Bohs SCP discussion

[hoopy]

I'm sure they won't be doing this. Besides, even if they tried I'm sure Shamrock's board would send a letter questioning the accounts to the papers and FAI in their self appointed position as guardians of the league.

That would be silly. What we should do though is sign all the players who won't sign for us because we won't pay them big money, put two of them down as working in the club shop as well, give the schoolboy section a golden handshake(on paper anyway), and break the 65% all season until the last week of the season. That should see us ok.

[Schumi]

Seems fine to me. They're seperate land deals.

What's to stop you ending that agreement next year, handing back the €1m, signing another new agreement for €900k and counting that towards the next SCP? Sounds like an ideal way around spending only 65% of income on salaries if a club wanted to use it. I assume the FAI thought of this and have some procedure to stop it.

[de bowez]

What's to stop you ending that agreement next year, handing back the €1m, signing another new agreement for €900k and counting that towards the next SCP? Sounds like an ideal way around spending only 65% of income on salaries if a club wanted to use it. I assume the FAI thought of this and have some procedure to stop it.

The lack of money to burn would be a major one. Cant see Albion being too happy to help us either with the way theyve been screwed over the last few years.

[pineapple stu]

The point is that there's no money involved in giving Albion E1m and getting E1m straight back off them. But it could help you spend E650k more on wages and not fall foul of the SCP.

[HulaHoop]

The point is that there's no money involved in giving Albion E1m and getting E1m straight back off them. But it could help you spend E650k more on wages and not fall foul of the SCP.

Which is exactly what they are doing. I posted this in the other thread that was locked. It makes a mockery of the righteous indignation shown by the Bohs fans here claiming everything is whiter than white in their accounts in relation to the SCP. This is what was posted by a Bohs member on the Bohs forum the night of their AGM.

Most disappointed at the moment when there was a general acceptance from all present that we had worked the accounts to appear favourable to us rather than to completely accurately portray our financial situation.

It was put to the AGM, by a member from the floor that we could

A) Reject the accounts. Go back, redo them properly. But this would cause use to breach wage protocol. This would mean forefitting the title and incur a possible fine and points deduction.
We would have an accurate set of accounts but would have to be held accountable for our dealings up to that point as a result

or we could

B) Pass the accounts. Keep the trophies and dolly accounts up to look favourable to us even when, in reality, they are not. But sure every other team in the league does it so we might as well do it to.

Option B was the clear winner. Sad day for me seeing the Bohs membership vote heavily in favour or not running our club on the straight and narrow.

We had the chance to hold the people who formulated the the plans for spending etc.. that led to these losses and less than spectacular set of accounts but we turned down the opportunity all for two pieces of silver

[LukeO]

News to me, and the answer to the question I was going to pose LukeO, who chose to ignore almost everything in my post to pick up on one relatively minor technicality - did Liam Carroll pay the E1m to Bohs this year?

There's conflicting info on this - LukeO's link includes the line


which directly conflicts with de bowez's post. In that case, the numbers in my post (the important bit) are correct, even if the means of arriving at them (less important) is slightly out. Easy thing to mix up Bohs' many court appearances.

News to you because you chose not to take in either of the two links I put up.

And you getting your facts arseways is not a 'minor technicality'. Your post said we were up in court against Liam Carroll - that would be quite a serious development. It wasn't just a case of getting two names mixed up either as it was in the context of talking about Carroll specifically. How do you expect anyone to take your constant voyeuristic musings about our accounts seriously when you can't get the most basic of facts straight?

In relation to me ignoring the rest of your post, I didn't take you for an idiot so I actually thought the bit about whether Liam Carroll gave us €1m this year was a rhetorical question as it is quite obvious that he was not in a position to. As for the hole that left in our 2009 accounts, you haven't taken into consideration the fact that we took in a significant sum in prize money for qualifying for the Champions League qualifiers, something we didn't have in 2008. We had a heavily-sponsored, full-house friendly against Liverpool's Under-12s, something we didn't have in 2008. We had a sustained campaign of fundraising to get under the 65 per cent rule, something we didn't have in 2008. All of that combined with a significantly reduced budget compared to that of 2008 - which will be slashed again for 2010 - just about got us under the 65pc rule.

Getting back to where we stand regards the sale of Dalymount, the links I provided do not contradict DaBowez's post. He said Carroll 'should be' paying us money this year as he has been provided clean title to the land - he didn't say he was in a position to do so.

Seeing as you clearly need it spelt out to you, I'll put both developers together with their associated company to make it easier for you so you won't mix them up in future:

The deal done with Conroy/Albion, which was approved by members in November, gives Carroll/Danninger clean title to Dalymount. It's up to Carroll/Danninger to come up the readies. If they can, we pay 'compensation' to Conroy/Albion. If not, we are free do a deal with Conroy/Albion. In other words, from the moment we provided them with clean title to Dalymount, Carroll/Danninger owe us money which they are unlikely to be able to pay us. If they can, great. If not, Conroy/Albion is Plan B.

I don't think any Bohs member is foolish enough to start celebrating our financial problems being solved just yet - we all know there is still scope for plenty of twists and turns to come but that is where we stand at the moment. Cautious optimism is about the size of it. But the deal done with Albion seems to be the best way forward out of a bad situation.

[LukeO]

Which is exactly what they are doing. I posted this in the other thread that was locked. It makes a mockery of the righteous indignation shown by the Bohs fans here claiming everything is whiter than white in their accounts in relation to the SCP. This is what was posted by a Bohs member on the Bohs forum the night of their AGM.

The post you quoted had nothing to do with any of the 'queries' raised by Shamrock Rovers.

That post was about whether we could guarantee the money received from Liam Carroll/Danninger could always in the future be considered as income, i.e. if we lost in the Supreme Court appeal to Conroy/Albion, could Carroll potentially ask for his money back. The club maintain the terms of the contract with Carroll/Danninger meant that this was never a possibility anyway but whatever doubts a minority may have had have been put to bed now as the deal done with Conroy/Albion means there is no way Carroll/Danninger can even think about trying to come after the money they have already paid us.

[marinobohs]

Which is exactly what they are doing. I posted this in the other thread that was locked. It makes a mockery of the righteous indignation shown by the Bohs fans here claiming everything is whiter than white in their accounts in relation to the SCP. This is what was posted by a Bohs member on the Bohs forum the night of their AGM.

I am unsure of the source of your report on what happened at the Bohs AGM so will take it that you are not WUMMING but I can assure you as somebody who was there and voted on the matter that there was certainly NO SUCH PROPOSAL/OPTION/CHOICE (as you suggest) put to members.
Bohs accounts are audited by a third party (whether you choose to accept this or not is your own entitlement). At no point have Bohs members ever voted to produce false accounts - in fact given the nature of the club (member owned) our accounts get more airing than most/all LOI clubs, which probobly explains the fascination some on here have with our accounts.
Shams have a right to raise queries about any club but the way they did it in December did look like sour grapes after losing out on maybe thier best chance to win the title for some years.
As stated by pretty much all Bohs contributors here all season we are happy to let the FAI bean counters decide if we breached the rules or not, I honestly cannot see why the issue is still subject of discussion (perhaps it should be on FINANCE.IE

[EnglishSource]

Shams have a right to raise queries about any club but the way they did it in December did look like sour grapes after losing out on maybe thier best chance to win the title for some years.

Did those grapes look less sour when boez raised "concerns" about Graham Barrett when Rovers were top of the table?

[marinobohs]

Did those grapes look less sour when boez raised "concerns" about Graham Barrett when Rovers were top of the table?

Sorry not interested in a Bohs/Rovers slagging match - As Rovers had a right to raise issue(s) about Bohs (as I stated in my post) Bohs had a right to raise issue with the alledged action of Barrett. How about we leave it to all to decide for themselves the motivation for those concerns OK ?

[OneRedArmy]

In terms of the bigger picture, it reads like Bohs absolutely need someone (Albion, Danniger or otherwise) to complete the purchase of the ground pre-2012 in order to pay off the €4m loan facility.

Unless Albion is going to fund the purchase from cash, I'd say fairly confidently that no bank is going to touch a property deal in 2010.

For Danninger, read NAMA. If Danniger and their bankers aren't irrevocably committed, they won't be buying the land as the decision is in NAMA's hands, not Danningers.

Whilst Phisboro isn't a field in Mullingar, in the current market it may as well be. To have value you need both a seller and a willing buyer and it sounds like Albion are the only show in town. I'd be surprised if Bohs get 30% of the terms of the original Danninger deal. That will obviously still be enough to guarantee survival, if not the world domination that was previously predicted.

[marinobohs]

In terms of the bigger picture, it reads like Bohs absolutely need someone (Albion, Danniger or otherwise) to complete the purchase of the ground pre-2012 in order to pay off the €4m loan facility.

Unless Albion is going to fund the purchase from cash, I'd say fairly confidently that no bank is going to touch a property deal in 2010.

For Danninger, read NAMA. If Danniger and their bankers aren't irrevocably committed, they won't be buying the land as the decision is in NAMA's hands, not Danningers.

Whilst Phisboro isn't a field in Mullingar, in the current market it may as well be. To have value you need both a seller and a willing buyer and it sounds like Albion are the only show in town. I'd be surprised if Bohs get 30% of the terms of the original Danninger deal. That will obviously still be enough to guarantee survival, if not the world domination that was previously predicted.

At present bohs have a deqal with Danninger RE the purchase of Dalymount (as widely known). That was held up due to a seperate contract dispute with Albion which has now been resolved.
It is now a matter of Danninger and Bohs executing the original contract as agreed, if either party are not in a position to do so or do not wish to do so then they may seek to exit the contract.
In the event, and only then, that the contract in voided Bohs may seek an alternative buyer and Albion have indicated an interest. How that would pan out finance wise is in the lap of the Gods, although Dalymount is still a valuable site given the zoning of the area everyone knows property values have plummeted.
Incidentally the NAMA legislation allows the Agency to loan additional money to allow completion of certain projects to maximise the value therefore it is not definite that any project transferred to NAMA is not followed through (a budget of 6 Billion was talked about for such investments but I am not sure what is in the bill).
Lots and lots of impoderables, including the possibility of renegotiating the repayment date for the 4 million loan due in 2012 so lots of fun ahead for those seemingly facinated by the machinations of Bohs accounts

[passerrby]

ya there are two options that bohs will look at
A. the points deductions should only apply to the 2008 season as the mistakes/errors occured under the old regime or
B. they be given a 10 points deduction but they be given 11 points for some other reason thereby starting with 1 point netgain.

[Réiteoir]

I'm starting a sweep on how many points Bohs start next season without. I'm taking 10.

And they'll still finish higher than Shamrock Rovers...

[de bowez]

The point is that there's no money involved in giving Albion E1m and getting E1m straight back off them. But it could help you spend E650k more on wages and not fall foul of the SCP.

1. We are paying out 1.1m and getting 1m back. 2. We do not have an extra 650k to throw away on wages.

In terms of the bigger picture, it reads like Bohs absolutely need someone (Albion, Danniger or otherwise) to complete the purchase of the ground pre-2012 in order to pay off the €4m loan facility.

Unless Albion is going to fund the purchase from cash, I'd say fairly confidently that no bank is going to touch a property deal in 2010.

For Danninger, read NAMA. If Danniger and their bankers aren't irrevocably committed, they won't be buying the land as the decision is in NAMA's hands, not Danningers.

Whilst Phisboro isn't a field in Mullingar, in the current market it may as well be. To have value you need both a seller and a willing buyer and it sounds like Albion are the only show in town. I'd be surprised if Bohs get 30% of the terms of the original Danninger deal. That will obviously still be enough to guarantee survival, if not the world domination that was previously predicted.

Albion have a deal to redevelop the Phibsoro shopping centre and the Dalymount land has been rezoned nicely for them. The land is worth a lot of money for them and any deal is gtd to come with a new stadium within a certain area. As for the €4m loan if there is money coming Zurich will be happy to wait a bit longer and take more interest.

[Jicked]

Albion have a deal to redevelop the Phibsoro shopping centre and the Dalymount land has been rezoned nicely for them. The land is worth a lot of money for them and any deal is gtd to come with a new stadium within a certain area. As for the €4m loan if there is money coming Zurich will be happy to wait a bit longer and take more interest.

Do you not wonder why Albion would build Bohs a new stadium? Bohs are in a horrible bargaining position, yet you expect Albion to gift them a multi-million euro stadium in the current climate, despite knowing Bohs would bite their hand off for pretty much anything that keeps the club in existence in five years time?

[pineapple stu]

1. We are paying out 1.1m and getting 1m back. 2. We do not have an extra 650k to throw away on wages.

Under the SCP, an extra E1m in income means you can spend an extra E650k on wages without breaking the SCP. Bohs have shown that not having the cash isn't exactly a problem with them, as they've just borrowed it in the last couple of years. However, without the E1m from Danninger in 2008, Bohs would not have met the SCP for 2009 and would have been punished for their excess spending.

Ceteris paribus (and the extra fundraising and what have you is noted), the E1m from this deal would allow you to spend an extra E650k on wages without FAI sanctions. Alternatively, you could in 2011 pay back the E1m, enter into a new E1m deal and be allowed to spend an extra E650k on wages without FAI sanctions.

[OneRedArmy]

Albion have a deal to redevelop the Phibsoro shopping centre and the Dalymount land has been rezoned nicely for them. The land is worth a lot of money for them and any deal is gtd to come with a new stadium within a certain area. As for the €4m loan if there is money coming Zurich will be happy to wait a bit longer and take more interest.

Do Albion have funding in place for the development?

That notwithstanding, when you only have one possible buyer for a property and a seller that needs to sell, that has a significant impact on the price.

There's no doubt there's still value in Dalymount, but its significantly less than the previous agreement with Danninger and unless Albion have already funded it its hard to see anything happening imminently.

[Schumi]

1. We are paying out 1.1m and getting 1m back. 2. We do not have an extra 650k to throw away on wages.

Take a hypothetical situation. Club X has an income of €2.5m from gate receipts, sponsorship, fundraising, merchandise sales and wherever else clubs get money from. They managed to only spend €200k on running the club outside of wages so they have €2.3m that they could spend on wages but are only allowed to spend €1.95m.

Club X then pays €1.1m to company Y and in a separate deal receives €1m from company Y. Their income is now €3.5m and they have €2.2m available to spend on wages (having spent €100k net on the deals with company Y) and are allowed to spend all of it.

My question is: is this allowed under the SCP? If it is, it looks like a big loophole to me.


I am not claiming the Bohs are doing anything like this to circumvent licensing, I'm merely interested in whether this is allowed.

[de bowez]

Do Albion have funding in place for the development?

That notwithstanding, when you only have one possible buyer for a property and a seller that needs to sell, that has a significant impact on the price.

There's no doubt there's still value in Dalymount, but its significantly less than the previous agreement with Danninger and unless Albion have already funded it its hard to see anything happening imminently.

As far as I know the council and Tesco are heavily involved as far as funding goes.

While Albion definitely hold all the cards they do need the land, it made sense for all concerned to drop the legal case and renegotiate. I would guess any deal will be worth around 50% less than the Carroll one. A new stadium and clearing the debts would be a good outcome. Obviously it would also be easier for Albion to build us a stadium than give us cash with the way things are at the moment.