The Sporting Fingal Model

Hard Worker

AgileMyth wrote: »

I've heard nothing to suggest that we (Sligo Rovers) have been doing anything dodgy. Nothing dodgy about proper management. Come back when you have anything to back up this statement.

While it might be off topic to this thread, I can state that when Rovers brough a good crowd to Sligo for their first encounter of the season, they tried to take cash off us at the gate and didn't issue tickets. After a number of protests, they produced cloakroom tickets.
Secondly, it was unusual that Sligo had their smallest crowd of the season ( approx 1150 ) for their Cup match against Rovers.
Those two incidences show that Sligo are well prepared to do dodgy dealings.

Lamper.sffc

Pineapple stu wrote: »

You can get brown envelopes in easons and the post office handy enough gav.:D

Proven? you have no proof of any of the hilarious stuff you come up with

Well now is fairness stu while the brown envelope thing is bull, There was one player who got a car for the year. Finn, absolutely disgracefull stuff.

He got it for winning player of the year last year at UCD.:) Nothing to do with our club.

iregk

The amount of guessing, assumptions and pure bs on this page about clubs doing dodgy dealings is unbelievable.

1 Someone show me proof and evidence of Rovers off the books dealings.
2 Someone show me the same for Sligo.
3 Again, someone show me likewise for Fingal, Gannon, Fingal CC.

Until you can lads, I think it may be legally advisable to start using the word allegedly or cut it out altogether.

Hard Worker

iregk wrote: »

The amount of guessing, assumptions and pure bs on this page about clubs doing dodgy dealings is unbelievable.

1 Someone show me proof and evidence of Rovers off the books dealings.
2 Someone show me the same for Sligo.
3 Again, someone show me likewise for Fingal, Gannon, Fingal CC.

Until you can lads, I think it may be legally advisable to start using the word allegedly or cut it out altogether.

There's nothing alleged about my post above.
I was at the match where they handed out cloakroom tickets and the Cup match crowd is what Sligo Rovers gave for the shared payment to Rovers.

The Volt

Pineapple stu wrote: »

Everyone bar any match day sponsers. To ask how many punters are actually paying in is just plain silly.

I think it's a perfectly legitimate question when it's a well known fact that Fingal gave out plenty of free tickets in the past.

antomorro-sei

iregk wrote: »

Until you can lads, I think it may be legally advisable to start using the word allegedly or cut it out altogether.

How funny would it be to get legal action taken against you from the internet?

iregk

Its not you that could get the action taken against you its boards. Has happened plenty of times before if you look around various forums. Also legal action is rife against internet users particularly the most recent cases of facebook and twitter updates that have made the news.

OhNoYouDidn't

What a random direction this thread has gone.

Fingal are a lot of things, but bent is not one of them.

Ebbs

iregk wrote: »

The amount of guessing, assumptions and pure bs on this page about clubs doing dodgy dealings is unbelievable.

1 Someone show me proof and evidence of Rovers off the books dealings.
2 Someone show me the same for Sligo.
3 Again, someone show me likewise for Fingal, Gannon, Fingal CC.

Until you can lads, I think it may be legally advisable to start using the word allegedly or cut it out altogether.

1. There are none. 1st year in tallaght we didnt even use our revenue for attendances to stay under the 65% rule. We have a nearly identical squad to last year with only a few players renewing contracts (Rice) and a few brought in to replace others. We are safely under the 65% rule and have stamped out our retained losses with a healthy retained earnings.

2. Obviously cooking the match day attendances. When we (shamrock rovers) played in the showgrounds we brought our own counters and stationed them on the gates.....lets say there was a discrepancy with the figures. Though to be perfectly honest...they are one of the better run clubs in this country and if they're going to fiddle the books to over pay Ndo...I dont mind.

3. As I stated in my last post...nothing is right here. Figures dont add up. I'd love an explanation on how they are funded and where the money comes from as well.. anytime they seem to appear in tallaght or we are in santry, they dont seem to do too well number wise. How their paying attendees fund one of the highest budgets in the league is beyond me. Something is fundamentally wrong there. And as for Gavin's point about bonus'. The 65% rule takes into account additional payments...thats what happened to Cork. So I assume its under the table payments...and well...lets hope the FAI are consistent with their dealings of that. Although consistency from the FAI is probably too much to wish for.

I just wish the FAI published in depth accounts for each club. Might give them an ounce of creditability.

OhNoYouDidn't

Ebbs wrote: »

3. As I stated in my last post...nothing is right here. Figures dont add up. I'd love an explanation on how they are funded and where the money comes from as well.. anytime they seem to appear in tallaght or we are in santry, they dont seem to do too well number wise. How their paying attendees fund one of the highest budgets in the league is beyond me. Something is fundamentally wrong there. And as for Gavin's point about bonus'. The 65% rule takes into account additional payments...thats what happened to Cork. So I assume its under the table payments...and well...lets hope the FAI are consistent with their dealings of that. Although consistency from the FAI is probably too much to wish for.

I just wish the FAI published in depth accounts for each club. Might give them an ounce of creditability.

You can't extrapolate that they are cooking books from low attendences. They are funded by Gannon, thats not a secret.

The SUSTAINABILITY of their model is a legitimate debate, but there is no evidence that they aren't above board.

Lamper.sffc

Ebbs wrote: »

3. As I stated in my last post...nothing is right here. Figures dont add up. 1)I'd love an explanation on how they are funded and where the money comes from as well.. anytime they seem to appear in tallaght or we are in santry, they dont seem to do too well number wise. 2)How their paying attendees fund one of the highest budgets in the league is beyond me. Something is fundamentally wrong there. And as for Gavin's point about bonus'. The 65% rule takes into account additional payments...thats what happened to Cork. 3) So I assume its under the table payments...and well...lets hope the FAI are consistent with their dealings of that. Although consistency from the FAI is probably too much to wish for.

I just wish the FAI published in depth accounts for each club. Might give them an ounce of creditability.

1) eh, Gannon and Keelings, plus other smaller sponsors
2) eh, Gannon and Keelings, plus other smaller sponsors
3) eh NO, Gannon and Keelings, Plus other smaller sponsors

Ebbs

Lamper.sffc wrote: »

1) eh, Gannon and Keelings, plus other smaller sponsors
2) eh, Gannon and Keelings, plus other smaller sponsors
3) eh NO, Gannon and Keelings, Plus other smaller sponsors

And how is he funding SF when he cant fund himself?

Even say he is loaded..and none of his loans are in NAMA with them looking like certain bad debts... then SF have a life span of 3 more years before UEFA reg dissolve them.

I assumed that sponsorship cant be out of line with those in a similar position to them, in terms of club size. This includes fan base, et el. This is the norm in most countries. Also didnt think the 65% rule allowed for sugar daddies putting money in without reward.

CiaranC

Ebbs wrote: »

Also didnt think the 65% rule allowed for sugar daddies putting money in without reward.

It does, income is income for SCP purposes.

If Fingal find themselves with no Gannon money tomorrow, as long as they havent run up large debts (and Ive seen nothing to suggest they have), they can simply scale back their operation to a level where expenditure meets their income. This might mean a radically different Fingal than the last three seasons of course, semi-pro or even an amateur set-up with a view to building slowly back up.

I know this seems like a radical idea in the LOI

Ebbs

CiaranC wrote: »

It does, income is income for SCP purposes.

If Fingal find themselves with no Gannon money tomorrow, as long as they havent run up large debts (and Ive seen nothing to suggest they have), they can simply scale back their operation to a level where expenditure meets their income. This might mean a radically different Fingal than the last three seasons of course, semi-pro or even an amateur set-up with a view to building slowly back up.

I know this seems like a radical idea in the LOI

Ah my mistake. Apologies.

I assumed for the SCP income was only what was earned and not given. On an continental level this will be changing anyway so the SCP will have little relevance anymore. I know Man City are in trouble due to their situation but I am not sure if Irish clubs fall into the same scales as our English counterparts for the phasing in of the no sugardaddy rule. None the less, it gives SF 3 years to shift Gannon and build sustainably.

CiaranC

Ebbs wrote: »

Ah my mistake. Apologies.

I assumed for the SCP income was only what was earned and not given. On an continental level this will be changing anyway so the SCP will have little relevance anymore. I know Man City are in trouble due to their situation but I am not sure if Irish clubs fall into the same scales as our English counterparts for the phasing in of the no sugardaddy rule. None the less, it gives SF 3 years to shift Gannon and build sustainably.

Even worse, Bohs drew down a million quid a year from the Zurich loan for 3 years running and this also counts as "income", keeping them under the 65%. Madness, defeats the whole purpose of the SCP. At least sugar daddy money is actual income which isnt expected to be paid back.

Lamper.sffc

Ebbs wrote: »

Ah my mistake. Apologies.

I assumed for the SCP income was only what was earned and not given. On an continental level this will be changing anyway so the SCP will have little relevance anymore. I know Man City are in trouble due to their situation but I am not sure if Irish clubs fall into the same scales as our English counterparts for the phasing in of the no sugardaddy rule. None the less, it gives SF 3 years to shift Gannon and build sustainably.

Which in turn means there have been no under the table dealing like you where making out.

And, as is already looking more and more likely (if various articles are to be believed) Gannon wont be able to put any more money in due to his hands being tied by nama. So im not worried about 3 years from now, Im worried now. Also even if gannon is staying, it was a 5 year plan and we are already 3 years in so im guessing we would have had to do without hime anyway in 2 yrs.
As long as we cut our cloth accordingly then its will hopefully be ok. As a club we have only spent what we have, now that was with great backing I know, so Im assuming we will only spend what we have with less backing.

The concept of the club and what Fingal CC where trying to do was sound, we just started at the wrong time without knowing we where heading into a major recession and its this recession that is preventing most of what the club where trying to achieve. The money is drying up for most clubs in the league and I think we may find its more than just fingal and Bohs struggling over the next year or so.

Gavin "shels"

Lamper.sffc wrote: »

The money is drying up for most clubs in the league and I think we may find its more than just fingal and Bohs struggling over the next year or so.

Money has been drying up for a while now, saying that ourselves and 3 or 4 others made a profit last season. Can see one of those (Monaghan) being the same this season, we'll probably break even, not sure about Pats or Longford and if there was a fifth team who made a profit last season I can't remember who it was, possibly Sligo.


Just with regards to Gannon, was he part-funding the new stadium or what that solely Fingal CC and Government grants funding that?

Lamper.sffc

Gavin shels wrote: »

Money has been drying up for a while now, saying that ourselves and 3 or 4 others made a profit last season. Can see one of those (Monaghan) being the same this season, we'll probably break even, not sure about Pats or Longford and if there was a fifth team who made a profit last season I can't remember who it was, possibly Sligo.


Just with regards to Gannon, was he part-funding the new stadium or what that solely Fingal CC and Government grants funding that?

From what I know the Lusk Facility is Fingal CC's Baby. It was never supposed to be fingal's home and was orignially earmarked for where fingal would train but since the Swords project is now on the long finger(recession) SF decided that it would go into the lusk facility for the time being. The lusk facility has been on hold now for over a year or more.(recession)

The lusk facility was the one originally earmarked for Donabate but was changed to lusk due to environmental issues at the Donabate site. The idea for the facility has also been changed from a facility for just Soccer to one that will accomodate a lot of different sports including junior GAA. If they ever get the finger out and build it, it would be a great facility for various sports and would be great for the community not just SF.

Times is hard:(

Hard Worker

A genuine question Lamper:
From what I can gather, Morton Stadium is not a runner for you for next season. Where do you think you will play? Bear in mind that you will then have a rent bill and will also not be able to sell ground advertising. That will also have a big impact on your budget.
By the way, I'm a great fan of Liam Buckley and his ideas, particularly with the handicapped.

stovelid

Gavin shels wrote: »

who made a profit last season I can't remember who it was, possibly Sligo.

Was that overall or just on their cup tie with us?

Lamper.sffc wrote: »

The idea for the facility has also been changed from a facility for just Soccer to one that will accomodate a lot of different sports including junior GAA. If they ever get the finger out and build it, it would be a great facility for various sports and would be great for the community not just SF.

Sound like Tallaght. That tenancy won't come cheap...

Gavin "shels"

Hard Worker wrote: »

A genuine question Lamper:
From what I can gather, Morton Stadium is not a runner for you for next season. Where do you think you will play? Bear in mind that you will then have a rent bill and will also not be able to sell ground advertising. That will also have a big impact on your budget.
By the way, I'm a great fan of Liam Buckley and his ideas, particularly with the handicapped.

Rumours a few weeks back on our forum was that they'll be playing out of Tolka next season.

OhNoYouDidn't

Gavin shels wrote: »

Rumours a few weeks back on our forum was that they'll be playing out of Tolka next season.

With B*hs desperate for cash, they can do what Rovers did to Shels, Pats and the D7 mob - have a reverse dutch auction.

OhNoYouDidn't

Gavin shels wrote: »

Money has been drying up for a while now, saying that ourselves and 3 or 4 others made a profit last season. Can see one of those (Monaghan) being the same this season, we'll probably break even, not sure about Pats or Longford and if there was a fifth team who made a profit last season I can't remember who it was, possibly Sligo.


Just with regards to Gannon, was he part-funding the new stadium or what that solely Fingal CC and Government grants funding that?

hahahahahahahaha, a hahahahahahahaha, hohohohohohohoho

I need sellotape for my sides.

AgileMyth

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

hahahahahahahaha, a hahahahahahahaha, hohohohohohohoho

I need sellotape for my sides.

You haven't a notion what you're talking about, maybe best to say nothing.

OhNoYouDidn't

AgileMyth wrote: »

You haven't a notion what you're talking about, maybe best to say nothing.

In the season he is talking about, Sligs declared themselves in financial trouple, released players and then went on a major fundraising drive.

And now we are told they turned a profit? Pull the other one, bells on it etc.

CiaranC

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

In the season he is talking about, Sligs declared themselves in financial trouple, released players and then went on a major fundraising drive.

And now we are told they turned a profit? Pull the other one, bells on it etc.

Dunno, they are obviously up to some dodgy dealings down there, who knows whats going on

OhNoYouDidn't

CiaranC wrote: »

Dunno, they are obviously up to some dodgy dealings down there, who knows whats going on

That was the broad thrust of my laughter. I doubt even their finacial controller knows whats really going on.

AgileMyth

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

That was the broad thrust of my laughter. I doubt even their finacial controller knows whats really going on.

The financial controller we brought in during last season has done an amazing job. Its as simple as that. The reason we were in profit after having being in trouble is that we sold Coleman, this took immediate pressure off. We then scaled back the budget by releasing Raff, Morrison, Boco etc at the end of the season.

OhNoYouDidn't

AgileMyth wrote: »

The financial controller we brought in during last season has done an amazing job. Its as simple as that. The reason we were in profit after having being in trouble is that we sold Coleman, this took immediate pressure off. We then scaled back the budget by releasing Raff, Morrison, Boco etc at the end of the season.

Depends what you mean by good job. You were caught rotton fiddling the Rovers cup gate down there.

And you offered all 3 of those players contracts.

Look, if you can keep it going, good for you. But the FAI will get round to eating you (above that table) if you keep the sharp practices up.

stovelid

AgileMyth wrote: »

The financial controller we brought in during last season has done an amazing job. Its as simple as that. The reason we were in profit after having being in trouble is that we sold Coleman, this took immediate pressure off. We then scaled back the budget by releasing Raff, Morrison, Boco etc at the end of the season.

And screwed us out of a cup gate while adopting the moral high ground all season because you couldn't honour a player's contract and happen to play tippy-tappy football.

Pineapple stu

stovelid wrote: »

Was that overall or just on their cup tie with us?





Sound like Tallaght. That tenancy won't come cheap...

I would prefer Tallaght as we are unbeaten there

antomorro-sei

Is it a coincidence that the bitterness has gone up a whole level in these LOI related threads recently has come as the same time as OhNoYouDidn't started posting again?

stovelid

antomorro-sei wrote: »

Is it a coincidence that the bitterness has gone up a whole level in these LOI related threads recently has come as the same time as OhNoYouDidn't started posting again?

It's actually since we won the league..

antomorro-sei

stovelid wrote: »

It's actually since we won the league..

That was just that mad bohs fellah...

Lamper.sffc

Hard Worker wrote: »

A genuine question Lamper:
From what I can gather, Morton Stadium is not a runner for you for next season. Where do you think you will play? Bear in mind that you will then have a rent bill and will also not be able to sell ground advertising. That will also have a big impact on your budget.
By the way, I'm a great fan of Liam Buckley and his ideas, particularly with the handicapped.

Personally I think it will be morton again. Rightly or wrongly this is what I think will happen.