QuoteIf you look a little bit closer you'll notice that all the UCD fans so far are in favour, we like to think of it as dragging you up to our level.Originally Posted by sullanefc
They don't even have to buy a jersey. Investmets are allowed so long as they don't have to be paid back and can be spent however the club want.
So you are wrong.
I don't see much in this that the big clubs should be afraid of. Its clear there are a lot of UCD fans concerned by this judging by the number of posts.
It's quite sad that it seems the UCD fans' sole purpose is to drag the rest of the clubs down to their level. Be it wage caps or AIL leagues, they have to fault anything that is progressive.
If you look a little bit closer you'll notice that all the UCD fans so far are in favour, we like to think of it as dragging you up to our level.
UCD could have trouble justifying their revenue i.e. grants from college not included?
I think you can get around this with offering bonuses to players as they only paid out if successfully & usually success means increased revenue. If bonus = 65% of extra revenue (e.g. prize money) then all ok?
We don't get grants from the college, although you already knew that.
How? Grants that are ringfenced against specific expenditure don't count and we only spend grants on the things they're actually intended for. If the college does want to add money to the club budget they'll do so without looking for it being paid back or as an equity investment and thew club's management would be free to spend it. So, how does this affect us exactly?
I think we do get an annual stipend from then college but it amounts to less than 10% of our budget but then again they do own the club and can put money into it if they wish.
I would imagine investments such as shares and loans are still allowed, its just that they dont count as income when calculating the wage cap.
LTID
Sure but increasing the wage budget is the usual reason why people invest money into football clubs.
We're not arrogant, we're just better.
The rules only become relevant if all payments and revenue going through clubs are booked and declared.
I have zero confidence that this is the case, which if true, would make the rules about as watertight as a sieve.
True, although given the fact that Revenue last year audited pretty much every club in the league for that exact reason, clubs will probably be a lot more wary about pulling that trick. Not saying it won't happen, but it's some deterrent anyways.
No, that'd work. Pay the players more if the club earns more (e.g. by getting past a round in Europe or winning the league). Makes sense.
That's probably depend on whether non eL football counts towards the other 35%. There's plenty of soccer played in UCDD.
What about loans already outstanding and the lack of interest being paid on such loans?
Oh no not them again
haha, don't make me laugh.UCD are rooted firmly to the bottom of the eL food chain. There are no clubs below ye that need to be dragged up to your level. With the exception of Kilkenny maybe.
they should have done this years ago and shels wouldnt be in the shyte they are.
But sure wasn't it sorta fun watching them implode?
DCFC
But it wasnt fun watching them win the league!
Very true.
DCFC
10, 6, 9, 12, 10, 6, 7, 10, 4, 6 are the places we finished in the 22 over the last ten years. Bottom my hole.haha, don't make me laugh.
You can't spell failure without FAI
Does this count as a pun?
Wait... - am I for this or against it? sullanefc's insightful comments have me confused all of a sudden...
I'm not talking about league placings
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks