

**Mr A** · 14/06/2006, 11:53 AM

Whatever about the current rumours they'll definately have to trim back once the 65% wage cap comes in- the question would be how that will affect Drogheda, as they are spending savage money already and and are now looking to add more big earners. How can that be sustainable..

And why oh why would Cork take Kearney back?

**chippie0001** · 14/06/2006, 11:55 AM

I have been told by a player, that they went on strike for 2 days. The PFAI have been in. Shels are paying all the players some wages which might mean they cannot walk ala Foley and Bohs.

He says some want out, mentioned Hawkins to Droghega. I guess if they are true the transfer window will show it one way or the other.

Lastly the builders that own Tolka won't give any more money to Ollie until he is out, so that might explain the cash flow issues.

All of the above total rumours I add.

**ColinR** · 14/06/2006, 11:58 AM

the only way its sustainable for us is if the directors keep putting the money into the club.

the only way that it will be allowed under a 65% of turnover rule would be if the money is invested in the club as a donation/sponsorship etc (a form of income for the club) rather than a directors loan (debt!!).

**joeSoap** · 14/06/2006, 12:04 PM

Originally Posted by Galway Harps

And why oh why would Cork take Kearney back?

Because:

a). He's a class player.
b). Because they have no squad and need all the quality they can get
c). I'm sure they are not petty and don't let trivial things like him walking away for more money cloud their judgement.

rerun · 14/06/2006, 12:37 PM

Originally Posted by Peadar

Isn't going to drogs just like going from the frying pan to the fire?
Sure drogs will be the next club unable to pay their players wages!
I suppose they might get a season and a bit out of them yet though.

I wouldn't think that. Dorgheda have firmer plans regarding relocation, plus they have a better catchment area from which to grow their supporter base. I know Drogheda is a small town (largest in Ireland though!) but they don't have to compete with other teams a mile up the road and two others in a very short bus rides distance.

**dcfcsteve** · 14/06/2006, 1:17 PM

Originally Posted by ColinR

the only way its sustainable for us is if the directors keep putting the money into the club.

Donations/loans are not a sustainable form of income, and are not recognised as such by anyone with an ounce of financial kudos.

Originally Posted by ColinR

the only way that it will be allowed under a 65% of turnover rule would be if the money is invested in the club as a donation/sponsorship etc (a form of income for the club) rather than a directors loan (debt!!).

That sounds like a recipe for bankuptcy, if you ask me. Firstly, the FAI will not be looking at 'turnover', as it is a fairly meaningless firgure for anyone who isn't excited by profit margins and notions of scale. That would leave the only route to cook the books to get round the 65% wage cap being to have grossly inflated sponsorship income. If Drogheda are banking serious money against advertising hoardings, programme ads, match sponsorship etc etc, then questions will undoubtedly be asked. One way or another, if Drogheda expect to continue living beyond their means (which is what donations do) the new system will trip them up sooner or later. That's if they don't go tits-up before hand themselves.

**micls** · 14/06/2006, 1:30 PM

While i'd be happy to take Liam back if its for free....lets be honest we can't afford to be too picky with our left side at the moment- i'd much rather Ndo. If Drogheda get him it'l hugely strengthen their chances of winning the league IMO

**ColinR** · 14/06/2006, 1:34 PM

Originally Posted by dcfcsteve

Donations/loans are not a sustainable form of income, and are not recognised as such by anyone with an ounce of financial kudos.

of course they are not recognised as a sustainable form of income - my point was clearly that they are the only reason why are current spending is not putting the club in any short-term difficulties. (long-term is a different kettle of fish imo)

Originally Posted by dcfcsteve

Firstly, the FAI will not be looking at 'turnover', as it is a fairly meaningless firgure for anyone who isn't excited by profit margins and notions of scale.

if the accounts are prepared correctly, and audited correctly, then turnover should not be a 'fairly meaningless' figure, but should in fact be a very very important figure for every club.

Originally Posted by dcfcsteve

That would leave the only route to cook the books to get round the 65% wage cap being to have grossly inflated sponsorship income.

which is what i said originally. (technically it is not cooking the books either, and would be totally legitiamte - but also expensive for the directors

)

**DruggyDrog** · 14/06/2006, 2:00 PM

I'd say other clubs will have to watch themselves long before the Drogs do. Despite all the media drivel and seemingly endless supply of misinformation form supporters of various clubs, the Drogheda wage bill is not as 'extravagant' as some would have you believe, and is not even the most 'extravagant' in the league!!
Oh, and as for the 'inflated sponsorship' and other ways of cooking the books, there are still a few dirty clubs out there!!