lots of anti drog posters (the ex anti shels posters no less) talking about how much our budget is etc and how reckless we are etc.
I have a question looking at it from the other side - how many clubs will have a profit at the end of the seaosn and how many had a profit at the end of last season, as if there was no break even at least - then they where and are also operating wreaklessly
So come on who are they
Harps, UCD, anyone else finish with a profit?
Last edited by SeanDrog; 03/05/2007 at 1:58 PM.
galway made a profit didnt they?
UCD made a loss of E11,000 in 2005, and our gate receipts turnover was down E40,000 on budget last year. So we're slightly loss-making at present, but small change compared to others in the league.
I think the Genesis Report said that eL clubs were running up something like E3m losses per year between them? It appears, though, that E2.5m of that was split between Shels, Drogheda and Pat's, which puts things in a bit of perspective at least.
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
does not matter, excuses excuses, you made a loss - forget about others and look at your own club - let he who is without sin (probably harps & galwayand maybe Derry) cast the first stone. Your directors ran a club that made a loss. Were there cut backs in the off season, players let go? What action was taken to prevent another loss this year - if there is another loss will heads roll?
PS thanks for your honest answer in stating that you made a loss.
What about Cork - their posters are very interested in our budget, how did their books do last year was a loss made? if so how on earth were farrelly and Healy signed? Is this not reckless?
Last edited by SeanDrog; 03/05/2007 at 1:58 PM.
I take it at this stage you're WUMming?does not matter, excuses excuses, you made a loss - forget about others and look at your own club - let he who is without sin (probably harps & galway
PS thanks for your honest answer in stating that you made a loss.
A loss is grand if it's controllable. Maybe we have opening reserves, in which case we would still have an overall retained profit. Maybe we have plans for extra income this year, in which case we'll make up the money this year. Maybe we made extra income - player sales like Robbie Martin, Cup runs, more prize money than expected, Fair Play winnings - which offset the reduction in gate receipts (I didn't say we had an overall loss last year).
I trust you're not comparing the rather small, perfectly controllable, loss with Drogs' heinous, reckless, haemmoraging of cash which is sooner or later goig to result in your Shels-like implosion?
We probably made a lose last season because we had a problem with our club sponsor so basically lost on at least one full season of sponsorship which is why we could not sign extra players or even retain some players last year.
We now have new club sponsor to replace the old one on slightly better terms plus new Investor has taken a stake in the club which is why we could sign new players plus we had already reduced the wage budget by removing some high earning players from the budget.
not wumming at all.the point is that people are trying to villianise Drogheda and now Pats due to their budgets and that losses are made. I fail to see the difference if clubs like UCD are also making losses. You saw our books, were our losses put onto the club as debt? no? so how are we going to fold due to our budget?
UCd might have reserves - we have reserves in our directors pockets - again my point on our books - is our spending resulting in debt to the club in the region of these so called millions?
The budget argeuemnts to me are turning into some form of excuse to continually have a pop at the clubs who spend more. For me clubs who made a loss but still signed players acted according to the morals being aired on this forum as being reckless.
My question to the other clubs remains open - who else made a profit last season?
Last edited by SeanDrog; 03/05/2007 at 1:59 PM.
We made a loss too, hence the massive cut in budget. What have Drogs done after running up losses? If you're trying to make a point that we're basically haggling over price, that's your view point, but I think it's flawed. It's like saying a tenner owed on a credit card is the same as someone owing €10k. Other clubs are taking action to address deficits, Drogheda's solution is a Shels-esque attempt to buy their way out of it.
If you really don't care once your team is doing well, like a lot of your fans, that's fair enough enjoy the ride. But I wouldn't come on here looking for bail outs or sympathy if it all goes wrong. There's been enough cases around property sharks and football clubs in this league for youse to know better.
If you attack me with stupidity, I'll be forced to defend myself with sarcasm.
Are you asking me a question, and then answering it yourself, wrongly?
Drogs are over E1m in debt per their last (2005) accounts. So the answer to your question is yes.
By "reserves", I mean profits earned in previous years. If I make E20,000 one year, and then lose E10,000 the next, that's not an overall loss, so it's no big deal.
Directors' pockets are not reserves, especially when your directors are noting that they're getting close to empty.
And again - yes, your accounts show you in debt to the tune of over E1m two years ago. Probably over E2m, maybe even nearer E3m now.
Macy if I owed 10,000 grant on my credit card and I could pay it off , is that not better than a lad who owes 10 euro and can only pay of 9 and has 1e debt.
P Stu - you looked at our books - are we building up debt or losses - come on be honest? as for me this is the point.
The budget is not run on bank borrowings or in shels casespending the money from the land deal. The directors agree the budget, income covers some of it and they invest to cover the rest on the assumption that the new stadium will then provide the extra income in the future (and that is another arguement in itself that we should talk about on another thread
Last edited by SeanDrog; 03/05/2007 at 1:59 PM.
rovers made a profit
Both.
You're running up losses to beat the band.
You're not running up significant debts to banks or the like - although there is a repayment agreement with Revenue in place, which means you've been in trouble with them already - but the directors are still due their money back. So you are running up debts. If the directors wanted, they could (like, in fairness to them, the directors at St Pat's) put the money in as capital, in which case they can't get it back. But it appears they do intend on recouping the money at some stage. If this happens, or if the directors stop putting cash in, you're screwed.
Stu i was typing the last post as you answered it so not being smart asking it twice.
I find that very interesting that we are apparently 1 million or more in debt - quite amazing, I am not an accountant so I cannot argue for or against your point. Lets take it on face value that we are millions in debt (interest muct be building up) - so drogs are screwed - as if what you say is true, there is no way anyone can carry on with than on their books.
So now we are out of the way - why is it acceptable for clubs to operate continually making a loss for some and not acceptable for others? UCD may have reserves (probably as I was a bit shocked to see they made a loss last year, usually quite a well run place) but there are others continually making a loss who do not have reserves.
Yet and this is the point , yet the Drogs and Pats are the ones singled out (welcoem to the club Pats).
It's all to do with the size of your debts.
E1m a year is not sustainable. End of story. E11k is minimal. We made that loss in 2005; we sold Robbie Martin for E10k in 2006 - that'd make it up on its own. We finished in sixth place in the league, and so got an extra E2,500 prize money over what was budgeted. We a live home game on telly - E5,000 extra. All a drop in Drogs' debt, but almost twice our 2005 loss made up. That's the issue - sustainability and turn-around-ability.
No other club is racking up the losses that Drogs and Pat's are, that I can see. However, 'cos I know Pat's fans will point this out, they have at least got (a) directors who are putting the money in as share capital, (b) large receipts from transfer fees last year and (c) a pub to help them with their debt. Drogs have none of these.
Also, I don't think significant interest is building upfor Drogs. There's a limit to how much interest directors can charge on their loans (something like 13% of issued share capital), and most of the debt is to the directors.
again i was posting at the same time as you. So the money is a debt to the directors - unless they write it off (which I doubt), and our destiny is in their hands (nothing new there tbh).
But being neutral Stu - do you not agree that it is not right on the one hand to be slapping Drogs and Pats due to budgets - which may be large etc while other clubs are themselves making a loss. They are behaving wreaklessly are they not? - at elast if they do it two years running without having made any attempts after the first year to amend the situ?
I accept that not much if any debt being put onto the Drogs books so not the same as Shels.
The problem with the Drogs sizes loses what happens if no stadium in the short term so Directors stop funding the loses. You won;t be able to pay the players wages so if you can't find clubs to take them off your hands (not many clubs will be able to match their high salaries) then you will be unable to cut your expenses enough to balance the books.
Your destiny is not in your hands. It's in your directors' hands. They can pull the plug at any stage they wish, just like Seery did with Dublin City.
Drogs deserve special criticism due to the fact that their losses far outweight anyone else in the league now that Shels are gone. That's the problem. Again, please take note of the fact that there is nothing inherently wrong with making a loss in any one year. The problem is when the losses are large, recurring and nothing appears to be being done about it (as in, Drogs haven't cut back or anything). That's a recipe for bankruptcy. A E10k loss isn't.
So no, I don't agree with your last paragraph at all. No more than I believed Shels and Dublin City shouldn't come in for particular criticism before.
Not the case, pete. Read the thread.
Historically, even the best of the EL clubs are effectively well run charities. Very few carry any kind of working capital or any buffer to protect themselves from an adverse shock.
The rest are just run plain recklessly.
Drogs have effectively been gambling that their housebuilding plan comes to fruition. Otherwise they are in serious trouble as their Chairman is on record saying that the current losses are unsustainable.
Before anyone accuses Derry City fans of polishing their halo, the last set of our accounts I saw didn't look particular clever (I had more cash in the bank than the club). Things may have changed since then but I've no reason to doubt that Derry, like most clubs, live a hand to mouth existence.
Last edited by OneRedArmy; 03/05/2007 at 1:48 PM.
I won't disagree on bit that the directors control our destiny and also if the stadium does not come through then we are finished - I am certain of that. The way the stadium seems to be going who knows, we could be gone next season. But if we go under where will the 1 million or so owed to the directors go - who would pay it? remember we have no assetts - so it is fully in their interests to get this stadium built asap to try and recoup that money.
We nearly went under due to 100k in debt a few years back - it wasn't millions - and thats my point - others have debt which might as well be millions to them, as tey wouldn't be able to pay them off and others are not running their clubs with due diligence (Drogs IMO included) but the tone of recent posts wuld imply that other clubs are saints.
Not really an issue pete, as this is last chance saloon for us, there will be no one to step into the breach if these guys stop their drive to develop our club. If they can't do it then no one can and it would be time to call it a day - time to stop flogging a dead horse so to speak. Might as well be honest, it is a big gamble but a gamble that has to be taken, our club was dying a slow painful death (as are many clubs if they are honest), these guys have always stated that step one was to invest to bring success. Step two was a new home, to fund the success going forward as they could only kick start it. They have been honest about this from the start. They view the current spending similar to people with a start up business, ie they expect to loose money in the first few years in which time they out structures on and off the field. The key to success is the stadium. Drogs are under no illusions on this point.
Its a gamble, a risk but also ambition. They have to date matched this ambition with action and they receive very little credit for this. IMO its very unfair by some to equate them to Shels. We maon aboutpeople not supporting el sides and going to the UK, these guys do it and get lamblasted. Remember its their money at risk not borrowins from the bank etc.
As i stated if we go under who pays the 1m or so owed to directors as we have no assetts (ground will only begiven back to us if we have a new home to go to), no one will pay it, and the directors will lose the 1m. It is clear that they are risking their money on the basis that they will get it back through the stadium development.
Last edited by SeanDrog; 03/05/2007 at 1:31 PM.
Posting Permissions
Quote
Bookmarks