Fingal Gone?

Pineapple stu

Des wrote: »

you going back to supporting ucd?

Im a jinks so it will have to be shells.

Zebra3

Het-Field wrote: »

This does not include clubs like Cork City, Shelbourne, Drogheda United, Derry City, and Bohemians, who were punished with relegation, or their financial situation was so bad that relegation was a guarantee.

You're so wide of the mark with your information.

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Very few LoI clubs acually do go to the wall though. They get through, which is the experience for 99% of professional sports teams. The fact the FAI are taking action against miscreants is a good thing.

Dublin City are the only LoI team to go completely bust in living memory. And that was a strange setup

Totally wrong.

Since Dublin City went out of business in 2006, Limerick, Cork City, Derry City, Kildare County and Sporting Fingal have all ceased to exist since the FAI took over the running of the LoI.

The first three names are all being used again by new clubs though.

Orizio

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Three GAA county boards have gone bust and been bailed out in the last couple of years, including Hurling cup final winners Tipp last year. Its not even unique to football.

Please provide a link to the Tipperary County Board going bankrupt in the past two years*.

(*you can feel free to ignore this post as you and I know both know you are making ****e up again due to your deranged and embarassing obssession with the GAA)

Bubs101

stovelid wrote: »

The idea that the EPL bubble economy will never burst is also presumptious. Anybody here of a certain age can remember even teams like United with 20k at games and I don't see why we automatically assume that this won't ever be the case again.

.

Completely agree with this. Ice Hockey blew up when Gretzky moved to LA and now it's in the right ****ter, Basketball needed Bird vs. Magic to boost their popularity to the meteoric levels it's at now. There are tons of examples

I live in China now and everyone I've spoken to says the same thing, in 2002 football and the EPL were massive, a combination of the World Cup, Beckham and Sun Jihai and the EPL was raking in the cash. Now it's about the third most popular league after Serie A and La Liga(not respectivelly, don't know which of the two is top) but Basketball has come to dominate CHinese life while the popularity of football has plummeted and if you look at the amount the NBA is making from China and it's exposure I doubt it'll ever lose that position again,or at least not in the near future. I'd be amazed if the EPL executives predicted this happening and be equally amazed if they could predict and other falls in revenue on the horizon

apoch632

stovelid wrote: »

The idea that the EPL bubble economy will never burst is also presumptious. Anybody here of a certain age can remember even teams like United with 20k at games and I don't see why we automatically assume that this won't ever be the case again.

What age are you. Last time United had an average attendance below 30,000 was before World War 2 and the averages out at about 40,000 a game since the war

micks

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

The only difference is scale.

Bohs owe €4m. Man United owe £700m.

Bohs owe about a years turnover. Man United about 3.

Bohs own an asset worh about 5 times their debt. Man United own an asset valued at about 1% of theirs.

So I suppose you are right. The situations are not comparable. English clubs are run far worse.

Bohs owe €4m ? :eek:

I'm even more shocked that Bohs turnover is €4m
BTW 700m is just a little over twice there turnover

Bohs have no asset worth 20m you're kidding yourself if you think anyone would pay 20m for Dalymount
United have an asset worth 1% of their debt? at least 75% of their starting 11 is worth more than that never mind the stadium or even naming rights

If the gun was put to both clubs in the morning and they had to clear their debts immediately United/The Glazers could sell the club at a surplus to the debt, I'd be shocked if bohs came near to doing that

stovelid

apoch632 wrote: »

What age are you. Last time United had an average attendance below 30,000 was before World War 2 and the averages out at about 40,000 a game since the war

Ferguson reign when he was struggling (late 80s). If the overall average is 40k, then that's just under half the capacity of OT these days. The point was that if a huge club faded from the very top, or a more general scenario where the EPL was superseded in popularity or didn't attract investment, the size of their current debts (easily serviced when the club/league is hugely popular) might become problematic.

bohsman

micks wrote: »

Bohs owe €4m ? :eek:

I'm even more shocked that Bohs turnover is €4m
BTW 700m is just a little over twice there turnover

Bohs have no asset worth 20m you're kidding yourself if you think anyone would pay 20m for Dalymount
United have an asset worth 1% of their debt? at least 75% of their starting 11 is worth more than that never mind the stadium or even naming rights

If the gun was put to both clubs in the morning and they had to clear their debts immediately United/The Glazers could sell the club at a surplus to the debt, I'd be shocked if bohs came near to doing that

Bank loan due in 2012 that will almost certainly be renegotiated, Zurich have bigger problems. Dalymount wont be sold overnight but due to the land having a few things going for it should go for over 10m if Bohs are in any position to negotiate.

djpbarry

micks wrote: »

If the gun was put to both clubs in the morning and they had to clear their debts immediately United/The Glazers could sell the club at a surplus to the debt, I'd be shocked if bohs came near to doing that

I cannot believe that, even in a fire-sale, Bohs would not get €4 million for Dalymount – that’s just crazy talk.

micks

djpbarry wrote: »

I cannot believe that, even in a fire-sale, Bohs would not get €4 million for Dalymount – that’s just crazy talk.

That's what I said.

Het-Field

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

The only difference is scale.

Bohs owe €4m. Man United owe £700m.

Bohs owe about a years turnover. Man United about 3.

Bohs own an asset worh about 5 times their debt. Man United own an asset valued at about 1% of theirs.

So I suppose you are right. The situations are not comparable. English clubs are run far worse.

Hilarious. The man who spends most of his time baiting the pro-Bohemians posters, has become a proponant of their's in an attempt to bash the club of the barstoolers.

First, I would like to know where you got those figures regarding Bohs and United. Without evidence of the same, I will dismiss them. as you have a record of utilising facts and figures without backing them up.

Second, your claim that Dalymount Park is worth 20 million is laughable. Remember the collapse in the value of the Glass Bottle site ? In conjunction with the collapse in property prices, and the forcast that they may drop by a further 15% in 2011 tells us all we need to know.

Third, did Bohemians and Shelbourne not stake their future on speculation that they would be capable of dominating the National League, and performing in the Champions League on an annual basis ? Remember, the catalyst for Shelbourne's demise was their thrid place finish in 2005. Equally, the failure of Bohemians to beat TNS last July was the straw that broke the camel's back. At least when the likes of Real Madrid and Manchester United stake their future on speculation like that, it is based on evidence that they CAN continue to perform at the required level. This evidence is based in the past and the present.

Fourth, English clubs are big brands, which international investors are willing to take over and try and make profitable. No Irish club has robust take-over potential. As such, Irish clubs have no alternative but to live within their means.

Fifth, scale is irrelevant, as Manchester United and Bohemians FC are very different clubs. Do Bohemians pack 70,000 punters into Dalymount Park potentiall 5 or 6 times a month ? Do Bohemians sell merchandise at the same level as Manchester United ? Is the Bohemians brand as internationally recognised as the likes of the Boston Redsox, and the Dallas Cowboys ? Do Bohemians play lucrative (Group Stage) European Football on a yearly basis ? Have Bohemians every cultivated a young player who they signed as a trainee, and sold for £24 Million ? Have Bohemians ever purchased a player for £12 Million and sold for 7 times more (not mentioning the success and merchandising he brought to the club ?). Sorry, Bohemians were never entitled to speculate in the same manner as Manchester United,and to suggest that they were run better is laughable.

bohsman

Yes we have sold several players for more than 7 times what we signed them for. At a lower scale than Manchesters United FC as is the point ONYD was making. Real Madrid were bailed out by Madrid council or they would be long gone. Nothing to do with on pitch performance. Premiership clubs are not on a different planet to everyone else, the bubble will burst.

Considering the original €63m deal for Dalymount and the Phibsboro and Shopping Center redevelopment plans it is worth well over 10m and there are interested buyers. The main problem being that Carroll hasnt pulled out of the 63m deal yet.

djpbarry

micks wrote: »

That's what I said.

You said the Glazers could sell Utd, pay of the associated debt and still make a profit. You also said that you would be "shocked if bohs came near to doing that", which suggests that you value Bohs' assets at less than their debt. Which is ridiculous.

AgileMyth

Het-Field wrote: »

Fifth, scale is irrelevant, as Manchester United and Bohemians FC are very different clubs. Do Bohemians pack 70,000 punters into Dalymount Park potentiall 5 or 6 times a month ? Do Bohemians sell merchandise at the same level as Manchester United ? Is the Bohemians brand as internationally recognised as the likes of the Boston Redsox, and the Dallas Cowboys ? Do Bohemians play lucrative (Group Stage) European Football on a yearly basis ? Have Bohemians every cultivated a young player who they signed as a trainee, and sold for £24 Million ? Have Bohemians ever purchased a player for £12 Million and sold for 7 times more (not mentioning the success and merchandising he brought to the club ?). Sorry, Bohemians were never entitled to speculate in the same manner as Manchester United,and to suggest that they were run better is laughable.

"Scale is irrelevant"
Your entire argument is based on scale. Clearly scale is fairly relevant here. What is your point exactly?

OhNoYouDidn't

Orizio wrote: »

Please provide a link to the Tipperary County Board going bankrupt in the past two years*.

(*you can feel free to ignore this post as you and I know both know you are making ****e up again due to your deranged and embarassing obssession with the GAA)

http://www.irishexaminer.com/sport/g...il-140038.html

OhNoYouDidn't

Het-Field wrote: »

First, I would like to know where you got those figures regarding Bohs and United. Without evidence of the same, I will dismiss them. as you have a record of utilising facts and figures without backing them up.

Both the figures are available in any news source. The £700m Man U figure is in over 10,000 google hits. Stop playing dumb

Het-Field wrote: »

Second, your claim that Dalymount Park is worth 20 million is laughable. Remember the collapse in the value of the Glass Bottle site ? In conjunction with the collapse in property prices, and the forcast that they may drop by a further 15% in 2011 tells us all we need to know.

It was worth €63m at one point recently, and prices haven't fallen that much.

Het-Field wrote: »

Third, did Bohemians and Shelbourne not stake their future on speculation that they would be capable of dominating the National League, and performing in the Champions League on an annual basis ? Remember, the catalyst for Shelbourne's demise was their thrid place finish in 2005. Equally, the failure of Bohemians to beat TNS last July was the straw that broke the camel's back. At least when the likes of Real Madrid and Manchester United stake their future on speculation like that, it is based on evidence that they CAN continue to perform at the required level. This evidence is based in the past and the present.

I'm not disputing that.

Het-Field wrote: »

Fourth, English clubs are big brands, which international investors are willing to take over and try and make profitable. No Irish club has robust take-over potential. As such, Irish clubs have no alternative but to live within their means.

You think the investors in English football are doing so to make a profit?

Playing dumb again.

Het-Field wrote: »

Fifth, scale is irrelevant, as Manchester United and Bohemians FC are very different clubs. Do Bohemians pack 70,000 punters into Dalymount Park potentiall 5 or 6 times a month ? Do Bohemians sell merchandise at the same level as Manchester United ? Is the Bohemians brand as internationally recognised as the likes of the Boston Redsox, and the Dallas Cowboys ? Do Bohemians play lucrative (Group Stage) European Football on a yearly basis ? Have Bohemians every cultivated a young player who they signed as a trainee, and sold for £24 Million ? Have Bohemians ever purchased a player for £12 Million and sold for 7 times more (not mentioning the success and merchandising he brought to the club ?). Sorry, Bohemians were never entitled to speculate in the same manner as Manchester United,and to suggest that they were run better is laughable.

Firstly my entire point is that neither clubs should be speculating.

Secondly, scale is relevent, you have completely contradicted yourself there.

My central point is that people pick on the LoI as being 'badly run' without any form of context. Football is rife with financial stupidity. So are other Irish sports. Its lazy to pick on the LoI in isolation.

celticutd87

Independent Cub Licensing Committee - 2011 Licences:
Premier Licence
Bohemian FC, Bray Wanderers, Cork City, Derry City, Drogheda United, Dundalk, Monaghan United, Shamrock Rovers, Shelbourne , Sligo Rovers, St Patrick's Athletic, UCD, Athlone Town, Longford Town.
First Division Licence
Mervue United, Wexford Youths, Salthill Devon, Waterford United, Finn Harps, Limerick (conditional)
A Championship Licence
Cobh Ramblers, Galway United, Fanad United, FC Carlow, Tralee Dynamos.

Dam it anyway look like its another year in the stiffs for Cobh . Also Galway wtf like. Drogs back in the premier division to which is a joke.

backspacer

celticutd87 wrote: »

Independent Cub Licensing Committee - 2011 Licences:
Premier Licence
Bohemian FC, Bray Wanderers, Cork City, Derry City, Drogheda United, Dundalk, Monaghan United, Shamrock Rovers, Shelbourne , Sligo Rovers, St Patrick's Athletic, UCD, Athlone Town, Longford Town.
First Division Licence
Mervue United, Wexford Youths, Salthill Devon, Waterford United, Finn Harps, Limerick (conditional)
A Championship Licence
Cobh Ramblers, Galway United, Fanad United, FC Carlow, Tralee Dynamos.

Dam it anyway look like its another year in the stiffs for Cobh . Also Galway wtf like. Drogs back in the premier division to which is a joke.

The Supporters Trust have bent over backwards in Galway for this licence and this is what happens, typical logic of the FAI though - dispose of Galway and they won't have to worry about sorting out who comes up from the first division after the Fingal debacle. As for Drogs, that sums up nicely how screwed up the licencing process is, the same group who were meant to be going amateur and not a pot to piss in get a premier licence, typical:mad:

Beefy78

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

The only difference is scale.

Bohs owe €4m. Man United owe £700m.

Bohs owe about a years turnover. Man United about 3.

Bohs own an asset worh about 5 times their debt. Man United own an asset valued at about 1% of theirs.

So I suppose you are right. The situations are not comparable. English clubs are run far worse.

There's a massive difference between the two, and it's one which is often missed. It doesn't matter how much any Club (or any business) owes. It doesn't matter what they have in terms of tangible assets either. The only thing that matters (and I speak as a fan of a Club who have almost gone to the wall several times in the past two years) is cashflow. Manchester United generate enough cash to comfortably meet their obligations. Therefore they can service the amount of debt that they have on their books with ease.

Bohs can't service their debt. They don't even generate enough cash to cover their non-debt obligations (wages & tax) therefore any debt is unsustainable.

Het-Field

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Both the figures are available in any news source. The £700m Man U figure is in over 10,000 google hits. Stop playing dumb

Provide me with a link, and ill conceed the point. Naturally, that is only concession in relation to the figures. The key points of my argument remain.

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

It was worth €63m at one point recently, and prices haven't fallen that much.

Now who is playing dumb ? IIRC the Glass Bottle Site managed to plummet in value by almost 80% by the time it went through NAMA. Even without the haircut, the value was well reputed to have hit the floor. You know well that a site in Phibsboro is not even close to worth £20 Million. Of course, if you want to back up your assertion, then I am fine with that.



I'm not disputing that.

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

You think the investors in English football are doing so to make a profit?

Why in the world would Abramovich (who had no prior interest in football), or the Sheiks buy into football if it wasnt a profitable entity. The reason the likes of Portsmouth and West Ham (almost) went bust was due to the collapse of the industries which previously buttressed the bank balances of owners like Eggert Magnusson. Top English clubs enjoy huge returns thanks to increased merchandising, increased chances at European Football, and increased prize money. Carrots exist in the English game, which dont prevail in Ireland.

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Firstly my entire point is that neither clubs should be speculating.

Secondly, scale is relevent, you have completely contradicted yourself there.

My central point is that people pick on the LoI as being 'badly run' without any form of context. Football is rife with financial stupidity. So are other Irish sports. Its lazy to pick on the LoI in isolation.

I made the mistake of suggesting scale is irrelevant. Im not going to try and shirk my mistake. However, your suggestion that "neither clubs should be speculating" is crazy. Business and enterprise has always been founded on a degree of speculation. Without any speculation commerce would grind to a halt. The same applies in football. If a team wishes to kick on then it is up to them to speculate, but to do so with sensible objectives. However, some teams have more of a mandate to do so then others. Irish League clubs were never in a position to speculate. Attendances were ordinary or poor. European success was fleeting. Competitiveness was reasonably high, and as such, Irish League clubs could never stake their futures on top finishes (much like Cork, Shels and Bohemians did). Very few players were ever likely to go for sums which would set a club up for the future.

The opposite occurs at Manchester United, where they have been virtually ever present in the Champions League since 1993 (winning the competition twice, coming second once, and making the knock-out stages on all but two occasions). United are ALWAYS in contention for domestic success. Attendances are always through the roof, they have a vastly over-subscribed fan-club, and they sell jerseys and merchandise in ever corner of the world. For United to continue to be the best, they require a level of speculation. However, thanks to the aforsaid, the can service debts, and will continue to be able to service debt.

The readmission of Drogheda United (another basket-case) to the Premier League, in lieu of the now defunct Sporting Fingal, just shows what a farce the LOI is. It is not lazy to bash the LOI. Tell me, what other sporting organisations and clubs suffer from the same state of financial precariousness ? Youre making another bald accusation without backing it up.

bohsman

Ask United fans how happy they are with the Glazers debt building and speculating. Higher interest rates aren't helping. They are a step or two from meltdown.

If Dalymounts value is down 80% it still leaves us in a good spot to get out of it. Redevelopment of Phibsboro Shopping Centre would be the ideal for us, also cash plus land would be ideal for both parties as we need a stadium and they have plenty lying around going to waste.

Diabhal Beag

Wow as far as Galway United are concerned we're ****ed

micks

djpbarry wrote: »

You said the Glazers could sell Utd, pay of the associated debt and still make a profit. You also said that you would be "shocked if bohs came near to doing that", which suggests that you value Bohs' assets at less than their debt. Which is ridiculous.

What is Bohs value? by value I mean what someone would spend on buying the club.
Now show me who would buy it?
United/Glazers are actively being sought after re purchace of the club for more than their debt.

Yes I would be shocked if Bohs could sell the club in the next 30 days if the wished to for a sum greater than €4m

GLaDOS

micks wrote: »

Yes I would be shocked if Bohs could sell the club in the next 30 days if the wished to for a sum greater than €4m

We're not trying to sell he club, it's the ground we want to sell

bohsman

micks wrote: »

What is Bohs value? by value I mean what someone would spend on buying the club.
Now show me who would buy it?
United/Glazers are actively being sought after re purchace of the club for more than their debt.

Yes I would be shocked if Bohs could sell the club in the next 30 days if the wished to for a sum greater than €4m

Couldnt sell the club in the same way the Barcelona board couldnt sell Barcelona.

Ferris_Bueller

So next season is it going to be 10 teams in each division or how will it work out?

OhNoYouDidn't

Het-Field wrote: »

Provide me with a link, and ill conceed the point. Naturally, that is only concession in relation to the figures. The key points of my argument remain.



Now who is playing dumb ? IIRC the Glass Bottle Site managed to plummet in value by almost 80% by the time it went through NAMA. Even without the haircut, the value was well reputed to have hit the floor. You know well that a site in Phibsboro is not even close to worth £20 Million. Of course, if you want to back up your assertion, then I am fine with that.

£700m
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/manchester-united/5130064/Manchester-United-debt-soars-to-700m-despite-record-season.html


£716m

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glazer_ownership_of_Manchester_United

£1.1bn
http://www.caughtoffside.com/2010/06/07/manchester-united-debt-hits-1-1bn-bbc-panorama-find-evidence-that-glazers-are-in-very-real-trouble/

Het-Field wrote: »

Why in the world would Abramovich (who had no prior interest in football), or the Sheiks buy into football if it wasnt a profitable entity. The reason the likes of Portsmouth and West Ham (almost) went bust was due to the collapse of the industries which previously buttressed the bank balances of owners like Eggert Magnusson. Top English clubs enjoy huge returns thanks to increased merchandising, increased chances at European Football, and increased prize money. Carrots exist in the English game, which dont prevail in Ireland.

Bull****. These people are attracted to the prestige of owning a top club, and other leagues won't sell to them.

The idea that the sheiks are running man city to make money is beyond ludicrious.

Het-Field wrote: »

I made the mistake of suggesting scale is irrelevant. Im not going to try and shirk my mistake. However, your suggestion that "neither clubs should be speculating" is crazy. Business and enterprise has always been founded on a degree of speculation. Without any speculation commerce would grind to a halt. The same applies in football. If a team wishes to kick on then it is up to them to speculate, but to do so with sensible objectives. However, some teams have more of a mandate to do so then others. Irish League clubs were never in a position to speculate. Attendances were ordinary or poor. European success was fleeting. Competitiveness was reasonably high, and as such, Irish League clubs could never stake their futures on top finishes (much like Cork, Shels and Bohemians did). Very few players were ever likely to go for sums which would set a club up for the future.

Speculating was probably the wrong word for you to use. Risk taking with money they don't have is what I am reffering to, and both Bohs and Man Utd have done it. Both shouldn't, but the scale is off the charts in England at the moment.

You really have been listening to Jamie too much if you think big EPL clubs can't or wont go pop.

Het-Field wrote: »

The opposite occurs at Manchester United, where they have been virtually ever present in the Champions League since 1993 (winning the competition twice, coming second once, and making the knock-out stages on all but two occasions). United are ALWAYS in contention for domestic success. Attendances are always through the roof, they have a vastly over-subscribed fan-club, and they sell jerseys and merchandise in ever corner of the world. For United to continue to be the best, they require a level of speculation. However, thanks to the aforsaid, the can service debts, and will continue to be able to service debt.

For the moment, yes. So can Bohs. For the moment.

Het-Field wrote: »

The readmission of Drogheda United (another basket-case) to the Premier League, in lieu of the now defunct Sporting Fingal, just shows what a farce the LOI is. It is not lazy to bash the LOI. Tell me, what other sporting organisations and clubs suffer from the same state of financial precariousness ? Youre making another bald accusation without backing it up.

England. Scotland. Italy. Argentina. The GAA. The IRFU. In fact, pretty much everyone in every sport is struggling at the moment.

If you actually read what I said rather than what you think I said, I agree with you that economies of scale make it easier for the Man Uniteds or Real Madrids of the world to deal with the problems they have with the money men, but you inhabit a different planet if you think the LoI is intrinsicly better or worse run than any other league. You also convienteintly ignore the draconian sanctions the FAI impose on miscreants, like Galway today. Wheras English clubs get deeper and deeper in debt until the taxman invariably pulls the plug.

Het-Field

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

£700m
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/manchester-united/5130064/Manchester-United-debt-soars-to-700m-despite-record-season.html


£716m

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glazer_ownership_of_Manchester_United

£1.1bn
http://www.caughtoffside.com/2010/06/07/manchester-united-debt-hits-1-1bn-bbc-panorama-find-evidence-that-glazers-are-in-very-real-trouble/.

Thank you.

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Bull****. These people are attracted to the prestige of owning a top club, and other leagues won't sell to them.

The idea that the sheiks are running man city to make money is beyond ludicrious..

Sorry. What a ludicrious statement. There is no way in hell that that likes of Abramovich took on Chelsea FC for no commercial reason. There is no "prestige" in staking entire fortunes on a single football club, in which you have no emotional interest. Otherwise, countless Irish football clubs would have been taken over by financially sound consortia. Remember, Sunderland's solid position in the Premier League was made possible by a consortium, which contained a variety of business men, some of which no longer have any financial interest in Sunderland. I would conceed your point on the Sheiks, but there is no way that the likes of Roman Abramovich took on debt riddled Chelsea in 2003 without seeing it as a solid business venture.

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Speculating was probably the wrong word for you to use. Risk taking with money they don't have is what I am reffering to, and both Bohs and Man Utd have done it. Both shouldn't, but the scale is off the charts in England at the moment

Speculating is not the wrong word to use. Risk taking with money you dont have is speculation. Speculation involves loans, borrows, and backers. Speculation involves risking money on potential business successes in the future. Again, you appear to be suggesting that speculation should not take place. In 1993, Manchester United speculated on Roy Keane, in 1995 on Andy Cole, in 1998 on Dwight Yorke, in 2001 on Ruud Van Nistelrooy, in 2003 on Christiano Ronaldo, and in 2004 on Wayne Rooney. These gambles paid dividends, and highlight the positive nature of United's ability to speculate. Both United and Bohemians have done it, but only one of those teams had a mandate to do so considering the success and international brand they enjoy.

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

For the moment, yes. So can Bohs. For the moment.

Bohemians and Manchester United are in no way comparable. Bohemians could go to the wall any day now. Manchester United remain atop the Premier League, in the knock-out phases of the Champions League, and have an FA Cup 5th Round tie on the way.

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

England. Scotland. Italy. Argentina. The GAA. The IRFU. In fact, pretty much everyone in every sport is struggling at the moment.

If you actually read what I said rather than what you think I said, I agree with you that economies of scale make it easier for the Man Uniteds or Real Madrids of the world to deal with the problems they have with the money men, but you inhabit a different planet if you think the LoI is intrinsicly better or worse run than any other league. You also convienteintly ignore the draconian sanctions the FAI impose on miscreants, like Galway today. Wheras English clubs get deeper and deeper in debt until the taxman invariably pulls the plug.

Please provide me with solid info in relation to the GAA and IRFU's financial plights. I would like to point out that in the LOI teams go to the wall on an almost annual basis. Dont recall that happening in the GAA or FAI.

Again, I would point you in the direction of the decision of the LOI to re-appoint Drogheda United to the Premier League. A financial basket case, they dont deserve their status amongst the elite. However, the LOI is so clapped out that they have no choice. Very draconian :rolleyes:

OhNoYouDidn't

Hetfield, I really amn't arsed getting into it with you. But can I ask you one question. Are you seriously telling me that English football is fundamentally sound and that there are no financial problems in their clubs and no risk of big names collapsing?

Is that honestly your position?

OhNoYouDidn't

Het-Field wrote: »

T would like to point out that in the LOI teams go to the wall on an almost annual basis. Dont recall that happening in the GAA or FAI.

Name three in the last 30 years

Het-Field

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Hetfield, I really amn't arsed getting into it with you. But can I ask you one question. Are you seriously telling me that English football is fundamentally sound and that there are no financial problems in their clubs and no risk of big names collapsing?

Is that honestly your position?

Sorry, we were talking about Manchester United. I was using Manchester United as a case study as you originally suggested that they were comparable to Bohemians.

The likes of Chester City, and Wrexham have highlighted the difficulties facing English football. I have already conceeded the point that smaller clubs like West Ham United and Portsmouth require a fiscally prudent model, as they do not enjoy the continued success of their larger collegues in League Football.

Look at the facts.

1) Manchester United have name recognition on a par with the Boston Redsox, the LA Lakers, and the Dallas Cowboys. The name itself is worth its weight in Gold. The likes of Arsenal, Chelsea and Liverpool also enjoy the same to varying extents.

2) Manchester United have a playing staff which is worth hundreds of millions. In the wake of the sale of Ronaldo, the club jealously protected the £80 Million which accrued from his sale. The club has also tried to get the best out of the talent which it has scouted itself. Ryan Giggs has been a key componant of the team since 1991, with Paul Scholes playing an integral role since 1994. The likes of Darren Fletcher, John O Shea etc continue to play in the same spirit. United also have a record a inflating a players value. Javier Hernandez was purchased for £14 Million in the summer. I would hazard a guess that he is now worth £20 million. If United liquidated their entire squad in the morning, it would amount to a pretty penny.

3) Manchester United sell out Old Trafford on a bi-weekly basis. That is huge revenue over the course of a season. This doesnt take into consideration money generated from the supporters club, money generated by commercial events which are held at Old Trafford and daily tours of the stadium. The Champions League, the Carling Cup, and the FA Cup also provide a huge financial boost to the club. Of course, the ancillary benefits such as the sale of food, drink and programmes does not require mentioning.

4) Merchandising is a cash-cow for teams like Manchester United. No matter what country you holiday in, you are guaranteed to see some of the domestic punters in Manchester United shirts/shorts/t-shirts etc. The club also makes huge money from players personalised shirts, special edition gear, and electronic items.

5) Manchester United have been in reciept of top prize money for years. The club has been the dominant force in the Premiership era. Each season, they have picked up prize money for at least a cup victory, or a league runners-up position.

6) Sky Sports provides clubs like United with huge revenue, as it aims to satisfy the punters by showing their games on a regular basis. In spite of this, attendances have not dropped.

Let me say, there is always risks of clubs collapsing. You can never be sure what sort of unforseen event may make it so. However, it is not forseeable that a club like Manchester United will simply go bust. For that to happen, United will need to stop spending, allow Old Trafford to become a delapidated kip, withdraw from the merchandising end of things, and lose their 70,000 per forthnight attendances.

On the other hand,

Bohemians were a club who should have known better. In the wake of Shelbourne's demise, like vulchers, they surrounded the carcass and picked off all their top players, placing them on unsustainable wages. These were players who, when paired together, were shown as incapable of taking Irish football to the next step, remember Steua Bucharest ? Bohs deliberately decided to take a speculative persepctive on things, and ultimately they are paying the price.

English football is very different to Irish Football.
1)It is more attractive for overseas players
2)There is a greater opportunity to enjoy European Football
3)The attendances at games are far bigger
4)The marketing opportunites are far greater
5)Sensible speculation can reap massive dividends.

Irish Football
1)Has little or no attractiveness to established overseas players
2)European Football is the stuff of pie in the sky. It was only when clubs were on a one track mission to self destruction that Champions League football seemed possible
3)The attendances are inconsistent
4)There are virtualy no marketing opportunities
5)There is no place for speculation as the money simply isnt there.

What you are asking me is a very restrictive question. However, when one broadens it out, it is very fair to say that speculation in English football, while greater then in Irish football, is based in something more solid.

Het-Field

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Name three in the last 30 years

1) Sporting Fingal
2) Kildare County
3) Dublin City

This doesnt mention the likes of St Francis who were virtually suffocated from existence, St James Gate who could no longer function as a top division club after 1997. Kilkenny City also spring to mind. The current Cork City is not the same Cork City as was in existence in 2008. The list goes on and on.

Please dont try and tell me that some of these clubs are thriving away down in the amateur leagues.

OhNoYouDidn't

Het-Field wrote: »

1) Sporting Fingal
2) Kildare County
3) Dublin City

This doesnt mention the likes of St Francis who were virtually suffocated from existence, St James Gate who could no longer function as a top division club after 1997. Kilkenny City also spring to mind. The current Cork City is not the same Cork City as was in existence in 2008. The list goes on and on.

Please dont try and tell me that some of these clubs are thriving away down in the amateur leagues

Kildare County, St James Gate and Kilkenny City all still exist and are all playing in the semi-pro LSL. They are very much still in on the go.

So the only two clubs who have gone bust in the LoI since WW2 are Dublin City and Soporting Fingal, who were both top down, franchise, efforts.

No 'genuine' clubs have gone kaput.

Unlike England.

OhNoYouDidn't

Het-Field wrote: »

Sorry, we were talking about Manchester United. I was using Manchester United as a case study as you originally suggested that they were comparable to Bohemians.

The likes of Chester City, and Wrexham have highlighted the difficulties facing English football. I have already conceeded the point that smaller clubs like West Ham United and Portsmouth require a fiscally prudent model, as they do not enjoy the continued success of their larger collegues in League Football.

Look at the facts.

1) Manchester United have name recognition on a par with the Boston Redsox, the LA Lakers, and the Dallas Cowboys. The name itself is worth its weight in Gold. The likes of Arsenal, Chelsea and Liverpool also enjoy the same to varying extents.

2) Manchester United have a playing staff which is worth hundreds of millions. In the wake of the sale of Ronaldo, the club jealously protected the £80 Million which accrued from his sale. The club has also tried to get the best out of the talent which it has scouted itself. Ryan Giggs has been a key componant of the team since 1991, with Paul Scholes playing an integral role since 1994. The likes of Darren Fletcher, John O Shea etc continue to play in the same spirit. United also have a record a inflating a players value. Javier Hernandez was purchased for £14 Million in the summer. I would hazard a guess that he is now worth £20 million. If United liquidated their entire squad in the morning, it would amount to a pretty penny.

3) Manchester United sell out Old Trafford on a bi-weekly basis. That is huge revenue over the course of a season. This doesnt take into consideration money generated from the supporters club, money generated by commercial events which are held at Old Trafford and daily tours of the stadium. The Champions League, the Carling Cup, and the FA Cup also provide a huge financial boost to the club. Of course, the ancillary benefits such as the sale of food, drink and programmes does not require mentioning.

4) Merchandising is a cash-cow for teams like Manchester United. No matter what country you holiday in, you are guaranteed to see some of the domestic punters in Manchester United shirts/shorts/t-shirts etc. The club also makes huge money from players personalised shirts, special edition gear, and electronic items.

5) Manchester United have been in reciept of top prize money for years. The club has been the dominant force in the Premiership era. Each season, they have picked up prize money for at least a cup victory, or a league runners-up position.

6) Sky Sports provides clubs like United with huge revenue, as it aims to satisfy the punters by showing their games on a regular basis. In spite of this, attendances have not dropped.

Let me say, there is always risks of clubs collapsing. You can never be sure what sort of unforseen event may make it so. However, it is not forseeable that a club like Manchester United will simply go bust. For that to happen, United will need to stop spending, allow Old Trafford to become a delapidated kip, withdraw from the merchandising end of things, and lose their 70,000 per forthnight attendances.

On the other hand,

Bohemians were a club who should have known better. In the wake of Shelbourne's demise, like vulchers, they surrounded the carcass and picked off all their top players, placing them on unsustainable wages. These were players who, when paired together, were shown as incapable of taking Irish football to the next step, remember Steua Bucharest ? Bohs deliberately decided to take a speculative persepctive on things, and ultimately they are paying the price.

English football is very different to Irish Football.
1)It is more attractive for overseas players
2)There is a greater opportunity to enjoy European Football
3)The attendances at games are far bigger
4)The marketing opportunites are far greater
5)Sensible speculation can reap massive dividends.

Irish Football
1)Has little or no attractiveness to established overseas players
2)European Football is the stuff of pie in the sky. It was only when clubs were on a one track mission to self destruction that Champions League football seemed possible
3)The attendances are inconsistent
4)There are virtualy no marketing opportunities
5)There is no place for speculation as the money simply isnt there.

What you are asking me is a very restrictive question. However, when one broadens it out, it is very fair to say that speculation in English football, while greater then in Irish football, is based in something more solid.

All well and good, but entirely irrelevant to the question I asked. I understand WHY Man U are in a stronger position than Bohs, I bleedin' said it a couple of pages ago. My point was its churlish to pick on the LoI when statistically much fewer clubs fold than do in England.

I asked you do you think that English football is sustainable at its current levels and could a large team go pop, like Leeds?

Het-Field

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Kildare County, St James Gate and Kilkenny City all still exist and are all playing in the semi-pro LSL. They are very much still in on the go.

So the only two clubs who have gone bust in the LoI since WW2 are Dublin City and Soporting Fingal, who were both top down efforts.

No 'genuine' clubs have gone kaput.

Unlike England.

Ah, shifting goalsposts to suit your purpose. Your old chestnut. I also asked you not to "spit on my cup-cake and call it frosting".

Clubs like Gate and Kildare opted out of League Football as they could no longer sustain the financial pressure required of them. To me, that is going bust. Playing under the same name does not mean that their financial management, or inability to financially manage themselves didnt contribute to them playing semi-pro/amateur.

What clubs in England have gone "kaput" ? None of note.

Zebra3

Kildare County no longer exist.

Sporting Fingal no longer exist.

Derry City and Cork City both went out of business and were replaced by clubs with the same name.
http://www.independent.ie/sport/soccer/electric-launch-to-new-season-2082480.html

THE chaos which has defined the past 12 months of the League of Ireland is represented by two pages placed side by side, due to the alphabet's sick sense of humour, in the comprehensive media guide produced for the 2010 campaign.

In the First Division section of the newly branded Airtricity League, the competitors from Cork and Derry are paired together.

The boxes for their 10-year record are completely blank, a stark reminder of all that has been wasted.

And Het-Field of course people invest in English clubs for non-commercial reasons. The likes of Jack Walker done it cos they were fans and then you have the like of Roman Abramovich who are investing their ill-gotten gains in the British economy in case the Kremlin ever has a change of heart and decide they want him extradited back to Russia.

Het-Field

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

All well and good, but entirely irrelevant to the question I asked. I understand WHY Man U are in a stronger position than Bohs, I bleedin' said it a couple of pages ago. My point was its churlish to pick on the LoI when statistically much fewer clubs fold than do in England.

I asked you do you think that English football is sustainable at its current levels and could a large team go pop, like Leeds?

Leeds did not go "pop". They went through a very arduious period of restructuring. On the other hand, Cork City went "pop", Fingal went "pop", and Dublin City went "pop", and I do believe Kildare County went "pop".

There is nothing "churlish" about stating facts about the LOI. How many English clubs have traded out of existence ? I would ask you not to cite teams which went through massive restructurings.

OhNoYouDidn't

Het-Field wrote: »

Leeds did not go "pop". They went through a very arduious period of restructuring. On the other hand, Cork City went "pop", Fingal went "pop", and Dublin City went "pop", and I do believe Kildare County went "pop".

There is nothing "churlish" about stating facts about the LOI. How many English clubs have traded out of existence ? I would ask you not to cite teams which went through massive restructurings.

Hold up. Cork City went through "a very arduious period of restructuring" too. Same club, same shirt, same crest, same stadium, same players.

Come on out of that. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Apply the same benchmark.

Het-Field

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Hold up. Cork City went through "a very arduious period of restructuring" too. Same club, same shirt, same crest, same stadium, same players.

Come on out of that. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Apply the same benchmark.

Wrong. There is nothing comparable between the situation which prevailed at Leeds United or Portsmouth and Cork City.

IIRC the crest is different, as were the bulk of the players. The owners were different (FORAS were a supporters owned brand) Nothing likes this happened at Leeds or Portsmouth. Leeds suffered double relegation, but at no point did they wind up.

Either way, you are simply trying to get out of responding to my assertions regarding Fingal, Dublin City, and Kildare County. Stop trying to divert the debate.

Zebra3

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Hold up. Cork City went through "a very arduious period of restructuring" too. Same club, same shirt, same crest, same stadium, same players.

Come on out of that. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Apply the same benchmark.

Cork City Football Club ceased to exist twelve months ago.

A new club was started up called Cork City FORAS Co-op which eventually bought the name of the old club and then started using it.

OhNoYouDidn't

Het-Field wrote: »

Clubs like Gate and Kildare opted out of League Football as they could no longer sustain the financial pressure required of them. To me, that is going bust. Playing under the same name does not mean that their financial management, or inability to financially manage themselves didnt contribute to them playing semi-pro/amateur.

What clubs in England have gone "kaput" ? None of note.

The Gate and Kilkenny have found their level. As have clubs like Forrest and Sheffield Wendesday. In a country of 4 million the third and fourth tiers are the LSL. Its outrageous to say a club like the Gate went 'bust'.

English league clubs gone bust? off the top of my head Aldershot, Maidstone, Chester. Scarborough, Wimbledon, Newport Town. Middlesboro have 1986 on their crest as they were liquidated and started from scratch.

In Scotland we have Clydebank and Gretna.

Pure_Cork

Het-Field wrote: »

Wrong. There is nothing comparable between the situation which prevailed at Leeds United or Portsmouth and Cork City.

IIRC the crest is different, as were the bulk of the players. The owners are different (FORAS are a supporters owned brand) Nothing likes this happened at Leeds or Portsmouth. Leeds suffered double relegation, but at no point did they wind up.

We changed our crest, but we've had a few different crests since 1984. We had a lot of the same players and promoted guys from our youths. Of course the owners were different, the fans took over the club. FORAS is a supporters' trust. The fans bought the club off the former holding company through the liquidator, same as a takeover but with the hassles that come with a company being in the liquidation process. Our youth teams, after being taken over by the supporters' trust FORAS, continued to play as Cork City Football Club.

OhNoYouDidn't

Zebra3 wrote: »

Cork City Football Club ceased to exist twelve months ago.

A new club was started up called Cork City FORAS Co-op which eventually bought the name of the old club and then started using it.

Cork City FC start their league campaign in March. One way or the other they survived and the FAI recognise their honours since 84.

I don't want to get into a debate about whether Cawk are or are not the same club, but officially they are, its the different benchmark used.

If Leeds or Middlesboro went through a "very arduious period of restructuring" but managed to hang on in there by hook or by crook, so did Cawk and L'Derry.

OhNoYouDidn't

Pure_Cork wrote: »

We changed our crest, but we've had a few different crests since 1984. We had a lot of the same players and promoted guys from our youths. Of course the owners were different, the fans took over the club. FORAS is a supporters' trust. The fans bought the club off the former holding company through the liquidator, same as a takeover but with the hassles that come with a company being in the liquidation process. Our youth teams, after being taken over by the supporters' trust FORAS, continued to play as Cork City Football Club.

...and most importantly the FAI agree its the same club, and CCFC have retained their titles and cups.

Beefy78

Het-Field wrote: »

What clubs in England have gone "kaput" ? None of note.

Chester have gone. They're the only one since the War, I believe. Accy Stanley & Maidstone dropped out of the League but the Clubs are still there, and obviously Stanley are back in the League again. Both of those were decades ago though.

EDIT - I forgot Scarborough somehow. I went there jsut before they folded, too. They were down in the sixth tier at the time though. Wimbledon don't count - that legal entity still exists.

Another English Club will go soon though. They're managed by idiots who know nothing about running a business and they're allowed to get away with trading ridiculously and screwing over local traders & the taxman because the punishments for not doing so are so lapse that well-managed clubs are essentially punished for keeping decent books.

That said, the situtation is very different to Ireland. Even a medium sized L2 Club will have a higher turnover than a large LOI Club does. You get one decent Cup draw or develop one Freddy Eastwood or DJ Campbell and you get a couple of years of losses wiped out. Plus there's always another sucker in England waiting around the corner to take over. I don't think that's the case here.

Het-Field

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

The Gate and Kilkenny have found there level. As have clubs like Forrest and Sheffield Wendesday. In a country of 4 million the third and fourth tiers are the LSL. Its outrageous to say a club like the Gate went 'bust'.

English league clubs gone bust? off the top of my head Aldershot, Maidstone, Scarborough, Wimbledon, Newport Town. Middlesboro have 1986 on their crest as they were liquidated and started from scratch.

In Scotland we have Clydebank and Gretna.

Sorry, the Gate could not sustain the financial implications of life in the top leagues. They opted out, they were not relegated like Wednesday and Forest (who happened to be relegated at a time when it was not an option from a financial perspective) St James Gate will always be there, I know that. But they were a major player in League Football in the past, and were not an easy team to beat in the early 1990s. The same goes for St Francis. Again, you are ignoring the winnding up of Cork City, and the demise of Kildare County (which you sought to misrepresent). This business of Kilkenny City "finding its level" is a farcical cop-out

You are not comparing like with like when considering the likes of Maidstone, Scarborough, or Newport. Wimbledon were comparable to Gretna as their success came too fast too soon. The likes of Scarborough were kicking their heels around the lower levels of league football for years.

Gretna's demise is similar nature to those in the National League ala Fingal..

OhNoYouDidn't

Het-Field wrote: »

Wrong. There is nothing comparable between the situation which prevailed at Leeds United or Portsmouth and Cork City.

IIRC the crest is different, as were the bulk of the players. The owners were different (FORAS were a supporters owned brand) Nothing likes this happened at Leeds or Portsmouth. Leeds suffered double relegation, but at no point did they wind up.Either way, you are simply trying to get out of responding to my assertions regarding Fingal, Dublin City, and Kildare County. Stop trying to divert the debate.

And at no point did any of the clubs you listed 'wind up'.

The only LoI club to 'wind up' in the last 60 years is Dublin City.

Zebra3

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Cork City FC start their league campaign in March.

Yeah, the third Cork City FC.

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

One way or the other they survived and the FAI recognise their honours since 84.

No, they don't. Same with the new Derry City. The FAI recognise them as brand new clubs.

GLaDOS

Beefy78 wrote: »

You get one decent Cup draw or develop one Freddy Eastwood or DJ Campbell and you get a couple of years of losses wiped out.

In fairness, we are producing some talent going over: Doyle, Fahey, Brian Murphy, Coleman, many others. The problem is we're not in a position to demand much or offer long contracts so they go for peanuts or less.

Beefy78

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

English league clubs gone bust? off the top of my head Aldershot, Maidstone, Scarborough, Wimbledon, Newport Town. Middlesboro have 1986 on their crest as they were liquidated and started from scratch.

These Clubs didn't fold because of the reasons why the likes of Bohemians in Ireland, and Cardiff, Sheffield Wednesday, Plymouth & Southend have had trouble though. They didn't spend too much money chasing the dream. They got wound down by their owners when their income bottomed out. They were casualties of the malaise which struck the English leagues in the 60s, 70s and 80s with hooliganism, violence and financial hardship causing financial problems everywhere. They don't have any relevance to the conversation you're having.

Chester would be the better example.