Bohs SCP discussion

[marinobohs]

Ehhh have you forgotten the High Court judgement that Bohs lost?

Contract with DANNINGER. High Court case with ALBION, try and keep up

[pineapple stu]

There is currently NO legal action involving Bohs and Albion OR Danninger

Incidentally, as you repeat that, have you a link to show that Bohs have dropped their Supreme Court appeal?

[passerrby]

i think its a case of a lot of wishful thinking .... on both sides
Incidently does a deal have to be completed before the financial submissions deadline

[Dalymountrower]

i think its a case of a lot of wishful thinking .... on both sides
Incidently does a deal have to be completed before the financial submissions deadline

You can be forgiven for concluding that the previous few pages relate to the SCP, they don`t.
The potential "deal " with Albion has no impact on the 2009 SCP or on financial projections for the 2010 SCP . It may however have future financial benefit for the club in that it would ensure that the Danninger deal is unencumbered and can proceed if Danninger has the funds (unlikely as that might be.) In the event that Danninger cannot proceed it will be a matter for the club to consider other offers, one of which may be from Albion.

[pineapple stu]

You can be forgiven for concluding that the previous few pages relate to the SCP, they don`t.

Not what the article posted by debowez previously in the thread says -

The vote also ensures Bohs will comply with the Salary Cost Protocol which dictates players' wages must not exceed 65 per cent of revenue.

They will achieve that by drawing down a portion of a €1m payment due from Albion.

[micls]

To answer Micls question in the original post, the accounts were presented on the 21st of Dec and recommendations forwarded to the Licencing Committee on the 22nd, so its safe to assume that Bohs aren't immedialtely and unambigiously in the clear on the SCP which they are under sanction for breaching.

So, no, it isn't a mere formaility that it will be lifted.

But Bohs will know either way. They'l be well aware of money in and money out and it's a fairly straightforward thing to calculate 65% of it and know if your under.

[Dalymountrower]

Not what the article posted by debowez previously in the thread says -

"The Sun" is hardly the paper of record, there was absoloutely no connecton with the SCP made by those club officials proposing a settlement with Albion. There may, if an arrangement is concluded with Albion, be consequential income to be taken into account in future calculations of future SCP`s.

Through the hard work and financial contributions made by members supporters players and club employees and stunning successes on the field of play, we just about made it under the wire on the 65%. Get over it.

As for next season, I would say that meeting the new SCP arrangement will be difficult for us but will be acheivable. If there is some arrangement finalised with a purchaser of Dalymount which can legitimately be counted as income in accordance with the SCP in 2010,then obviously that will make acheiving the SCP a lot easier.

[pineapple stu]

"The Sun" is hardly the paper of record

Ah now. The tabloids are usually very good with regards LoI rumours. I don't think you can dismiss an article just because it's in The Sun. If you have other reasons, feel free to put them out there, but you can't dismiss things just like that. Or are you accusing the paper of deliberately misrepresenting the Bohs EGM?

[Dalymountrower]

Ah now. The tabloids are usually very good with regards LoI rumours. I don't think you can dismiss an article just because it's in The Sun. If you have other reasons, feel free to put them out there, but you can't dismiss things just like that. Or are you accusing the paper of deliberately misrepresenting the Bohs EGM?

No, I`m just stating that they mistakenly mixed up two quite seperate matters. Admittedly its a complex set of issues which at times has confused even the most assiduous posters on the topic on this site
I would agree that the Sun does have a track record of reporting rumours as facts.
I attended the said EGM and know what was proposed.

[marinobohs]

Incidentally, as you repeat that, have you a link to show that Bohs have dropped their Supreme Court appeal?

Sorry Stu, don't have a link (and not aware of one) but it was mentioned at the EGM that the new arrangement would take away the need for an appeal (Thank God, judging on our form in the Courts ) I expect it would be included in the terms of the agreement with Albion when finalised.

[micls]

But thats self evidently not true, as they are under sanction. They got it wrong already this season.

I doubt very much they 'got it wrong'. Id imagine they chose to ignore it and subsequently got punished.

This time however, if they choose to ignore it, the embargo wont (shouldnt) be lifted therefore theyll be paying money to players that cant play.

None of that means they dont know one way or another, its still quite easy to work out 65%.

1) They know they are under the 65% therfore are signing players
2) They know they are over the 65% are signing players anyway in a show of financial recklessness Tom Coughlan would be proud of and hoping for the best.

Either way they know one way or another if there accountants(or anyone with a calculator) can count.

[osarusan]

When will the FAI decide if teams were under the 65% SCP for the season just finished? And when will/did the relevant paperwork have to be submitted? Is/was it possible to alter/amend the paperwork after the deadline has passed?

[Doomofman]

I'm pretty sure there's a meeting coming up on Monday to do with some aspect of licensing.... Could be wrong though

[micls]

How about option 3? They have put a fix/fudge in place and hope the FAI will accept it. They clearly haven't (straight off at least), hence the embargo not being lifted last year as predicted by de bowezzz on here....

That comes under 2.

Have the FAI even sat down to discuss this mess yet? Last years SCP etc?

[CMcC]

How about option 3? They have put a fix/fudge in place and hope the FAI will accept it. They clearly haven't (straight off at least), hence the embargo not being lifted last year as predicted by de bowezzz on here....

Do you know when the embargo was to be lifted? Is there some sort of meeitng the FAI have to pour over the books to come to that decision? If so when is/was that scheduled please? And when are announcements of their findings scheduled to be made public?

[SkStu]

what recommendations did the league make on the 22nd of December and to whom? And can you disclose the nature of the recommendations made on the 22nd of December and if you could provide a link that would be great too.

Also, you were coming out with this definitive line (embargo will not be lifted for Bohs) well prior to December 22nd so was that all a big steaming pile of sh**e too like the rest of the guff you spout?

[pineapple stu]

Linky.

*Waits for some manner of apologies from Bohs fans...*

[SkStu]

so where does that say that the embargo will not be lifted for Bohemians which is BY's claim?

[pineapple stu]

BYCTWD's claim is that the embargo hasn't been lifted. He's correct, it seems.

The link doesn't say it won't be lifted, but it does a hell of a lot more to back up his posts on the topic so far than Bohs fans'.

[SkStu]

no, his claim has always been that Bohemians will not have the transfer embargo lifted.

And the link itself doesnt amount to much - importantly there are no quotes from the FAI. Maybe the Star article goes into more detail, gives sources and quotes, i dont know.

What would be interesting is if any other clubs who were placed under transfer embargo (im pretty sure we werent the only ones) have had theirs lifted. Then i would start to get concerned as to whether we were in trouble after all.