Scrap 65% Wage Cap?

**pineapple stu** · 06/07/2008, 7:41 AM

Originally Posted by higgins

Going over 65% in one season does not mean the club are close to going bust!!!

Which is exactly the point. As I'm sure you can appreciate, it's better to nip financial troubles in the bud rather than leave them grow to the stage where the club is close to going bust.

**higgins** · 06/07/2008, 7:33 PM

Just highlighting the drawback Stu..
It is great to catch the problem in the early stages but Galway I'm sure were more than capable of sorting out the issue in the transfer window and at the end of the season themselves.

Galways money worries are all over the place the past 4 or 5 weeks. While I don't know exactly how bad it is for them I know that going over the 65% is not going to ruin any football club.

Over reaction by the media in this country. 65% is very low...

One other question I had about the 65% was that if you have 10million in the bank and you take in roughly 2 million a year, are you allowed to spend 65% of that 12million in one season?

**pineapple stu** · 06/07/2008, 9:36 PM

Originally Posted by higgins

Just highlighting the drawback Stu..
It is great to catch the problem in the early stages but Galway I'm sure were more than capable of sorting out the issue in the transfer window and at the end of the season themselves.

It's not a drawback at all. Most clubs have shown themselves utterly incompetent at taking a financial step back; they need someone else to force them.

**Mr A** · 07/07/2008, 8:10 AM

Galway's problem is that they were on course to make a very substantial loss this season, a couple of hundred thousand maybe, and with no major assets that could see the club go under. The 65% limit is pretty incidental compared to that, but at least it means that GUFC do not have the option of just signing more players and hoping that results and gates improve enough to save them- which really would be gambling with the club's future.

**redobit** · 07/07/2008, 8:44 AM

Nowadays F.C. should stand for Football Company, not Football Club. The 65% rule will make clubs deal with their finances in a more positive manner, and in time the % could then be raised.

**pete** · 07/07/2008, 10:09 AM

I think the Galway situation can be seen as a positive for the 65% rule. It may be harsh for the players but it forces them to make cut backs instead of rolling the dice on a Cup run & when they fail get landed with large debt. The 65% cap is meant to ensure financially stable clubs as we cannot hope to plan a league if clubs are going bust every year.

**higgins** · 07/07/2008, 6:19 PM

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

It's not a drawback at all. Most clubs have shown themselves utterly incompetent at taking a financial step back; they need someone else to force them.

You're unreal Stu!!

So the negative media coverage surrounding Galway and their move over the 65% limit is not a drawback of catching their financial problems early

**pineapple stu** · 07/07/2008, 6:22 PM

Compared to what happened when your rabble went tits up over a prolonged period, no, it's not.

**pete** · 07/07/2008, 6:28 PM

Originally Posted by higgins

So the negative media coverage surrounding Galway and their move over the 65% limit is not a drawback of catching their financial problems early

Catching their problems early is surely a good thing?

The new rules may not be able to stop clubs buying the league but at least it stops them buying it with loans they cannot pay back.

**TonyD** · 07/07/2008, 8:42 PM

Originally Posted by Dodge

Whats to stop the money the "doner" gives being used for other expenses or ground improvements. If someone pays for a new stand, its probably going to do more log term good than paying a players mages for the year.

Fair point. Wouldn't disagree with that at all.

**Mr A** · 08/07/2008, 7:57 AM

Originally Posted by Dodge

Whats to stop the money the "doner" gives being used for other expenses or ground improvements. If someone pays for a new stand, its probably going to do more log term good than paying a players mages for the year.

When clubs are paying for personal Wizards for their playing staff you have to wonder about the sustainability of it all.

It's all fun and games until your stadium gets turned into a newt just because a disgruntled player didn't make the match-day squad.

**HarpoJoyce** · 08/07/2008, 10:29 AM

Originally Posted by Dodge

Whats to stop the money the "doner" gives .......than paying a players mages for the year.
.........

Originally Posted by Mr A

When clubs are paying for personal Wizards for their playing staff you have to wonder about the sustainability of it all.

It's all fun and games until your stadium gets turned into a newt just because a disgruntled player didn't make the match-day squad.

I agree with you about the mages, a rethink on 'doners' and how many each player should be paid per month should be looked at aswell.