Win or Bust for Bohs

[Mr A]

I'd agree if the wage cap is for all wages, which it possibly should be, but isn't. They say they need 140k to meet the wage cap, so the figures I quoted are the player wages.

I stand corrected.

I do seem to recall word that the cap would be extended to all wages though.. or did I dream that?

[John83]

Actually, I just noticed this:

Club members were informed by finance director, Chris Brien, that failure to win the league title and beat Red Bull Salzburg in the first qualifying round of the Champions League, would leave them 15pc above the FAI's 65pc Salary Cost Protocol.
EXPULSION
That would mean having to raise over €250,000 of extra funds in order to conform with the maximum percentage of income clubs are allowed to spend on players' wages.

0.8*X = W
0.65*(X+250,000) = W

0.15*X = €162,500
X = €1,083,333.33
W = €866,666.67

Yeah, I'm pretty sure they're just making up numbers.

EDIT: Mr. A, I think it's in the pipeline for future seasons.

[Schumi]

Yeah, I noticed that 15% bit didn't add up but thought that the guy writing the story might have picked it up wrong: it might have been they needed a 15% increase in income or their wage bill was 15% too high or would have to be reduced by 15% or some other use of 15% that gives a different answer. The 67% figure definitely looks wrong though.

[A N Mouse]

I'm having some trouble following the maths on this.

Simplifying (i know adding money on changes the percentages)
But surely the first bit about being 15% over, and needing 250k to make up the shortfall would indicate 15% equals approx 250k

Meaning a turnover of approx 1.8M

80% of which is about 1.4M

Of course the 67% figure makes absolutely no sense.

[eamo1]

Can someone explain,the salary cap is 65% yes??If Bohs are ALREADY above,or near, the salary cap then why are'nt they being docked points now??Galway Utd last July were threatened with a points deduction as they were approcahing the cap limit so they off loaded 6 players.WHY ARE'NT BOHS OFFLOADING PLAYERS NOW?????

[pineapple stu]

You can only break the salary cap at the end of the season. It's to give you a chance to react to your over-spending, and try and cut back under it (like clubs did last year with wage cuts).

Galway were (apparently) hit with a transfer embargo last year for being above the limit during the season, so they couldn't sign any players until they made room in their budget (which makes sense). Bohs have been hit with the same punishment so far this year.

[Dodge]

The salary cap is calculated over the season, not individual months

Bohs, like Galway last year have 2 options

1) cut costs and get under 65%
2) increase income and get under 65%

Galway tool the fisrt option (sensibly IMO), Bohs are taking the 2nd option

[Ezeikial]

The salary cap is calculated over the season, not individual months

Bohs, like Galway last year have 2 options

1) cut costs and get under 65%
2) increase income and get under 65%

Galway tool the fisrt option (sensibly IMO), Bohs are taking the 2nd option

Perhaps Bohs do not see that they have any real option at this point.

Presumably players are under contract and therefore they cannot release players without their agreement (and consequent financial compensation).

The ship already sailed pre-season, while Bohs were busy loading up on more expensive cargo (Shelley, Ndo, Keegan).

[blackholesun]

I wonder if they decided to make all the top players redundant and play kids for the rest of the year would they be able to avoid finishing last and maybe scrap in under the 65% rule.

If they go out of Europe, that might be their only hope of avoiding the drop would it not?

bhs

[Candystripe]

So what I'm reading here is if Bohs fail to beat Red Bull Salzburg and win the league they will only be 2% over the 65% cap.....................right so far?

If they do get through and win the league they will still be over it with a €140k shortfall?

These figure do not add up no matter how many ways and angles you look at it from.

The Bohs members and supporters must be going mental over this statement as it looks like the north Dublin derby will be back on next season albeit in the graveyard division.

Nice to see that this was added in at last................ "and will also relinquish any trophies they win this season."

[Mr A]

one wonders where Cork City stand with regards the 65% rule, considering their revenue has not been as Coughlan expected and their wage bill is known to be substantial.

No word of a transfer embargo there thus far, and indeed they seem to have players coming in on trial.

[Dalymountrower]

The salary cap is calculated over the season, not individual months

Bohs, like Galway last year have 2 options

1) cut costs and get under 65%
2) increase income and get under 65%

Galway tool the fisrt option (sensibly IMO), Bohs are taking the 2nd option

Well doing both would surely be the sensible approach? Not sure about the "fisrt" option, is he that Finnish economist?

Seems like we have ****ed off the FAI sufficiently to get the max sanction if/when we breach 65% cap by the end of November. If only we were a little
more/less (either applicable) feckless and didnt own a hunk of property we could apply for examinership and just face a points deduction!

[Longfordian]

I wonder if they decided to make all the top players redundant and play kids for the rest of the year would they be able to avoid finishing last and maybe scrap in under the 65% rule.

If they go out of Europe, that might be their only hope of avoiding the drop would it not?

bhs

As was said already they can't just make the players redundant, they have contracts. Judging by how slow they were to take paycuts I can't see them agreeing to cancel their contracts somehow even if it means the club going down.

[thischarmingman]

As was said already they can't just make the players redundant, they have contracts. Judging by how slow they were to take paycuts I can't see them agreeing to cancel their contracts somehow even if it means the club going down.

Nor should they. The club's financial position should be of no concern to them, that's what the board are paid for. They signed contracts which the club offered them.

[pineapple stu]

Well doing both would surely be the sensible approach?

It's a hell of a lot easier to cut costs than to increase income.

[dcfcsteve]

I'd love to hear what the reaction was from the supporters present when that infromation was presented to them :

'We're at the footballing equivalent of a black jack table. Best case scenario is we roll two sixes, which might just see us survive, thoiugh by no means certain. Anything else means we're likely to get relegated'.

I know the leagus is used to hearing tales of woe from club boards, but I don't think we've heard anything so crazy as what is going on at Bohs.

Talk about pressure on an entire club and its players. Every game is effectively a cup final for Bohs from now on, as just a couple of slip ups could see them implode. And given how mixed results ahve been for all clubs so far this year, the possibility of further slip-ups was already there without serious pressure being added as well.

Crazy, crazy stuff....

[pól-dcfc]

On the Bohs forum, some are still just sore that a mole leaked the details even though "we were told to keep it members only at the meeting".

How do they expect to save themselves if the wider public aren't aware of the situation? The only reason Derry got out of the hole we were in a few years ago was massive public appeals, hard work from board members and fans, the support of fans of other LoI clubs and the work done on behalf of the club by political figures.

[thischarmingman]

Nice to see that this was added in at last................ "and will also relinquish any trophies they win this season."

....

[Longfordian]

Nor should they. The club's financial position should be of no concern to them, that's what the board are paid for. They signed contracts which the club offered them.

Absolutely. Didn't mean to imply that they should. It was a response to somebody suggesting just letting the players go. It can't happen without their agreement.

[John83]

I'm having some trouble following the maths on this.

Simplifying (i know adding money on changes the percentages)
But surely the first bit about being 15% over, and needing 250k to make up the shortfall would indicate 15% equals approx 250k

Meaning a turnover of approx 1.8M

80% of which is about 1.4M

They would be 15% over the cap. That means that their wages would be 80% (65 + 15) of their total income.

The claim was that if their total income had €250,000 added to it, wages would be 65% of this new figure.

100 * Wages / Income = 0.8
100 * Wages / (Income + 250000) = 0.65

You're making the assumption that all of the €250k would count against wages, which is fine, but doesn't help their percentages as much.

You may have stumbled onto a mistake the reporter made though (possibly because of a bad explanation to him from Bohs' finance officer).

Of course the 67% figure makes absolutely no sense.

None whatsoever.