Whats up with shels fans

**Lamper.sffc** · 30/03/2008, 2:00 PM

Originally Posted by passerrby

beacuse lamps its impossible to get two clubs to agree to anything never mind asking 55 clubs to support there plan for world domination, its the nature of football as someone who has been on league committees all my life, and not only will they not support you they will go out of there way to undermine everything you do

Ok, SF are not trying for world domination, not this year anyway

Fair enough this maybe the case. I hope its not.

**pineapple stu** · 30/03/2008, 4:01 PM

Originally Posted by osarusan

If Gretna's expenses are 5 million, I guess their investor will be investing 5 million.

If Fingal's expenses are 1 million, I guess their investor will be investing 1 million.

If their investors pull out, they're both left with zero.

I think, but I'm not sure, that this is Pineapple Stu's point. If the investment is relative to the amount of money needed to run the club, which it usually is, then each club is equally affected by the loss of that investment.

Of course that's my point. Really straightforward, I would have thought, but it seems it's still too confusing for lamper to follow.

Expenses are irrelevant in this context. It's how much of the club's budget is being bankrolled by one person. If you've no money, you've no money, regardless of whether you're short one million or five million.

The opposite of sustainable is not bankrupt. In other words, if the investor pulls out, the club doesn't necessarily have to go belly up for it to be deemed unsustainable. Shels were unsustainable, their bankroller pulled out and yet they're still around.

And as for explaining the difference between a trust fund and a person.

**passerrby** · 30/03/2008, 4:26 PM

Originally Posted by Lamper.sffc

Ok, SF are not trying for world domination, not this year anyway

Fair enough this maybe the case. I hope its not.

the rest of the plan is yours and could possibilly work however the part involving other clubs ,teams ,managers etc is outside yours or anybodys control and it does not matter what you tell them they will not want to trust you they are obsessive about protecting "there players" from outsiders and you will find that any real good lads with potential will bypass your academy to so called bigger clubs .and then you,ll have a case where one of your managers meets the father of some kid in a supermarket and asks how he is doing and the next you,ll hear is that club has boycotted your academy for trying to poach there players and nothing you say or do will placate them I could go on and on but this is a real minefield that will sap your will to live but best of luck anyway.

**Raheny Red** · 30/03/2008, 4:38 PM

Could a mod change the thread title please.

What's up with Fingal fans?!

**Lamper.sffc** · 30/03/2008, 5:48 PM

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

Of course that's my point. Really straightforward, I would have thought, but it seems it's still too confusing for lamper to follow.

Ah again my friend you start to get personal and dodge the point.
I understand perfectlly. If his point is so simple why did you not say that.
As i said, just because investor is gone doesnt mean the clubs expenses suddenly dissapear they still have to make up that money somehow. Harder for gretna than SF. Simple really

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

Expenses are irrelevant in this context. It's how much of the club's budget is being bankrolled by one person. If you've no money, you've no money, regardless of whether you're short one million or five million.

No there not, if you have a bill for 5 million or 1 million, which do you think is harder to pay off when investor has gone. Running costs of the club remain when the investor leaves. Gretna have higher running costs

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

The opposite of sustainable is not bankrupt. In other words, if the investor pulls out, the club doesn't necessarily have to go belly up for it to be deemed unsustainable. Shels were unsustainable, their bankroller pulled out and yet they're still around.

Ah finally he tries to explain what he means about Sustainable.
I never said bankrupt was the opposite of sustainable, you implied it was. But thats what you do you imply something and then when cornered change what you mean. I merely gave an example of a club that survived the loss of a major investor and didnt just survive they are doing quite well. But you seem unable to actually talk about this point

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

And as for explaining the difference between a trust fund and a person.

Originally Posted by Lamper.sffc

Neither of us know what Gannon is going to do after 5 years. He may leave and we may fold. Or he may carry on and we might survive. I dont know but neither do you.

I presume you are talking about this comment. You stated balckburn survived the loss of their investor because of a trust fund. So jack walkers money carried on after he passed away. Im simply stating Gannon might want to carry on investing in the club after the 5 years.

Stu, this is what you want so im not going to play any more.
You already talked about enjoying messing with Santry Goonshow.
This is obviously what you are into, so i will comment on you no more.
The rest of the comments from others i have appreciated ( even if we dissagreed)